Decision That Nonconforming 2006-2010 BMW M3 Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation, 42603-42604 [2015-17507]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Notices
Issued On: July 10, 2015.
John Simkins,
Planning and Environment Team Leader.
[FR Doc. 2015–17569 Filed 7–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0159, Notice 2]
Decision That Nonconforming 2006–
2010 BMW M3 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 2006–2010 BMW M3 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
sale in the United States that were
certified by their manufacturer as
complying with all applicable FMVSS
(the U.S. certified version of the 2006–
2010 BMW M3 PC), and they are
capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards.
DATES: This decision became effective
on July 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: For further information
contact George Stevens, Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA
(202–366–5308).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:59 Jul 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
US Specs, of Havre de Grace,
Maryland (Registered Importer 03–321),
petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
2006–2010 BMW M3 PCs are eligible for
importation into the United States.
NHTSA published a notice of the
petition on December 28, 2012 (77 FR
76598) to afford an opportunity for
public comment. The reader is referred
to that notice for a thorough description
of the petition.
Comments
On January 28, 2013, J.K.
Technologies, LLC (JK), another
Registered Importer, submitted
comments on the petition. In its
comments, JK expressed the belief that
the petition contained several omissions
and errors.
On May 20, 2013, US Specs
responded, in part, to JK’s comments by
submitting to NHTSA a revised listing
of parts associated with FMVSS No. 208
compliance.
On October 21, 2013, NHTSA
informed US Specs by letter that the
parts listing it submitted appeared to
only partially address the comments
made by JK. The agency offered US
Specs the opportunity to further address
JK’s comments.
On December 2, 2013 US Specs
submitted further comments and parts
information to NHTSA.
A summary of JK’s comments, US
Specs’ responses, and the conclusions
that NHTSA has reached with regard to
the issues raised by those parties is set
forth below.
Comments, Conclusions and Conditions
JK commented that the software
alterations necessary to conform the
vehicles to FMVSS No. 114 Theft
Protection and Rollaway Prevention
may also require replacement of the
CAS (theft prevention electronic control
unit or ‘‘ECU’’) hardware because some
versions of the European CAS units will
not accept U.S.-model programming.
US Specs responded: ‘‘Each vehicle
will need to be inspected on a case-bycase basis to see that they contain US
parts. The US parts will be installed if
not already so equipped. The Digital
Motor Electronics and Car Access
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42603
System control unit will be replaced
and programmed as necessary.’’
JK also commented that US Specs did
not include in its description of
modifications needed to conform the
vehicles to FMVSS No. 208 Occupant
Crash Protection the need to replace the
following components with U.S.-model
components: Driver’s airbag, front
acceleration sensors (including front
body wiring harness and mounting
hardware), front door sensors (including
center body wiring harness and
mounting hardware), and rear seat belts.
JK also commented that the system
ECU’s will have to be reprogrammed
and may require replacement.
US Specs responded by submitting
additional parts lists and diagrams and
by stating: ‘‘Each vehicle will need to be
inspected on a case-by-case basis to see
if they contain the US-model parts. The
US-model parts will be installed if a
vehicle is not already so equipped. The
Digital Motor Electronics and Car
Access System control units will also be
replaced and reprogrammed as
necessary.’’
JK also commented that in order for
the vehicle to be conformed to FMVSS
No. 301 Fuel System Integrity, the
following U.S.-model parts would have
to be substituted for those originally
equipped on the vehicle: Fuel tank,
filler neck, all fuel and vapor lines, and
vapor storage canister.
US Specs responded by stating that
BMW uses many of the same
components for multiple vehicles
worldwide. US Specs further stated that
each vehicle will need to be inspected
on a case by case basis to see if it
contains the US-model parts and that
US-model parts will be installed on
vehicles not already so equipped. US
Specs also provided additional parts
lists and diagrams.
After reviewing the petition, JK’s
comments and US Specs’ responses to
those comments, NHTSA has concluded
that the vehicles covered by the petition
are capable of being readily altered to
comply with all applicable FMVSS.
However, in light of JK’s comments and
consistent with recent decisions that the
agency has made in granting several
import eligibility petitions for latemodel vehicles (See Docket Numbers:
NHTSA–2013–0107, NHTSA–2013–
0108, and NHTSA–2014–0004), NHTSA
has decided that an RI who imports or
modifies the subject vehicles must
include a detailed description of all
modifications it makes to achieve
conformity with applicable FMVSS in
each statement of conformity with
supporting documents (referred to as a
‘‘conformity package’’) it submits to
NHTSA under 49 CFR part 592.6(d).
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
42604
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Notices
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The description of the alterations must
include: Identification of all parts
removed and installed, how software
programming changes were completed,
and how compliance was verified after
alterations were performed. The
descriptions must be accompanied by
photographs of the software installation
and testing systems used, as well as
printouts and/or screenshots of their
displays showing successful software
installation or reports indicating such
results.
With regard to FMVSS No. 208,
NHTSA has decided that each
conformity package must also 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
labeling required by FMVSS No. 208.
The description must also include parts
assembly diagrams.
Should an RI decide to alter the
vehicles to conform to FMVSS No. 138,
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems by
adding TPMS system, it must submit a
test report verifying that the vehicle
meets the requirements of the standard
with the system installed or refer to
such a test report previously submitted
to verify that the installed system
allowed a vehicle of the same make,
model, and model year to achieve
conformity with FMVSS No. 138.
In addition to the information
specified above, each conformity
package must include information
showing how the RI verified that the
changes it made in loading or
reprograming vehicle software to
achieve conformity with each
individual FMVSS did not 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
MY 2006–2010 BMW M3 passenger cars
that were not originally manufactured to
comply with all applicable FMVSS are
substantially similar to 2006–2010
BMW M3 PCs 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:59 Jul 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
the appropriate vehicle eligibility
number indicating that the vehicle is
eligible for entry. VSP–571 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. 2015–17507 Filed 7–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0066; Notice 2]
Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Ford Motor Company (Ford)
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2013 Ford Fusion and Lincoln
MKZ passenger cars built from August
12, 2012 through January 14, 2013 do
not fully comply with paragraph
S3.1.4.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102
Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect, or paragraph S5.2.1 of
FMVSS No. 114 Theft Protection and
Rollaway Prevention. Ford has filed an
appropriate report dated March 4, 2013,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
SUMMARY:
For further information on
this decision contact Amina Fisher,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5307, facsimile (202) 366–
7002.
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49
CFR part 556, Ford has petitioned for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
Ford submitted its petition on March
21, 2013. On February 11, 2014, Ford
submitted a petition supplement to
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
clarify how the specific vehicles
affected do not fully comply with
FMVSS No. 102 and FMVSS No. 114.
Notice of receipt of the petition was
published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on March 3, 2014, in
the Federal Register (79 FR 11871.) No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2013–
0066.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 4,727 MY 2013 Ford
Fusion and Lincoln MKZ passenger cars
built from August 12, 2012 through
January 14, 2013 at the Hermosillo
Stamping and Assembly Plant (HSAP)
in Hermosillo, Mexico.
III. Noncompliance: Ford has
determined that because the affected
vehicles were inadvertently shipped to
dealers in the ‘‘Factory Mode’’ instead
of ‘‘Transport Mode,’’ the transmission
gear selected in relation to other gears
is not always displayed by the shift
position sequence indicator (aka,
PRNDL) as required by paragraph
S3.1.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 102. In
addition, the affected Ford Fusion
vehicles manufactured with mechanical
key ignition systems do not fully meet
the requirements of paragraph S5.2.1 of
FMVSS No. 114 because under certain
conditions the mechanical key may be
removed from the ignition lock cylinder
when the transmission shift lever is in
a position other than ‘‘park.’’
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S3.1.4.1(a) of
FMVSS No. 102 specifically states:
S3.1.4.1 Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if
the transmission shift position sequence
includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the positions in
relation to each other and the position
selected, shall be displayed in view of the
driver whenever any of the following
conditions exist:
(a) The ignition is in a position where the
transmission can be shifted; . . .
Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 114
specifically states:
S5.2.1 Except as specified in S5.2.3, the
starting system required by S5.1 must
prevent key removal when tested according
to the procedures in S6, unless the
transmission or gear selection control is
locked in ‘‘park’’ or becomes locked in
‘‘park’’ as a direct result of key removal.
V. Summary of Ford’s Analyses: Ford
stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
1. The vehicle design is selfremedying. The affected vehicles are
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42603-42604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17507]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0159, Notice 2]
Decision That Nonconforming 2006-2010 BMW M3 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 2006-2010 BMW M3 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 sale in the United
States that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with all
applicable FMVSS (the U.S. certified version of the 2006-2010 BMW M3
PC), and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.
DATES: This decision became effective on July 13, 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.
US Specs, of Havre de Grace, Maryland (Registered Importer 03-321),
petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2006-2010 BMW M3 PCs are eligible
for importation into the United States. NHTSA published a notice of the
petition on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76598) to afford an opportunity
for public comment. The reader is referred to that notice for a
thorough description of the petition.
Comments
On January 28, 2013, J.K. Technologies, LLC (JK), another
Registered Importer, submitted comments on the petition. In its
comments, JK expressed the belief that the petition contained several
omissions and errors.
On May 20, 2013, US Specs responded, in part, to JK's comments by
submitting to NHTSA a revised listing of parts associated with FMVSS
No. 208 compliance.
On October 21, 2013, NHTSA informed US Specs by letter that the
parts listing it submitted appeared to only partially address the
comments made by JK. The agency offered US Specs the opportunity to
further address JK's comments.
On December 2, 2013 US Specs submitted further comments and parts
information to NHTSA.
A summary of JK's comments, US Specs' responses, and the
conclusions that NHTSA has reached with regard to the issues raised by
those parties is set forth below.
Comments, Conclusions and Conditions
JK commented that the software alterations necessary to conform the
vehicles to FMVSS No. 114 Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention may
also require replacement of the CAS (theft prevention electronic
control unit or ``ECU'') hardware because some versions of the European
CAS units will not accept U.S.-model programming.
US Specs responded: ``Each vehicle will need to be inspected on a
case-by-case basis to see that they contain US parts. The US parts will
be installed if not already so equipped. The Digital Motor Electronics
and Car Access System control unit will be replaced and programmed as
necessary.''
JK also commented that US Specs did not include in its description
of modifications needed to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 208
Occupant Crash Protection the need to replace the following components
with U.S.-model components: Driver's airbag, front acceleration sensors
(including front body wiring harness and mounting hardware), front door
sensors (including center body wiring harness and mounting hardware),
and rear seat belts. JK also commented that the system ECU's will have
to be reprogrammed and may require replacement.
US Specs responded by submitting additional parts lists and
diagrams and by stating: ``Each vehicle will need to be inspected on a
case-by-case basis to see if they contain the US-model parts. The US-
model parts will be installed if a vehicle is not already so equipped.
The Digital Motor Electronics and Car Access System control units will
also be replaced and reprogrammed as necessary.''
JK also commented that in order for the vehicle to be conformed to
FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity, the following U.S.-model parts
would have to be substituted for those originally equipped on the
vehicle: Fuel tank, filler neck, all fuel and vapor lines, and vapor
storage canister.
US Specs responded by stating that BMW uses many of the same
components for multiple vehicles worldwide. US Specs further stated
that each vehicle will need to be inspected on a case by case basis to
see if it contains the US-model parts and that US-model parts will be
installed on vehicles not already so equipped. US Specs also provided
additional parts lists and diagrams.
After reviewing the petition, JK's comments and US Specs' responses
to those comments, NHTSA has concluded that the vehicles covered by the
petition are capable of being readily altered to comply with all
applicable FMVSS. However, in light of JK's comments and consistent
with recent decisions that the agency has made in granting several
import eligibility petitions for late-model vehicles (See Docket
Numbers: NHTSA-2013-0107, NHTSA-2013-0108, and NHTSA-2014-0004), NHTSA
has decided that an RI who imports or modifies the subject vehicles
must include a detailed description of all modifications it makes to
achieve conformity with applicable FMVSS in each statement of
conformity with supporting documents (referred to as a ``conformity
package'') it submits to NHTSA under 49 CFR part 592.6(d).
[[Page 42604]]
The description of the alterations must include: Identification of all
parts removed and installed, how software programming changes were
completed, and how compliance was verified after alterations were
performed. The descriptions must be accompanied by photographs of the
software installation and testing systems used, as well as printouts
and/or screenshots of their displays showing successful software
installation or reports indicating such results.
With regard to FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA has decided that each
conformity package must also 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 labeling required by FMVSS No. 208. The
description must also include parts assembly diagrams.
Should an RI decide to alter the vehicles to conform to FMVSS No.
138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems by adding TPMS system, it must
submit a test report verifying that the vehicle meets the requirements
of the standard with the system installed or refer to such a test
report previously submitted to verify that the installed system allowed
a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year to achieve conformity
with FMVSS No. 138.
In addition to the information specified above, each conformity
package must include information showing how the RI verified that the
changes it made in loading or reprograming vehicle software to achieve
conformity with each individual FMVSS did not 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 MY 2006-2010 BMW M3 passenger cars that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS are substantially
similar to 2006-2010 BMW M3 PCs 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-571 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. 2015-17507 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P