82_FR_22140 82 FR 22050 - Autoliv, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

82 FR 22050 - Autoliv, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 90 (May 11, 2017)

Page Range22050-22051
FR Document2017-09498

Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv), on behalf of Autoliv B.V. & CO. KG, has determined that certain Autoliv seat belt assemblies do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Autoliv filed a noncompliance report dated December 1, 2016. Autoliv also petitioned NHTSA on December 23, 2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017) 
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22050-22051]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09498]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0139; Notice 1]


Autoliv, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv), on behalf of Autoliv B.V. & CO. KG, 
has determined that certain Autoliv seat belt assemblies do not fully 
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat 
Belt Assemblies. Autoliv filed a noncompliance report dated December 1, 
2016. Autoliv also petitioned NHTSA on December 23, 2016, for a 
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The 
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except 
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this

[[Page 22051]]

petition is shown in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv), has determined that certain 
Autoliv seat belt assemblies do not fully comply with paragraph 
S4.3(j)(2)(i) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, 
Seat Belt Assemblies. Autoliv filed a noncompliance report dated 
December 1, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports. Autoliv also petitioned NHTSA on December 
23, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 
556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Autoliv's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Seat Belt Assemblies Involved: Approximately 31,682 Autoliv 
R230.2 and R200.2 front seat LH10[deg] seat belt assemblies 
manufactured between May 6, 2016, and October 18, 2016, are potentially 
involved. Autoliv sold the subject seat belt assemblies to BMW of North 
America, LLC and Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC for installation 
in their vehicles (``affected vehicles'').
    III. Noncompliance: Autoliv explains that the noncompliance is that 
the Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in the subject safety belt 
assemblies are equipped with a vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism 
which does not lock as designed when subjected to the requirements of 
paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(ii) of FMVSS No. 209.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent 
part:

    S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
    (j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
    (2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured on or after February 
22, 2007 and for manufacturers opting for early compliance. An 
emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt 
assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . .
    (ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout exceeds the maximum 
limit of 25 mm when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 
0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or 
(B). The retractor is determined to be locked when the webbing belt 
load tension is at least 35 N.

    V. Summary of Autoliv's Petition: Autoliv described the subject 
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Autoliv submitted the following 
reasoning:
    (a) ELR is Voluntarily Equipped with a Webbing Sensitive Locking 
Mechanism: The ELR also contains a voluntary webbing sensitive locking 
mechanism. The webbing sensitive locking mechanism is designed to lock 
at approximately 1.4-2.0g with no more than 50mm webbing payout. The 
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism was designed to meet the 
requirements of other non-US markets.
    (b) Necessary Reliance on Automaker In-Vehicle Assessments to 
Support Autoliv's Petition: With regard to the effect of the ELR on the 
retractor locking performance of the seatbelt, as the equipment 
manufacturer, Autoliv is not in a position to provide testing and data 
on in-vehicle performance issues. However, Autoliv has consulted on and 
reviewed the testing performed by both BMW and JLR and even 
participated in some of the testing. Autoliv believes the tests 
substantiate the claims set forth in both the BMW petition and JLR 
petition. Therefore, Autoliv adopts and incorporates by reference, the 
test results summarized in both the BMW and JLR petitions.
    (c) Owner Contacts to Autoliv: Autoliv has not received any 
contacts from vehicle owners regarding this issue.
    (d) Accidents/Injuries: Autoliv is not aware of any accidents or 
injuries that have occurred as a result of this issue.
    (e) Prior NHTSA Rulings re Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA previously 
granted a petition from General Motors (GM) on a very similar issue. 
[69 FR 19897, Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12366, Apr 14, 2004]. GM provided 
test results and analyses indicating that while there existed a non-
functional vehicle sensitive locking mechanism within the safety belt 
assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive locking mechanism provided 
comparable restraint performance to that of a fully functional vehicle 
sensitive locking mechanism.
    (f) Autoliv Production: Autoliv production has been corrected to 
fully conform to FMVSS No. 209 Sections 4.3(j)(2)(i) and (ii).
    Autoliv concluded by expressing the belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject seat belt assemblies that 
Autoliv no longer controlled at the time it determined that the 
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not 
relieve vehicle distributors, equipment distributors and dealers of the 
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery 
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant safety 
belt assemblies under their control after Autoliv notified them that 
the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-09498 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

22050 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices theft as compliance with the parts- NHTSA notes that if Hyundai wishes ADDRESSES: Interested persons are marking requirements of the Theft in the future to modify the device on invited to submit written data, views, Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). The which this exemption is based, the and arguments on this petition. agency concludes that the device will company may have to submit a petition Comments must refer to the docket and provide the five types of performance to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) notice number cited in the title of this listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting states that a part 543 exemption applies notice and submitted by any of the activation; attracting attention to the only to vehicles that belong to a line following methods: efforts of unauthorized persons to enter exempted under this part and equipped • Mail: Send comments by mail or operate a vehicle by means other than with the antitheft device on which the addressed to U.S. Department of a key; preventing defeat or line’s exemption is based. Further, Transportation, Docket Operations, M– circumvention of the device by § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room unauthorized persons; preventing of petitions to modify an exemption to W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., operation of the vehicle by permit the use of an antitheft device Washington, DC 20590. unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the similar to but differing from the one • Hand Delivery: Deliver comments reliability and durability of the device. specified in that exemption. by hand to U.S. Department of Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 The agency wishes to minimize the Transportation, Docket Operations, M– CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a administrative burden that part 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room petition for exemption from the parts- 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., marking requirements of part 541, either vehicle manufacturers and itself. The Washington, DC 20590. The Docket in whole or in part, if it determines that, agency did not intend part 543 to Section is open on weekdays from 10 based upon supporting evidence, the require the submission of a modification a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. standard equipment antitheft device is petition for every change to the • Electronically: Submit comments likely to be as effective in reducing and components or design of an antitheft electronically by logging onto the deterring motor vehicle theft as device. The significance of many such Federal Docket Management System compliance with the parts-marking changes could be de minimis. Therefore, (FDMS) Web site at https:// requirements of part 541. The agency NHTSA suggests that if the www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online finds that Hyundai has provided manufacturer contemplates making any instructions for submitting comments. adequate reasons for its belief that the changes the effects of which might be • Comments may also be faxed to antitheft device for the Hyundai Kia characterized as de minimis, it should (202) 493–2251. Niro vehicle line is likely to be as consult the agency before preparing and Comments must be written in the effective in reducing and deterring submitting a petition to modify. English language, and be no greater than motor vehicle theft as compliance with Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 15 pages in length, although there is no the parts-marking requirements of the delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95. limit to the length of necessary Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part Raymond R. Posten, attachments to the comments. If 541). This conclusion is based on the Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. comments are submitted in hard copy information Hyundai provided about its [FR Doc. 2017–09515 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am] form, please ensure that two copies are device. provided. If you wish to receive BILLING CODE 4910–59–P For the foregoing reasons, the agency confirmation that comments you have hereby grants in full Hyundai’s petition submitted by mail were received, please for an exemption for the Kia Niro DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION enclose a stamped, self-addressed vehicle line from the parts-marking postcard with the comments. Note that requirements of 49 CFR part 541 National Highway Traffic Safety all comments received will be posted beginning with the 2018 model year. Administration without change to https:// The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, www.regulations.gov, including any [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0139; Notice 1] Appendix A–1, identifies those lines personal information provided. that are exempted from the Theft Autoliv, Inc., Receipt of Petition for All comments and supporting Prevention Standard for a given model Decision of Inconsequential materials received before the close of year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains Noncompliance business on the closing date indicated publication requirements with respect above will be filed in the docket and to the disposition of all part 543 AGENCY: National Highway Traffic will be considered. All comments and petitions. Advanced listing, including Safety Administration (NHTSA), supporting materials received after the the release of future product Department of Transportation (DOT). closing date will also be filed and will nameplates, the beginning model year ACTION: Receipt of petition. be considered to the fullest extent for which the petition is granted and a possible. general description of the antitheft SUMMARY: Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv), on When the petition is granted or device is necessary in order to notify behalf of Autoliv B.V. & CO. KG, has denied, notice of the decision will also law enforcement agencies of new determined that certain Autoliv seat belt be published in the Federal Register vehicle lines exempted from the parts- assemblies do not fully comply with pursuant to the authority indicated at marking requirements of the Theft Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard the end of this notice. Prevention Standard. (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. All comments, background asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES If Hyundai decides not to use the Autoliv filed a noncompliance report documentation, and supporting exemption for this vehicle line, it must dated December 1, 2016. Autoliv also materials submitted to the docket may formally notify the agency. If such a petitioned NHTSA on December 23, be viewed by anyone at the address and decision is made, the vehicle line must 2016, for a decision that the subject times given above. The documents may be fully marked as required by 49 CFR noncompliance is inconsequential as it also be viewed on the Internet at https:// parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major relates to motor vehicle safety. www.regulations.gov by following the component parts and replacement DATES: The closing date for comments online instructions for accessing the parts). on the petition is June 12, 2017. dockets. The docket ID number for this VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 May 10, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices 22051 petition is shown in the heading of this V. Summary of Autoliv’s Petition: noncompliance, as required by 49 notice. Autoliv described the subject U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. DOT’s complete Privacy Act noncompliance and stated its belief that NHTSA notes that the statutory Statement is available for review in a the noncompliance is inconsequential provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and Federal Register notice published on as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78). In support of its petition, Autoliv file petitions for a determination of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submitted the following reasoning: inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to I. Overview: Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv), (a) ELR is Voluntarily Equipped with exempt manufacturers only from the has determined that certain Autoliv seat a Webbing Sensitive Locking duties found in sections 30118 and Mechanism: The ELR also contains a 30120, respectively, to notify owners, belt assemblies do not fully comply voluntary webbing sensitive locking purchasers, and dealers of a defect or with paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(i) of Federal mechanism. The webbing sensitive noncompliance and to remedy the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) locking mechanism is designed to lock defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Autoliv at approximately 1.4–2.0g with no more decision on this petition only applies to filed a noncompliance report dated than 50mm webbing payout. The the subject seat belt assemblies that December 1, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR webbing-sensitive locking mechanism Autoliv no longer controlled at the time part 573, Defect and Noncompliance was designed to meet the requirements it determined that the noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Autoliv also of other non-US markets. existed. However, any decision on this petitioned NHTSA on December 23, (b) Necessary Reliance on Automaker petition does not relieve vehicle 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) In-Vehicle Assessments to Support distributors, equipment distributors and and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for Autoliv’s Petition: With regard to the dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, an exemption from the notification and effect of the ELR on the retractor locking offer for sale, or introduction or delivery remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. performance of the seatbelt, as the for introduction into interstate Chapter 301 on the basis that this equipment manufacturer, Autoliv is not commerce of the noncompliant safety noncompliance is inconsequential as it in a position to provide testing and data belt assemblies under their control after relates to motor vehicle safety. on in-vehicle performance issues. Autoliv notified them that the subject This notice of receipt of Autoliv’s However, Autoliv has consulted on and noncompliance existed. petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent reviewed the testing performed by both Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: any agency decision or other exercise of BMW and JLR and even participated in delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and some of the testing. Autoliv believes the 501.8. judgment concerning the merits of the petition. tests substantiate the claims set forth in Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, II. Seat Belt Assemblies Involved: both the BMW petition and JLR petition. Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Approximately 31,682 Autoliv R230.2 Therefore, Autoliv adopts and [FR Doc. 2017–09498 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am] and R200.2 front seat LH10° seat belt incorporates by reference, the test BILLING CODE 4910–59–P assemblies manufactured between May results summarized in both the BMW 6, 2016, and October 18, 2016, are and JLR petitions. potentially involved. Autoliv sold the (c) Owner Contacts to Autoliv: Autoliv DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION subject seat belt assemblies to BMW of has not received any contacts from North America, LLC and Jaguar Land vehicle owners regarding this issue. National Highway Traffic Safety Rover North America, LLC for (d) Accidents/Injuries: Autoliv is not Administration installation in their vehicles (‘‘affected aware of any accidents or injuries that vehicles’’). have occurred as a result of this issue. Petition for Exemption From the III. Noncompliance: Autoliv explains (e) Prior NHTSA Rulings re Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention that the noncompliance is that the Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA Standard; Hyundai America Technical Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in previously granted a petition from Center, Inc. the subject safety belt assemblies are General Motors (GM) on a very similar AGENCY: National Highway Traffic equipped with a vehicle-sensitive issue. [69 FR 19897, Docket No. Safety Administration (NHTSA), locking mechanism which does not lock NHTSA–2002–12366, Apr 14, 2004]. Department of Transportation (DOT). as designed when subjected to the GM provided test results and analyses ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. requirements of paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(ii) indicating that while there existed a of FMVSS No. 209. non-functional vehicle sensitive locking SUMMARY: This document grants in full IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of mechanism within the safety belt the Hyundai America Technical Center, FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent part: assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive Inc.’s (HATCI) petition for exemption of locking mechanism provided the Ioniq vehicle line in accordance S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . . (j) Emergency-locking retractor . . . comparable restraint performance to with the Exemption from the Theft (2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured that of a fully functional vehicle Prevention Standard. This petition is on or after February 22, 2007 and for sensitive locking mechanism. granted because the agency has manufacturers opting for early compliance. (f) Autoliv Production: Autoliv determined that the antitheft device to An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 production has been corrected to fully be placed on the line as standard or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in conform to FMVSS No. 209 Sections equipment is likely to be as effective in asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES accordance with the procedures specified in 4.3(j)(2)(i) and (ii). reducing and deterring motor vehicle paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . . Autoliv concluded by expressing the theft as compliance with the parts- (ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout belief that the subject noncompliance is marking requirements of the Federal exceeds the maximum limit of 25 mm when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of inconsequential as it relates to motor Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of vehicle safety, and that its petition to be Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or (B). The retractor is exempted from providing notification of Hyundai also requested confidential determined to be locked when the webbing the noncompliance, as required by 49 treatment for specific information in its belt load tension is at least 35 N. U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the petition. While official notification VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 May 10, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1


Document Created: 2017-05-11 00:15:09
Document Modified: 2017-05-11 00:15:09
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionReceipt of petition.
DatesThe closing date for comments on the petition is June 12, 2017.
FR Citation82 FR 22050 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR