Notice2022-01794
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 28, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., (Toyota) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2019 Toyota Tacoma motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Toyota filed a noncompliance report dated September 5, 2019. Toyota subsequently petitioned NHTSA on September 27, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of Toyota's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4705-4708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01794]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0098; 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) 2019 Toyota Tacoma motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat
Belt Assemblies. Toyota filed a noncompliance report dated September 5,
2019. Toyota subsequently petitioned NHTSA on September 27, 2019, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of
Toyota's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366-0661, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1bbb0b2baffb2b9b4a3bf91b5bea5ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02686361692c616a67706c42666d762c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Toyota has determined that certain MY 2019 Toyota Tacoma Double Cab
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No.
209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Toyota filed a
noncompliance report dated September 5, 2019 pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on September 27, 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 January 3, 2020, in the Federal Register (85
FR 415). Three comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0098.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 70 MY 2019 Toyota Tacoma Double Cab motor vehicles,
manufactured between July 25, 2019, and July 30, 2019, are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliance
Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
are missing seat belt labels on the rear center seat belt assemblies
and therefore, do not meet the requirements set forth in paragraph S4.1
of FMVSS No. 209. Specifically, the label which is sewn to the rear
center seat belt may have been mistakenly removed by a worker while
scanning the code on the label.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S4.1(j) of FMVSS No. 209 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each seat belt assembly shall be permanently
and legibly marked or labeled with the year of manufacture, model, and
name or trademark of manufacturer or distributor, or of importer if
manufactured outside the United States.
V. Summary of Toyota's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section are the
views and arguments provided by Toyota. They do not reflect the views
of the agency.
Toyota described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief
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 noncompliant seat belt assemblies were properly installed,
and due to Toyota's replacement parts ordering systems, improper
replacement seat belt assembly selection and installation would not be
likely to occur:
Toyota stated that the primary purpose of the seat belt label
required by S4.1(j) of FMVSS No. 209 is to identify the seat belt in
the event it needs to be replaced. Toyota contends that there are other
means to identify the seat belt without looking at the label, and these
methods are equally effective in identifying the correct seat belt to
install in a vehicle in the event a replacement is needed.
According to Toyota, all the noncomplying seat belts were installed
as original equipment in the subject vehicles and are unique to the
Tacoma rear center seat; they cannot be properly installed in any other
Tacoma seating positions and are not used on any other Toyota or Lexus
models (Service replacement parts are not affected and contain required
labels). Toyota also states that manufacturing processes and the unique
properties of this center rear belt assembly match the correct rear
center seat belt with the rear seat that is tied to a specific VIN.
Toyota states this assures that an incorrect seat belt will not be
installed in a vehicle during its assembly. If a seat belt replacement
is needed, the service parts system would also preclude the purchase
and installation of an improper replacement seat belt assembly.
Toyota's petition contends that seat belt assembly service parts are
ordered through the Toyota authorized dealership system using the seat
belt assembly part number or the VIN and that replacement parts for the
subject seat belt assemblies are not distributed through the general
automotive aftermarket; they are only sold by Toyota dealers. Toyota
also states that the seat belt retractor has a separate label with the
supplier part number, which can further help identify the seat belt
during replacement.
The Toyota petition further states that when a purchaser orders a
seat belt replacement part, the installation instruction, usage, and
maintenance instructions are included in the service parts packaging
and clearly identify that the seat belt is for a Toyota Tacoma and
identify the seat belt installation location. According to Toyota,
these instructions comply with paragraph S4.1(k) of FMVSS No. 209.
Given the purpose of paragraph S4.1(j) of FMVSS No. 209 Toyota
believes there are alternative methods as noted above that can be used
to identify seat belts if they need to be replaced.
Therefore, Toyota states that the noncompliant seat belts as
installed in the vehicle do not present a safety risk, and the chance
of an incorrect seat belt being installed in a vehicle is essentially
zero.
2. In the event of a recall the seat belt installed in each vehicle
can be identified based on the VIN:
Another purpose of the labeling requirement in the standard is to
allow for easier identification of a seat belt in
[[Page 4706]]
the event a safety recall is initiated. Toyota states that traceability
in the Toyota production system ensures the seat belts can be easily
identified without the label specified in paragraph S4.1(j) of FMVSS
No. 209.
Toyota again stated that each seat section and the center rear seat
belt has a label with a code which is scanned into the seat supplier's
system and tied to the VIN for traceability. In the event of a safety
recall for this part, Toyota believes the VIN is a sufficient means of
identifying the potentially affected vehicles. Therefore, Toyota states
the absence of the label specified in the standard poses no risk to
motor vehicle safety.
3. The seat belt complies with all other requirements of FMVSS No.
209:
The noncomplying seat belt assemblies may lack the required marking
or labeling, but Toyota states all of the seat belt assemblies meet all
other requirements of the standard. According to Toyota, there is no
impact to performance, functionality, or occupant safety.
4. Toyota is unaware of any owner complaints, field reports, or
allegations of hazardous circumstances concerning missing seat belt
labels in the subject vehicles:
Toyota has searched its records for reports or other information
concerning the rear center seat belts in the subject vehicles. No owner
complaints, field reports, or allegations of hazardous circumstances
concerning missing seat belt labels were found.
5. Toyota believes NHTSA has granted similar petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance:
Toyota cited four FMVSS No. 209 petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance related to seat belt assemblies:
<bullet> Chrysler Corporation, 57 FR 45865 (October 5, 1992)
<bullet> TRW Inc., 58 FR 7171 (February 4, 1993)
<bullet> Bombardier Motor Corporation of America, 65 FR 60238 (October
10, 2000)
<bullet> Oreion, 80 FR 5616 (November 21, 2014)
VI. Public Comments
Three comments were received. One was from Mr. Edward Thomas. The
other two were from Toyota. Mr. Thomas stated his belief that Toyota's
petition should be denied for the following reasons:
1. The four petitions that Toyota cites as being similar are not
equivalent or substantially similar to Toyota's case. In only one of
the cited cases was the label missing, and that case (Bomardier)
involved a low speed vehicle which was only sold by that company in the
U.S. market. In the cited cases involving Oreion, another low speed
vehicle, only the production date was missing from the label. In TRW's
case, about 40 vehicles had labels with model numbers for the front
right and front left reversed. Only the Chrysler case involved a
substantial number of vehicles, and there, the correct part number
appeared on the belt assembly; the only missing information is
information that is no longer required by FMVSS 209.
2. In addition to content, S4.1(j) of FMVSS No. 209 requires that
the seat belt assembly be permanently marked or labeled. If a label can
be mistakenly removed, then it likely did not meet the permanency
requirement.
3. Some consideration should be given to the fact that at some
point many of subject vehicles will end up in a salvage yard where the
belts will be removed and offered for sale. Without the labels, the
chances of them being installed in different seating positions and
vehicles is increased.
4. The number of vehicles involved were manufactured over a six-day
period. A recall to correct the noncompliance should not pose and undue
hardship on the world's largest and wealthiest auto manufacturer. The
seat belt assemblies do not need to be replaced, a simple label with
the required information could be applied to the retractor housing in
order to bring vehicles into compliance.
Toyota submitted a comment on June 24, 2020, to offer supplemental
reasoning in support of its petition because Toyota filed a separate
noncompliance report on May 4, 2020, indicating that certain
replacement seat belt assemblies may not have been packaged with an
installation instruction sheet or may have been packaged with an
incorrect instruction sheet intended for a different seat belt
assembly. The aforementioned 70 Tacoma vehicles are also affected by
the noncompliance report filed by Toyota on May 4, 2020.
Because the label is sewn to the rear center seatbelt and has been
removed while scanning the code on the label, NHTSA inquired if ripping
the label off would weaken the webbing at the stitch location.
Therefore, on December 7, 2020, NHTSA requested Toyota provide
additional information about how the label was removed and whether it
affects the webbing strength. In response to the agency's request,
Toyota conducted additional testing and analysis to demonstrate that
there is no weakening effect on the seat belt stitching after removing
the label by tearing. Toyota held an online meeting on December 17,
2020, to show its findings to the agency and subsequently, submitted
the supplemental information discussed during the online meeting into
the docket on December 21, 2020.\1\ Toyota concluded in this submission
that the pull forces needed to tear the label are much lower than the
force needed to affect the seat belt stitching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ see Toyota submission of supplemental information to NHTSA-
2019-0098; <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0005</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
1. General Principles
Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
of 1966 (the ``Safety Act'') with the express purpose of reducing motor
vehicle accidents, deaths, injuries, and property damage. 49 U.S.C.
30101. To this end, the Safety Act empowers the Secretary of
Transportation to establish and enforce mandatory FMVSS 49 U.S.C.
30111. The Secretary has delegated this authority to NHTSA. 49 CFR
1.95.
NHTSA adopts an FMVSS only after the agency has determined that the
performance requirements are objective, practicable, and meet the need
for motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is a
general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment to comply with an FMVSS increases the risk to
motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA
through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to comply with an FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under which they must notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a free
remedy. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. However, Congress has recognized that,
under some limited circumstances, a noncompliance could be
``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety. It, therefore, established
a procedure under which NHTSA may consider whether it is appropriate to
exempt a manufacturer from its notification and remedy (i.e., recall)
obligations. 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) & 30120(h). The agency's regulations
governing the filing and consideration of petitions for
inconsequentiality exemptions are set out at 49 CFR part 556.
Under the Safety Act and Part 556, inconsequentiality exemptions
may be granted only in response to a petition from a manufacturer, and
then only after
[[Page 4707]]
notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for interested
members of the public to present information, views, and arguments on
the petition. In addition to considering public comments, the agency
will draw upon its own understanding of safety-related systems and its
experience in deciding the merits of a petition. An absence of opposing
argument and data from the public does not require NHTSA to grant a
manufacturer's petition.
Neither the Safety Act nor Part 556 defines the term
``inconsequential.'' The agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based upon the
specific facts before it in a particular petition. In some instances,
NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer met its burden of
demonstrating that a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. For
example, a label intended to provide safety advice to an owner or
occupant may have a misspelled word, or it may be printed in the wrong
format or the wrong type size. Where a manufacturer has shown that the
discrepancy with the safety requirement should not lead to any
misunderstanding, NHTSA has granted an inconsequentiality exemption,
especially where other sources of correct information are available.
See, e.g., General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 92963 (December 20, 2016).
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\2\ Potential performance failures of safety-critical
equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\3\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \4\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\4\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\5\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\6\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant or a
consumer who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\7\
These considerations are also relevant when considering whether a
defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
\7\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Analysis and Response to the Public Comment From Mr. Thomas
In response to the public comment from Mr. Thomas,\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Edward Thomas Response to NHTSA-2019-0098; <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0003">https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0003</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. NHTSA agrees with Mr. Thomas that the four petitions that Toyota
cites are not equivalent or substantially similar to Toyota's case. An
important consideration in determining inconsequentiality is the safety
risk posed to individuals. NHTSA uses the prior petitions cited by the
manufacturer as a reference only and does not depend upon the prior
petitions for its basis for determining whether to grant or deny an
inconsequential petition. The facts of any petition are almost always
unique, requiring each petition to be considered on its own merits. In
this case, it does not have any impact on the agency's decision-making
process.
b. S4.1(j) of FMVSS 209 requires that the seat belt assembly be
``permanently'' marked or labeled. NHTSA has never defined
``permanently affixed'' as part of a regulation; but specifically,
NHTSA has said that a label is permanent if it cannot be removed
without destroying or defacing it and that the label should remain
legible for the expected life of the product under normal conditions.
Depending on where the label is affixed, various methods of attachment,
such as sewing or heat transfer graphics, may meet these criteria.\9\
Toyota's marking label is sewn to the rear center seat belt, which may
meet the ``permanency'' criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Interpretation Letter to Mr. Todd Mitchell, 3/19/2001;
<a href="https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/22512.rbm.html">https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/22512.rbm.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Mr. Thomas contended that a possible safety consequence of the
noncompliance would occur if the subject vehicles end up in a salvage
yard where the belts will be removed and offered for sale, and without
the labels, the chances of them being installed in different seating
positions and vehicles is increased. According to Toyota, all the
noncomplying seat belts were installed as original equipment in the
subject vehicles and are unique to the Tacoma rear center seat; they
cannot be properly installed in any other Tacoma seating positions and
are not used on any other Toyota or Lexus models. Toyota further
explained that these seat belt assemblies installed in another seating
position or vehicle would not fit properly, meaning that there would be
both visual and physical incompatibilities. Such incompatibilities
would include color mismatch, slack in the webbing, incorrect webbing
length to allow proper functioning, incompatible bracketry, and/or an
incorrect installation angle that would prevent the webbing from being
retracted from the assembly altogether. In addition,
[[Page 4708]]
service replacement parts are not affected and contain required labels.
