Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2010 European Market Ferrari California Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation, 25356-25358 [2015-10264]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25356
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Notices
tire size designation instead of a hyphen
character ‘‘-,’’ and that from its experience it
believes that most motorcycle tire consumers
do not understand the differences in tire
construction and therefore do not base tire
purchases on the tire construction type.
(B) CTA stated that the subject tires were
built as designed and that the performance
requirements and testing requirements
specified in FMVSS No. 119 are exactly the
same for both bias-belted and diagonal (bias)
tires.
(C) CTA believes that the subject
noncompliance has no impact on the safety
of vehicles on which the subject tires are
mounted and that the subject tires meet or
exceed all the performance requirement of
FMVSS No. 119.
(D) CTA also stated that it is not aware of
any crashes, injuries, customer complaints,
or field reports associated with the subject
noncompliance.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
CTA additionally informed NHTSA
that the molds at the manufacturing
plant have been corrected so that no
additional tires will be manufactured or
sold with the noncompliance.
In summation, CTA believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt
CTA from providing recall notification
of noncompliance as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
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 tires that CTA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
any decision on this petition does not
relieve 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 tires
under their control after CTA 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 Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–10263 Filed 5–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0107, Notice 2]
Decision That Nonconforming Model
Year 2010 European Market Ferrari
California Passenger Cars Are Eligible
for Importation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
This document announces a
decision by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration that
certain Model Year (MY) 2010 Ferrari
California passenger cars (PCs) that were
not originally manufactured to comply
with all applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are
eligible for importation into the United
States because they are substantially
similar to vehicles originally
manufactured for importation into and
sale in the United States that were
certified by their manufacturer as
complying with the safety standards
(the U.S. certified version of the MY
2010 Ferrari California PC), and they are
capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards.
DATES: This decision became effective
on April 28, 2015.
ADDRESSES: For further information
contact George Stevens, Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA
(202–366–5308).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a
motor vehicle that was not originally
manufactured to conform to all
applicable FMVSS shall be refused
admission into the United States unless
NHTSA has decided that the motor
vehicle is substantially similar to a
motor vehicle originally manufactured
for importation into and sale in the
United States, certified as required
under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same
model year as the model of the motor
vehicle to be compared, and is capable
of being readily altered to conform to all
applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may
be submitted by either manufacturers or
importers who have registered with
NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As
specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA
publishes notice in the Federal Register
of each petition that it receives, and
affords interested persons an
opportunity to comment on the petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
At the close of the comment period,
NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has
received, whether the vehicle is eligible
for importation. The agency then
publishes this decision in the Federal
Register.
J.K. Technologies, LLC, of Baltimore,
Maryland (‘‘JK’’) (Registered Importer
#RI–90–006), petitioned NHTSA to
decide whether certain MY 2010 Ferrari
California PCs are eligible for
importation into the United States.
NHTSA published a notice of the
petition on March 21, 2014 (79 FR
15800) to afford an opportunity for
public comment. The reader is referred
to that notice for a thorough description
of the petition.
Comments
On April 21, 2014, NHTSA received
comments from Ferrari North America
(FNA), the vehicle’s original
manufacturer. In its comments, Ferrari
stated that while it agreed that the U.S.
and the non-U.S. versions of the vehicle
are ‘‘substantially similar’’ within the
meaning of section 30141(a)(1)(A)(i), it
strongly disputed JK’s assertions that
the non-U.S. version could be readily
altered to comply with all applicable
FMVSS. FNA elaborated by presenting
detailed reasons for its assertions with
respect to specific FMVSS.
On May 21, 2014, NHTSA forwarded
FNA’s comments to JK and asked that it
respond by June, 4, 2014. By letter dated
June 10, 2014, JK requested a 45 day
extension in order to gather engineering
data to adequately address the concerns
raised by FNA. NHTSA approved JK’s
request for this extension and JK
responded on August 15, 2014.
A summary of FNA’s comments, JK’s
responses, and the conclusions that
NHTSA has reached with regard to the
issues raised by the parties is set forth
below.
Review of Comments and Conclusions
NHTSA has reviewed the petition,
FNA’s comments and JK’s responses to
those comments, and has concluded
that the vehicles covered by the petition
are capable of being readily altered to
comply with all applicable FMVSS.
However, NHTSA has also decided that
an RI who imports or modifies one of
these vehicles must include in the
statement of conformity and associated
documents (referred to as a ‘‘conformity
package’’) it submits to NHTSA under
49 CFR 592.6(d) specific proof to
confirm that the vehicle was
manufactured to conform to, or was
successfully altered to conform to, each
of the following standards:
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Notices
FMVSS No. 101, Controls and
displays; FNA commented that the
Electronic Control Unit (‘‘ECU’’) for the
instrument cluster would have to be
reflashed with a ‘‘Proxy’’ file from the
Ferrari factory to ensure that all of the
other ECUs on the Control Area
Network (‘‘CAN’’) are aware of the new
ECU and are communicating properly.
FNA additionally commented that the
necessary reprogramming to achieve
conformity to the standard can only be
completed with proprietary hardware
and software which is not available to
RI’s and can only be obtained from
Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that they have the
necessary equipment and can obtain the
files from a donor vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that a
description of how the programming
changes were completed and how
compliance with the standard was
verified must be included in each
conformity package. Photographs,
printouts, and/or images of the
installation computer’s monitor
(‘‘screenshots’’), as practicable, must
also be submitted as proof that the
reprogramming was carried out
successfully.
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment;
FNA commented that the
reprogramming identified by JK would
necessitate reflashing [the control
system] with a ‘‘Proxy’’ file from the
Ferrari Factory in order to assure that all
aspects of the lighting system perform in
accordance with this standard.
JK responded that they have the
necessary equipment and can obtain the
files from a donor vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that a
description of how the programming
changes were accomplished and how
compliance with FMVSS No. 108 is
verified must accompany each
conformity package. Photographs,
printouts, and/or screenshots, as
practicable, must also be submitted as
proof that the reprogramming was
carried out successfully.
FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors;
FNA commented that in addition to the
modifications noted in the petition, the
driver’s outside rearview mirror would
need to be replaced.
JK responded that no comment is
necessary.
NHTSA has decided that proof,
including photographs, must be
submitted with each conformity package
to show that the vehicle is equipped
with a driver’s side rear view mirror that
allows the vehicle to meet the
applicable requirements of FMVSS No.
111.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
FMVSS No. 114 Theft protection and
rollaway prevention; As was the case
with FMVSS Nos. 101 and 108, FNA
contended that reprogramming could
only be completed with proprietary
hardware and software which is not
available to RI’s and can only be
obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that they have the
necessary equipment and can obtain the
files from a donor vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that a
description of how the programming
changes were completed and how
compliance was verified must
accompany each conformity package.
Additionally, photographs, printouts,
and/or screenshots, as practicable, must
be submitted as proof that the
reprogramming was carried out
successfully.
FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated
window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems; FNA commented that the
reprogramming identified by JK is not
necessary for the vehicles to conform to
the standard.
NHTSA has decided that a
description of how the vehicle’s
conformity was determined must
accompany each conformity package.
Descriptions of any modifications
necessary to achieve conformity must
accompany each conformity package.
FMVSS No. 138, Tire pressure
monitoring systems; In its petition JK
claims that the subject non-U.S.
certified vehicles conform to FMVSS
No. 138 as originally manufactured.
FNA commented that tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMS) are not
standard equipment on all European
Ferrari California vehicles and that
substantial work would be required to
bring vehicles into compliance with the
standard. FNA further asserted that
because of the extent and complexity of
the required changes, vehicles not
originally equipped with TPMS cannot
be ‘‘readily altered’’ to comply with the
standard.
