3380 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 

VIII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that Hankook has met its 

burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance in the 

affected tires is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Hankook’s petition is hereby granted 

and Hankook 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 tires 

that Hankook no longer controlled at the 

time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

granting of this petition does not relieve 

equipment distributors and dealers of 

the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 

sale, or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant tires under their 

control after Hankook 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. 2022–01133 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0006; Notice 2] 

Volkswagen Group of 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: Volkswagen Group of 

America, Inc. (Volkswagen), has 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2015–2016 Audi A3 and Audi S3 

motor vehicles do not comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment. 

Volkswagen filed a noncompliance 

report dated January 28, 2019, and a 

petition was received by NHTSA on 

January 28, 2019, for a decision that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the grant of Volkswagen’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

(202) 366–5304, Leroy.Angeles@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Volkswagen has 

determined that certain MY 2015–2016 

Audi A3 Sedan, S3 Sedan, and A3 

Cabriolet motor vehicles do not comply 

with paragraph S9.3.6. of FMVSS No. 

108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 

Associated Equipment (49 CFR 

571.108). Volkswagen filed a 

noncompliance report dated January 28, 

2019, pursuant to 49 CFR 573, Defect 

and Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports, and a petition received by 

NHTSA on January 28, 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 40 U.S.C. 30118 and 49 U.S.C. 30120, 

Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of Volkswagen’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on July 9, 2019, 

in the Federal Register (84 FR 32830). 

One comment was 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– 

0006.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

81,831 MY 2015–2016 Audi A3, S3 

Sedan, and A3 Cabriolet motor vehicles, 

manufactured between November 28, 

2013, and July 28, 2016, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance: Volkswagen 

explains that the noncompliance is that 

the subject vehicles are equipped with 

turn signal pilot indicators that do not 

meet the flashing rate as required by 

paragraph S9.3.6 of FMVSS No. 108. 

Specifically, the left turn signal 

indicator does not have a significant 

change in the flashing rate when the left 

rear turn signal LED array becomes 

inoperative. 

IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph 

S9.3.6 of FMVSS No. 108 provides the 

requirements relevant to this petition. 

Failure of one or more turn signal 

lamps, such that the minimum 

photometric performance specified in 

Tables VI or VII of FMVSS No. 108 is 

not being met, must be indicated by the 

turn signal pilot indicator by a ‘‘steady 

on,’’ ‘‘steady off,’’ or by a significant 

change in the flashing rate. 

V. Summary of Volkswagen’s Petition: 

Volkswagen describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. The 

following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of Volkswagen’s Petition,’’ are the views 

and arguments provided by Volkswagen 

and do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. 

In support of its petition, Volkswagen 

offers the following reasoning: 

(a) The driver receives two different 

indicator warnings that the rear brake light is 

inoperative in the instrument cluster 

immediately upon failure of the turn signal 

lamp to comply with the photometry 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108. This 

happens because the brake light and 

indicator light/turn signal are combined. 

(b) The subject condition, the lack of a turn 

signal pilot indicator flash rate change, is 

limited to the condition in which the 

outermost left rear turn signal lamp fails. 

(c) In the case of LED array failure, both the 

brake light and indicator light/turn signal 

become inoperative. Should the required left 

turn signal become inoperative, Volkswagen 

confirmed that other auxiliary left turn signal 

lights located on the trunk and the left side 

mirror are still operational. Additionally, the 

back-up lamp in the left rear tail lamp 

assembly, the left brake light in the trunk lid 

assembly, and the center high mount stop 

lamp, will remain operational. 

Volkswagen concludes 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. Public Comments: NHTSA 

received one comment from the public. 

This comment was received from an 

individual who believed that 

Volkswagen’s reasoning is unclear as it 

stands, and that NHTSA should request 

more information from Volkswagen or 

deem the noncompliance consequential. 

The commenter said that it is unclear as 

to whether the ‘‘two different indicator 

warnings in the instrument cluster’’ are 

compliant and that a redundancy 

should not be considered an appropriate 

substitute for a well-functioning, 

compliant failure indicator that’s 

required by the FMVSS. The commenter 

also said that the rule requirements are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 3381 

1Cf. 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). 

2See 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). 

3 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 

21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

4United 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’’). 

5See Mack Trucks, Inc., and Volvo Trucks North 

America, Grant of Petitions for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR 67766, 

December 11, 2019. 

fairly clear with the possible exception 

of the lack of specificity of the word 

‘‘significant’’ in the phrase ‘‘significant 

change in the flashing rate’’ but that lack 

of specificity isn’t addressed by 

Volkswagen’s petition. The commenter 

also questioned the reasoning in 

paragraph 2 of the petition that the 

warning that ‘‘both lights’’ had become 

inoperative was equivalent to the 

specific warnings required by the 

Standard. 

VII. NHTSA’s Analysis: 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.1 Potential performance 

failures of equipment like seat belts or 

air bags are rarely deemed 

inconsequential. 

An important issue to consider in 

determining inconsequentiality based 

upon NHTSA’s prior decisions on 

noncompliance issues was the safety 

risk to individuals who experience the 

type of event against which the recall 

would otherwise protect.2 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.’’ 3

‘‘[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.’’ 4

NHTSA has reviewed and evaluated 

the merits of the inconsequential 

noncompliance petition submitted by 

Volkswagen. 

For this petition, NHTSA first 

considered the subject lamp 

configuration which consists of four 

light assemblies on the rear of the 

subject vehicles. Two outboard 

assemblies are mounted to the rear 

quarter panels and two inboard 

assemblies are mounted on the trunk 

lid. These pairs of assemblies, one on 

each side of the vehicle, are mounted 

adjacent to each other. When a turn 

signal is activated by the driver, the turn 

lamps in both the outboard and inboard 

assemblies on the side of the vehicle 

corresponding to the direction the 

driver selected, will illuminate. 

Volkswagen explained that that the 

auxiliary inboard lamps will remain 

operational should the outboard lamps 

become inoperative. The Agency did not 

find these factors to be compelling in 

granting this petition. 

Instead, the Agency found the 

following considerations to be most 

relevant to its decision: 

(a) While the turn signal pilot indicator 

does not change in flash rate when the left 

outboard turn signal lamp fails to meet the 

photometric requirements, the subject 

vehicles provide the drivers an alternative 

method of notification. According to 

Volkswagen’s petition, the noncompliance in 

the subject vehicles is limited to when the 

left rear outboard turn signal lamp fails, and 

if the left inboard turn signal lamp should 

fail, the turn signal pilot indicator will 

function. Given these conditions, the 

noncompliance creates a scenario where a 

failure in the left outboard turn signal lamp 

will not activate the ‘‘fast flash’’ in the pilot 

indicator. While the driver is not alerted to 

a failure of the required turn signal lamp by 

means of a change in the flash rate of the turn 

signal pilot indicator lamp, if both the 

required turn signal lamp and the auxiliary 

turn signal lamp fails, the driver will be 

alerted by the means specified in the 

standard. In the event this inboard turn 

signal lamp should fail, the turn signal pilot 

indicator will alert the driver. 

(b) In addition, Volkswagen has provided 

at least two other warning lights that 

illuminate to make the driver aware of the 

failure. A warning light will illuminate at 

vehicle start-up or when the failure occurs 

while driving. There will also be a constant 

bulb out indicator in the central information 

display while the turn signal lamp is 

inoperative. Additionally, if the left outboard 

turn signal lamp is out, all other required 

lamps still operate as designed. 

In response to the public comment 

stating that ‘‘a redundancy should not 

be considered an appropriate substitute 

for a well-functioning, compliant failure 

indicator that’s required by the 

FMVSS,’’ NHTSA agrees that an 

alternative method of notification is not 

a substitute for complying with a 

FMVSS. However, NHTSA has recently 

granted other petitions such as those 

submitted by Mack Trucks Inc. and 

Volvo Trucks North America where an 

alternative method of notification was a 

factor considered in granting the 

petition.5 While manufacturers are not 

permitted to knowingly certify a vehicle 

that does not comply with the FMVSS, 

NHTSA can consider whether such an 

alternative method of performance is a 

mitigating factor when determining the 

effect of the noncompliance on safety. 

In the case of the subject petition, 

failure of the left rear outboard turn 

signal will result in the illumination of 

a steady burning general warning 

telltale, while a failure of the left rear 

inboard turn signal will produce a 

compliant ‘‘fast flash’’ warning. Thus, 

some form of notification will always 

result from a failure and an FMVSS No. 

108-compliant warning will occur if 

both rear left turn signal lamps fail. 

Based on the specifics of this case, 

NHTSA believes this alternative 

warning provides adequate notice to 

drivers that the left rear turn signal lamp 

has failed such that this noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. 

VIII. NHTSA’s Decision: In 

consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 

finds that Volkswagen has met its 

burden of persuasion that the FMVSS 

No. 108 noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Volkswagen’s petition is hereby granted 

and they are exempted from the 

obligation to provide notification of and 

remedy for the subject noncompliance 

in the affected vehicles 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 Volkswagen 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
3382 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 

sale, or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant vehicles under their 

control after Volkswagen 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. 2022–01128 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0071; 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 

Toyota RAV4 and MY 2014–2019 

Toyota Highlander/Highlander HV 

motor vehicles do not fully comply with 

S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, 

Flammability of Interior Materials. 

Toyota filed a noncompliance report 

dated June 19, 2019, and subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on July 12, 2019, and 

later amended that petition on August 

13, 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: 

Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety 

Compliance Engineer, Office of Vehicle 

Safety Compliance, NHTSA, 202–366– 

7479, kelley.adamscampos@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Toyota has determined that certain 

MY 2013–2019 Toyota RAV4 and 

certain Toyota Highlander/Highlander 

HV motor vehicles do not fully comply 

with paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 302, 

Flammability of Interior Materials. 

Toyota filed a noncompliance report 

dated June 19, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports, and 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on July 

12, 2019, and later amended its petition 

on August 13, 2019, for an exemption 

from the notification and remedy 

requirement of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on 

the basis that this noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. See 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 December 3, 2019, 

in the Federal Register (84 FR 66276). 

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– 

0071.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved 

Approximately 2,144,217 MY 2013– 

2019 Toyota RAV4 and MY 2014–2019 

Toyota Highlander/Highlander HV 

motor vehicles manufactured between 

December 21, 2012, and March 28, 2019, 

are potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

Toyota explains that the 

noncompliance relates to certain hook 

and loop fasteners that attach the floor 

carpet to the underlying padding. The 

loop side of the fastener is made from 

material that may not comply, as 

required, with paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS 

No. 302. Specifically, when tested 

separately from the floor carpet, the 

loop side of the fastener in the subject 

vehicles does not meet the burn rate 

requirements of paragraph S4.3. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraphs S4.1 through S4.3(b) of 

FMVSS No. 302 include the 

requirements relevant to this petition: 

S4.1 The portions described in S4.2 of the 

following components of vehicle occupant 

compartments shall meet the requirements of 

S4.3: Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, 

headlining, convertible tops, armrests, all 

trim panels including door, front, rear, and 

side panels, compartment shelves, head 

restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, 

curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, 

engine compartment covers, mattress covers, 

and any other interior materials, including 

padding and crash-deployed elements, that 

are designed to absorb energy on contact by 

occupants in the event of a crash. 

S4.2.1 Any material that does not adhere 

to other material(s) at every point of contact 

shall meet the requirements of S4.3. 

Paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 302 

requires that material described in S4.1 

and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a 

flame front across its surface, at a rate 

of more than 102 mm per minute. The 

requirement concerning the 

transmission of a flame front shall not 

apply to a surface created by cutting a 

test specimen for purposes of testing 

pursuant to S5. 

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. 

Toyota described the subject 

noncompliance and stated its belief that 

the noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety. In 

support of its petition, Toyota submitted 

the following: 

1. During pre-production evaluations of the 

new model Highlander (MY 2020) the 

supplier found that the loop fasteners might 

not meet the burn rate requirement of FMVSS 

No. 302. These same fasteners are used on 

the subject vehicles; they are attached to the 

underside of the carpet near the front 

footwell. Toyota conducted testing of the 

loop side of the fastener, in accordance with 

FMVSS No. 302; when tested separately from 

the carpet, the burn rate of the loop side of 

the fastener was 133 mm/min (worst of ten 

tests). The loop fastener material did not 

have flame-retardant coating, and therefore 

the burn rate requirement specified on the 

drawing was not met. 

2. The loop fastener material complies with 

FMVSS No. 302 when tested as a 

‘‘composite’’ as installed to the FMVSS No. 

302 compliant carpet assembly. 

3. The purpose of FMVSS No. 302 is to 

‘‘reduce the deaths and injuries to motor 

vehicle occupants caused by vehicle fires, 

especially those originating in the interior of 

the vehicle from sources such as matches or 

cigarettes.’’ The noncomplying loop fastener 

material would normally not be exposed to 

open flame or an ignition source (like 

matches or cigarettes) in its installed 

application, because it is installed beneath 

and completely covered by the carpet 

material which complies with FMVSS No. 

302. 

4. The loop fastener material is a very 

small portion of the overall mass of the soft 

material portions comprising the carpet 

assembly (i.e., 0.037% or less), and is 

significantly less in relation to the entire 

vehicle interior surface area that could 

potentially be exposed to flame. Therefore, it 

would have an insignificant adverse effect on 

the interior material burn rate and the 

potential for occupant injury due to interior 

fire. 

5. Toyota is not aware of any data 

suggesting that fires have occurred in the 

field from installation of the noncomplying 

loop fastener material. 

• Toyota says NHTSA has previously 

granted at least ten FMVSS No. 302 petitions 

for inconsequential noncompliance—one of 

which was for a vehicle’s seat heater 

assemblies, one of which was for a vehicle’s 

console armrest, one of which was for large 

truck sleeper bedding, one of which was for 

seating material, and six of which were for 

issues related to child restraints systems 

(CRS). These are: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1