Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2012 / Notices 24265 

1Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese 

corporation that manufacturers and imports motor 

vehicles. 

2Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., is an 

Indiana corporation that manufactures motor 

vehicles 

NHTSA has decided that the motor 

vehicle is substantially similar to a 

motor vehicle originally manufactured 

for importation into and sale in the 

United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 

30115, and of the same model year as 

the model of the motor vehicle to be 

compared, and is capable of being 

readily altered to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS. 

Petitions for eligibility decisions may 

be submitted by either manufacturers or 

importers who have registered with 

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As 

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA 

publishes notice in the Federal Register 

of each petition that it receives, and 

affords interested persons an 

opportunity to comment on the petition. 

At the close of the comment period, 

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the 

petition and any comments that it has 

received, whether the vehicle is eligible 

for importation. The agency then 

publishes this decision in the Federal 

Register. 

Wallace Environmental Testing 

Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas 

(WETL) (Registered Importer 90–005) 

has petitioned NHTSA to decide 

whether nonconforming LHD 2006 Land 

Rover Range Rover MPVs are eligible for 

importation into the United States. The 

vehicles which WETL believes are 

substantially similar are 2006 Land 

Rover Range Rover MPVs that were 

manufactured for sale in the United 

States and certified by their 

manufacturer as conforming to all 

applicable FMVSS. 

The petitioner claims that it compared 

non-U.S. certified LHD 2006 Land Rover 

Range Rover MPVs to their U.S.- 

certified counterparts, and found the 

vehicles to be substantially similar with 

respect to compliance with most 

FMVSS. 

WETL submitted information with its 

petition intended to demonstrate that 

non-U.S. certified LHD 2006 Land Rover 

Range Rover MPVs, as originally 

manufactured, conform to many FMVSS 

in the same manner as their U.S. 

certified counterparts, or are capable of 

being readily altered to conform to those 

standards. Specifically, the petitioner 

claims that non-U.S. certified LHD 2006 

Land Rover Range Rover MPVs are 

identical to their U.S. certified 

counterparts with respect to compliance 

with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission 

Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, 

and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging 

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and 

Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113 

Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle 

Brake Fluids, Standard No. 118 PowerOperated Window, Partition, and Roof 

Panel Systems, 119 New Pneumatic 

Tires for Vehicles other than passenger 

Cars, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 

135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems, 201 

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 

202 Head Restraints, 203 Impact 

Protection for the Driver from the 

Steering Control System, 204 Steering 

Control Rearward Displacement, 205 

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and 

Door Retention Components, 207 

Seating Systems, 208 Occupant Crash 

Protection, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 

Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact 

Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 

219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 

Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, and 

302 Flammability of Interior Materials. 

The petitioner also contends that the 

vehicles are capable of being readily 

altered to meet the following standards, 

in the manner indicated: 

Standard No. 101 Controls Telltales, 

and Indicators: inscription of the word 

‘‘brake’’ on the brake telltale in place of 

the international ECE warning symbol. 

Inspection of all vehicles and 

installation of U.S.-model speedometer 

and odometer, or modification of the 

existing speedometer and odometer to 

conform with the requirements of this 

standard, if required. 

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 

Devices and Associated Equipment: 

installation of U.S.-model headlamps 

and tail lamps that incorporate side 

marker lamps. The petitioner states that 

the vehicle is already equipped with a 

center high mounted stop lamp. 

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: 

inscription of the required warning 

statement on the face of the passenger 

side rearview mirror. 

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: 

reprogramming of the instrument cluster 

to activate the warning buzzer whenever 

the key is left in the ignition and the 

driver’s door is opened. 

Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and 

Rims for Vehicles other than Passenger 

Cars: installation of a tire and rim 

information placard. 

Standard No. 301 Fuel System 

Integrity: installation of a U.S.-model 

rollover valve. 

The petitioner states that each vehicle 

will be inspected prior to importation 

for compliance with the Theft 

Prevention Standard in 49 CFR part 541 

and that anti-theft devices will be 

installed on all vehicles not already so 

equipped. 

The petitioner additionally states that 

a vehicle identification plate must be 

affixed to the vehicles near the left 

windshield post to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 565 and 

that a certification label must be affixed 

to the driver’s door jamb to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 567. 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated above will be considered, and 

will be available for examination in the 

docket at the above addresses both 

before and after that date. To the extent 

possible, comments filed after the 

closing date will also be considered. 

Notice of final action on the petition 

will be published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to the authority 

indicated below. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Issued on: April 16, 2012. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9683 Filed 4–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0058; Notice 1] 

Toyota Motor Corporation, Inc., on 

Behalf of Toyota Corporation, and 

Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., on 

behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation,1

and Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, 

Inc.2 (collectively referred to as 

‘‘Toyota’’) has determined that certain 

model year 2011 Toyota Sienna 

passenger cars manufactured between 

January 3, 2011 and February 11, 2011, 

do not fully comply with paragraph 

S9.5(a)(3) of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child 

restraint anchorage systems. Toyota has 

filed an appropriate report pursuant to 

49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports (dated March 17, 2011). 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Toyota has petitioned for 

an exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of Toyota’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24266 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2012 / Notices 

3Toyota’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR 

part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt 

Toyota as a vehicle manufacturer from the 

notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR 

part 573 for 9,122 of the affected vehicles. However, 

the agency cannot relieve vehicle distributors and 

dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, 

introduction or delivery for introduction into 

interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles 

under their control after Toyota notified them that 

the subject noncompliance existed. Those vehicles 

must be brought into conformance, exported, or 

destroyed. 

4Toyota indicated that this LATCH anchorage is 

not a required by the standard, but was voluntarily 

installed by Toyota. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

Affected are approximately 9,122 

model year 2011 Toyota Sienna 

passenger cars that were manufactured 

between January 3, 2011 and February 

11, 2011, 

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, 

these provisions only apply to the 

9,122 3 model year 2011 Toyota Sienna 

passenger cars that Toyota no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. 

Paragraph S9.5 of FMVSS No. 225 

requires in pertinent part: 

S9.5 Marking and conspicuity of the lower 

anchorages. Each vehicle shall comply with 

S9.5(a) or (b). (a) Above each bar installed 

pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be 

permanently marked with a circle * * * 

(1) That is not less than 13 mm in 

diameter; 

(2) That is either solid or open, with or 

without words, symbols or pictograms, 

provided that if words, symbols or 

pictograms are used, their meaning is 

explained to the consumer in writing, such 

as in the vehicle’s owners manual; and 

(3) That is located such that its center is 

on each seat back between 50 and 100 mm 

above or on the seat cushion 100 ±25 mm 

forward of the intersection of the vertical 

transverse and horizontal longitudinal planes 

intersecting at the horizontal centerline of 

each lower anchorage, as illustrated in Figure 

22. The center of the circle must be in the 

vertical longitudinal plane that passes 

through the center of the bar (±25 mm); 

(4) The circle may be on a tag * * * 

Toyota explains that the 

noncompliance is that the label 

identifying the location of the lower 

child restraint anchorages in some of the 

second row seats of the affected vehicles 

are located slightly outside the limits as 

stated within the requirements of 

S9.5(a)(3) of FMVSS No. 225. 

Specifically, Toyota also explains that 

‘‘the potential deviation of the label 

location outside the requirement is very 

small. In a detailed survey of a 

randomly selected subset involving 18 

of these vehicles in which a deviation 

was observed, the mean deviation was 

approximately +1.4 mm (i.e. 26.4 mm 

from the centerline); the maximum 

deviation observed was +2.5 mm (i.e. 

27.5 mm from the centerline); and the 

standard deviation was only 0.5 mm. 

While a survey carried out by the seat 

supplier also supports Toyota’s 

assertions that the potential deviation of 

the label location from the specified 

requirements is very small. In the 

supplier’s survey of 240 labels on 120 

seats, 3 labels were outside of the 

specifications of FMVSS No. 225. All 3 

of those labels were measured at +1 mm 

beyond the specification, or 26 mm from 

the centerline.’’ 

Toyota stated its belief that although 

the lower child anchorage labels are 

outside the specified limits of this 

requirement that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

for the following reasons: 

(1) The measured deviations are very 

minor, and such a slight deviation is not 

noticeable to consumers and would not 

impair a consumer’s ability to locate the 

lower anchorages. 

(2) Paragraph S9.1 of FMVSS No. 225 

requires that the length of the straight 

portion of the lower anchorage bar be a 

minimum of 25 mm. In the affected 

vehicles the length is 30 mm; the total 

length including the curved portions is 

54 mm. As a result, even with greater 

deviations than noted above in label 

location, some part of the label would 

be over some part of the bar, making the 

bar easy to locate. 

(3) The regulatory history of the 

provision allowing a ±25 mm lateral 

tolerance for the location of the center 

of the circular label further supports the 

argument that this noncompliance has 

no adverse safety consequences. As 

originally adopted, FMVSS No. 225 

would have limited the lateral tolerance 

to ±12 mm. In response to a petition for 

reconsideration from vehicle 

manufacturers concerned that such a 

low tolerance would be difficult to meet 

due to process limitations and seat 

design features, NHTSA amended the 

standard to allow the current ±25 mm 

tolerance. 69 FR 48818 (August 11, 

2004). In doing so, The agency stated: 

‘‘* * * Moreover, the agency believes that 

increasing the tolerance to 25 mm will not 

significantly affect the consumers’ ability to 

find the LATCH anchorages. While anchor 

bars are permitted to be as short as 25 mm 

in the straight portion of the bar, most are 

considerably longer. Even if a 25 mm bar 

were used, with a 25 mm tolerance from the 

center of the bar, the circle will be, at 

farthest, tangent to a longitudinal vertical 

plane tangent to the side of the anchorage 

bar. If a person were to probe the seat bight 

in the area directly under the marking circle, 

his or her finger would easily contact the bar. 