JK responded that most non-U.S.
certified MY 2010 Ferrari California PCs
are equipped with TPMS, but that due
to varying regulations around the world,
some vehicles may be missing the
system. JK further stated that all
vehicles entering the U.S. would have to
be inspected for compliance, both with
regard to the material components of the
system and to the programming of the
system. JK also states that the vehicle
they inspected had a system identical to
that found in the U.S.-certified vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that a
description of how any applicable
modifications and/or programming
changes were completed and how
compliance was verified must
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25357
accompany each conformity package.
Additionally, photographs, printouts,
and/or screenshots, as practicable, must
be submitted as proof that the
reprogramming and/or modifications
were carried out successfully.
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Protection;
FNA commented that JK did not
identify all components that need to be
replaced in order to bring the airbag
system into compliance. FNA
specifically notes that the European
versions of the subject of vehicles are
not equipped with a ‘‘PASS AIR BAG
OFF’’ telltale, which is required for
compliance. Additionally, FNA stated
that JK did not identify certain portions
of the instrument panel that differ from
those on the U.S.-certified version of the
vehicle and that would have to be
changed to assure compliance with the
unbelted crash requirements of the
standard.
JK responded that all vehicles
processed under this petition must be
inspected for compliance with all
requirements of FMVSS No. 208. JK
commented that the modifications for
this standard concern the airbags, seats,
seatbelts, wiring harnesses, air bag light,
passenger air bag off light, instrument
cluster, child seat tethers, and other
hardware. JK also responded that the
entire system would need to be
programmed with the U.S. advanced air
bag programs and that they will run all
system checks with their ‘‘in house’’
weighted dummies in order to confirm
compliance.
NHTSA has decided that each
conformity package must include a
detailed description of the occupant
protection system in place on the
vehicle at the time it was delivered to
the RI, and a similarly detailed
description of the occupant protection
system in place after the vehicle is
altered, including photographs of all
required labeling. The description must
also include; assembly diagrams and
associated part numbers for all
components that were removed from
and installed on the vehicle, a
description of how the programming
changes were completed, and a
description of how compliance was
verified. Additionally, photographs
(e.g., screenshots) or report printouts, as
practicable, must be submitted as proof
that the reprogramming was carried out
successfully. Proof must also be
furnished that all portions of the
instrument panel in the vehicle, as
altered, are identical to the U.S. version
instrument panel, or proof in the form
of dynamic test results that, as altered,
the vehicle conforms to the unbelted
occupant requirements of FMVSS No.
208.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
25358
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 2015 / Notices
FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies;
FNA commented that as pointed out by
JK in their petition, some European
market vehicles are equipped with fourpoint seat belt assemblies that do not
comply with this standard. FNA
contends that the belts could not simply
be replaced by a registered importer,
due to the absence of an anchorage on
the B-pillar.
JK responded that all vehicles
processed under this petition would
need to be inspected for compliance and
that all parts of the system are available.
NHTSA has decided that each
conformity package must include
photographic evidence that conforming
safety belts have been installed in the
vehicle. Safety belt anchorages are
addressed in the following FMVSS No.
210 discussion.
FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly
anchorages; In its petition JK claims that
the subject non-U.S. certified vehicles
conform to FMVSS No. 210 as originally
manufactured. FNA commented that
European-market vehicles that were
equipped with optional four point
harnesses lack b-pillar anchorages
which are necessary for the installation
of compliant three point harnesses. FNA
expresses concern about the ability of an
RI to install this anchorage and ensure
that it meets the performance
requirements of the standard without
Ferrari’s templates and tools, which are
only used during production.
JK responded that any vehicle found
to be equipped with the optional belts
and lacking the mentioned anchorage
would have to be modified to meet this
standard. JK further states that they will
draw a template from the U.S. donor
vehicle and that as a result all parts and
engineering of the anchorage would
then be identical to the Ferrari
mounting point. JK asserts that less than
one percent of production is equipped
with the optional belts.
