Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Notices 16823 

3National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

(2019, December). The 2016 motor vehicle occupant 

safety survey: Seat belt report (Report No. DOT HS 812 798). Author. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/ 

dot/43608. 

number of invitations is based on the 

need to recruit 1,500 participants, 750 of 

whom are either non- or part-time seat 

belt users. Based on corporate 

experience with online panels, the 

marketing research firm providing 

access to their panel of participants 

estimates a participation rate of 20%. 

Furthermore, NHTSA research has 

shown that while most drivers reported 

wearing their seat belts every time they 

drive, approximately 20% are either 

non-users or part-time users.3 Finally, 

NHTSA estimates that 90% who qualify 

and read the consent form will provide 

consent and complete the study. To 

obtain a sample of 750 consenting 

participants in the non/part user group, 

requires a universe of 20,850 potential 

respondents. Of the 20,850 invited 

panelists, we expect 20% or 4,170 

volunteers who are interested and 

qualify. Of the 4,170 who are interested, 

we expect 20% or 834 volunteers will 

be non- or part-time seat belt users. Of 

the 834 volunteers who are non- or parttime seat belt users, we expect 90% or 

750 to consent and complete the study. 

The marketing research firm will 

provide a link to the consent form to the 

first 834 non- or part-time seat belt users 

and to the first 834 full-time seat belt 

users who are interested and qualify. 

(Once the firm reaches 750 completions 

from full-time users, which is expected 

to occur before the 750 completions 

from non- or part-time users, they will 

no longer provide links to the informed 

consent to qualified full-time users.) 

Frequency: This study is a one-time 

information collection, and there will be 

no recurrence. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,057. 

The total estimated burden associated 

with this collection is 1,057 hours. The 

sample of potential participants will 

receive an email invitation from 

Schlesinger Group, a marketing research 

firm that specializes in providing 

sampling pools of panelists, with 

screening questions to determine 

eligibility. The 20,850 potential 

participants are expected to spend 1 

minute each in reading the invitation 

email for an estimated 348 hours. Those 

who are interested (estimated to be 

20%, or 4,170 individuals) are expected 

to spend 1 minute each in completing 

the screener form for an estimated 70 

hours. Schlesinger will provide 

electronic links to the consent form to 

the first 834 full-time seat belt users and 

to the first 834 part-time/non-users who 

qualify based on the screening 

questions. The 1,668 eligible 

participants are expected to spend 5 

minutes each reading and completing 

the consent form for an estimated 139 

hours. The estimated 1,500 consenting 

participants will each spend 20 minutes 

completing the experiment for an 

estimated 500 hours. The total burden is 

the sum of the burden across the 

invitation/screening, consenting, and 

completing the experiment for a total 

estimate of 1,057 hours. The details are 

presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BURDEN HOURS BY FORM

Form Description Participants 

Estimated 

minutes per 

participant 

Total estimated 

burden hours 

per form 

Form 1599 ...................................................... Invitation Email .............................................. 20,850 1 348 

Form 1604 ...................................................... Screener Form .............................................. 4,170 1 70 

Form 1600 ...................................................... Informed Consent Form ................................ 1,668 5 139

Form 1601 ...................................................... Experiment Form ........................................... 1,500 20 500 

Total ........................................................ ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,057 

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: 

NHTSA estimates that there are no costs 

to respondents beyond the time spent 

participating in the study. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspects of this 

information collection, including (a) 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as 

amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 

1351.29. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan, 

Associate Administrator, Research and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06260 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0105] 

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 

DP18–002 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect 

investigation. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

reasons for the denial of a petition 

submitted on August 7, 2018, by Mr. 

Gary Weinreich (the petitioner) to 

NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation 

(ODI). The petition requests that the 

Agency investigate alleged ‘‘premature 

and excessive frame corrosion’’ in 

model year (MY) 2002 through 2006 

Toyota 4Runner vehicles. The petitioner 

bases his request upon his own 

experience with a MY 2005 Toyota 

4Runner, a class action lawsuit 

settlement involving other Toyota 

products, and other complaints of 

underbody corrosion in Toyota 4Runner 

vehicles that he found in NHTSA’s 

online complaint database. After 

reviewing the information provided by 

the petitioner regarding his vehicle, 

facts related to the class action lawsuit 

cited by the petitioner, and field data 

regarding underbody corrosion in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
16824 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Notices 

1The analysis here will focus on the fourthgeneration vehicles, which includes the Petitioner’s 

vehicle, except where otherwise indicated. 

2The front attachment bracket for the left lower 

control arm detached from the frame. 

3 Gary Weinreich letter to Stephen Ridella, Ph.D., 

Director, Office of Defects Investigation, August 28, 

2018. 

4 Gary Weinreich v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., 

et al., Case No. 2:18–cv–03294–RMG, in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of South Carolina, 

Charleston Division. 

5Records provided by petitioner indicate that 

Toyota did not service the vehicle after October 

2013. 

6www.toyotaframesettlement.com. 

7 In December 2009, Dana announced its 

agreement to sell its Structural Products Business 

to Metalsa, S.A. de C.V, http://

dana.mediaroom.com/ 

index.php?s=26450&item=69875. 

Toyota 4Runner vehicles, NHTSA has 

concluded that there is insufficient 

evidence to pursue further action. 

Accordingly, the Agency has denied the 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Gregory Magno, Vehicle Defects 

Division—D, Office of Defects 

Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–366–5226). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter 

dated August 7, 2018, Mr. Gary 

Weinreich (the petitioner) submitted a 

petition requesting that the Agency 

‘‘perform a high-priority investigation’’ 

of ‘‘premature and excessive frame 

corrosion’’ in model year (MY) 2002 

through 2006 Toyota 4Runner vehicles. 

The petitioner bases his request upon a 

corrosion-related front suspension 

failure he experienced in his MY 2005 

Toyota 4Runner, a class action lawsuit 

settlement involving other Toyota 

products, and other complaints of 

underbody corrosion in Toyota 4Runner 

vehicles that he found in NHTSA’s 

online complaint database. 

On August 17, 2018, the Office of 

Defects Investigation (ODI) opened 

Defect Petition DP18–002 to evaluate 

the petitioner’s request for an 

investigation. ODI has reviewed the 

following information as part of its 

evaluation: (1) Information provided by 

the petitioner regarding his vehicle; (2) 

facts related to the class action lawsuit 

cited by the petitioner; (3) consumer 

complaint data regarding underbody 

corrosion in third- and fourthgeneration Toyota 4Runner vehicles. 

Scope: The petitioner’s request for an 

investigation of premature frame 

corrosion in MY 2002 through 2006 

Toyota 4Runner vehicles includes both 

third- and fourth-generation 4Runner 

vehicles that ranged from 12 to 17 years 

in age when the petition was filed. 

Toyota sold approximately 745,000 

third-generation (MY 1996 through 

2002), and approximately 603,000 

fourth-generation (MY 2003 through 

2009) 4Runner vehicles in the United 

States.1

Petitioner’s vehicle: On May 24, 2018, 

the petitioner experienced a front 

suspension failure while driving on the 

highway in a 2005 Toyota 4Runner 

vehicle that was nearing 13 years of 

service.2 He reported the incident to 

NHTSA in a Vehicle Owner 

Questionnaire (VOQ) submitted on May 

26, 2018 (NHTSA ID 11098055): 

Yesterday, my wife and I and two friends 

riding with us narrowly escaped a fatal 

accident when the front suspension 

separated from the frame due to the corrosion 

problem. At highway speed, the vehicle 

began shaking violently and the steering was 

unable to properly control the vehicle. The 

vehicle went off the road after coming close 

to hitting an oncoming vehicle. 

The petitioner alleged that this failure 

resulted from premature and excessive 

frame corrosion and provided service 

history information and photographs as 

supporting evidence.3 ODI reviewed the 

information provided by the petitioner, 

as well as additional details contained 

in a lawsuit he filed against Toyota in 

December 2018.4

ODI found that the petitioner’s 

vehicle had a history of general 

corrosion concerns throughout the 

undercarriage that were not isolated to 

the frame. The photographs showed that 

the vehicle undercarriage was seriously 

corroded at the time the incident 

occurred. The information indicates 

severe general corrosion of the vehicle 

undercarriage consistent with many 

years of severe use and exposure, but 

ODI has not found evidence showing a 

design or manufacturing defect in the 

vehicle. 

The vehicle service history 

information that the petitioner provided 

supports these observations. Concerns 

with underbody corrosion on his 

vehicle were first noted by a Toyota 

dealer in a multi-point vehicle 

inspection performed on April 28, 2011. 

The invoice for that inspection noted 

‘‘severe and excessive amount of rust on 

the undercarriage and on the drive shaft 

transmission.’’ Two years later, on 

October 21, 2013, another multi-point 

inspection by a Toyota dealer observed 

further progression of underbody 

corrosion damage, noting: ‘‘rust on 

shocks/struts and other components,’’ 

‘‘rust on exhaust system,’’ ‘‘both splash 

shields severely rusted,’’ and 

‘‘undercarriage very rusty.’’ 5 On July 17, 

2017, approximately 10 months prior to 

experiencing the suspension failure 

incident, an independent repair facility 

performing a routine oil change and 

brake maintenance informed the 

petitioner of a concern with ‘‘excessive 

frame corrosion’’ on his vehicle. 

The service history further indicates 

that corrosion concerns in the 

petitioner’s vehicle were first observed 

in other underbody components (e.g., 

drive shaft transmission, exhaust, splash 

shields) and grew progressively worse 

over several years before the observation 

of ‘‘excessive frame corrosion’’ and 

subsequent suspension link failure. 

Photographs provided by the petitioner 

show that the vehicle’s underbody was 

in poor condition when the failure 

occurred, with heavy corrosion 

throughout the vehicle underbody and 

multiple visible perforations in frame 

structural members. 

The petitioner lives less than a mile 

from the ocean, where exposure to 

marine salts may lead to increased 

vehicle corrosion rates if vehicles are 

not regularly cleaned. While no 

information was provided regarding the 

use, care, and maintenance of the 

petitioner’s vehicle, ODI has not 

received evidence that the vehicle 

received any repairs to address the 

noted corrosion concerns prior to the 

May 2018 front suspension failure. 

Class action lawsuit: The petitioner 

cites a class action lawsuit settled by 

Toyota in 2017 6 as evidence of the 

defect in his vehicle and states that 

4Runner vehicles ‘‘were not included in 

the class-action lawsuit simply because 

there were insufficient complaints 

known to the counsel representing the 

class at the time it was formed.’’ ODI 

has reviewed the referenced lawsuit and 

does not agree with the petitioner’s 

claims. The vehicles covered by the 

class action were equipped with frames 

manufactured by a specific supplier 

alleged to be using a defective 

electrocoating process over a certain 

manufacturing period. The subject 

4Runner vehicles were not equipped 

with frames manufactured by that 

supplier. 

Starting in 2008, Toyota conducted 

multiple service campaigns and 

warranty extension programs to address 

concerns with premature frame 

corrosion in certain vehicles equipped 

with frames supplied by Dana Holding 

Company (Dana).7 The combined field 

actions covered MY 1995 through 2010 

Toyota Tacoma, MY 2000 through 2008 

Tundra, and MY 2001 through 2007 

Sequoia vehicles (‘‘Dana frame 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Notices 16825 

8The subject Tacoma, Tundra, and Sequoia 

vehicles were all manufactured at assembly plants 

located in the United States. Dana did not supply 

frames for any products manufactured in Japan. 9 Dana Holding Corporation Reaches Settlement 

with Toyota on Warranty Claims Related to 

Divested Structural Products Business, January 12, 

2011, http://dana.mediaroom.com/ 

index.php?s=26450&item=69927. 

10Burns v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., Case No. 

CV 14–2208 (W.D. Ark.), http://www.toyotaframe

settlement.com/. 

11Brian Warner et al v. Toyota Motor Sales USA 

Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18–cv–02171–FMO–FFM, in 

the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 

California, http://www.toyotaframesettlement.com/. 

12Reuters, Toyota to settle U.S. truck rust lawsuit 

for up to $3.4 billion, November 12, 2016, https:// 

www.reuters.com/article/us-toyota-settlementidUSKBN1370PE. 

13 Gary Weinreich letter to Stephen Ridella, Ph.D., 

Director, Office of Defects Investigation, August 28, 

2018. 

14 Ibid. 

vehicles’’).8 Toyota took these actions 

after identifying quality concerns with 

the electrocoating processes in certain 

frames supplied by Dana that could lead 

to premature corrosion failures. In 2011, 

Dana settled a lawsuit with Toyota for 

warranty claim costs related to 

premature frame corrosion.9

These issues were presented in other 

litigation as well. A class-action lawsuit 

filed in Arkansas on October 3, 2014, 

alleged that MY 2005 through 2009 

Toyota Tacoma vehicles lacked 

adequate rust protection on the vehicles’ 

frames, leading to premature corrosion 

failures.10 A separate class-action 

lawsuit filed in California on March 24, 

2015, made similar claims.11 The 

lawsuits were consolidated in a second 

amended complaint filed on November 

8, 2016. The consolidated complaint 

covered MY 2005 through 2010 Toyota 

Tacoma, MY 2007 through 2008 Toyota 

Tundra, and MY 2005 through 2008 

Toyota Sequoia vehicles. The second 

amended complaint stated that the 

vehicles that were the subject of the 

lawsuit were all equipped with frames 

manufactured by Dana using ‘‘the same 

defective process.’’ The complaint 

alleged that, ‘‘The frames on the Toyota 

Vehicles are materially the same for 

purposes of this lawsuit and suffer from 

the same defect. All of the frames were 

manufactured by the same corporation 

(Dana Holding Corporation) pursuant to 

the same defective process.’’ 

The class action was settled in May 

2017. The terms of the settlement 

included extending warranty coverage 

to 12 years from first use for a Frame 

Inspection and Replacement Program. 

The settlement was widely reported by 

news media.12

Both third and fourth-generation 

4Runner vehicles were built in Japan 

and are not equipped with frames 

manufactured by Dana. Although 

private litigation can be a relevant 

source of information to consider in the 

course of examining a potential vehicle 

defect in many cases, the petitioner has 

not demonstrated that the litigation he 

cites here supports the grant of his 

petition. 

Complaint analysis: The petitioner 

alleged that his analysis of NHTSA’s 

complaint database revealed evidence 

supporting his claim of premature and 

excessive frame corrosion in MY 2002 

through 2006 Toyota 4Runner vehicles, 

and that differences in field experience 

between third- and fourth-generation 

4Runner vehicles provide further 

evidence suggesting a design or 

manufacturing defect in the fourthgeneration products. The petitioner 

claims that third-generation Toyota 

4Runners ‘‘do not appear to experience 

the premature and excessive frame 

corrosion.’’ 13 The petitioner stated their 

belief that ‘‘Any frame specification 

changes between generations may help 

identify the root cause(s) of the 

problem.’’ 14

ODI’s analysis of consumer complaint 

data related to frame corrosion in 

fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner 

vehicles has not found evidence of a 

failure trend indicating a potential 

design or manufacturing defect leading 

to premature failures. Rather, the data 

tends to show complaint trends 

occurring late in vehicle life in high 

corrosion regions. Relatively few 

complaints involved suspension 

detachments, and those that did were 

spread among multiple suspension 

links, each occurring in older vehicles 

operated in high corrosion regions. 

Finally, ODI finds no meaningful 

difference between frame corrosion 

complaint trends and related 

suspension detachment allegations in 

third- and fourth-generation 4Runner 

vehicles. 

4Runner complaint trends lag trends 

for the Dana frame vehicles by several 

years. Through the end of 2008, the year 

of Toyota’s first field action for Dana 

frame vehicles, NHTSA had received 

150 complaints for Dana frame vehicles 

and just 3 for 4Runner vehicles (none 

involving the subject fourth-generation 

4Runner vehicles). By the end of 2010, 

NHTSA had received 716 complaints for 

the Dana frame vehicles and just 36 for 

4Runner vehicles (only 5 involving the 

subject fourth-generation vehicles). 

Figure 1 shows the vehicle age 

distributions of frame corrosion 

complaints to NHTSA for Toyota 

4Runner vehicles, Toyota Dana frame 

vehicles, and peer body-on-frame 

vehicles. The chart on the left shows the 

distributions for MY 1996 through 2002 

vehicles (i.e., third-generation 4Runner 

compared with peers) and the chart on 

the right shows the distributions for MY 

2003 through 2009 vehicles (i.e., fourthgeneration 4Runner compared with 

peers). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN24MR22.063</GPH>

Probability Distributions of Vehicle Ages 

In Frame Corrosion Complaints to NHTSA, MV 1996-2002 

1=+----------------1 1~ 

J1°" ,. 

!!! 5% +--------/---.l.'-------;1"'---"---"I,;:---"-,---------1 

I 0123456789WllUllWBMD~wwnnnu 

Vehide Age (Years) 

1-Peer Body-on-Frame --II-Toyota Dana Frame -+-Toyota Genl 4Runner 

1: 

115" 

Probability Distributions of Vehicle Ages 

In Frame Corrosion Complaints to NHTSA, MV 2003-2009 

110%+---------111""'-

,. j 5" 

°" L_ ..,.,-~l::;::!l~;.,,,.. .... :;::!::;:.:_~~~~~~~~ ...it-1 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 roll ll llM B ~D ll ~ 

Vehicle Age (Years) 

....,..Peer Body-on-Frame ~ Toyota Dana Frame -+-Toyota Gen4 4Runner 

Figure 1. Probability distributions of vehicle ages in frame corrosion complaints to NHTSA for 

MY 1996-2002 vehicles (left) and MY 2003-2009 vehicles (right). 
16826 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Notices 

In both age groups, the complaint age 

distributions for the Toyota 4Runner 

vehicles lag the distributions of the 

Toyota Dana frame and peer body-onframe vehicles by several years. The 

complaints peak at 15 years-in-service 

for the third-generation Toyota 4Runner 

vehicles, 6 years after the peak for the 

Dana frame vehicles and 4 years after 

the peak for the peer body-on-frame 

vehicles. The complaints also peak at 15 

years-in-service for the fourthgeneration Toyota 4Runner vehicles, 6 

years after the peak for the Toyota Dana 

frame vehicles and 5 years after the peak 

for the peer body-on-frame vehicles. 

Figure 2 shows the cumulative age 

distributions of frame corrosion 

complaints to NHTSA for the same 

vehicle sets. The 4Runner complaints 

occur later in the vehicle age than the 

Toyota Dana frame and peer body-onframe complaints. Only about 3 percent 

of the complaints for the thirdgeneration 4Runner vehicles occurred 

within 10 years-in-service, compared 

with 43 percent of the Toyota Dana 

frame vehicle complaints and 21 

percent of the peer body-on-frame 

vehicle complaints for the same model 

year range. For the MY 2003 through 

2009 vehicles, approximately 6 percent 

of complaints for the Toyota 4Runners 

occurred within 10 years, compared 

with 45 percent for the Toyota Dana 

frame vehicles and 47 percent for the 

peer body-on-frame vehicles. 