Therefore, because these seat belt assemblies were configured
specifically for installation in the subject vehicles, NHTSA does not
find the likelihood that they will be removed from the subject vehicles
and installed in other seating position or vehicles to be a safety
concern based on the specific facts of this case.
d. Mr. Thomas stated that the number of vehicles involved (70
maximum) were manufactured over a six-day period (July 25-30, 2019). A
recall to correct the noncompliance should not pose an undue hardship
on the world's largest and wealthiest auto manufacturer. In general, an
important consideration in determining inconsequentiality is the safety
risk posed to individuals, not the quantity of vehicles affected. Since
all the seat belt assemblies meet all other performance requirements of
the standard, neither a small nor a big number of affected vehicles
will play a decisive factor in the agency's justification to grant or
deny an inconsequentiality petition. Mr. Thomas also stated that the
seat belt assemblies do not need to be replaced; a simple label with
the required information could be applied to the retractor housing in
order to bring the vehicles into compliance. Toyota has stated that the
seat belt retractor indeed has a separate label with the supplier part
number, which can further help identify the seat belt during
replacement.
3. Analysis and Response to the Comments From Toyota
Toyota filed a separate noncompliance report on May 4, 2020,
indicating that certain replacement seat belt assemblies may not have
been packaged with an installation instruction sheet or may have been
packaged with an incorrect instruction sheet intended for a different
seatbelt assembly. Because of this additional noncompliance report,
Toyota submitted a comment on June 24, 2020,\10\ to offer supplemental
reasoning in support of its petition. While some of the replacement
assemblies covered by the May 4, 2020, noncompliance report are
designed to be installed on the same model/MY Tacoma vehicles as the 70
Tacoma vehicles that are the subject of its September 27, 2019,
petition, Toyota stated that it checked the service history and CARFAX
reports on all 70 of these Tacoma vehicles and none of them have
replaced the rear center seat belt according to that information. As
the replacement seat belt assemblies in Toyota part distribution
centers that are affected by the issue described in the May 4, 2020,
noncompliance report have been held, and their distribution prevented,
it is highly unlikely that any of the aforementioned 70 Tacoma vehicles
could be repaired using a replacement assembly affected by this missing
or incorrect instruction sheet. Since the replacement seat belt
assemblies of the affected 70 Tacoma vehicles have been held and their
distribution prevented, NHTSA agrees that any future replacement
assembly will not be affected by this missing or incorrect instruction
sheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Toyota Motor North America--Comments; <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0004">https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0004</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the label is sewn to the rear center seat belt and has been
removed while scanning the code on the label, NHTSA requested that
Toyota provide additional information on December 7, 2020, about how
the label was removed and whether it affects the webbing strength. In
response, Toyota submitted another comment on December 21, 2020,\11\
explaining that they conducted additional testing and analysis to show
that there is no visible effect on the seat belt stitching after
removing the label by tearing it from where it was stitched. Measured
pull forces in Toyota's testing also indicate that the label tears at a
much lower pull force than the force required to tear apart the seat
belt stitching. The agency agrees that the removal of the label would
not affect the webbing strength at the stitch location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Toyota Comments 12-21-2020; <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0005</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also believes that should the seat belts be the subject of a
recall, the combination of traceability in the Toyota production
system, along with the additional markings on the seat belt assemblies,
would ensure that the seat belts can be easily identified without the
label specified in paragraph S4.1(j) of FMVSS No. 209.
Toyota also stated that each seat section, and the center rear seat
belt, has a label with a code which is scanned into the seat supplier's
system and tied to each affected vehicle's VIN for traceability. In the
event of a safety recall for this part, Toyota believes the VIN is a
sufficient means of identifying the potentially affected vehicles.
Therefore, the agency agrees that, for the facts specific to this
petition, the absence of the label specified in the standard poses no
risk to motor vehicle safety.
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Toyota has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 209 noncompliance
in the affected vehicles 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.
Finally, NHTSA would like to make clear that granting this petition
in no way indicates a judgement by the agency that there is not a
safety need for the FMVSS requirement(s) in question. In addition, the
granting of the current petition in no way indicates NHTSA's judgment
in any future inconsequential noncompliance petition, regardless of the
level of similarity with the current petition request.
(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. 2022-01794 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 28, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.