BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 11645-11647 [2016-04862]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Notices
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the inboard sidewall, the full and
correct tire code (including the correct
manufacturer’s identification mark) is
available on the intended outboard
sidewall. In addition, Cooper stated that
the tires are marked with the Cooper
Weather-Master S/T2 brand name that is
exclusively owned by Cooper Tire &
Rubber Company.
Cooper also indicated that it has taken
the following steps to ensure proper
registration of the subject tires:
(a) Cooper has informed all internal
personnel responsible for manual
processing of tire registration cards
about the ‘‘U8’’ issue so that cards
containing the ‘‘U8’’ designation will be
accepted and properly processed when
all other information accurately
identifies the subject tires. And, Cooper
will follow up with the consumer
seeking additional information by
providing a prepaid response card.
(b) Cooper is in the process of
modifying its database to accept ‘‘U8’’
when other information (brand, serial
weeks affected etc.) is accurate.
(c) Cooper has contacted
Computerized Information and
Management Services, Inc. (CIMS) so
that tire registration cards will not be
rejected solely due to improper plant
code information.
Cooper additionally informed NHTSA
that on May 29, 2015 the incorrect mold
was pulled and the stamping error that
caused the subject noncompliance was
corrected at that time.
Refer to Coopers’ petition for their
complete reasoning. The petition and all
supporting documents are available by
logging onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/ and
following the online search instructions
to locate the docket number listed in the
title of this notice.
In summation, Cooper believes that
the described noncompliance of the
subject tires is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt Cooper 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’S Decision
NHTSA’s Analysis: While the first
grouping of the tire identification
number (TIN) on the subject tires is
marked with the incorrect
manufacturer’s identification code
‘‘U8,’’ instead of the correct code ‘‘U9,’’
this mismarking is only on the inner
sidewall. The correct full TIN is
properly marked on the outside
sidewall, and the correct corporate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
brand name is marked on both
sidewalls. NHTSA believes this
noncompliance will not cause
misidentification of the tire
manufacturer should a safety defect be
identified in the subject tires.
Cooper additionally informed NHTSA
that the subject tires meet and/or exceed
all performance requirements and all
other labeling markings as required by
FMVSS No. 139 and that Cooper is not
aware of any crashes, injuries, customer
complaints, or field reports associated
with the subject tires.
Cooper also notified NHTSA that
proper registration of the tires will be
accepted with the erroneous code.
Cooper collectively worked with CIMS
(Computerized Information and
Management Services), Inc., to ensure
that the subject tires are correctly
registered regardless of the incorrect
code.
The agency believes that the true
measure of inconsequentiality to motor
vehicle safety in this case is that there
is no effect of the noncompliance on the
operational safety of vehicles on which
these tires are mounted and that the
manufacturer of the tires can be readily
identified.
Cooper also informed NHTSA that on
May 29, 2015 it corrected the mold
problem that originated the noncompliance.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Cooper
has met its burden of persuasion that
the subject FMVSS No. 139
noncompliance in the affected tires is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Cooper’s petition is hereby
granted and Cooper is consequently
exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a free
remedy for, the subject noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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, this
decision only applies to the subject tires
that Cooper no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve
tire 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
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11645
control after Cooper notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–04698 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0025; Notice 1]
BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
BMW of North America, LLC
(BMW), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2016 BMW 7 Series
passenger cars do not fully comply with
paragraph S7.7.13.3 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, reflective devices and
associated equipment. BMW filed a
report dated January 21, 2016, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. BMW 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 in the title of this
notice and submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Mail: Send comments by mail
addressed to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11646
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Notices
(FDMS) Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments may also be faxed to (202)
493–2251.
Comments must be written in the
English language, and be no greater than
15 pages in length, although there is no
limit to the length of necessary
attachments to the comments. If
comments are submitted in hard copy
form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive
confirmation that comments you have
submitted by mail were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
The petition, supporting materials,
and all comments received before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All
comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also
be filed and will be considered to the
extent possible.
When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will also
be published in the Federal Register
pursuant to the authority indicated at
the end of this notice.
All documents submitted to the
docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The
documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID
number for this petition is shown at the
heading of this notice.
DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556),
BMW 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 BMW’s
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 5,076 MY 2016 BMW 7
Series passenger cars that were
manufactured between August 03, 2015
and November 20, 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
III. Noncompliance: BMW states that
the rear license plate lamp may not fully
conform to paragraph S7.7.13.3 of
FMVSS No. 108 because it exceeds the
illumination ratio specified in that
paragraph.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S7.7.13.3 of
FMVSS No. 108 requires, in pertinent
part:
S7.7.13.3 The ratio of the average of the
two highest illumination values divided by
the average of the two lowest illumination
values must not exceed 20:1 for vehicles
other than motorcycles and motor driven
cycles.
V. Summary of BMW’s Petition: BMW
described the subject noncompliance
and stated its belief that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
• The out-of-specification lamps
satisfy all other requirements of FMVSS
No. 108.
• The out-of-specification lamps only
deviate from paragraph 7.7.13.3 of
FMVSs No. 108 with regard to the
lamp’s illumination ratio and not the
lamp’s actual illumination.
• Personnel who participated in a
company assessment reported no
difference in their visual perception of
the simulated license plates that were
used as test specimens.
• BMW has not received any
customer complaints related to the
issue.
• BMW is not aware of any accidents
or injuries related to this issue.
• NHTSA has previously granted
petitions in which the illumination of
test points remains well above the
requirements.
• Vehicle production has been
corrected.
In support of its petition, BMW
submitted the following information
pertaining to laboratory testing and
analysis of the subject noncompliance:
(1) FMVSS No. 108 Lamp
Certification: BMW submitted a test
report dated April 7, 2015 pertaining to
lamps manufactured by U–SHIN Italia
S.p.A. (U–SHIN) prior to vehicle
production. According to BMW, this
report indicates that the lamp satisfies
FMVSS No. 108 requirements, as the
ratio of the average of the two highest
illumination values divided by the
average of the two lowest illumination
values is 14.1, and FMVSS No. 108
requires that the value be less than 20.
(2) Evaluation by Measurement
Equipment: Both BMW and U–SHIN
performed a number of tests of both inspecification and out-of-specification
lamps to assess the performance of the
subject lamps to the pertinent
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirement of FMVSS No. 108. BMW
submitted one representative test report
for each test condition. The results are
as follows:
—U–SHIN out-of-specification lamp
tests: These showed an illumination
ratio of 22.0. BMW noted, however,
that each of the eight (8) test points
satisfies the applicable FMVSS No.
108 photometric (illumination)
requirements.
—BMW out-of-specification lamp tests:
BMW performed its own out-ofspecification tests to verify U–SHIN’s
test results and to obtain results for
the lamps when equipped within a
vehicle. These showed an
illumination ratio of 22.2. BMW
noted, however, that each of the eight
(8) test points satisfies the applicable
FMVSS No. 108 photometric
(illumination) requirements.
—U–SHIN in-specification lamp tests:
These showed an illumination ratio of
13.8. As with the previously
described tests, BMW noted, however,
that each of the eight (8) test points
satisfies the applicable FMVSS No.
108 photometric (illumination)
requirements.
—BMW in-specification tests: BMW
performed their own in-specification
tests to verify U–SHIN’s test results
and to obtain results for the lamps
when equipped within a vehicle.
These showed an illumination ratio of
13.9. BMW again noted, however, that
each of the eight (8) test points
satisfies the applicable FMVSS No.
108 applicable photometric
(illumination) requirements.
(3) Evaluation by human assessment:
In addition to the laboratory testing
performed by both BMW and U–SHIN
using specific lamp measurement
equipment, BMW also compared the
out-of-specification lamps to the inspecification lamps via human
assessment. BMW performed this
assessment to determine whether or not
the condition caused by the noncompliance was perceptible to other
road users (i.e., drivers approaching an
affected vehicle) and, if so, its effect on
safety.
BMW submitted photographs that
depict the illumination of a test
specimen simulating a rear license plate
by both in-specification and out-ofspecification lamps. According to BMW,
while there may be a slightly
perceptible difference in the
photographs depicting the test specimen
illuminated by in-specification and outof-specification lamps, this is due to
tolerances of the camera equipment
related to exposure time and shutter
speed. BMW stated that the personnel
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Notices
who participated in this assessment
reported no difference in their visual
perception of the test specimens.
Additionally, BMW noted that even
for the out-of-specification lamp, all of
the eight (8) test points satisfy the
applicable FMVSS No. 108 photometric
(illumination) requirements. BMW
emphasized that the noncompliance
pertains to the illumination ratio, not to
the actual lamp illumination. As a
consequence, BMW asserts that while
the noncompliance condition can be
measured in a laboratory, it cannot be
detected by the human eye, and
therefore drivers of approaching
vehicles will be afforded the same level
of visibility as if approaching a nonaffected vehicle. According to BMW,
these analyses support the conclusion
that the condition caused by the
noncompliance does not affect the
safety of affected vehicle occupants or
other road users such as drivers
approaching affected vehicles.
(4) Field Experience: BMW states that
its Customer Relations division has not
received any contacts from vehicle
owners regarding the matter at issue. As
a consequence, BMW believes that,
consistent with the results of the
laboratory tests and human assessments
described above, the condition is
undetectable to road users such as
drivers approaching affected vehicles.
BMW further notes that it is not aware
of any accidents or injuries that have
occurred as a result of the condition.
(5) Prior NHTSA Rulings: BMW states
that NHTSA has previously granted
petitions from other manufacturers
involving various issues pertaining to
FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance. BMW
believes that in some of those petitions,
the photometry (illumination) of the test
points remains well above the FMVSS
No. 108 requirements as the
noncompliance has no affect upon the
illumination of the test points.
(6) Vehicle Production: BMW stated
that subsequent vehicle production has
been corrected to conform to paragraph
7.7.13.3 of FMVSS No. 108.
In summation, BMW expressed the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition, to exempt BMW
from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and remedying the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject vehicles that BMW no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
any decision on this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after BMW notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–04862 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2016–0033]
Agency Request for Emergency
Approval of an Information Collection
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation (OST), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Department of
Transportation (DOT) provides notice
that it will submit an information
collection requests (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
emergency approval of a proposed
information collection. Upon receiving
the requested six-month emergency
approval by OMB, the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST) will
follow the normal PRA procedures to
obtain extended approval for this
proposed information collection. The
collection of information is necessary in
order to receive applications for grant
funds pursuant to Section 1105 of the
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act of 2015, which was signed
into law on December 4, 2015. Section
1105 establishes a new program for OST
to provide Supplemental Discretionary
Grants for a Nationally Significant
Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP)
program. The Department will also refer
to NSFHP grants as Fostering
Advancements in Shipping and
Transportation for the Long-term
Achievement of National Efficiencies
(FASTLANE) grants. The FAST Act
provides specific deadlines for this
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11647
program, including a statutory 60-day
Congressional notification requirement,
which is no later than July 30, 2016. In
order to ensure that the NSFHP grants
are awarded in an expeditious manner
and in the timeframes established by the
FAST Act, the Department requests
approval of an information collection
using OMB’s emergency processing
system to meet Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) requirements.
Information related to this ICR,
including applicable supporting
documentation may be obtained by
contacting the NSFHP program manager
via email at NSFHP@dot.gov.
DATES: Comments should be submitted
as soon as possible upon publication of
this notice in the Federal Register.
Comments and questions should be
directed to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Attn: OST
OMB Desk Officer, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503. Comments and
questions about the ICR identified
below may be transmitted electronically
to OIRA at oira_submissions@
omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 2105–XXXX
Title: Supplemental Discretionary
Grants for a Nationally Significant
Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP)
program, or NSFHP program.
Type of Review: Emergency
information collection request.
Expected Number of Respondents:
Approximately 200.
Frequency: The Department expects
that this information collection will
occur up to five times—once per fiscal
year—from FY 2016 through FY 2020.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 100 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
20,000.
Abstract: On December 4, 2015,
President Obama signed into law the
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
Act, or ‘‘FAST Act.’’ It is the first law
enacted in over ten years that provides
long-term funding certainty for surface
transportation. The FAST Act
authorized at $4.5 billion for fiscal years
(FY) 2016 through 2020, including $800
million for FY 2016 to be awarded by
the Department of Transportation (the
‘‘Department’’) on a competitive basis to
projects of national or regional
significance. The funds provided by
NSFHP program will be awarded on a
competitive basis to projects that have a
significant impact on the Nation, a
metropolitan area, or a region. On or
about the date hereof, the Department
published a solicitation for applications
for NSFHP grants. The solicitation
announces the availability of funding
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11645-11647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04862]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0025; Notice 1]
BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2016 BMW 7 Series passenger cars do not fully comply
with paragraph S7.7.13.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.
BMW filed a report dated January 21, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. BMW 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 in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand 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
[[Page 11646]]
(FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed to
(202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed
and will be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at
the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on
the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown at the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), BMW 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 BMW's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 5,076 MY 2016 BMW
7 Series passenger cars that were manufactured between August 03, 2015
and November 20, 2015.
III. Noncompliance: BMW states that the rear license plate lamp may
not fully conform to paragraph S7.7.13.3 of FMVSS No. 108 because it
exceeds the illumination ratio specified in that paragraph.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S7.7.13.3 of FMVSS No. 108 requires, in
pertinent part:
S7.7.13.3 The ratio of the average of the two highest
illumination values divided by the average of the two lowest
illumination values must not exceed 20:1 for vehicles other than
motorcycles and motor driven cycles.
V. Summary of BMW's Petition: BMW described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
The out-of-specification lamps satisfy all other
requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
The out-of-specification lamps only deviate from paragraph
7.7.13.3 of FMVSs No. 108 with regard to the lamp's illumination ratio
and not the lamp's actual illumination.
Personnel who participated in a company assessment
reported no difference in their visual perception of the simulated
license plates that were used as test specimens.
BMW has not received any customer complaints related to
the issue.
BMW is not aware of any accidents or injuries related to
this issue.
NHTSA has previously granted petitions in which the
illumination of test points remains well above the requirements.
Vehicle production has been corrected.
In support of its petition, BMW submitted the following information
pertaining to laboratory testing and analysis of the subject
noncompliance:
(1) FMVSS No. 108 Lamp Certification: BMW submitted a test report
dated April 7, 2015 pertaining to lamps manufactured by U-SHIN Italia
S.p.A. (U-SHIN) prior to vehicle production. According to BMW, this
report indicates that the lamp satisfies FMVSS No. 108 requirements, as
the ratio of the average of the two highest illumination values divided
by the average of the two lowest illumination values is 14.1, and FMVSS
No. 108 requires that the value be less than 20.
(2) Evaluation by Measurement Equipment: Both BMW and U-SHIN
performed a number of tests of both in-specification and out-of-
specification lamps to assess the performance of the subject lamps to
the pertinent requirement of FMVSS No. 108. BMW submitted one
representative test report for each test condition. The results are as
follows:
--U-SHIN out-of-specification lamp tests: These showed an illumination
ratio of 22.0. BMW noted, however, that each of the eight (8) test
points satisfies the applicable FMVSS No. 108 photometric
(illumination) requirements.
--BMW out-of-specification lamp tests: BMW performed its own out-of-
specification tests to verify U-SHIN's test results and to obtain
results for the lamps when equipped within a vehicle. These showed an
illumination ratio of 22.2. BMW noted, however, that each of the eight
(8) test points satisfies the applicable FMVSS No. 108 photometric
(illumination) requirements.
--U-SHIN in-specification lamp tests: These showed an illumination
ratio of 13.8. As with the previously described tests, BMW noted,
however, that each of the eight (8) test points satisfies the
applicable FMVSS No. 108 photometric (illumination) requirements.
--BMW in-specification tests: BMW performed their own in-specification
tests to verify U-SHIN's test results and to obtain results for the
lamps when equipped within a vehicle. These showed an illumination
ratio of 13.9. BMW again noted, however, that each of the eight (8)
test points satisfies the applicable FMVSS No. 108 applicable
photometric (illumination) requirements.
(3) Evaluation by human assessment: In addition to the laboratory
testing performed by both BMW and U-SHIN using specific lamp
measurement equipment, BMW also compared the out-of-specification lamps
to the in-specification lamps via human assessment. BMW performed this
assessment to determine whether or not the condition caused by the non-
compliance was perceptible to other road users (i.e., drivers
approaching an affected vehicle) and, if so, its effect on safety.
BMW submitted photographs that depict the illumination of a test
specimen simulating a rear license plate by both in-specification and
out-of-specification lamps. According to BMW, while there may be a
slightly perceptible difference in the photographs depicting the test
specimen illuminated by in-specification and out-of-specification
lamps, this is due to tolerances of the camera equipment related to
exposure time and shutter speed. BMW stated that the personnel
[[Page 11647]]
who participated in this assessment reported no difference in their
visual perception of the test specimens.
Additionally, BMW noted that even for the out-of-specification
lamp, all of the eight (8) test points satisfy the applicable FMVSS No.
108 photometric (illumination) requirements. BMW emphasized that the
noncompliance pertains to the illumination ratio, not to the actual
lamp illumination. As a consequence, BMW asserts that while the
noncompliance condition can be measured in a laboratory, it cannot be
detected by the human eye, and therefore drivers of approaching
vehicles will be afforded the same level of visibility as if
approaching a non-affected vehicle. According to BMW, these analyses
support the conclusion that the condition caused by the noncompliance
does not affect the safety of affected vehicle occupants or other road
users such as drivers approaching affected vehicles.
(4) Field Experience: BMW states that its Customer Relations
division has not received any contacts from vehicle owners regarding
the matter at issue. As a consequence, BMW believes that, consistent
with the results of the laboratory tests and human assessments
described above, the condition is undetectable to road users such as
drivers approaching affected vehicles. BMW further notes that it is not
aware of any accidents or injuries that have occurred as a result of
the condition.
(5) Prior NHTSA Rulings: BMW states that NHTSA has previously
granted petitions from other manufacturers involving various issues
pertaining to FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance. BMW believes that in some of
those petitions, the photometry (illumination) of the test points
remains well above the FMVSS No. 108 requirements as the noncompliance
has no affect upon the illumination of the test points.
(6) Vehicle Production: BMW stated that subsequent vehicle
production has been corrected to conform to paragraph 7.7.13.3 of FMVSS
No. 108.
In summation, BMW expressed the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt BMW from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and remedying the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that BMW no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after BMW
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-04862 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