ODI’s analysis of consumer 

complaints received by NHTSA through 

March 7, 2022, identified a total of 1,024 

records that appear to be related to 

frame corrosion in fourth-generation 

Toyota 4Runner vehicles, including 70 

involving alleged detachments of front 

or rear suspension links. Both the 

overall complaints and those reporting 

suspension link detachments primarily 

involve older vehicles in high-corrosion 

states. No patterns or trends were 

identified for any specific suspension 

link. The radiator support bracket was 

the most common location for frame 

perforation damage in reports that 

included sufficient information to assess 

damage location. This part can be 

serviced separately and does not present 

any crash avoidance or crashworthiness 

safety concerns. The complaints 

describe general underbody corrosion 

damage indicative of normal, end-of-life 

wear-out failures from long duration 

exposures to severe, corrosive 

environments. 

Table 1 provides a breakdown of the 

complaints reporting suspension 

detachments by the suspension 

component. The detachment failures 

include two minor crashes and no 

verified injury allegations. 

TABLE 1—DETACHMENTS WHILE DRIVING BY SUSPENSION LINK

Count Average age 

(yrs) 

Alleged 

crashes 

Alleged 

injuries 

Lower Control Arm, Front ................................................................................ 15 13.1 2 0 

Lower Control Arm, Rear ................................................................................. 38 14.1 0 0 

Upper Control Arm, Rear ................................................................................. 6 13.3 0 0 

Lateral Control Rod, Rear ............................................................................... 2 10.5 0 0 

Sway Bar, Rear ............................................................................................... 2 13.5 0 0 

Unknown .......................................................................................................... 7 16.3 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 70 14.1 2 0 

ODI’s analysis of NHTSA complaint 

data finds similar age-adjusted trends in 

the field experience of the third and 

fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles. The 

third-generation 4Runner vehicles have 

more than double the allegations of 

suspension link detachments than the 

fourth-generation 4Runners. The 

difference appears to be attributable to 

the greater exposure time of the thirdgeneration vehicles. Analysis of 

suspension link failures by vehicle age 

showed similar rates for the third- and 

fourth-generation products through 15 

years of service. In both generations, the 

failures are concentrated in states with 

the greatest use of deicing salts to treat 

road surfaces in winter months. 96 

percent of the failures involved vehicles 

owned or previously registered in states 

with the greatest use of deicing salts to 

treat road surfaces in winter months 

(‘‘Salt states’’). 

Complaints for both generations of 

4Runners appear to have been 

influenced by news about Toyota’s field 

actions for the Sequoia, Tacoma and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN24MR22.064</GPH>

Cumulative Probability Distributions of Vehicle Ages Cumulative ProbabUity Distributions of Vehicle Ages 

In Frame Corrosion Complaints to NHTSA, MY 1996-2002 In Frame Corrosion COmplalnts to NHTSA, MY 2003-2009 

lllll'K lllll'K 

f- t-!-

I I: 

J 

'!! 

1i! 

~ 

t 

-

- J - 20K '!! -

I 20K 

10K 

°" 01234S6789rouuuunauuu~nnnN °" 0 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 s 9 rou u au n au u u 

VehideAp (Years) Vehicle/Ip (Years) 

,....,_ BodV'<!n-frome .,._,_ BodV'<)n-Frame ..... rovma Dana Frame -+-Tovota Gen4 4Runner 

Figure 2. Cumulative probability distributions of vehicle ages in frame corrosion complaints to 

NHTSA for MY 1996-2002 vehicles (left) and MY 2003-2009 vehicles (right). 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2022 / Notices 16827 

Tundra vehicles equipped with frames 

supplied by Dana. Toyota’s field actions 

were referenced in 203 of the fourthgeneration 4Runner complaints. 

Furthermore, 699 or two thirds (68 

percent) of the fourth-generation 

4Runner complaints were received after 

news of NHTSA opening this defect 

petition evaluation on August 7, 2018. 

Conclusion: After reviewing the 

available data, ODI has not identified 

evidence of a defect trend for premature 

corrosion-related failure of frame 

structural components in the vehicles 

that the petitioner has identified. 

Contrary to the petitioner’s primary 

allegation, the vehicles are not equipped 

with frames manufactured by the same 

supplier as Toyota products that have 

been included in previous field actions 

by the company addressing frame 

corrosion concerns. The frames in those 

vehicles exhibited failure trends before 

reaching 10 years in service, several 

years prior to the current trends evident 

in the subject 4Runner vehicles. 

