Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Lexus ES, Lexus GS
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1 July 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39679-39681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0064; Notice 2]
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant 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 the grant of Toyota's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway
[[Page 39680]]
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5304,
facsimile (202) 366-3081.
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.
Notice of receipt of Toyota's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on November 7, 2019, in the Federal Register (84
FR 60143). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0064.''
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.
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 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
those 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 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
[[Page 39681]]
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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
Reflex reflectors make a vehicle conspicuous to drivers of other
vehicles at night and at other times when there is reduced ambient
light including dawn and dusk. The advance warning provided by the rear
reflex reflectors has the potential to enable drivers to avoid a
collision when approaching from the rear.
Due to a production error, the reflex reflectors in the subject
vehicles may be at most 18% below the required minimum. This error has
been fixed in production, and Toyota has not had any complaints or
reports of incidents due to this noncompliance. Toyota has cited
multiple prior petitions where the Agency granted a petition for
decision of inconsequential noncompliance regarding noncompliant
photometric intensity. NHTSA concurs, particularly in the cases of the
Hella (55 FR 37601) and Subaru (56 FR 59971) petitions, where the
imperceptible difference in illumination makes this noncompliance
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Toyota has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance
of the affected reflex reflectors is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Toyota's petition is hereby granted and Toyota is
consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
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, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of 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. 2020-14214 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P