80 FR 51650 - Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 164 (August 25, 2015)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 164 (August 25, 2015)
| Page Range | 51650-51654 | |
| FR Document | 2015-20949 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 51650-51654] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-20949] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of a petition for a defect investigation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for denying a petition submitted to NHTSA, 49 U.S.C. 30162, 49 CFR part 552, requesting that the agency open ``an investigation into low-speed surging in different models of Toyota automobiles in which the car starts accelerating and the engine RPM increases even when the accelerator pedal is not depressed.'' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen McHenry, Vehicle Control Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-4883. Email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1.0 Introduction Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the agency initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.1. Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the agency conducts a technical review of the petition, material submitted with the petition, and any additional information. 49 U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 CFR 552.6. The technical review may consist solely of a review of information already in the possession of the agency, or it may include the collection of information from the motor vehicle manufacturer and/or other sources. After considering the technical review and taking into account appropriate factors, which may include, among others, allocation of agency resources, agency priorities, the likelihood of uncovering sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a defect, and the likelihood of success in any necessary enforcement litigation, the agency will grant or deny the petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); 49 CFR 552.8. 2.0 Petition Background Information In a letter dated June 19, 2015, Dr. Gopal Raghavan (the petitioner) requested that NHTSA open ``an investigation into low-speed surging in different models of Toyota automobiles in which the car starts accelerating and the engine RPM increases even when the accelerator pedal is not depressed.'' Dr. Raghavan based his request on his analysis of EDR data from an accident involving his wife and from two other accidents in Toyota vehicles. NHTSA has reviewed the material cited by the petitioner. The results of this review and our evaluation of the petition are set forth in the DP15-005 Petition Analysis Report, published in its entirety as an appendix to this notice. After a thorough assessment of the material submitted by the petitioner, the information already in NHTSA's possession, and the potential risks to safety implicated by the petitioner's allegations, it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect would result from any proceeding initiated by the granting of Dr. Raghavan's petition. After full consideration of the potential for finding a safety related defect in the vehicle, and in view of NHTSA's enforcement priorities, its previous investigations into this issue, and the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's mission, the petition is denied. [[Page 51651]] Appendix--Petition Analysis--DP15-005 1.0 Introduction On June 29, 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received a June 19, 2015 letter from Dr. Gopal Raghavan, Ph.D. EE (the petitioner), petitioning the agency ``for an investigation into low-speed surging in different models of Toyota automobiles in which the car starts accelerating and the engine RPM increases even when the accelerator pedal is not depressed.'' In support of this request, the petitioner provides his analysis of Event Data Recorder (EDR) data from three accidents, which he alleges, ``shows a troubling similarity amongst EDRs of Toyota cars showing sudden acceleration.'' 2.0 Petition Analysis 2.1 EDR Pre-Crash Data Since the petition is based on several misconceptions about Toyota EDR pre-crash data, a short background of this system is provided. The Toyota EDR collects pre-trigger data (vehicle speed, engine speed, brake switch status, and accelerator pedal position sensor #1 voltage) from the vehicle's High Speed Controller Area Network (HS-CAN), which is refreshed either periodically or immediately by the respective control modules. Table 1--EDR Pre-Crash Parameters, by Refresh Rate 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parameter Refresh rate Resolution ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brake Switch.................... Immediately....... On/Off. Engine RPM...................... 24 ms............. 400 RPM.1 Vehicle Speed................... 500 ms............ 2 km/h.2 Accelerator Rate................ 512 ms............ 0.039 volts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ EDR recorded data are rounded down in the indicated resolution increments. \2\ These values apply to ES350 and Camry vehicles involved in two of the incidents identified by the petitioner. The third vehicle, a 2010 Toyota Corolla, has a slower refresh rate for Engine RPM (524 ms). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EDR continuously performs 1 Hz sampling of HS-CAN pre- trigger data and stores the data in a temporary buffer. The EDR only saves this data, along with the trigger data, when it detects a triggering event such as a crash.\3\ Table 1 shows the refresh rates and resolutions for the pre-crash data signals. Any analysis of EDR data for Toyota vehicles should apply these data time tolerances and resolutions at each of the pre-crash data points. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ An event is triggered by detection of a deceleration of approximately 2 g's. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2010, NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) conducted testing to validate the EDR pre-crash data used in NHTSA field investigations.\4\ Figure 1 shows accelerator pedal sensor voltage data from one test performed by VRTC in the validation testing.\5\ As the figure shows, the EDR does not necessarily capture all accelerator pedal applications during an event and the accelerator pedal voltage recorded at each EDR time interval may not be the actual accelerator pedal voltage at that interval. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ ``Event Data Recorder--Pre Crash Data Validation of Toyota Products,'' NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC-SR07, February 2011. \5\ ``Event Data Recorder--Pre Crash Data Validation of Toyota Products,'' NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC-SR07, February 2011, page 13. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25AU15.003 Subsequent studies have confirmed the limitations of stored EDR pre-crash data in capturing the entire crash event due to the data refresh rates, data resolutions and EDR sampling rates.6 7 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Brown, R., White, S., ``Evaluation of Camry HS-CAN Pre-Crash Data,'' SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-0996, 2012, doi: 10.4271/2012- 01-0996. \7\ Brown, R., Lewis, L., Hare, B., Jakstis, M. et al., ``Confirmation of Toyota EDR Pre-crash Data,'' SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-0998, 2012, doi: 10.4271/2012-01-0998. \8\ Ruth, R., Bartlett, W., Daily, J., ``Accuracy of Event Data in the 2010 and 2011 Toyota Camry During Steady State and Braking Conditions,'' SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-0999, 2012, doi: 10.4271/ 2012-01-0999. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Bosch CDR report provided with the petition clearly notes these issues in the first two items of Data Limitations section on page one of the report:Due to limitations of the data recorded by the airbag ECU, such as the resolution, data range, sampling interval, time period of the recording, and the items recorded, the information provided by this data may not be sufficient to capture the entire crash. Pre-Crash data is recorded in discrete intervals. Due to different refresh rates within the vehicle's electronics, the data recorded may not be synchronous to each other. 2.2 Crashes Cited by Petitioner 2.2.1 2009 Lexus ES350 The first incident identified by the petitioner involved a sudden acceleration accident experienced by his wife as she [[Page 51652]] attempted to park the family's 2009 Lexus ES350 on Friday, February 13, 2015 (VOQ 10732103). When interviewed by ODI, Mrs. Raghavan stated that the engine roared as she was coasting into a parking space. She stated that the surge occurred before she applied the brake and that when she applied the brake there was no response or braking action. The vehicle accelerated up onto a sidewalk and into some bushes and a fence. On February 24, 2015, a Toyota representative inspected the vehicle, including a download of EDR data (Table 2). Table 2--Pre-Crash Data for VOQ 10732103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time (sec) -4.6 -3.6 -2.6 -1.6 -0.6 0 (TRG) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vehicle Speed (MPH [km/h])...... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 5 [8]............. 8.7 [14]. Brake Switch.................... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... ON. Accelerator Rate (V)............ 0.78.............. 0.78.............. 0.78.............. 0.78.............. 2.38.............. 0.78. Engine RPM (RPM)................ 400............... 400............... 400............... 800............... 1,600............. 1,600. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the EDR data, immediately prior to impact (t = 0.6 s) the brake pedal was not applied and the accelerator pedal was depressed to approximately 71 percent of full apply.\9\ Based on the recorded vehicle speeds at this time, the vehicle was inside the parking space when the acceleration occurred. At this time and distance from impact, the driver should be applying the brake and not the accelerator to safely stop the vehicle and avoid the collision. Although the driver alleged that the brakes were not effective during the incident, the brakes had no prior history of malfunction and the post-incident inspection did not identify any issues with the brake system. Based on the available information, this incident is consistent with pedal misapplication by the driver and provides no evidence of a vehicle defect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ According to Toyota, an Accelerator Rate of 2.38 volts indicates an accelerator pedal application of 71 percent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.2.2 2010 Toyota Corolla The second incident identified by the petitioner involved a MY 2010 Toyota Corolla that accelerated into a parked vehicle during an attempted curbside-parking maneuver in a residential neighborhood on June 8, 2014 (VOQ 10637908). NHTSA examined this incident in Defect Petition DP14-003, which the agency closed on April 29, 2015.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ McHenry, S., ``Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,'' DP14-003, May 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the police report for this accident, the driver states that she stopped at an intersection with the intention of turning right and parking along the curb behind a parked vehicle. When interviewed by ODI, the driver indicated that as she applied the brakes during the incident, the car responded by accelerating. She stated that it did not slow down, and it continued to increase in speed until it hit the back of the parked vehicle. Similar to the current petitioner's incident, the EDR data for this incident (Table 3) shows no recorded service brake application until the airbag module trigger point (t = 0s). Table 3--Pre-Crash Data for VOQ 10637908 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time (sec) -4.8 -3.8 -2.8 -1.8 -0.8 0 (TRG) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vehicle Speed (MPH [km/h])...... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 5 [8]............. 7.5 [12]. Brake Switch.................... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... ON. Accelerator Rate (V)............ 0.78.............. 0.78.............. 0.86.............. 0.78.............. 0.78.............. 0.78. Engine RPM (RPM)................ 800............... 800............... 800............... 800............... 800............... 1,600. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the vehicle speeds recorded just prior to impact (t = - 0.8 s), the Corolla was less than a car length from the parked vehicle and traveling 7 to 9 feet per second with no indication of service brake application. At this speed and distance, the driver should be applying the brake to safely stop the vehicle and avoid the collision. Although the recorded accelerator rate voltages do not show a pedal application corresponding with the surge,\11\ VRTC simulation testing verified that unrecorded accelerator pedal applications could produce the increases in vehicle speed and engine speed shown by the EDR in the trigger data.\12\ In addition, VRTC accumulated over two thousand miles of testing of this vehicle during DP14-003 with no problems noted in the throttle, transmission or brake systems.\13\ As previously determined by NHTSA, this incident does not provide evidence of a vehicle defect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ The data do show a small accelerator pedal application 2.8 seconds prior to the impact. \12\ Collins, W., Stoltzfus, D., ``Evaluation of 2010 Toyota Corolla from DP14-003,'' DP14-003WDC, April 2015, pages 11-13. \13\ Collins, W., Stoltzfus, D., ``Evaluation of 2010 Toyota Corolla from DP14-003,'' DP14-003WDC, April 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.2.3 2009 Toyota Camry The third incident identified by the petitioner involved a MY 2009 Toyota Camry that accelerated into a building when attempting to park in a storefront facing parking space on December 21, 2009 (VOQ 10299750). This incident was among 58 accidents investigated by NHTSA in 2010 as part of the joint study with NASA. A description of the incident, identified as Case 33 in the NHTSA study, was included as an example of the 39 accidents classified as pedal misapplications in a 2011 report summarizing NHTSA's field investigations.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ ``NHTSA Toyota Pre-Crash EDR Field Inspections during March-August 2010,'' NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC-SR10, February, 2011, pages 15-16. Table 4--Pre-Crash Data for VOQ 10299750, EDR Tool Version 1.4.1.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time (sec) -4.7 -3.7 -2.7 -1.7 -0.7 0 (TRG) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vehicle Speed (MPH [km/h])...... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 9.9 [16].......... 13.7 [22]......... 19.9 [32] Brake Switch.................... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF Accelerator Rate (V)............ 0.86.............. 0.82.............. 0.98.............. 0.78.............. 3.71.............. 1.37 Engine RPM (RPM)................ 400............... 400............... 800............... 1,600............. 3,200............. 4,400 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 51653]] As described in the 2011 report, the driver had turned from a lane of traffic to enter a parking space and was about to come to a rest facing a shopping plaza storefront when the vehicle lunged forward through the fa[ccedil]ade of a hair salon. The driver reported having his foot on the brake when the acceleration occurred. Table 4 shows the EDR pre-crash data for this accident, as published in the 2011 report.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ The petitioner based his analysis of this incident on a different EDR readout reviewed later in this report, in Section 2.3.3, ``Case 33.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EDR data for this incident shows no recorded service brake application during the event. Immediately prior to impact and after the vehicle had entered the parking space, the driver pressed the accelerator pedal to the floor when intending to apply the brake.\16\ As noted in the 2011 report, this incident is consistent with pedal misapplication by the driver and does not provide any evidence of a vehicle defect as suggested by the petitioner. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ The recorded Accelerator Rate of 3.71 volts is well beyond the accelerator rate needed for 100 percent throttle. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.3 Petitioner Claims and Misconceptions 2.3.1 ``Strong Signature'' According to the petitioner, ``The fact that all three cars were coasting at 3.7 mph when the sudden-acceleration happened appears to be a strong signature of a common issue.'' However, even though the EDR data for the three incidents may have reflected speeds of 3.7 mph before the acceleration occurred, the vehicles may not have actually been travelling the same speed. The common speeds recorded in the three vehicles are simply an artifact of the EDR vehicle speed resolution of 2 km/h. In all three incidents, the vehicles were travelling 6.0-7.9 km/h (3.7-4.9 mph) prior to the accelerations, which the Toyota EDR records as 6 km/h (3.7 mph). These are common speeds for low-speed parking maneuvers. The ``glitch'' in accelerator pedal voltage that the petitioner alleges occurs after the 3.7 mph speed recording, is the voltage increase resulting from the accelerator pedal applications by the drivers. The petitioner claims that the voltage spike suggests a potential vehicle based cause, speculating, ``the accelerator is either calculating an incorrect accelerator value or receiving a noise spike on the accelerator sensor.'' However, such speculation ignores the facts that the accelerator pedal has redundant sensors and that NASA already thoroughly examined this subject during the joint study. The common pattern is that the ``glitches'' occur at the moments in the events when the driver should be initiating braking, but no braking has occurred. Thus, the only common signature evident in the incidents is that in all three the surges occurred when the driver should have initiated braking for a vehicle entering a parking space at low speed. The fact that the vehicles suddenly accelerated just as they were beginning to enter their intended parking spaces instead of braking to a stop as intended is a signature of pedal misapplication by the driver. NHTSA has observed this signature in investigations of sudden acceleration dating back to the first such investigation that ODI opened in 1978. It is not isolated to any particular makes or models of vehicles or to any throttle design technologies. 2.3.2 Engine RPM Increases The petitioner claims that each of the incidents he analyzed displays evidence of engine speed increases without any application of the accelerator pedal. For example, in his analysis of his wife's incident he states, ``by -1.6 seconds the engine RPM has DOUBLED to 800 with no depression of the accelerator.'' This assertion reflects a misunderstanding of the manner in which the Toyota EDR samples and records pre-crash data as previously described in this report and in prior reports published by NHTSA. First, as indicated in this report and in the Data Definitions section on page two of the Bosch CDR report attached to the petition, the Toyota EDR records engine speed in 400 rpm increments (rounded down). For example, a recorded value of 400 rpm indicates that the measured engine speed was between 400 and 799 rpm. Thus, an increase in recorded engine speed from 400 to 800 rpm could result from a change in engine speed of just 1 rpm. Second, the nominal idle speed for a MY 2009 ES350 when the engine is warm, the transmission is in gear (i.e., either Drive or Reverse), and no accessory loads are operating is approximately 600 rpm. Air-conditioning use and steering input may result in the idle speed increasing to 700 to 800 rpm to compensate for the additional loads placed on the engine by the air-conditioning compressor and power-steering pump. Thus, the actual engine speeds associated with the recorded values of 400 rpm were likely closer to 800 rpm than 400 rpm.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ Engine speeds that drop below 500 rpm are uncommon in motor vehicles and have been associated with engine stall due to idle undershoot in some ODI investigations of non-Toyota products. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, it is not accurate to state that engine speed increases did not result from accelerator pedal applications based strictly on the recorded EDR data, since the data do not necessarily show all accelerator pedal applications (see section 2.1 and Figure 1) and because of the differences in refresh rates for engine speed and accelerator rate. Although actual engine speed will closely follow accelerator rate, the recorded accelerator rate may slightly lag behind recorded engine speed due to the slower refresh rate of the accelerator signal (see Table 1). Thus, the increase in recorded engine speed at -1.6 seconds prior to impact could very well have resulted from the initial stages of the large pedal application that the EDR recorded at -0.6 seconds. 2.3.3 Case 33 The EDR data used by the petitioner for Case 33 was from the initial readout ODI performed with the original version of software available from Toyota (Table 5). This version converted accelerator pedal sensor #1 voltages to an accelerator status of OFF, MIDDLE or FULL. A supplemental report to the NHTSA February 2011 report included a copy of this readout.\18\ This incident is one of many incidents from early field investigations that ODI read a second time after receiving an updated version of Toyota software that provided a more precise indication of accelerator pedal position.