For bars that are greater than 25 mm in 

length, with a 25 mm tolerance a portion of 

the marking circle will always be over some 

part of the bar. In either situation, marking 

the circle with a 25 mm tolerance will 

adequately provide a visual reminder to 

consumers that the LATCH system is present 

and will help users locate and use the bars. 

Adopting the 25 mm tolerance will also 

harmonize FMVSS No. 225 with the 

comparable Transport Canada requirement.’’ 

(4) The seat design is such that only 

one label at a seating position can be 

noncompliant. As the seat cover, is 

constructed, the labels are secured to 

the fabric a specified distance apart that 

reflects the location of each pair of 

anchorages, and the labels are designed 

to be within the lateral tolerance of the 

standard. 

(5) Information provided in the 

vehicle owner’s manual further reduces 

any possibility of confusion when 

installing a child restraint. The 

instructions clear advise the installer to 

recline the second row seat and widen 

the gap between the seat cushion and 

the seatback to expose the lower 

anchorages. 

(6) The label locations are correct for 

the LATCH anchorage system located at 

the third row center seating position.4

(7) There have been no customer 

complaints, injuries, or accidents 

related to the deviation of the child 

restraint label location being slightly 

outside the limits of the requirement. 

(8) The model year 2011 Sienna is 

sold by Toyota in both the United States 

and Canada and the subject 

noncompliance was reported to both 

NHTSA and Transport Canada at the 

same time. (In Canada, the applicable 

standard is CMVSS 210.2; it contains 

the same requirements as FMVSS No. 

225). Transport Canada responded on 

March 23, indicating it concurs that 

‘‘there is no real or implied degradation 

to motor vehicle safety,’’ and that no 

further action in Canada will be 

required. 

In summation, Toyota believes that 

the described noncompliance of its 

vehicles to meet the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 225 is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety, and that its 

petition, to exempt from providing 

recall notification of noncompliance as 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

remedying the recall noncompliance as 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2012 / Notices 24267 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be 

granted. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments on this petition. Comments 

must refer to the docket and notice 

number cited at the beginning of this 

notice and be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

a. By mail addressed to: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

b. By hand delivery to: 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 Federal Holidays. 

c. Electronically: by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments may also be faxed to 1–202– 

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 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that your comments were 

received, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with the comments. 

Note that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Documents submitted to a docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000, (65 FR 19477–78). 

The petition, supporting materials, 

and all comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated below will be filed and will be 

considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the extent possible. 

When the petition is granted or denied, 

notice of the decision will be published 

in the Federal Register pursuant to the 

authority indicated below. 

Comment closing date: May 23, 2012. 

Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: April 16, 2012. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9674 Filed 4–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Form 8508 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is 

soliciting comments concerning Form 

8508, Request for Waiver From Filing 

Information Returns Electronically 

(Forms W–2, W–2G, 1042–S, 1098 

Series, 1099 Series, 5498 Series, and 

8027). 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before June 22, 2012 to 

be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the form and instructions 

should be directed to Allan Hopkins, 

(202) 622–6665 at Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or 

through the Internet at 

Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Request for Waiver From Filing 

Information Returns Electronically 

(Forms W–2, W–2G, 1042–S, 1098 

Series, 1099 Series, 5498 Series, and 

8027). 

OMB Number: 1545–0957. 

Form Number: Form 8508. 

Abstract: Certain filers of information 

returns are required by law to file 

electronically. In some instances, 

waivers from this requirement are 

necessary and justified. Form 8508 is 

submitted by the filer and provides 

information on which IRS will base its 

waiver determination. 

Current Actions: There is no change 

in the paperwork burden previously 

approved by OMB. This form is being 

submitted for renewal purposes only. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Businesses and other 

for-profit organizations, farms, Federal 

Government, State, Local or Tribal 

Government, and not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,000. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 45 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 750. 

The following paragraph applies to all 

of the collections of information covered 

by this notice: 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

Books or records relating to a collection 

of information must be retained as long 

as their contents may become material 

in the administration of any internal 

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and 

tax return information are confidential, 

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. 

Request for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and/or included in the 

request for OMB approval. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (e) estimates of capital or start-up 

costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide information. 

Approved: April 17, 2012. 

Allan Hopkins, 

Tax Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9610 Filed 4–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES