Decision That Certain Nonconforming Model Year 2006-2007 European Market Ferrari 599 GTB Passenger Cars Manufactured Prior to September 2007 Are Eligible for Importation, 11354-11358 [2016-04616]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11354
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
unintended acceleration litigation against
Toyota is new evidence since the joint
NHTSA/NASA study. However, ODI has
previously reviewed this information during
its evaluation of DP14–003. The petitioner
does not provide any new information about
the theories or his allegations of defects in
the Toyota ETC software. As noted in ODI’s
denial report for DP14–003, the software
defect theories failed to identify a precise
cause for sudden acceleration, the software
experts did not reproduce the alleged
software defects in testing, and the theorized
conditions did not result in sudden
acceleration when artificially simulated. We
find no basis for concluding that the software
defect theories constitute scientifically valid
evidence or could explain the incident
alleged by the petitioner.
ODI’s assessment of the software defect
theories is not substantially different from
that of one of the plaintiff attorneys who
hired the software experts. These plaintiff
attorneys provided the following
characterization of the software experts’ work
and findings in a document related to the
Toyota SUA property loss settlement in 2013:
While Plaintiffs’ software experts raised
certain software design and architecture
issues, they have not been able to identify a
defect that is responsible for the vast array
of SUAs reported to Toyota and NHTSA by
vehicle owners. More specifically, Plaintiffs
have been unable to reproduce a UA in a
Subject vehicle under driving conditions.10
In addition, an October 2013 order from
the presiding judge in the Toyota ETC multidistrict litigation provided the following
characterization of the software defect
theories cited by the petitioner when issuing
a ruling in a sudden acceleration case:
Toyota’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
premised on the uncontroverted fact that
Plaintiff has been unable to identify a precise
software design or manufacturing defect and
point to physical or otherwise traceable
evidence that the defect actually caused the
Camry throttle to open from an idle position
to a much wider angle without analog input
from the driver via the accelerator pedal. To
a lesser extent, it is also premised upon the
fact that Plaintiff cannot prove the actual
failure of Toyota’s fail-safe mechanisms in
the Camry on the day of the collision.
2.5 The Honda Example
The petitioner references a 2014 recall of
175,000 Honda Fit vehicles in Japan as an
example of a software defect causing
unintended acceleration accidents (Honda
Foreign Campaign Number 14F–057). The
Honda recall addressed programming flaws
that may result in unintended acceleration
during specific operating conditions. Honda’s
Foreign Recall Report to NHTSA described
the programming flaws and operating
conditions:
The vehicle may lurch forward due to
excessive driving force generated by the
motor if the accelerator pedal is pressed
strongly when the vehicle is in Engine mode
and shifted into Drive or Reverse, or the
vehicle is in EV mode and being operated on
a slope. The vehicle may also lurch forward
momentarily due to excessive driving force
generated by the motor when switching from
EV mode to Engine mode after being in stop
and go traffic.
Honda was able to reproduce the
conditions described in the recall and
develop a software update to address the
‘‘lurching’’ concerns. The conditions
addressed by the Honda recall are associated
with brief surges that occur when the
accelerator pedal is being applied under
specific operating conditions and, thus, are
not related to the petitioner’s incident or
allegations (which claim sustained
acceleration during brake application), nor
have they been observed in the general
population of Toyota ETC vehicles. Finally,
ODI is not aware of any vehicle defect
theories, from the software experts cited by
the petitioner or anyone else, that have
similarly documented and reproduced a
sudden unintended acceleration condition in
the Toyota vehicles that would be
attributable to the electronic throttle control
software in those vehicles.
3.0
Conclusion
The petitioner does not provide any new
evidence in support of his petition. In our
view, a defects investigation is unlikely to
result in a finding that a defect related to
motor vehicle safety exists, or a NHTSA
order for the notification and remedy of a
safety related defect as alleged by the
petitioner, at the conclusion of the requested
investigation. Therefore, given a thorough
analysis of the potential for finding a safety
related defect in the vehicle, and in view of
NHTSA’s enforcement priorities and its
previous investigations into this issue, the
petition is denied. This action does not
constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety
related defect does not exist. The agency will
take further action if warranted by future
circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Frank S. Borris II,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Enforcement.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2016–04605 Filed 3–2–16; 8:45 am]
10 Berman,
S., Seltzer, M., and Pitre,. F. (2013,
April 23). Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees,
Reimbursement of Expenses, and Compensation to
Named Plaintiffs, page 12. In Re: Toyota Motor
Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. United
States District Court, Central District of California.