Analysis of the age distributions of 

corrosion-related suspension link 

failures in the subject 4Runner vehicles 

shows late-life patterns after well over 

10 years of exposure to severe corrosion 

environments. Incidents of corrosion 

damage that have resulted in failure of 

underbody components while driving 

appear to have developed progressively 

over many years with ample 

opportunity for detection and repair. 

This appears to be indicative of normal 

wear and tear failures, and we have not 

found evidence of a defect related to 

premature or excessive corrosion 

failures. 

ODI has not identified any serious 

crashes or injuries associated with 

corrosion-related failure of frame 

structural components while driving in 

a population of vehicles that currently 

ranges from 15 to 19 years old. 

Accordingly, the Agency is denying the 

petition. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Anne L. Collins, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06217 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Community Volunteer Income Tax 

Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant 

Program—Availability of Application 

for Federal Financial Assistance 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notice of the availability of the 

application package for the 2023 

Community Volunteer Income Tax 

Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant 

Program. 

DATES: Application instructions are 

available electronically from the IRS on 

May 1, 2022, by visiting: IRS.gov (key 

word search—‘‘VITA Grant’’). 

Application packages are available on 

May 1, 2022, by visiting Grants.gov and 

searching with the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 

21.009. The deadline for applying to the 

IRS through Grants.gov for the 

Community VITA Matching Grant 

Program is May 31, 2022. All 

applications must be submitted through 

Grants.gov. 

ADDRESSES: Internal Revenue Service, 

Grant Program Office, 401 West 

Peachtree St. NW, Stop 420–D, Atlanta, 

GA 30308. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Alley, at 470–639–2933, or at 

the Grant Program Office via their email 

address at Grant.Program.Office@

irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority 

for the Community Volunteer Income 

Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant 

Program is contained in the Taxpayer 

First Act 2019, Public Law 116–25. 

Carol M Quiller, 

Chief, Grant Program Office, IRS, Stakeholder 

Partnerships, Education & Communication. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05721 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) 

Program Availability of Application 

Packages 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notice of the availability of application 

packages for the 2023 Tax Counseling 

for the Elderly (TCE) Program. 

DATES: Application instructions are 

available electronically from the IRS on 

May 1, 2022, by visiting: IRS.gov (key 

word search—‘‘TCE’’) or through 

Grants.gov by searching the Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 

Number 21.006. The deadline for 

applying to the IRS for the Tax 

Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) 

Program is May 31, 2022. All 

applications must be submitted through 

Grants.gov. 

ADDRESSES: Internal Revenue Service, 

Grant Program Office, 5000 Ellin Road, 

NCFB C4–110, 

SE:W:CAR:SPEC:FO:GPO, Lanham, 

Maryland 20706. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lorraine Thompson, at (240)613–6085, 

or at the Grant Program Office via their 

email address at tce.grant.office@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority 

for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly 

(TCE) Program is contained in Section 

163 of the Revenue Act of 1978, Public 

Law 95–600, (92 Stat.12810), November 

6, 1978. Regulations were published in 

the Federal Register at 44 FR 72113 on 

December 13, 1979. Section 163 gives 

the IRS authority to enter into 

cooperative agreements with private or 

public non-profit agencies or 

organizations to establish a network of 

trained volunteers to provide free tax 

information and return preparation 

assistance to elderly individuals. 

Elderly individuals are defined as 

individuals aged 60 and over at the 

close of their taxable year. Because 

applications are being solicited before 

the fiscal year budget has been 

approved, cooperative agreements will 

be entered into subject to the 

appropriation of funds. 

Carol M Quiller, 

Chief, Grant Program Office, IRS, Stakeholder 

Partnerships, Education & Communication. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05720 Filed 3–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–0016] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activity: Claim for Disability Insurance 

Benefits, Government Life Insurance 

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES