Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2022 / Notices 4705 

reporting number 3824.99.9397 effective 

January 27, 2022’’ in lieu thereof. 

Greta Peisch, 

General Counsel, Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01732 Filed 1–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3390–F2–P 

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, jack.chern@

dot.gov. 

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 

https://www.regulations.gov/. 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
4706 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2022 / Notices 

1 see Toyota submission of supplemental 

information to NHTSA–2019–0098; https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019- 

0098-0005. 

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: 

• Chrysler Corporation, 57 FR 45865 

(October 5, 1992) 

• TRW Inc., 58 FR 7171 (February 4, 

1993) 

• Bombardier Motor Corporation of 

America, 65 FR 60238 (October 10, 

2000) 

• 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. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2022 / Notices 4707 

2Cf. 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). 

3See 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). 5United 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’’). 

6See 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). 

7See 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). 8See Edward Thomas Response to NHTSA–2019– 

0098; https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=NHTSA-2019-0098-0003. 

9See Interpretation Letter to Mr. Todd Mitchell, 

3/19/2001; https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/ 

22512.rbm.html. 

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 safetycritical equipment, like seat belts or air 

bags, are rarely deemed inconsequential. 

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

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. 

2. Analysis and Response to the Public 

Comment From Mr. Thomas 

In response to the public comment 

from Mr. Thomas,8

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. 

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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
4708 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2022 / Notices 

10See Toyota Motor North America—Comments; 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA2019-0098-0004. 

11See Toyota Comments 12–21–2020; https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2019- 

0098-0005. 

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. 

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. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions 

on Proposed Highway Projects in 

Texas 

AGENCY: Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT), Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1