Case No. 8:10ML2151. Retrieved from https://
www.toyotaelsettlement.com/Home/CaseDocs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0109, Notice 2]
Decision That Certain Nonconforming
Model Year 2006–2007 European
Market Ferrari 599 GTB Passenger
Cars Manufactured Prior to September
2007 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 (NHTSA)
that certain model year (MY) 2006–2007
European market Ferrari 599 GTB
passenger cars (PCs) manufactured prior
to September 2007 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 2007 Ferrari 599 GTB
PC), and they are capable of being
readily altered to conform to the
standards.
SUMMARY:
This decision became effective
on February 26, 2016.
ADDRESSES: For further information
contact George Stevens, Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA
(202–366–5308).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
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 MY 2006–2007
European market Ferrari 599 GTB PCs
manufactured prior to September 2007
are eligible for importation into the
United States. NHTSA published a
notice of the petition on March 24, 2014
(79 FR 16099) to afford an opportunity
for public comment. The reader is
referred to that notice for a thorough
description of the petition.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Comments
On April 23, 2014, NHTSA received
comments from Ferrari North America,
Inc. (FNA), on behalf of Ferrari SpA, the
vehicle’s original manufacturer. In its
comments, Ferrari stated that while it
agreed that the U.S.- and the non-U.S.certified versions of the vehicle are
‘‘substantially similar’’ within the
meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)(i),
it strongly disputed JK’s assertions that
the non-U.S.-certified 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 to accord it an
opportunity to respond and asked it to
submit its response 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 extension. JK
provided its initial response on August
17, 2014 and submitted supplemental
information on February 17, 2015.
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.
Analysis of Comments and Agency
Conclusions
NHTSA has reviewed the petition,
FNA’s comments and JK’s responses to
those comments, and has concluded
that only the nonconforming European
Market versions of the vehicles
described in the petition are
substantially similar to the U.S.-certified
version of the MY 2006 and 2007 Ferrari
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
599 GTB PC and are capable of being
readily altered to comply with all
applicable FMVSS. 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, as described below, to show that
the vehicle was manufactured to
conform to, or was successfully altered
to conform to, each of the following
standards:
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 it has the Ferrari
tools and the required access to reflash
all computers as required.
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 it has the Ferrari
tools and the required access to reflash
all computers as required.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11355
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 that is not
available to RIs and can only be
obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that it has the Ferrari
tools and the required access to reflash
all computers as required.
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.
Despite FNA’s comment, NHTSA has
decided that a description of how the
vehicle’s conformity was determined
must accompany each conformity
package. If any modifications were
necessary to achieve conformity, a
description of those modifications must
be included in the conformity package.
FMVSS No. 138 Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems: In its petition, JK
claimed 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 599 GTB 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 it has access to the
appropriate equipment and has
experience in installing TPMS and the
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11356
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
equipment to make sure those systems
are working properly.
NHTSA notes that because the subject
nonconforming vehicles were
manufactured prior to September 1,
2007, the date on or after which 100%
of passenger cars must meet the
requirements of FMVSS No. 138,
compliance of the subject vehicles with
FMVSS No. 138 is not an issue. An RI
only needs to conform a vehicle to
standards that are fully phased in by the
vehicle’s date of manufacture.
FMVSS No. 205 Glazing Materials:
FNA commented that JK’s assertion that
the glazing material complies with the
standard was incorrect. FNA states that
the rear corner glazing directly behind
the B-Pillar on both sides of the vehicle
is made of plastic, which does not
comply with the standard.
JK responded that the vehicle it
inspected was equipped with compliant
glazing, as it is properly labeled. JK
states that each vehicle imported will be
inspected and if not in compliance, will
be brought into compliance by adding
the appropriate glass.
NHTSA has decided that
photographic evidence of the required
markings to demonstrate that the glazing
complies with the standard must be
submitted with each conformity
package.
FMVSS No. 207 Seating Systems:
FNA commented that replacement of
the driver and passenger seats with
U.S.-model components would not be
physically possible in the European
market model due to differences in the
chasses. Specifically, FNA stated that
the chassis in the U.S.-model vehicles
‘‘dips down in order to accommodate
the weight sensors needed to comply
with the requirements of FMVSS No.
208.’’
JK disagreed with FNA’s claim that
there is a ‘‘dip’’ in the chassis, but noted
that some of the chasses have ‘‘different
seat mounts.’’ JK provided parts listings
and diagrams showing the different
mounts.
JK also responded that the seat frames
and mounting points are the same in the
U.S.-model and European market
vehicles, but observed that there are
four brackets that are welded to the
[chasses] of the European market
vehicles on the passenger side only that
could be removed, and U.S.-model seats
and seat runners installed onto the
resulting flat surface of the [chassis].
Ferrari also commented that, ‘‘JKT
acknowledges that both driver and
passenger seating systems in the
European vehicle must be replaced with
U.S. seats.’’
JK responded:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
The reason the seats need to be replaced
is NOT a safety issue. It’s a leather matching
issue. If you ‘‘choose’’ to replace the
passenger seat so that you get the U.S. seat
with the baby seat tether hole, then you must
replace the driver’s seat to match the leather
color [in the a replaced passenger seat].
If you choose to make a template and cut
the hole for the baby seat tether [in the
passenger seat] then you do not need to
replace either seat. There is NO difference in
the design or mounting points between the
European seats and the U.S. seats. There are
differences in the levels of the leather and
options in both the U.S. seats and the
European seats.
NHTSA has decided that a
description of the seating systems
present on the vehicle at the time of
importation, including all differences
from the U.S.-model, with part numbers
and diagrams where applicable, and a
description of all modifications
necessary to conform the vehicle to the
standard must accompany each
conformity package. Additionally,
photographs, as practicable, must be
submitted as proof that 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 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 the installation of
the U.S. version instrument panel and
reprogramming will ensure that a
compliant system is installed providing
the telltales that meet the requirements
of FMVSS No. 208.
JK further stated that after the brackets
are removed, it can install the rails and
seats properly with the software and
systems. JK states that it will program,
reset, and test the systems, bringing
them into compliance with the
standard.
JK later clarified that the European
vehicle it inspected was equipped with
the proper parts as well as the proper
programs and systems to meet the
requirements of the standard in the
same manner as the U.S.-version of the
vehicle, including the complete
instrument systems, dash, and
‘‘passenger airbag off’’ light.
NHTSA has decided that each
conformity package must include a
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, after all
conformance modifications are
performed, are identical to the U.S.
version instrument panel, or proof in
the form of dynamic test results
showing that the vehicle, as altered,
conforms to the unbelted occupant
requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies:
FNA commented that, as JK
acknowledged in the 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 the vehicle it
inspected was equipped with ‘‘the
correct belts.’’ JK indicated that if a
vehicle is equipped with the noncompliant four-point seat belts it can
make the appropriate tools to install the
correct belts, using a U.S.-model vehicle
as a guide.
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 discussion of
FMVSS No. 210.
FMVSS No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages: In the 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 bpillar anchorages that are necessary for
the installation of compliant three-point
harnesses. FNA expressed 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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
and tools, which are only used during
production.
JK responded that any vehicle found
to be equipped with the optional belts
and lacking the aforementioned
anchorage would have to be modified to
meet this standard. JK further states that
it will draw a template from a U.S.
donor vehicle and that, as a result, all
parts and engineering of the anchorage
would 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. 225 Child Restraint
Anchorage Systems: FNA stated that
European market vehicles do not
include a top tether anchor plate that is
included on U.S. market vehicles. FNA
further expressed doubts about an
anchorage installed by an RI being able
to meet the strength requirements of the
standard.
JK responded that it has the parts and
tools to install the anchorage properly.
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 standards.
FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity:
FNA stated that the modifications to the
fuel system that JK identified in the
petition, while necessary to comply
with emissions requirements, have no
bearing on compliance with FMVSS No.
301. However, FNA additionally stated
its belief that the addition of rear
bumper reinforcements is necessary to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
insure compliance with FMVSS No.
301.
JK responded that no comment was
necessary.
NHTSA has decided that the fuel
system modifications identified in the
petition are necessary to bring the
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 described in the
petition are necessary to conform the
vehicle to the standard. The company
noted, however, that the reprogramming
could only be completed with
proprietary hardware and software,
which is not available to RIs and can
only be obtained from Ferrari and/or
FNA.
JK responded that it has access to all
of the parts and programming necessary
to bring the vehicle into compliance.
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 described 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 FMVSS did not also cause the
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11357
vehicle to fall out of compliance with
any other applicable FMVSS.
NHTSA’s Decision
Accordingly, on the basis of the
foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that
model year 2006 and 2007 European
market Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars
not originally manufactured to comply
with all applicable FMVSS and
manufactured from September 1, 2006
to August 31, 2007 are substantially
similar to model year 2007 Ferrari 599
GTB passenger cars manufactured prior
to September 1, 2007 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 Numbers: Ferrari
stated in its comments on the subject
petition that it did not certify any
Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars as model
year 2006 for the U.S.-market. The
agency notes that it previously decided
that model year 2006 Ferrari 599 [GTB 1]
passenger cars not originally
manufactured to comply with all
applicable FMVSS manufactured prior
to September 1, 2006 are eligible for
importation as model year 2006 vehicles
under VSP–518 (75 FR 34524). At the
time, NHTSA relied on Ferrari’s
submission of VIN deciphering
information under 49 CFR part 565,
dated February 22, 2006, which
indicated that the company planned to
apply the model year 2006 designation
to Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars
manufactured for sale in the United
States. The agency also took note of the
fact that Ferrari did not comment on the
petition that resulted in eligibility
number VSP–518 with regard to the
model year designation.
After the original 2006 Ferrari 599
GTB petition was granted on July 7,
2009, NHTSA amended the definition of
the term ‘‘model year’’ in 49 CFR 593.4
for the purpose of import eligibility
decisions. The amendment was made to
eliminate much of the confusion
confronting RIs over the issue of
whether a given vehicle manufactured
for sale abroad has a substantially
similar U.S.-certified counterpart of the
same model year. The amendment,
made in a final rule published on
August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53072), deleted
‘‘the calendar year that begins on
September 1 and ends on August 31 of
the next calendar year,’’ as one of the
alternative definitions of the term
1 At the time the decision was made, the full
model name was abbreviated in the grant notice for
the petition. The full model name is included here
for consistency.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
11358
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices
‘‘model year.’’ In place of the deleted
text, the amendment added the
following alternative definition: ‘‘The
calendar year (i.e., January 1 through
December 31) in which manufacturing
operations are completed on the vehicle
at its place of main assembly.’’
In light of this change in the
definition of ‘‘model year,’’ as well as
Ferrari’s failure to raise any issue
regarding the model year designation in
response to the original model year 2006
599 GTB petition, NHTSA considers
Ferrari’s comment on this issue in the
subject petition to be moot.
Consequently, NHTSA reaffirms that
nonconforming Ferrari 599 GTB
passenger cars manufactured between
January 1, 2006 and August 31, 2006
continue to be eligible under VSP–518.
NHTSA has also decided that
nonconforming model year 2006
European market Ferrari 599 GTB
passenger cars manufactured from
September 1, 2006 through December
31, 2006 and nonconforming model year
2007 European market Ferrari 599 GTB
passenger cars manufactured from
September 1, 2006 through December
31, 2007, are admissible under vehicle
eligibility number VSP–576. This
number must be indicated on the form
HS–7 accompanying entry of the
vehicles eligible for entry.
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. 2016–04616 Filed 3–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0126; Notice 1]
Supreme Corporation, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
Supreme Corporation
(Supreme), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2015–2016 Supreme
Classic American Trolley buses
manufactured between October 1, 2014
and November 2, 2015, do not fully
comply with paragraph S6 of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 205, Glazing Materials. Supreme
filed a report pursuant to 49 CFR part
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Supreme
then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR
part 556 requesting a decision that the
subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is April 4, 2016.
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 at the beginning 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 Deliver: 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 your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with the comments.
Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Documents submitted to a 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. DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
The petition, supporting materials,
and all comments received before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated above will be filed and will be
considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied,
notice of the decision will be published
in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49
CFR part 556), Supreme submitted a
petition 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.
This notice of receipt of Supreme’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. Buses Involved
Affected are approximately 21 MY
2015–2016 Supreme Classic American
Trolley buses manufactured between
October 1, 2014 and November 2, 2015.
III. Noncompliance
Supreme explains that the
noncompliance is that the windshields
on the subject Trolley’s do not contain
the ‘‘AS1’’ markings as required by
paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205.
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205
requires in pertinent part:
S6. Certification and marking.
S6.1 A prime glazing material
manufacturer, must certify, in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 30115, each piece of glazing
material to which this standard applies that
is designed—
(a) As a component of any specific motor
vehicle or camper; or
(b) To be cut into components for use in
motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle
equipment.
S6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer
certifies its glazing by adding to the marks
required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1–
1996, in letters and numerals of the same
size, the symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and a manufacturer’s
code mark that NHTSA assigns to the
manufacturer. NHTSA will assign a code
mark to a manufacturer after the
manufacturer submits a written request to the
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. The request must
include the company name, address, and a
statement from the manufacturer certifying
its status as a prime glazing manufacturer as
defined in S4.
In addition, paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS
No. 205 incorporates by reference ANSI
Z26.1–1996 and other industry
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11354-11358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04616]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0109, Notice 2]
Decision That Certain Nonconforming Model Year 2006-2007 European
Market Ferrari 599 GTB Passenger Cars Manufactured Prior to September
2007 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 (NHTSA) that certain model year (MY)
2006-2007 European market Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars (PCs)
manufactured prior to September 2007 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 2007 Ferrari 599 GTB
PC), and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.
DATES: This decision became effective on February 26, 2016.
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
[[Page 11355]]
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 MY 2006-2007
European market Ferrari 599 GTB PCs manufactured prior to September
2007 are eligible for importation into the United States. NHTSA
published a notice of the petition on March 24, 2014 (79 FR 16099) to
afford an opportunity for public comment. The reader is referred to
that notice for a thorough description of the petition.
Comments
On April 23, 2014, NHTSA received comments from Ferrari North
America, Inc. (FNA), on behalf of Ferrari SpA, the vehicle's original
manufacturer. In its comments, Ferrari stated that while it agreed that
the U.S.- and the non-U.S.-certified versions of the vehicle are
``substantially similar'' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C.
30141(a)(1)(A)(i), it strongly disputed JK's assertions that the non-
U.S.-certified 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 to accord it
an opportunity to respond and asked it to submit its response 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 extension. JK provided
its initial response on August 17, 2014 and submitted supplemental
information on February 17, 2015.
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.
Analysis of Comments and Agency Conclusions
NHTSA has reviewed the petition, FNA's comments and JK's responses
to those comments, and has concluded that only the nonconforming
European Market versions of the vehicles described in the petition are
substantially similar to the U.S.-certified version of the MY 2006 and
2007 Ferrari 599 GTB PC and are capable of being readily altered to
comply with all applicable FMVSS. 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, as
described below, to show that the vehicle was manufactured to conform
to, or was successfully altered to conform to, each of the following
standards:
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 it has the Ferrari tools and the required access
to reflash all computers as required.
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 it has the Ferrari tools and the required access
to reflash all computers as required.
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 that is
not available to RIs and can only be obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that it has the Ferrari tools and the required access
to reflash all computers as required.
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.
Despite FNA's comment, NHTSA has decided that a description of how
the vehicle's conformity was determined must accompany each conformity
package. If any modifications were necessary to achieve conformity, a
description of those modifications must be included in the conformity
package.
FMVSS No. 138 Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems: In its petition, JK
claimed 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 599 GTB 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 it has access to the appropriate equipment and
has experience in installing TPMS and the
[[Page 11356]]
equipment to make sure those systems are working properly.
NHTSA notes that because the subject nonconforming vehicles were
manufactured prior to September 1, 2007, the date on or after which
100% of passenger cars must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 138,
compliance of the subject vehicles with FMVSS No. 138 is not an issue.
An RI only needs to conform a vehicle to standards that are fully
phased in by the vehicle's date of manufacture.
FMVSS No. 205 Glazing Materials: FNA commented that JK's assertion
that the glazing material complies with the standard was incorrect. FNA
states that the rear corner glazing directly behind the B-Pillar on
both sides of the vehicle is made of plastic, which does not comply
with the standard.
JK responded that the vehicle it inspected was equipped with
compliant glazing, as it is properly labeled. JK states that each
vehicle imported will be inspected and if not in compliance, will be
brought into compliance by adding the appropriate glass.
NHTSA has decided that photographic evidence of the required
markings to demonstrate that the glazing complies with the standard
must be submitted with each conformity package.
FMVSS No. 207 Seating Systems: FNA commented that replacement of
the driver and passenger seats with U.S.-model components would not be
physically possible in the European market model due to differences in
the chasses. Specifically, FNA stated that the chassis in the U.S.-
model vehicles ``dips down in order to accommodate the weight sensors
needed to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 208.''
JK disagreed with FNA's claim that there is a ``dip'' in the
chassis, but noted that some of the chasses have ``different seat
mounts.'' JK provided parts listings and diagrams showing the different
mounts.
JK also responded that the seat frames and mounting points are the
same in the U.S.-model and European market vehicles, but observed that
there are four brackets that are welded to the [chasses] of the
European market vehicles on the passenger side only that could be
removed, and U.S.-model seats and seat runners installed onto the
resulting flat surface of the [chassis].
Ferrari also commented that, ``JKT acknowledges that both driver
and passenger seating systems in the European vehicle must be replaced
with U.S. seats.''
JK responded:
The reason the seats need to be replaced is NOT a safety issue.
It's a leather matching issue. If you ``choose'' to replace the
passenger seat so that you get the U.S. seat with the baby seat
tether hole, then you must replace the driver's seat to match the
leather color [in the a replaced passenger seat].
If you choose to make a template and cut the hole for the baby
seat tether [in the passenger seat] then you do not need to replace
either seat. There is NO difference in the design or mounting points
between the European seats and the U.S. seats. There are differences
in the levels of the leather and options in both the U.S. seats and
the European seats.
NHTSA has decided that a description of the seating systems present
on the vehicle at the time of importation, including all differences
from the U.S.-model, with part numbers and diagrams where applicable,
and a description of all modifications necessary to conform the vehicle
to the standard must accompany each conformity package. Additionally,
photographs, as practicable, must be submitted as proof that
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 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 the installation of the U.S. version instrument
panel and reprogramming will ensure that a compliant system is
installed providing the telltales that meet the requirements of FMVSS
No. 208.
JK further stated that after the brackets are removed, it can
install the rails and seats properly with the software and systems. JK
states that it will program, reset, and test the systems, bringing them
into compliance with the standard.
JK later clarified that the European vehicle it inspected was
equipped with the proper parts as well as the proper programs and
systems to meet the requirements of the standard in the same manner as
the U.S.-version of the vehicle, including the complete instrument
systems, dash, and ``passenger airbag off'' light.
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, after all conformance modifications
are performed, are identical to the U.S. version instrument panel, or
proof in the form of dynamic test results showing that the vehicle, as
altered, conforms to the unbelted occupant requirements of FMVSS No.
208.
FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: FNA commented that, as JK
acknowledged in the 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 the vehicle it inspected was equipped with ``the
correct belts.'' JK indicated that if a vehicle is equipped with the
non-compliant four-point seat belts it can make the appropriate tools
to install the correct belts, using a U.S.-model vehicle as a guide.
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
discussion of FMVSS No. 210.
FMVSS No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages: In the 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 that are necessary for the installation of compliant
three-point harnesses. FNA expressed 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
[[Page 11357]]
and tools, which are only used during production.
JK responded that any vehicle found to be equipped with the
optional belts and lacking the aforementioned anchorage would have to
be modified to meet this standard. JK further states that it will draw
a template from a U.S. donor vehicle and that, as a result, all parts
and engineering of the anchorage would 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. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems: FNA stated that
European market vehicles do not include a top tether anchor plate that
is included on U.S. market vehicles. FNA further expressed doubts about
an anchorage installed by an RI being able to meet the strength
requirements of the standard.
JK responded that it has the parts and tools to install the
anchorage properly.
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 standards.
FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: FNA stated that the
modifications to the fuel system that JK identified in the petition,
while necessary to comply with emissions requirements, have no bearing
on compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, FNA additionally stated its
belief that the addition of rear bumper reinforcements is necessary to
insure compliance with FMVSS No. 301.
JK responded that no comment was necessary.
NHTSA has decided that the fuel system modifications identified in
the petition are necessary to bring the 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 described in the petition are necessary to conform
the vehicle to the standard. The company noted, however, that the
reprogramming could only be completed with proprietary hardware and
software, which is not available to RIs and can only be obtained from
Ferrari and/or FNA.
JK responded that it has access to all of the parts and programming
necessary to bring the vehicle into compliance.
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 described 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 FMVSS did not also cause the vehicle to fall out
of compliance with any other applicable FMVSS.
NHTSA's Decision
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides
that model year 2006 and 2007 European market Ferrari 599 GTB passenger
cars not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS
and manufactured from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007 are
substantially similar to model year 2007 Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars
manufactured prior to September 1, 2007 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 Numbers: Ferrari stated in its comments on the
subject petition that it did not certify any Ferrari 599 GTB passenger
cars as model year 2006 for the U.S.-market. The agency notes that it
previously decided that model year 2006 Ferrari 599 [GTB \1\] passenger
cars not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS
manufactured prior to September 1, 2006 are eligible for importation as
model year 2006 vehicles under VSP-518 (75 FR 34524). At the time,
NHTSA relied on Ferrari's submission of VIN deciphering information
under 49 CFR part 565, dated February 22, 2006, which indicated that
the company planned to apply the model year 2006 designation to Ferrari
599 GTB passenger cars manufactured for sale in the United States. The
agency also took note of the fact that Ferrari did not comment on the
petition that resulted in eligibility number VSP-518 with regard to the
model year designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ At the time the decision was made, the full model name was
abbreviated in the grant notice for the petition. The full model
name is included here for consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the original 2006 Ferrari 599 GTB petition was granted on
July 7, 2009, NHTSA amended the definition of the term ``model year''
in 49 CFR 593.4 for the purpose of import eligibility decisions. The
amendment was made to eliminate much of the confusion confronting RIs
over the issue of whether a given vehicle manufactured for sale abroad
has a substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart of the same
model year. The amendment, made in a final rule published on August 25,
2011 (76 FR 53072), deleted ``the calendar year that begins on
September 1 and ends on August 31 of the next calendar year,'' as one
of the alternative definitions of the term
[[Page 11358]]
``model year.'' In place of the deleted text, the amendment added the
following alternative definition: ``The calendar year (i.e., January 1
through December 31) in which manufacturing operations are completed on
the vehicle at its place of main assembly.''
In light of this change in the definition of ``model year,'' as
well as Ferrari's failure to raise any issue regarding the model year
designation in response to the original model year 2006 599 GTB
petition, NHTSA considers Ferrari's comment on this issue in the
subject petition to be moot.
Consequently, NHTSA reaffirms that nonconforming Ferrari 599 GTB
passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 2006 and August 31, 2006
continue to be eligible under VSP-518.
NHTSA has also decided that nonconforming model year 2006 European
market Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars manufactured from September 1,
2006 through December 31, 2006 and nonconforming model year 2007
European market Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars manufactured from
September 1, 2006 through December 31, 2007, are admissible under
vehicle eligibility number VSP-576. This number must be indicated on
the form HS-7 accompanying entry of the vehicles eligible for entry.
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. 2016-04616 Filed 3-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