NHTSA has decided that conformity
packages for vehicles that require
modification must include a detailed
description of the alterations made to
achieve conformity with the standard.
The description must include sufficient
information to validate how the
alterations allowed the vehicle to meet
the requirements of the standard. This
information must include photographic
evidence that the modification was
carried out, as well as testing and/or
engineering analysis reports
documenting how the RI has verified
that the alterations will allow the
vehicle to meet all applicable
requirements of the standard.
FMVSS No. 301 Fuel system integrity;
FNA stated that the modifications to the
fuel system that JK identified in its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 May 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
petition, while necessary to comply
with emissions requirements, have no
bearing on compliance with FMVSS No.
301.
JK responded that the rollover valves
incorporated in the U.S. market system
are an integral part of the fuel system
integrity of the vehicle and necessary for
compliance.
NHTSA has decided that the fuel
system modifications are necessary to
bring vehicles into compliance with the
standard. Additionally, NHTSA has
decided that each conformity package
must include a detailed description of
all modifications made to achieve
conformity with the standard. This
description must include part numbers
for each part replaced and be supported
with photographic evidence of the
modifications made to achieve
conformity.
FMVSS No. 401 Interior trunk release;
FNA expressed agreement that the
modifications noted in the petition are
necessary to conform the vehicle. The
company noted, however, that the
reprogramming could only be
completed with proprietary hardware
and software which is not available to
RI’s and can only be obtained from
Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that it has the necessary
programs from its U.S. model vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that each
conformity package must include a
description of how the programming
changes were completed and how
compliance was verified. Additionally,
photographs, printouts, and/or
screenshots, as practicable, must be
submitted as proof that the
reprogramming was carried out.
49 CFR part 581, Bumper Standard;
FNA commented that in addition to the
modifications noted by JK in its
petition, additional bumper
reinforcements would have to be
installed in both the front and the rear
of the vehicle.
JK responded that no comment was
necessary.
NHTSA has decided that each
conformity package must include a
detailed description of all modifications
made to achieve conformity with the
standard, including necessary
modifications to the bumper
reinforcements. This description must
include part numbers for each part
replaced and be supported with
photographic evidence of the
modifications made to achieve
conformity.
In addition to the information
specified above, each conformity
package must include evidence showing
how the RI verified that the changes it
made in loading or reprograming
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
vehicle software to achieve conformity
with each separate FMVSS, did not also
cause the vehicle to fall out of
compliance with any other applicable
FMVSS.
Decision
Accordingly, on the basis of the
foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that
model year 2010 European model
Ferrari California passenger cars that
were not originally manufactured to
comply with all applicable FMVSS, are
substantially similar to model year 2010
Ferrari California passenger cars
manufactured for importation into and/
or sale in the United States, and
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and are
capable of being readily altered to
conform to all applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards.
Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject
Vehicles
The importer of a vehicle admissible
under any final decision must indicate
on the form HS–7 accompanying entry
the appropriate vehicle eligibility
number indicating that the vehicle is
eligible for entry. VSP–570 is the
vehicle eligibility number assigned to
vehicles admissible under this notice of
final decision.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–10264 Filed 5–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. AB 33 (Sub-No. 308X)]
Union Pacific Railroad Company—
Discontinuance of Service
Exemption—in Cochise County, AZ.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)
has filed a verified notice of exemption
under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F–Exempt
Abandonments and Discontinuances of
Service to discontinue service over a
48.03-mile portion of a rail line known
as the Curtiss Branch, from milepost
1040.15 at Curtiss, to milepost 1084.0 at
Naco, in Cochise County, Ariz. (the
Line).1 The Line traverses United States
Postal Service Zip Codes 85602, 85630,
1 UP states there is a milepost overlap equation
(milepost 1050.57 = milepost 1046.39). The Line
segment from Curtiss at milepost 1040.15 to
Fairbank at milepost 1050.57 is 10.42 miles, and the
Line segment from Fairbank at milepost 1046.39 to
Naco at milepost 1084.0 is 37.61 miles, a total
distance of 48.03 miles.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25356-25358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10264]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0107, Notice 2]
Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2010 European Market
Ferrari California Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces a decision by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration that certain Model Year (MY) 2010 Ferrari
California passenger cars (PCs) that were not originally manufactured
to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because
they are substantially similar to vehicles originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States that were certified by
their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.
certified version of the MY 2010 Ferrari California PC), and they are
capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
DATES: This decision became effective on April 28, 2015.
ADDRESSES: For further information contact George Stevens, Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified as required under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same
model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is
capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
J.K. Technologies, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland (``JK'') (Registered
Importer #RI-90-006), petitioned NHTSA to decide whether certain MY
2010 Ferrari California PCs are eligible for importation into the
United States. NHTSA published a notice of the petition on March 21,
2014 (79 FR 15800) to afford an opportunity for public comment. The
reader is referred to that notice for a thorough description of the
petition.
Comments
On April 21, 2014, NHTSA received comments from Ferrari North
America (FNA), the vehicle's original manufacturer. In its comments,
Ferrari stated that while it agreed that the U.S. and the non-U.S.
versions of the vehicle are ``substantially similar'' within the
meaning of section 30141(a)(1)(A)(i), it strongly disputed JK's
assertions that the non-U.S. version could be readily altered to comply
with all applicable FMVSS. FNA elaborated by presenting detailed
reasons for its assertions with respect to specific FMVSS.
On May 21, 2014, NHTSA forwarded FNA's comments to JK and asked
that it respond by June, 4, 2014. By letter dated June 10, 2014, JK
requested a 45 day extension in order to gather engineering data to
adequately address the concerns raised by FNA. NHTSA approved JK's
request for this extension and JK responded on August 15, 2014.
A summary of FNA's comments, JK's responses, and the conclusions
that NHTSA has reached with regard to the issues raised by the parties
is set forth below.
Review of Comments and Conclusions
NHTSA has reviewed the petition, FNA's comments and JK's responses
to those comments, and has concluded that the vehicles covered by the
petition are capable of being readily altered to comply with all
applicable FMVSS. However, NHTSA has also decided that an RI who
imports or modifies one of these vehicles must include in the statement
of conformity and associated documents (referred to as a ``conformity
package'') it submits to NHTSA under 49 CFR 592.6(d) specific proof to
confirm that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to, or was
successfully altered to conform to, each of the following standards:
[[Page 25357]]
FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays; FNA commented that the
Electronic Control Unit (``ECU'') for the instrument cluster would have
to be reflashed with a ``Proxy'' file from the Ferrari factory to
ensure that all of the other ECUs on the Control Area Network (``CAN'')
are aware of the new ECU and are communicating properly. FNA
additionally commented that the necessary reprogramming to achieve
conformity to the standard can only be completed with proprietary
hardware and software which is not available to RI's and can only be
obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that they have the necessary equipment and can obtain
the files from a donor vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that a description of how the programming changes
were completed and how compliance with the standard was verified must
be included in each conformity package. Photographs, printouts, and/or
images of the installation computer's monitor (``screenshots''), as
practicable, must also be submitted as proof that the reprogramming was
carried out successfully.
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment;
FNA commented that the reprogramming identified by JK would necessitate
reflashing [the control system] with a ``Proxy'' file from the Ferrari
Factory in order to assure that all aspects of the lighting system
perform in accordance with this standard.
JK responded that they have the necessary equipment and can obtain
the files from a donor vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that a description of how the programming changes
were accomplished and how compliance with FMVSS No. 108 is verified
must accompany each conformity package. Photographs, printouts, and/or
screenshots, as practicable, must also be submitted as proof that the
reprogramming was carried out successfully.
FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors; FNA commented that in addition to
the modifications noted in the petition, the driver's outside rearview
mirror would need to be replaced.
JK responded that no comment is necessary.
NHTSA has decided that proof, including photographs, must be
submitted with each conformity package to show that the vehicle is
equipped with a driver's side rear view mirror that allows the vehicle
to meet the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111.
FMVSS No. 114 Theft protection and rollaway prevention; As was the
case with FMVSS Nos. 101 and 108, FNA contended that reprogramming
could only be completed with proprietary hardware and software which is
not available to RI's and can only be obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that they have the necessary equipment and can obtain
the files from a donor vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that a description of how the programming changes
were completed and how compliance was verified must accompany each
conformity package. Additionally, photographs, printouts, and/or
screenshots, as practicable, must be submitted as proof that the
reprogramming was carried out successfully.
FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems; FNA commented that the reprogramming identified by JK is not
necessary for the vehicles to conform to the standard.
NHTSA has decided that a description of how the vehicle's
conformity was determined must accompany each conformity package.
Descriptions of any modifications necessary to achieve conformity must
accompany each conformity package.
FMVSS No. 138, Tire pressure monitoring systems; In its petition JK
claims that the subject non-U.S. certified vehicles conform to FMVSS
No. 138 as originally manufactured. FNA commented that tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMS) are not standard equipment on all European
Ferrari California vehicles and that substantial work would be required
to bring vehicles into compliance with the standard. FNA further
asserted that because of the extent and complexity of the required
changes, vehicles not originally equipped with TPMS cannot be ``readily
altered'' to comply with the standard.
JK responded that most non-U.S. certified MY 2010 Ferrari
California PCs are equipped with TPMS, but that due to varying
regulations around the world, some vehicles may be missing the system.
JK further stated that all vehicles entering the U.S. would have to be
inspected for compliance, both with regard to the material components
of the system and to the programming of the system. JK also states that
the vehicle they inspected had a system identical to that found in the
U.S.-certified vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that a description of how any applicable
modifications and/or programming changes were completed and how
compliance was verified must accompany each conformity package.
Additionally, photographs, printouts, and/or screenshots, as
practicable, must be submitted as proof that the reprogramming and/or
modifications were carried out successfully.
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Protection; FNA commented that JK did not
identify all components that need to be replaced in order to bring the
airbag system into compliance. FNA specifically notes that the European
versions of the subject of vehicles are not equipped with a ``PASS AIR
BAG OFF'' telltale, which is required for compliance. Additionally, FNA
stated that JK did not identify certain portions of the instrument
panel that differ from those on the U.S.-certified version of the
vehicle and that would have to be changed to assure compliance with the
unbelted crash requirements of the standard.
JK responded that all vehicles processed under this petition must
be inspected for compliance with all requirements of FMVSS No. 208. JK
commented that the modifications for this standard concern the airbags,
seats, seatbelts, wiring harnesses, air bag light, passenger air bag
off light, instrument cluster, child seat tethers, and other hardware.
JK also responded that the entire system would need to be programmed
with the U.S. advanced air bag programs and that they will run all
system checks with their ``in house'' weighted dummies in order to
confirm compliance.
NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include a
detailed description of the occupant protection system in place on the
vehicle at the time it was delivered to the RI, and a similarly
detailed description of the occupant protection system in place after
the vehicle is altered, including photographs of all required labeling.
The description must also include; assembly diagrams and associated
part numbers for all components that were removed from and installed on
the vehicle, a description of how the programming changes were
completed, and a description of how compliance was verified.
Additionally, photographs (e.g., screenshots) or report printouts, as
practicable, must be submitted as proof that the reprogramming was
carried out successfully. Proof must also be furnished that all
portions of the instrument panel in the vehicle, as altered, are
identical to the U.S. version instrument panel, or proof in the form of
dynamic test results that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to the
unbelted occupant requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
[[Page 25358]]
FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FNA commented that as pointed
out by JK in their petition, some European market vehicles are equipped
with four-point seat belt assemblies that do not comply with this
standard. FNA contends that the belts could not simply be replaced by a
registered importer, due to the absence of an anchorage on the B-
pillar.
JK responded that all vehicles processed under this petition would
need to be inspected for compliance and that all parts of the system
are available.
NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include
photographic evidence that conforming safety belts have been installed
in the vehicle. Safety belt anchorages are addressed in the following
FMVSS No. 210 discussion.
FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; In its petition JK
claims that the subject non-U.S. certified vehicles conform to FMVSS
No. 210 as originally manufactured. FNA commented that European-market
vehicles that were equipped with optional four point harnesses lack b-
pillar anchorages which are necessary for the installation of compliant
three point harnesses. FNA expresses concern about the ability of an RI
to install this anchorage and ensure that it meets the performance
requirements of the standard without Ferrari's templates and tools,
which are only used during production.
JK responded that any vehicle found to be equipped with the
optional belts and lacking the mentioned anchorage would have to be
modified to meet this standard. JK further states that they will draw a
template from the U.S. donor vehicle and that as a result all parts and
engineering of the anchorage would then be identical to the Ferrari
mounting point. JK asserts that less than one percent of production is
equipped with the optional belts.
NHTSA has decided that conformity packages for vehicles that
require modification must include a detailed description of the
alterations made to achieve conformity with the standard. The
description must include sufficient information to validate how the
alterations allowed the vehicle to meet the requirements of the
standard. This information must include photographic evidence that the
modification was carried out, as well as testing and/or engineering
analysis reports documenting how the RI has verified that the
alterations will allow the vehicle to meet all applicable requirements
of the standard.
FMVSS No. 301 Fuel system integrity; FNA stated that the
modifications to the fuel system that JK identified in its petition,
while necessary to comply with emissions requirements, have no bearing
on compliance with FMVSS No. 301.
JK responded that the rollover valves incorporated in the U.S.
market system are an integral part of the fuel system integrity of the
vehicle and necessary for compliance.
NHTSA has decided that the fuel system modifications are necessary
to bring vehicles into compliance with the standard. Additionally,
NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include a detailed
description of all modifications made to achieve conformity with the
standard. This description must include part numbers for each part
replaced and be supported with photographic evidence of the
modifications made to achieve conformity.
FMVSS No. 401 Interior trunk release; FNA expressed agreement that
the modifications noted in the petition are necessary to conform the
vehicle. The company noted, however, that the reprogramming could only
be completed with proprietary hardware and software which is not
available to RI's and can only be obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that it has the necessary programs from its U.S. model
vehicle.
NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include a
description of how the programming changes were completed and how
compliance was verified. Additionally, photographs, printouts, and/or
screenshots, as practicable, must be submitted as proof that the
reprogramming was carried out.
49 CFR part 581, Bumper Standard; FNA commented that in addition to
the modifications noted by JK in its petition, additional bumper
reinforcements would have to be installed in both the front and the
rear of the vehicle.
JK responded that no comment was necessary.
NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include a
detailed description of all modifications made to achieve conformity
with the standard, including necessary modifications to the bumper
reinforcements. This description must include part numbers for each
part replaced and be supported with photographic evidence of the
modifications made to achieve conformity.
In addition to the information specified above, each conformity
package must include evidence showing how the RI verified that the
changes it made in loading or reprograming vehicle software to achieve
conformity with each separate FMVSS, did not also cause the vehicle to
fall out of compliance with any other applicable FMVSS.
Decision
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides
that model year 2010 European model Ferrari California passenger cars
that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
FMVSS, are substantially similar to model year 2010 Ferrari California
passenger cars manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the
United States, and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and are capable of
being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards.
Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject Vehicles
The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must
indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle
eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry.
VSP-570 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to vehicles
admissible under this notice of final decision.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-10264 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
