Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Lexus ES, Lexus GS
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
7 November 2019
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60143-60145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24303]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0064; Notice 1]
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Toyota Motor North America, Inc., (Toyota) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013-2019 Lexus motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Toyota filed a
noncompliance report dated May 30, 2019. Toyota subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of Toyota's petition.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 9,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by
any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy
[[Page 60144]]
form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to
receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Toyota has determined that certain MY 2013-2019 Lexus
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S8.1.11 and Table
XVI-a of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Toyota filed a noncompliance report for the
motor vehicles dated May 30, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
This notice of receipt, of Toyota's petition, is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 502,034 of the following MY
2013-2019 Lexus motor vehicles, manufactured between July 19, 2011, and
May 21, 2019, are potentially involved:
MY 2013-2018 Lexus ES350
MY 2013-2018 Lexus ES300h
MY 2013-2019 Lexus GS200t/300/350
MY 2013-2018 Lexus GS450h
MY 2016-2019 Lexus GS-F
III. Noncompliance: Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that
the subject vehicles are equipped with rear reflectors that do not meet
the minimum photometry requirements specified in paragraph S8.1.11 and
Table XVI-a of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the reflex reflector in the
subject vehicles may contain a photometry value 18 percent below the
required minimum.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of FMVSS
No. 108 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Each
reflex reflector must be designed to conform to the photometry
requirements of Table XVI-a, when tested according to the procedure in
paragraph S14.2.3 of FMVSS No. 108, for the reflex reflector color.
V. Summary of Toyota's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, V. Summary of Toyota's petition, are the
views and arguments provided by Toyota. They have not been evaluated by
the agency and do not reflect the views of the agency.
Toyota described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Toyota submitted the following views and arguments in support of the
petition:
1. The extent of the noncompliance for the subject reflex
reflectors is such that the human eye is unable to differentiate the
reflected light of noncompliant reflectors from the reflected light of
ones that are compliant.
The technical cause of the noncompliance is related to the
annealing process at the end of a day when reflectors were left in the
oven as the oven cooled down. An assessment was made of the maximum
deviation from the standard that could result from this circumstance.
Based on the 60 piece parts study using the worst-case annealing
process, Toyota calculated at 4.2 standard deviations from the mean
that no part would deviate below 8.1 percent from the FMVSS standard.
Considering the tolerance interval calculation method, the worst
possible deviation from the standard would be -18 percent.
The NHTSA sponsored study ``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable
Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities'' (DOT HS 808 209,
September 1994) and The University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) ``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp
Intensities.'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997) found that a change in
luminous intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most
drivers. The agency noted in 1990 when it granted an inconsequentiality
petition filed by Hella, Inc., ``a reduction of approximately 25
percent in luminous intensity is required before the human eye can
detect the difference between two lamps.'' See 55 FR 37601, 37602. In
the Subaru petition, the agency stated that the same considerations can
be applied to reflectors as to lamps.
To verify that a deviation of -18 percent is not detectable to the
human eye, Toyota and the supplier conducted evaluations of the
reflected light from the noncompliant part that was produced in the 60-
piece study and another reflector that was approximately 20 percent
higher in reflectivity. The reflectors were mounted in a dark tunnel
and set up to simulate the FMVSS No. 108 test setup at 0.2 degrees. Ten
panelists were instructed to stand at a specific location 100 feet from
the reflectors at a height approximating at a 0.2-degree angle to the
reflectors. They were asked if the reflector brightness was the same or
different. After the ten panelists completed the survey, the same
panelists were asked to repeat the activity; they were unaware that the
parts and setup had not been changed. This survey activity was then
repeated using two parts of equal reflectivity. In these surveys, none
of the panelists were able to identify the noncompliant part or
correctly identify differences in reflectivity.
In addition, Toyota installed the same two parts that were checked
in the dark tunnel on a MY 2018 Lexus ES350. Using the headlamps from
another vehicle that was aligned 100 feet behind the ES, Toyota members
visually observed the reflectivity between the two parts at night and
were unable to distinguish a difference between the two reflectors.
They looked the same.
2. There are no known complaints related to the noncompliance.
Toyota conducted a search of consumer complaints, field reports,
dealer reports, Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs), and legal claims
for the subject vehicles and found no report alleging that the rear
reflectors could not be seen or were not bright
[[Page 60145]]
enough. This search is current as of May 29, 2019.
3. In similar situations, NHTSA has granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance relating to the subject requirement of
FMVSS No. 108.
NHTSA has previously granted at least two similar petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance, one for a tail lamp and one for a side
reflex reflector assembly. A brief summary of the decisions is provided
below:
Hella, 55 FR 37601, (September 12, 1990)
In the petition, Hella argued that industry experience and
supporting studies have established that the human eye in the vast
majority of cases cannot detect a change in luminescence unless it is
more than a 25 percent increase or decrease. NHTSA stated that a
reduction of approximately 25 percent in luminous intensity is required
before the human eye can detect the difference between two lamps. Of
the noncompliant lamps tested, the greatest disparity reported between
a compliant lamp and a noncompliant lamp was 3.6 cd, which is a 20
percent higher luminous intensity than compliant lamps. According to
the SAE Recommended Practice J576, this differential cannot be detected
by the human eye. For this reason, the Hella petition was granted.
Subaru, 56 FR 59971, (November 26, 1991)
Subaru submitted a petition for inconsequential noncompliance in
1991 concerning the failures of luminous intensity on the side reflex
reflector. NHTSA considered the petitioner's statement that observers
could not differentiate between the reflected light of complying and
noncomplying reflectors at distances of 30m, 60m, and 100m. As the
agency noted in 1990 when it granted an inconsequentiality petition
filed by Hella, Inc., ``a reduction of approximately 25 percent in
luminous intensity is required before the human eye can detect the
difference between two lamps.'' See 55 FR 37601, 37602. The agency
applied the same considerations to reflectors as to lamps. The luminous
transmittance failures of the Subaru reflectors were all less than 20
percent of the minimum values specified by the standard, and,
therefore, they were undetectable by the naked eye. For this reason,
the petition was granted.
Toyota concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-24303 Filed 11-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P