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ ``Toyota EDR Data from NHTSA Pre-Crash Field Inspections,'' NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC-SR12, February 2011. \19\ ``Toyota EDR Software Versions Used in NHTSA Unintended Acceleration Field Investigation Cases,'' NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC-SR08, February 2011, page 8. Table 5--Pre-Crash Data for VOQ 10299750, EDR Tool Version 1.3 (Original Readout) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time (sec) -4.7 -3.7 -2.7 -1.7 -0.7 0 (TRG) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vehicle Speed (MPH [km/h])...... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 3.7 [6]........... 9.9 [16].......... 13.7 [22]......... 19.9 [32] Brake Switch.................... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF Accelerator..................... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... OFF............... FULL.............. OFF Engine RPM (RPM)................ 400............... 400............... 800............... 1,600............. 3,200............. 4,400 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 4 shows the data from the readout obtained using the updated software. Rather than maintaining a consistent voltage as may be misinterpreted by the OFF accelerator levels shown in Table 5, the accelerator pedal rates in the updated readout in Table 4 show that the driver was applying the accelerator pedal at varying rates throughout the event. Thus, the petitioner's conclusions that the vehicle was coasting and the driver had not depressed the accelerator pedal when the idle speed was increasing are incorrect and do not provide evidence of a vehicle defect. 2.3.4 NASA ``High-Speed Study'' The petitioner incorrectly characterizes the joint NASA-NHTSA study as a ``high-speed study.'' In fact, the joint study focused on all potential vulnerabilities in the Toyota ETCS-i system that were not associated with the [[Page 51654]] floor mat entrapment or sticking accelerator pedal conditions addressed by multiple Toyota safety recalls in 2009 and 2010.\20\ Most such incidents examined during the study involved allegations of sudden acceleration in vehicles initially moving at low speeds. The most common scenario for the incidents was acceleration when attempting to park. Thus, contrary to the petitioner's characterization, low-speed surges were the primary focus of the study by NHTSA and NASA in 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ The floor mat entrapment and sticking pedal defect conditions were both ``stuck throttle'' type defect conditions, which typically occur at higher speeds when larger accelerator pedal applications necessary to cause the entrapment are more likely. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The incidents analyzed by the petitioner fall within the scope of prior work conducted in the joint NHTSA-NASA study of Toyota ETCS-i and, more recently, the analysis conducted in evaluating Defect Petition DP14-003. His claims appear to be based on upon several misconceptions regarding the manner in which Toyota EDR sample and record data, as well as a misunderstanding of the scope of and results from prior work conducted by NHTSA, NASA and others related to sudden unintended acceleration and the use of EDR data in related field investigations. The petitioner has presented no new evidence or theories not already considered by NHTSA that warrant reconsideration of any of the analyses or conclusions from that prior work. 3.0 Conclusion In our view, a defects investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists, or a NHTSA order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect as alleged by the petitioner, at the conclusion of the requested investigation. Therefore, given a thorough analysis of the potential for finding a safety related defect in the vehicle, and in view of NHTSA's enforcement priorities, its previous investigations into this issue, and the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission and mitigate risk, the petition is denied. This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Frank S. Borris II, Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2015-20949 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![51650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices
the search field at http:// the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) defect that relates to motor vehicle
www.regulations.gov. of the United States. safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR
Based on information and 552.1. Upon receipt of a properly filed
William D. Jackson,
commitments provided by Curaçao to petition, the agency conducts a
Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative date, I have determined that Curaçao
for the Generalized System of Preferences, technical review of the petition,
satisfies the requirements of section material submitted with the petition,
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
213(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the CBERA relating to and any additional information. 49
[FR Doc. 2015–21067 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am]
the implementation of procedures and U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 CFR 552.6. The
BILLING CODE 3290–F5–P
requirements similar in all material technical review may consist solely of a
respects to those in Chapter 5 of the review of information already in the
NAFTA. Accordingly, pursuant to the
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES possession of the agency, or it may
authority vested in the USTR by
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE include the collection of information
Proclamation 9072, the HTS is modified
from the motor vehicle manufacturer
Determination Under the Caribbean by (i) modifying general note 17(a) to
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the and/or other sources. After considering
Basin Trade Partnership Act the technical review and taking into
United States by adding in alphabetical
AGENCY: Office of the United States sequence ‘‘Curaçao,’’ and (ii) modifying account appropriate factors, which may
Trade Representative. U.S. note 1 to subchapter XX of chapter include, among others, allocation of
ACTION: Notice. 98 by inserting in alphabetical sequence agency resources, agency priorities, the
‘‘Curaçao,’’, effective with respect to likelihood of uncovering sufficient
SUMMARY: The United States Trade articles entered, or withdrawn from evidence to establish the existence of a
Representative has determined that warehouse, on the date of this notice. defect, and the likelihood of success in
Curaçao meets certain customs criteria any necessary enforcement litigation,
of the Caribbean Basin Trade Michael B.G. Froman,
the agency will grant or deny the
Partnership Act and, therefore, imports United States Trade Representative. petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); 49 CFR
of eligible products from Curaçao [FR Doc. 2015–20921 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am] 552.8.
qualify for the enhanced trade benefits BILLING CODE 3290–F5–P
provided under the Act. 2.0 Petition Background Information
DATES: Effective date: August 18, 2015.
In a letter dated June 19, 2015, Dr.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Gopal Raghavan (the petitioner)
Mary Estelle Ryckman, Senior Advisor, requested that NHTSA open ‘‘an
Office of the United States Trade National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration investigation into low-speed surging in
Representative, (202) 395–9585. different models of Toyota automobiles
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition in which the car starts accelerating and
Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act the engine RPM increases even when
(Title II of the Trade and Development AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, (NHTSA), the accelerator pedal is not depressed.’’
Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106–200) (CBTPA) Dr. Raghavan based his request on his
expands the trade benefits available to Department of Transportation.
analysis of EDR data from an accident
Caribbean and Central American ACTION: Denial of a petition for a defect
involving his wife and from two other
beneficiary countries under the investigation.
accidents in Toyota vehicles. NHTSA
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the has reviewed the material cited by the
(CBERA). The enhanced trade benefits
provided by the CBTPA are available to reasons for denying a petition submitted petitioner. The results of this review
imports of eligible products from to NHTSA, 49 U.S.C. 30162, 49 CFR part and our evaluation of the petition are set
countries that (1) the President 552, requesting that the agency open forth in the DP15–005 Petition Analysis
designates as CBTPA beneficiary ‘‘an investigation into low-speed surging Report, published in its entirety as an
countries, and (2) meet the requirements in different models of Toyota appendix to this notice.
of the CBERA relating to automobiles in which the car starts
After a thorough assessment of the
implementation of customs procedures accelerating and the engine RPM
material submitted by the petitioner, the
and requirements similar to those in increases even when the accelerator
information already in NHTSA’s
Chapter 5 of the North American Free pedal is not depressed.’’
possession, and the potential risks to
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that assist FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
safety implicated by the petitioner’s
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Stephen McHenry, Vehicle Control
allegations, it is unlikely that an order
(CBP) in verifying the origin of the Division, Office of Defects Investigation,
concerning the notification and remedy
products. NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– of a safety-related defect would result
In Proclamation 9072 of December 23, from any proceeding initiated by the
2013, the President designated Curaçao 366–4883. Email stephen.mchenry@
dot.gov. granting of Dr. Raghavan’s petition.
as a CBERA and a CBTPA beneficiary
After full consideration of the potential
country. In that proclamation, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
for finding a safety related defect in the
President also delegated to the United
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
States Trade Representative (USTR) the 1.0 Introduction vehicle, and in view of NHTSA’s
authority to determine whether Curaçao Interested persons may petition enforcement priorities, its previous
is meeting the customs criteria of the NHTSA requesting that the agency investigations into this issue, and the
CBERA. The President directed the initiate an investigation to determine need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s
USTR to announce any such whether a motor vehicle or item of limited resources to best accomplish the
determinations in the Federal Register replacement equipment does not agency’s mission, the petition is denied.
and to implement any such comply with an applicable motor
determinations through modifications to vehicle safety standard or contains a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Aug 24, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51814/page/1.svg)
![51652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices
attempted to park the family’s 2009 Lexus that the surge occurred before she applied the 24, 2015, a Toyota representative inspected
ES350 on Friday, February 13, 2015 (VOQ brake and that when she applied the brake the vehicle, including a download of EDR
10732103). When interviewed by ODI, Mrs. there was no response or braking action. The data (Table 2).
Raghavan stated that the engine roared as she vehicle accelerated up onto a sidewalk and
was coasting into a parking space. She stated into some bushes and a fence. On February
TABLE 2—PRE-CRASH DATA FOR VOQ 10732103
Time (sec) ¥4.6 ¥3.6 ¥2.6 ¥1.6 ¥0.6 0 (TRG)
Vehicle Speed (MPH [km/h]) ....... 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 5 [8] ................. 8.7 [14].
Brake Switch ............................... OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. ON.
Accelerator Rate (V) .................... 0.78 .................. 0.78 .................. 0.78 .................. 0.78 .................. 2.38 .................. 0.78.
Engine RPM (RPM) ..................... 400 ................... 400 ................... 400 ................... 800 ................... 1,600 ................ 1,600.
According to the EDR data, immediately available information, this incident is In the police report for this accident, the
prior to impact (t = 0.6 s) the brake pedal was consistent with pedal misapplication by the driver states that she stopped at an
not applied and the accelerator pedal was driver and provides no evidence of a vehicle intersection with the intention of turning
depressed to approximately 71 percent of full defect. right and parking along the curb behind a
apply.9 Based on the recorded vehicle speeds parked vehicle. When interviewed by ODI,
at this time, the vehicle was inside the the driver indicated that as she applied the
parking space when the acceleration 2.2.2 2010 Toyota Corolla brakes during the incident, the car responded
occurred. At this time and distance from The second incident identified by the by accelerating. She stated that it did not
impact, the driver should be applying the petitioner involved a MY 2010 Toyota slow down, and it continued to increase in
brake and not the accelerator to safely stop Corolla that accelerated into a parked vehicle speed until it hit the back of the parked
the vehicle and avoid the collision. Although during an attempted curbside-parking vehicle. Similar to the current petitioner’s
the driver alleged that the brakes were not maneuver in a residential neighborhood on
effective during the incident, the brakes had incident, the EDR data for this incident
June 8, 2014 (VOQ 10637908). NHTSA
no prior history of malfunction and the post- examined this incident in Defect Petition (Table 3) shows no recorded service brake
incident inspection did not identify any DP14–003, which the agency closed on April application until the airbag module trigger
issues with the brake system. Based on the 29, 2015.10 point (t = 0s).
TABLE 3—PRE-CRASH DATA FOR VOQ 10637908
Time (sec) ¥4.8 ¥3.8 ¥2.8 ¥1.8 ¥0.8 0 (TRG)
Vehicle Speed (MPH [km/h]) ....... 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 5 [8] ................. 7.5 [12].
Brake Switch ............................... OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. ON.
Accelerator Rate (V) .................... 0.78 .................. 0.78 .................. 0.86 .................. 0.78 .................. 0.78 .................. 0.78.
Engine RPM (RPM) ..................... 800 ................... 800 ................... 800 ................... 800 ................... 800 ................... 1,600.
Based on the vehicle speeds recorded just EDR in the trigger data.12 In addition, VRTC that accelerated into a building when
prior to impact (t = ¥0.8 s), the Corolla was accumulated over two thousand miles of attempting to park in a storefront facing
less than a car length from the parked vehicle testing of this vehicle during DP14–003 with parking space on December 21, 2009 (VOQ
and traveling 7 to 9 feet per second with no no problems noted in the throttle, 10299750). This incident was among 58
indication of service brake application. At transmission or brake systems.13 As accidents investigated by NHTSA in 2010 as
this speed and distance, the driver should be previously determined by NHTSA, this
applying the brake to safely stop the vehicle part of the joint study with NASA. A
incident does not provide evidence of a description of the incident, identified as Case
and avoid the collision. Although the vehicle defect.
recorded accelerator rate voltages do not 33 in the NHTSA study, was included as an
show a pedal application corresponding with example of the 39 accidents classified as
the surge,11 VRTC simulation testing verified pedal misapplications in a 2011 report
that unrecorded accelerator pedal 2.2.3 2009 Toyota Camry
summarizing NHTSA’s field investigations.14
applications could produce the increases in The third incident identified by the
vehicle speed and engine speed shown by the petitioner involved a MY 2009 Toyota Camry
TABLE 4—PRE-CRASH DATA FOR VOQ 10299750, EDR TOOL VERSION 1.4.1.1
Time (sec) ¥4.7 ¥3.7 ¥2.7 ¥1.7 ¥0.7 0 (TRG)
Vehicle Speed (MPH [km/h]) ....... 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 9.9 [16] ............ 13.7 [22] .......... 19.9 [32]
Brake Switch ............................... OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF
Accelerator Rate (V) .................... 0.86 .................. 0.82 .................. 0.98 .................. 0.78 .................. 3.71 .................. 1.37
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Engine RPM (RPM) ..................... 400 ................... 400 ................... 800 ................... 1,600 ................ 3,200 ................ 4,400
9 According to Toyota, an Accelerator Rate of 2.38 12 Collins, W., Stoltzfus, D., ‘‘Evaluation of 2010 14 ‘‘NHTSA Toyota Pre-Crash EDR Field
volts indicates an accelerator pedal application of Toyota Corolla from DP14–003,’’ DP14–003WDC, Inspections during March–August 2010,’’ NHTSA–
71 percent. April 2015, pages 11–13. NVS–2011–ETC–SR10, February, 2011, pages 15–
10 McHenry, S., ‘‘Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect
13 Collins, W., Stoltzfus, D., ‘‘Evaluation of 2010 16.
Petition,’’ DP14–003, May 2015.
11 The data do show a small accelerator pedal
Toyota Corolla from DP14–003,’’ DP14–003WDC,
April 2015.
application 2.8 seconds prior to the impact.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Aug 24, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51814/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices 51653
As described in the 2011 report, the driver noise spike on the accelerator sensor.’’ Second, the nominal idle speed for a MY
had turned from a lane of traffic to enter a However, such speculation ignores the facts 2009 ES350 when the engine is warm, the
parking space and was about to come to a rest that the accelerator pedal has redundant transmission is in gear (i.e., either Drive or
facing a shopping plaza storefront when the sensors and that NASA already thoroughly Reverse), and no accessory loads are
vehicle lunged forward through the façade of examined this subject during the joint study. operating is approximately 600 rpm. Air-
a hair salon. The driver reported having his The common pattern is that the ‘‘glitches’’ conditioning use and steering input may
foot on the brake when the acceleration occur at the moments in the events when the result in the idle speed increasing to 700 to
occurred. Table 4 shows the EDR pre-crash driver should be initiating braking, but no
800 rpm to compensate for the additional
data for this accident, as published in the braking has occurred.
loads placed on the engine by the air-
2011 report.15 Thus, the only common signature evident
The EDR data for this incident shows no in the incidents is that in all three the surges conditioning compressor and power-steering
recorded service brake application during the occurred when the driver should have pump. Thus, the actual engine speeds
event. Immediately prior to impact and after initiated braking for a vehicle entering a associated with the recorded values of 400
the vehicle had entered the parking space, parking space at low speed. The fact that the rpm were likely closer to 800 rpm than 400
the driver pressed the accelerator pedal to the vehicles suddenly accelerated just as they rpm.17
floor when intending to apply the brake.16 As were beginning to enter their intended Finally, it is not accurate to state that
noted in the 2011 report, this incident is parking spaces instead of braking to a stop as engine speed increases did not result from
consistent with pedal misapplication by the intended is a signature of pedal accelerator pedal applications based strictly
driver and does not provide any evidence of misapplication by the driver. NHTSA has on the recorded EDR data, since the data do
a vehicle defect as suggested by the observed this signature in investigations of not necessarily show all accelerator pedal
petitioner. sudden acceleration dating back to the first applications (see section 2.1 and Figure 1)
such investigation that ODI opened in 1978. and because of the differences in refresh rates
2.3 Petitioner Claims and Misconceptions It is not isolated to any particular makes or for engine speed and accelerator rate.
2.3.1 ‘‘Strong Signature’’ models of vehicles or to any throttle design
Although actual engine speed will closely
technologies.
According to the petitioner, ‘‘The fact that follow accelerator rate, the recorded
all three cars were coasting at 3.7 mph when 2.3.2 Engine RPM Increases accelerator rate may slightly lag behind
the sudden-acceleration happened appears to The petitioner claims that each of the recorded engine speed due to the slower
be a strong signature of a common issue.’’ incidents he analyzed displays evidence of refresh rate of the accelerator signal (see
However, even though the EDR data for the engine speed increases without any Table 1). Thus, the increase in recorded
three incidents may have reflected speeds of application of the accelerator pedal. For engine speed at ¥1.6 seconds prior to impact
3.7 mph before the acceleration occurred, the example, in his analysis of his wife’s incident could very well have resulted from the initial
vehicles may not have actually been he states, ‘‘by ¥1.6 seconds the engine RPM stages of the large pedal application that the
travelling the same speed. The common has DOUBLED to 800 with no depression of EDR recorded at ¥0.6 seconds.
speeds recorded in the three vehicles are the accelerator.’’ This assertion reflects a
simply an artifact of the EDR vehicle speed misunderstanding of the manner in which 2.3.3 Case 33
resolution of 2 km/h. In all three incidents, the Toyota EDR samples and records pre- The EDR data used by the petitioner for
the vehicles were travelling 6.0–7.9 km/h crash data as previously described in this Case 33 was from the initial readout ODI
(3.7–4.9 mph) prior to the accelerations, report and in prior reports published by performed with the original version of
which the Toyota EDR records as 6 km/h (3.7 NHTSA.
software available from Toyota (Table 5).
mph). These are common speeds for low- First, as indicated in this report and in the
speed parking maneuvers. This version converted accelerator pedal
Data Definitions section on page two of the
The ‘‘glitch’’ in accelerator pedal voltage Bosch CDR report attached to the petition, sensor #1 voltages to an accelerator status of
that the petitioner alleges occurs after the 3.7 the Toyota EDR records engine speed in 400 OFF, MIDDLE or FULL. A supplemental
mph speed recording, is the voltage increase rpm increments (rounded down). For report to the NHTSA February 2011 report
resulting from the accelerator pedal example, a recorded value of 400 rpm included a copy of this readout.18 This
applications by the drivers. The petitioner indicates that the measured engine speed was incident is one of many incidents from early
claims that the voltage spike suggests a between 400 and 799 rpm. Thus, an increase field investigations that ODI read a second
potential vehicle based cause, speculating, in recorded engine speed from 400 to 800 time after receiving an updated version of
‘‘the accelerator is either calculating an rpm could result from a change in engine Toyota software that provided a more precise
incorrect accelerator value or receiving a speed of just 1 rpm. indication of accelerator pedal position.19
TABLE 5—PRE-CRASH DATA FOR VOQ 10299750, EDR TOOL VERSION 1.3 (ORIGINAL READOUT)
Time (sec) ¥4.7 ¥3.7 ¥2.7 ¥1.7 ¥0.7 0 (TRG)
Vehicle Speed (MPH [km/h]) ....... 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 3.7 [6] .............. 9.9 [16] ............ 13.7 [22] .......... 19.9 [32]
Brake Switch ............................... OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF
Accelerator .................................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. OFF ................. FULL ................ OFF
Engine RPM (RPM) ..................... 400 ................... 400 ................... 800 ................... 1,600 ................ 3,200 ................ 4,400
Table 4 shows the data from the readout pedal at varying rates throughout the event. 2.3.4 NASA ‘‘High-Speed Study’’
obtained using the updated software. Rather Thus, the petitioner’s conclusions that the The petitioner incorrectly characterizes the
than maintaining a consistent voltage as may vehicle was coasting and the driver had not
be misinterpreted by the OFF accelerator joint NASA–NHTSA study as a ‘‘high-speed
depressed the accelerator pedal when the study.’’ In fact, the joint study focused on all
levels shown in Table 5, the accelerator pedal idle speed was increasing are incorrect and
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
rates in the updated readout in Table 4 show potential vulnerabilities in the Toyota ETCS-
that the driver was applying the accelerator do not provide evidence of a vehicle defect. i system that were not associated with the
15 The petitioner based his analysis of this 17 Engine speeds that drop below 500 rpm are 19 ‘‘Toyota EDR Software Versions Used in
incident on a different EDR readout reviewed later uncommon in motor vehicles and have been NHTSA Unintended Acceleration Field
in this report, in Section 2.3.3, ‘‘Case 33.’’ associated with engine stall due to idle undershoot Investigation Cases,’’ NHTSA–NVS–2011–ETC–
16 The recorded Accelerator Rate of 3.71 volts is in some ODI investigations of non-Toyota products. SR08, February 2011, page 8.
18 ‘‘Toyota EDR Data from NHTSA Pre-Crash
well beyond the accelerator rate needed for 100
Field Inspections,’’ NHTSA–NVS–2011–ETC–SR12,
percent throttle. February 2011.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Aug 24, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51814/page/4.svg)
![51654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices
floor mat entrapment or sticking accelerator DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2015. Access to the DOT Headquarters
pedal conditions addressed by multiple building is controlled therefore all
Toyota safety recalls in 2009 and 2010.20 Notice of Meeting of the Advisory persons who plan to attend the meeting
Most such incidents examined during the Council on Transportation Statistics must notify Mr. Gales at 202–366–1270
study involved allegations of sudden (ACTS) of the Office of the Assistant prior to August 31, 2015. Individuals
acceleration in vehicles initially moving at Secretary for Research and attending the meeting must report to the
low speeds. The most common scenario for Technology (OST–R) main DOT entrance on New Jersey
the incidents was acceleration when Avenue SE., for admission to the
attempting to park. Thus, contrary to the AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation
building. Attendance is open to the
petitioner’s characterization, low-speed Statistics (BTS), U.S. Department of
public, but limited space is available.
surges were the primary focus of the study Transportation (DOT).
Persons with a disability requiring
by NHTSA and NASA in 2010. ACTION: Notice of meeting. special services, such as an interpreter
The incidents analyzed by the petitioner for the hearing impaired, should contact
fall within the scope of prior work conducted This notice announces, pursuant to
Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Mr. D.Senay Gales at 202–366–1270 at
in the joint NHTSA–NASA study of Toyota least seven calendar days prior to the
ETCS-i and, more recently, the analysis Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 72–363;
5 U.S.C. app. 2), a meeting of the meeting.
conducted in evaluating Defect Petition Notice of this meeting is provided in
DP14–003. His claims appear to be based on Advisory Council on Transportation
accordance with the FACA and the
upon several misconceptions regarding the Statistics (ACTS). The meeting will be
General Services Administration
manner in which Toyota EDR sample and held on Thursday, September 10th,
regulations (41 CFR part 102–3)
record data, as well as a misunderstanding of 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST at
covering management of Federal
the scope of and results from prior work the U.S. Department of Transportation,
advisory committees.
conducted by NHTSA, NASA and others Room E37–302, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
related to sudden unintended acceleration SE., Washington, DC. Section 52011 of Issued in Washington, DC, on the 18th day
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the of August 2015.
and the use of EDR data in related field
investigations. The petitioner has presented 21st Century Act (MAP–21) directs the Rolf Schmitt,
no new evidence or theories not already U.S. Department of Transportation to Deputy Director, Bureau of Transportation
considered by NHTSA that warrant establish an Advisory Council on Statistics.
reconsideration of any of the analyses or Transportation Statistics subject to the [FR Doc. 2015–20969 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am]
conclusions from that prior work. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
U.S.C., App. 2) to advise the Bureau of
3.0 Conclusion
Transportation Statistics (BTS) on the
In our view, a defects investigation is quality, reliability, consistency, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
unlikely to result in a finding that a defect objectivity, and relevance of
related to motor vehicle safety exists, or a transportation statistics and analyses Submission for OMB Review;
NHTSA order for the notification and remedy collected, supported, or disseminated by Comment Request
of a safety-related defect as alleged by the the Bureau and the Department. The
petitioner, at the conclusion of the requested August 19, 2015.
following is a summary of the draft The Department of the Treasury will
investigation. Therefore, given a thorough meeting agenda: (1) USDOT Welcome
analysis of the potential for finding a safety submit the following information
and Introduction of Council Members; collection request to the Office of
related defect in the vehicle, and in view of (2) Update on Current BTS Issues; (3)
NHTSA’s enforcement priorities, its previous Management and Budget (OMB) for
Discussion about Future Data Products; review and clearance in accordance
investigations into this issue, and the need to (4) Program Review; (5) Public
allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
Comments and Closing Remarks. 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the
resources to best accomplish the agency’s
Participation is open to the public. date of publication of this notice.
safety mission and mitigate risk, the petition Members of the public who wish to
is denied. This action does not constitute a DATES: Comments should be received on
participate must notify Mr. D.Senay
finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect
Gales at d.senay.gales@dot.gov, not later or before September 24, 2015 to be
does not exist. The agency will take further
than August 31, 2015. Members of the assured of consideration.
action if warranted by future circumstances. ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
public may present oral statements at
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations the meeting with the approval of the burden estimate, or any other aspect
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Patricia Hu, Director of the Bureau of of the information collection, including
Transportation Statistics. Non- suggestion for reducing the burden, to
Frank S. Borris II, (1) Office of Information and Regulatory
committee members wishing to present
Acting Associate Administrator for Affairs, Office of Management and
Enforcement.
oral statements or obtain information
should contact Mr. D.Senay Gales via Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for
[FR Doc. 2015–20949 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am] email no later than August 31, 2015. Treasury, New Executive Office
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Questions about the agenda or written Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC
comments may be emailed to 20503, or email at OIRA_Submission@
D.Senay.Gales@dot.gov or submitted by OMB.EOP.GOV and (2) Treasury PRA
U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Transportation, Office of the Assistant Ave. NW., Suite 8140, Washington, DC
Secretary for Research and Technology, 20220, or email at PRA@treasury.gov.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
20 The floor mat entrapment and sticking pedal
Attn: Mr. D.Senay Gales, 1200 New Copies of the submission(s) may be
defect conditions were both ‘‘stuck throttle’’ type
Jersey Avenue SE., Room #E34–429, obtained by calling (202) 927–5331,
defect conditions, which typically occur at higher Washington, DC 20590, or faxed to (202) email at PRA@treasury.gov, or the entire
speeds when larger accelerator pedal applications 366–3383. BTS requests that written information collection request maybe
necessary to cause the entrapment are more likely. comments be received by August 31, found at www.reginfo.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Aug 24, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51814/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 11:02:27
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 11:02:27
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Denial of a petition for a defect investigation. | |
| Contact | Mr. Stephen McHenry, Vehicle Control Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-4883. Email [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 51650 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR