82 FR 22183 - Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 91 (May 12, 2017)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 91 (May 12, 2017)
| Page Range | 22183-22186 | |
| FR Document | 2017-09650 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 22183-22186] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-09650] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0138; Notice 1] Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (JLR)on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover Limited, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016- 2017 Land Rover Range Rover and Range Rover Sport motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. JLR filed a noncompliance report dated December 2, 2016. JLR 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 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: Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (JLR), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Land Rover Range Rover and Range Rover Sport motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. JLR filed a noncompliance report dated December 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. JLR 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 JLR'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. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 16,502 MY 2016-2017 Land Rover Range Rover and MY 2016-2017 Land Rover Range Rover Sport motor vehicles, manufactured between May 3, 2016, and October 14, 2016, are potentially involved. III. Noncompliance: JLR explains that the noncompliance involves the Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in the safety belt assembly of the vehicle's front left seat. These ELR's are equipped with a vehicle- sensitive locking mechanism and a webbing-sensitive locking mechanism. The noncompliance specifically involves the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism, which does not lock as designed when subjected to the requirements of paragraph 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. [[Page 22184]] Paragraph S7.1.1.3 of FMVSS No. 208 states in pertinent part: S7.1.1.3 A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of any Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing outboard designated seating position of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with a requirement of this standard, except walk-in van-type vehicles and school buses, and except in rear seating positions in law enforcement vehicles, shall meet the requirements of S7.1 by means of an emergency locking retractor that conforms to stand No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) . . . V. Summary of JLR's Petition: JLR 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, JLR submitted the following reasoning: (a) ELR Is Voluntarily Equipped with a Webbing Sensitive Locking Mechanism: The driver's ELR safety belt assembly also contains a voluntary webbing-sensitive locking mechanism which provides crash restraint performance comparable to the performance provided by an FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehicle sensitive mechanism. A description of the tests that were performed and the results that were obtained which support this petition are contained in the petition. The webbing sensitive locking mechanism is designed to lock at approximately 1.4-2.0g. The webbing-sensitive locking mechanism was designed to meet the requirements of other non-U.S. markets. (b) Testing and Analyses: Tests and analyses were conducted to determine the effect of a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism ELR on safety belt restraint (retractor locking) performance and any commensurate increase in injury risk in a crash. Even though the ELRs in affected vehicles contain a vehicle- sensitive locking mechanism which slightly exceeds the FMVSS No. 209 Section 4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement, for purposes of evaluation, and to demonstrate a ``worst-case scenario'', testing was conducted without reliance on vehicle-sensitive ELR operation. 1. Sled (Crash) Tests To Assess Safety Belt Restraint (Retractor Locking) Performance: Sled (crash) tests were conducted with an ELR containing an FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and an ELR in which the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism was disabled to simulate a ``worst-case scenario'', but contained a webbing-sensitive locking mechanism. The belt geometry is representative of the Land Rover Range Rover and Range Rover Sport Installation. The testing focused upon low severity crashes, because as NHTSA had discussed in their ruling on the GM petition,\1\ ``. . . a webbing- sensitive ELR mechanism will lock up more quickly in a severe frontal crash than in a low-to-moderate severity frontal crash.'' A low- severity crash represents a ``worst-case scenario'' for an ELR equipped with a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism. In addition, the testing was conducted using a Hybrid III 5th% dummy in order to provide a slow increase in belt loads. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See 69 FR 1987@1900. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three acceleration pulses with a low increase in deceleration and a low deceleration level were selected from all pulses pertaining to the affected vehicles. The selected pulses have an impact velocity of 15 km/h, and 40 km/h respectively. The 15 km/h and 32 km/h pulses represent a full frontal crash, while the 40 km/h pulse represents an Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) crash. The 15 km/h pulse is a ``no fire'' pulse to simulate a crash without safety belt pre-tensioning. A total of six tests were conducted, with two tests being conducted at each pulse level. Webbing payout and dummy chest forward displacement were measured. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in restraint performance (webbing payout, dummy chest forward displacement) between an ELR equipped with an FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and one that is not equipped with such a mechanism. The webbing-sensitive locking mechanism within the ELR provides comparable performance to that of an FMVSS No. 209 compliant ELR containing a vehicle sensitive locking mechanism. Therefore, in a crash, the webbing-sensitive locking mechanism provides equivalent protection for the driver to that which would be provided by an FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle sensitive locking mechanism. It should be emphasized that the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism contained in the ELR of the affected vehicles slightly exceeds the FMVSS No. 209 Section 4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement, whereas testing was conducted with a disabled vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism to simulate a ``worst-case scenario''. It should also be noted that any performance differences, such as a slight decrease in dummy chest forward displacement from an ELR without a vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism, are within the normal test to test variation and are attributed to test tolerances. 2. Body-In White (BIW) Sled (Crash) Tests To Assess Injury Risk: Body-In-White (BIW) sled (crash) tests were conducted with an ELR containing an FMVSS No. 209 Section 4.3(i)2(ii)-compliant vehicle- sensitive locking mechanism. Further testing was conducted without reliance on vehicle-sensitive ELR operation for comparative performance purposes (to simulate a ``worst-case scenario''), but contained a webbing-sensitive locking mechanism. Tests were conducted with a Hybrid III 50th% dummy and a 56 km/h pulse representing a full-frontal FMVSS No. 208 requirement. The pulse was selected from an actual pulse of one of the affected vehicles. 3. Sled (BIW Crash) Test Pulse (L405--Range Rover): The dummy was positioned to simulate pre-crash braking for both test conditions, i.e., the test using the compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism ELR, and the test using the non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism ELR. Pre-crash braking positioning was included to simulate critical real-world crash conditions, as pre-crash braking occurs in a significant percentage of crashes. Pre-crash braking would position the dummy (in both tests) closer to the steering wheel prior to impact. Additionally, pre-crash braking would assess any effect of additional forward movement resulting from an ELR in which the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism was disabled (to simulate a ``worst-case scenario''). For the test with the FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle-sensitive ELR, the dummy's H-point was 40mm more forward, and the dummy's Chest CG was 70mm more forward, than it otherwise would be in a test which did not simulate pre-crash braking. For the test with the FMVSS No. 209 non-compliant vehicle-sensitive ELR, the dummy's H-point was 60mm more forward, and the dummy's Chest CG was 90mm more forward than it otherwise would be in a test which did not simulate pre-crash braking. Therefore, for the dummy in which the non-compliant vehicle-sensitive ELR was utilized, it was positioned approximately 20mm more forward as compared to the dummy in the test in which the compliant vehicle- sensitive ELR was utilized. The value of 20mm was obtained from conducting simulations representing pre-crash braking involving a deceleration over 1.5s peaking at approximately 1.0g for 1.0sec duration. Simulations were conducted because [[Page 22185]] the Hybrid III dummy does not have adequate biofidelity in low-severity acceleration conditions such as pre-crash braking. The simulations utilized the Active THUMS model which has been well-correlated to actual driving/braking tests involving human volunteers. The additional forward movement of 20mm for the dummy in which the non-functioning vehicle-sensitive ELR was utilized was consistent across all dummy body regions (i.e., head, chest, and pelvis). The restraint system was equipped with a dual-stage driver airbag and safety belt pre-tensioners. The results indicated that while there were only minor differences in recorded values between the two tests, the calculated injury values were well within the Injury Assessment Reference Values IARVs for each test outcome for both an ELR equipped with an FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and an ELR equipped with a non- compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism. (c) Rollover Tests To Assess Safety Belt Restraint (Retractor Locking) Performance: 1. Quasi-static Rollover Tests--FMVSS No. 209 Paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(i)(D) requires that the retractor lock at an angular rotation greater than 45-degrees. When tested, JLR has evidence of a part which did not perform to this standard. Rollover tests were conducted with an ELR containing an FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and an ELR in which the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism was disabled (to simulate a ``worst-case scenario''). To simulate a rollover condition, quasi-static testing was conducted with an FMVSS No. 301 test device with a World-SID dummy being placed in the driver's seat of the vehicle mounted on the test device. Testing was conducted with an angular rotation range of 50 degrees around the vehicle's longitudinal axis according to SAE 760. An angular range of 50 degrees was used based on analysis of the affected vehicles during different vehicle level roll- over events and two key observations: (1) The time at which the seat belt retractors were subject to >1g lateral acceleration (an acceleration at which the affected ELRs had typically locked via the CS sensor, particularly with additional tilt angle applied) and, (2) the timing of the triggering of belt pretensioners in such a roll-over event, leading to locking of the seat belt ELR via the WS sensor (assuming the CS sensor had not locked earlier in the event). Test video of the D-loop (upper attachment point) and any dummy head movement was recorded. For the tests in which the vehicle was rotated to the right, approximately 5mm additional webbing pay-out at the upper seat belt anchorage was observed between the vehicle-sensitive compliant and non- compliant ELRs up to a roll angle of 50 degrees. A difference in dummy head movement of approximately 10mm (in the lateral (y-direction)) was observed for the tests conducted with the vehicle-sensitive non- compliant ELR. For the tests in which the vehicle was rotated to the left, the video did not depict any difference in dummy head movement between the vehicle-sensitive compliant and non-compliant ELRs. Also, no belt payout was visible at the D-loop. 2. Dynamic Rollover Tests: In addition to the quasi-static rollover tests, available data from actual dynamic rollover tests of the affected vehicles was analyzed to understand the dynamics in such scenarios and the effect of the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism in the ELR. The dynamic rollover tests were based upon real-world rollover conditions. An initial acceleration must occur to induce a rollover and tests were selected based on the minimum dynamic scenarios that would result in rollover. The lateral deceleration of the seat belt retractors in the rollover events was analyzed to determine the expected ELR vehicle-sensitive sensor locking time based on the evidence that a non-compliant ELR would lock by a lateral acceleration of approximately 1.0g and that the tilt lock function would lock at <0.7g with an additional tilt lock angle of 18 degrees. As the rollover sensing system fitted to the affected vehicles is configured to trigger the seat belt retractor pretensioners, the rollover sensor trigger times were also established for the rollover scenarios analyzed to determine the point at which the seat belt retractor pretensioner would activate and thereby achieve ELR belt locking. From tests conducted with vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism non- compliant ELRs, the locking mechanism locks at approximately 1.0g of lateral acceleration. Additional testing on the same non-compliant ELRs has confirmed that the vehicle-sensitive locking of such an ELR would lock below an applied acceleration of 0.7g in all directions when tilted to an angle of up to 18[deg] around the vehicle's longitudinal axis. Therefore, the results of the dynamic rollover tests indicate that the impact-inducing rollovers result in lateral decelerations in which the ELR will lock before a rotation of 18 degrees is reached. Further analysis of rollover sensor trigger times has demonstrated that the pretensioners would trigger before a rollover angle of 45 degrees. This analysis confirms that locking will occur before a rotation angle of 45 degrees is reached, as required by FMVSS 209. 3. Cork-Screw Rollover Simulation Analysis: For the ``cork-screw'' rollover event additional analysis of the occupant kinematics was made to establish whether a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism of the ELR would have affected any forward motion of an occupant prior to ELR lock as previously determined. An LS-Dyna computer simulation was made to replicate the ``cork- screw'' rollover event previously analyzed such that the occupant positioning could be determined without the influence of a locking seat belt ELR. To simulate a ``worst case scenario'' locking of the seat belt ELR was completely removed from the CAE model. The analysis was made on the ``far side'' occupant (i.e. the occupant sat on the opposite side of the vehicle from that which impacts the test ramp) as any lateral motion of this occupant is assumed to be inboard, away from the seat belt upper anchorage. The model was set up with a normally extracting/retracting seat belt to measure any webbing pay-out due to dummy kinematics prior to seat belt ELR lock. Like the physical test, the simulation showed a small level of initial occupant forward head motion on initial vehicle-to-ramp contact and the occupant returned to a normal seating position prior to the vehicle leaving the ramp or the seat belt ELR locking during this dynamic event as previously determined. No webbing payout of the seat belt was observed in the simulation, leading to the conclusion that a seat belt with non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism would not affect the occupant kinematics in such a rollover scenario. (d) Summary of Test Results: The FMVSS 209 Section 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii) non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism within the ELRs of affected vehicles shows no significant performance difference when compared to a compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism. This finding is obtained from conducting a number of laboratory tests representing FMVSS 209 and 208 requirements, as well as other real- world crash conditions. The tests represent a variety of conditions such as crashes with, and without, pre-crash braking, and also other conditions, such as rollovers. [[Page 22186]] Notably, although all tests were conducted without reliance on a functioning ELR vehicle sensitive locking mechanism, affected vehicles do contain a functionally operable vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism which may slightly exceed the FMVSS 209 Paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii) requirements. Therefore, as installed in vehicles, the seat belt would likely perform better than the non-functioning units utilized for testing and analysis that form the basis for this petition. (e) Owner Contacts to Jaguar Land Rover Customer Relations: Jaguar Land Rover Customer Relations has not received any contacts from vehicle owners regarding this issue. (f) Accidents/Injuries: Jaguar Land Rover is not aware of any accidents or injuries that have occurred as a result of this issue. (g) Prior NHTSA Rulings re Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA has 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. In Jaguar Land Rover's case, the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism is functional, but may slightly exceed the FMVSS 209 Sections 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii) requirements, and, also contains a webbing sensitive locking mechanism which provides comparable performance to that of a vehicle sensitive mechanism. (h) Vehicle Production: Vehicle production has been corrected to fully conform to FMVSS 209 Sections 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii). JLR 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. To view JLR's petition, test data and analyses in its entirety you can visit https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice. 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 vehicles that JLR no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after JLR 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. 2017-09650 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Notices 22183
Jackson Street, Mail Drop 126F, and arguments on this petition. DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Phoenix, AZ 85007; sent via email to Comments must refer to the docket and Statement is available for review in a
Sonorancorridor@azdot.gov; or notice number cited in the title of this Federal Register notice published on
submitted on the study’s Web site at notice and submitted by any of the April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
https://www.azdot.gov/ following methods: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SonoranCorridor. • Mail: Send comments by mail I. Overview: Jaguar Land Rover North
The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks, addressed to U.S. Department of America, LLC (JLR), has determined that
in part, to minimize the cost to the Transportation, Docket Operations, M– certain model year (MY) 2016–2017
taxpayer of the creation, collection, 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room Land Rover Range Rover and Range
maintenance, use dissemination, and W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Rover Sport motor vehicles do not fully
disposition of information. Accordingly, Washington, DC 20590. comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
unless a specific request for a complete • Hand Delivery: Deliver comments Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
hardcopy of the NEPA document is by hand to U.S. Department of Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS
received before it is printed, the FHWA Transportation, Docket Operations, M– No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. JLR filed
and ADOT will distribute only 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room a noncompliance report dated December
electronic versions of the NEPA W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
document. A complete copy of the Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Defect and Noncompliance
environmental document will be Section is open on weekdays from 10 Responsibility and Reports. JLR also
available for review at locations a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. petitioned NHTSA on December 23,
throughout the study area. An electronic • Electronically: Submit comments 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
copy of the complete environmental electronically by logging onto the and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for
document will be available on the Federal Docket Management System an exemption from the notification and
study’s Web site at https:// (FDMS) Web site at https:// remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
www.azdot.gov/SonoranCorridor. www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online Chapter 301 on the basis that this
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.123. instructions for submitting comments. noncompliance is inconsequential as it
Issued on: May 4, 2017. • Comments may also be faxed to relates to motor vehicle safety.
(202) 493–2251. This notice of receipt of JLR’s petition
Karla S. Petty, is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
Comments must be written in the
Arizona Division Administrator, Federal 30120 and does not represent any
English language, and be no greater than
Highway Administration. agency decision or other exercise of
15 pages in length, although there is no
[FR Doc. 2017–09452 Filed 5–11–17; 8:45 am] judgment concerning the merits of the
limit to the length of necessary
BILLING CODE P
attachments to the comments. If petition.
comments are submitted in hard copy II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately
form, please ensure that two copies are 16,502 MY 2016–2017 Land Rover
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Range Rover and MY 2016–2017 Land
provided. If you wish to receive
confirmation that comments you have Rover Range Rover Sport motor
National Highway Traffic Safety vehicles, manufactured between May 3,
Administration submitted by mail were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed 2016, and October 14, 2016, are
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0138; Notice 1] postcard with the comments. Note that potentially involved.
all comments received will be posted III. Noncompliance: JLR explains that
Jaguar Land Rover North America, the noncompliance involves the
without change to https://
LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in
www.regulations.gov, including any
Inconsequential Noncompliance the safety belt assembly of the vehicle’s
personal information provided.
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic All comments and supporting front left seat. These ELR’s are equipped
Safety Administration (NHTSA), materials received before the close of with a vehicle-sensitive locking
Department of Transportation (DOT). business on the closing date indicated mechanism and a webbing-sensitive
above will be filed in the docket and locking mechanism. The noncompliance
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
will be considered. All comments and specifically involves the vehicle-
SUMMARY: Jaguar Land Rover North supporting materials received after the sensitive locking mechanism, which
America, LLC (JLR)on behalf of Jaguar closing date will also be filed and will does not lock as designed when
Land Rover Limited, has determined be considered to the fullest extent subjected to the requirements of
that certain model year (MY) 2016–2017 possible. paragraph
Land Rover Range Rover and Range IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of
When the petition is granted or
Rover Sport motor vehicles do not fully FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent part:
denied, notice of the decision will also
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle be published in the Federal Register S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, pursuant to the authority indicated at (j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS (2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured
the end of this notice.
No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. JLR filed on or after February 22, 2007 and for
All comments, background manufacturers opting for early compliance.
a noncompliance report dated December documentation, and supporting An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1
2, 2016. JLR also petitioned NHTSA on materials submitted to the docket may or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in
December 23, 2016, for a decision that be viewed by anyone at the address and accordance with the procedures specified in
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
the subject noncompliance is times given above. The documents may paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . .
inconsequential as it relates to motor also be viewed on the Internet at https:// (ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout
vehicle safety. www.regulations.gov by following the exceeds the maximum limit of 25 mm when
the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of
DATES: The closing date for comments online instructions for accessing the 0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of
on the petition is June 12, 2017. dockets. The docket ID number for this S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or (B). The retractor is
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are petition is shown in the heading of this determined to be locked when the webbing
invited to submit written data, views, notice. belt load tension is at least 35 N.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:41 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_22274/page/1.svg)
![22186 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Notices
Notably, although all tests were file petitions for a determination of Washington, DC 20224, or through the
conducted without reliance on a inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to Internet at Martha.R.Brinson@irs.gov.
functioning ELR vehicle sensitive exempt manufacturers only from the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
locking mechanism, affected vehicles do duties found in sections 30118 and Title: Certificate of Foreign
contain a functionally operable vehicle- 30120, respectively, to notify owners, Contracting Party Receiving Federal
sensitive locking mechanism which may purchasers, and dealers of a defect or Procurement Payments.
slightly exceed the FMVSS 209 noncompliance and to remedy the OMB Number: 1545–2263.
Paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii) requirements. defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any Form Number: Form W–14.
Therefore, as installed in vehicles, the decision on this petition only applies to Abstract: Tax on Certain Foreign
seat belt would likely perform better the subject vehicles that JLR no longer Procurement, Notice of Purposed
than the non-functioning units utilized controlled at the time it determined that Rulemaking, contains proposed
for testing and analysis that form the the noncompliance existed. However, regulations under section 5000C of the
basis for this petition. any decision on this petition does not Internal Revenue Code. The proposed
(e) Owner Contacts to Jaguar Land relieve vehicle distributors and dealers regulations affect U.S. government
Rover Customer Relations: Jaguar Land of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for acquiring agencies and foreign persons
Rover Customer Relations has not sale, or introduction or delivery for providing certain goods or services to
received any contacts from vehicle introduction into interstate commerce of the U.S. government pursuant to a
owners regarding this issue. the noncompliant vehicles under their contract. This document also contains
(f) Accidents/Injuries: Jaguar Land control after JLR notified them that the proposed regulations under section
Rover is not aware of any accidents or subject noncompliance existed. 6114, with respect to foreign persons
injuries that have occurred as a result of claiming an exemption from the tax
this issue. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: under an income tax treaty. Section
(g) Prior NHTSA Rulings re delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8).
5000C imposes a 2% tax on foreign
Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA has persons (as defined in section
previously granted a petition from Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 7701(a)(30)), that are parties to specified
General Motors (GM) on a very similar Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Federal procurement contracts with the
issue. [69 FR 19897, Docket No. [FR Doc. 2017–09650 Filed 5–11–17; 8:45 am] U.S. government entered into on and
NHTSA–2002–12366, Apr 14, 2004]. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P after January 2, 2011. This tax is
GM provided test results and analyses imposed on the gross amount of
indicating that while there existed a specified Federal procurement
non-functional vehicle sensitive locking DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY payments and is generally collected by
mechanism within the safety belt increasing the amount withheld under
assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive Internal Revenue Service chapter 3. A Form W–14 must be
locking mechanism provided provided to the acquiring agency (U.S.
comparable restraint performance to Proposed Collection; Comment government department, agency,
that of a fully functional vehicle Request for Certificate of Foreign independent establishment, or
sensitive locking mechanism. Contracting Party Receiving Federal corporation) to: Establish that they are a
In Jaguar Land Rover’s case, the Procurement Payments foreign contracting party; and If
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism is applicable, claim an exemption from
functional, but may slightly exceed the AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury. withholding based on an international
FMVSS 209 Sections 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii) agreement (such as a tax treaty); or
requirements, and, also contains a ACTION: Notice and request for
Claim an exemption from withholding,
webbing sensitive locking mechanism comments. in whole or in part, based on an
which provides comparable SUMMARY: The Department of the international procurement agreement or
performance to that of a vehicle Treasury, as part of its continuing effort because goods are produced, or services
sensitive mechanism. to reduce paperwork and respondent are performed in the United States. A
(h) Vehicle Production: Vehicle Form W–14 must be provided to the
burden, invites the general public and
production has been corrected to fully acquiring agency if a foreign contracting
other Federal agencies to take this
conform to FMVSS 209 Sections party has been paid a specified Federal
opportunity to comment on proposed
4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii). procurement payment and the foreign
JLR concluded by expressing the and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the contracting party is seeking to claim an
belief that the subject noncompliance is exemption (in whole or in part) from the
inconsequential as it relates to motor Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Currently, the IRS is soliciting tax imposed by section 5000C. Form W–
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be 14 must be submitted when requested
exempted from providing notification of comments concerning Certificate of
Foreign Contracting Party Receiving by the acquiring agency, whether or not
the noncompliance, as required by 49 an exemption (in whole or in part) is
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the Federal Procurement Payments.
DATES: Written comments should be
claimed from withholding under section
noncompliance, as required by 49 5000C.
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. received on or before July 11, 2017 to be
Current Actions: There are no changes
To view JLR’s petition, test data and assured of consideration.
being made to the form at this time.
analyses in its entirety you can visit ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Type of Review: Extension of a
https://www.regulations.gov by to Laurie E. Brimmer, Internal Revenue
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
currently approved collection.
following the online instructions for Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Affected Public: Federal government.
accessing the dockets and by using the Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Estimated Number of Annual
docket ID number for this petition Requests for additional information or Responses: 2,000.
shown in the heading of this notice. copies of the form and instructions Estimated Time per Response: 5 hrs.,
NHTSA notes that the statutory should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, 55 mins.
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, Estimated Total Annual Burden
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Hours: 11,840.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:41 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_22274/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2017-05-12 01:09:00
Document Modified: 2017-05-12 01:09:00
| 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 | Receipt of petition. | |
| Dates | The closing date for comments on the petition is June 12, 2017. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 22183 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR