BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 55484-55486 [2017-25168]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55484
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2017 / Notices
Alternative ED2, Effluent Discharge Pipe
Installed in Runway 31 Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ). These
alternatives satisfy the purpose and
need while minimizing impacts.
The evaluation of these components
in the preferred alternative conducted
under the SEA has not resulted in
additional or an increase in impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Based on the analysis in the Final
SEA, the FAA has determined that the
preferred alternative will not result in
significant impacts to resources
identified in accordance with FAA
Orders 1050.1F and 5054.4B. Therefore,
an environmental impact statement will
not be prepared.
Issued in Minneapolis, Minnesota on
October 16, 2017.
Andy Peek,
Manager, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District
Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2017–24741 Filed 11–20–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0025; Notice 2]
BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
AGENCY:
BMW of North America, LLC
(BMW), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2016 BMW 7 Series
motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective
devices and associated equipment.
BMW filed a noncompliance report
dated January 21, 2016. BMW also
petitioned NHTSA on February 12,
2016, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on this decision
contact Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–5304,
facsimile (202) 366–5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: BMW of North America,
LLC (BMW), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2016 BMW 7 Series
motor vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S7.7.13.3 of Federal Motor
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Nov 20, 2017
Jkt 244001
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, reflective devices and
associated equipment. BMW filed a
noncompliance report dated January 21,
2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. BMW also
petitioned NHTSA on February 12,
2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556), for
an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was
published with a 30-day public
comment period, on March 4, 2016, in
the Federal Register (81 FR 11645). One
comment was received. To view the
petition, comments and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2016–
0025.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately
5,076 MY 2016 BMW 7 Series passenger
cars, which were manufactured between
August 03, 2015, and November 20,
2015, are potentially involved.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• 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
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
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2017 / Notices
each of the eight (8) test points
satisfies the applicable FMVSS No.
108 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Nov 20, 2017
Jkt 244001
(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’s Decision
Comments: One comment was
received by Mr. Chris Janik. Mr. Janik
said ‘‘This is a technical noncompliance that is based only on
laboratory measurement and calculation
of the illumination ratio. To me, the
compelling argument to grant the
petition is that there are no customer
complaints regarding the issue and that
the difference between license plate
bulb that comply with the requirements
and those that do not is not perceptible
to anyone that is behind the vehicle.
There is no unreasonable risk to motor
vehicle safety, so this petition should
clearly be granted’’
NHTSA thanks Mr. Janik for his
comment. NHTSA has reviewed the
petition and made its decision based on
the reasons described below.
NHTSA’s Analysis: Based on test data
provided by BMW, NHTSA found that
the percent difference of the lamp’s
illumination ratio in the subject vehicles
exceed the maximum requirement by
9% to 10.6%. Even though the lamps
exceed the illumination ratio the lamps
satisfy all other FMVSS No. 108
requirements. However, NTHSA is
unable to verify the validity of BMW’s
claim that this difference cannot be
detected by the human eye.
License plates are necessary on motor
vehicles to allow law enforcement
personnel and the general public to
uniquely identify vehicles. When it is
dark and motor vehicle lighting is in
use, the required license plate lamp is
necessary to illuminate the license plate
on the rear of a vehicle so it can be
identified. FMVSS No. 108 contains
various photometric and geometric
requirements for the purpose of assuring
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55485
legibility of the license plate. One such
requirement is the illumination ratio to
protect against shadowing across the
license plate, which could make the
license plate difficult to read.
As in the case of BMW’s petition, the
burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply
with a performance requirement in a
standard is substantial and difficult to
meet, and the agency has not found
many such noncompliances to be
inconsequential. However, one area in
which the agency has granted such
petitions has been where the
noncompliance is expected to be
imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle
occupants or approaching drivers.
NHTSA found BMW’s assessment of
human visual perception of the test
specimens to be interesting, yet
insufficient to justify granting the
petition. Instead NHTSA is relying on
the test data which indicates that the
license plate lamps on these vehicles
exceeded the minimum photometric
performance levels at each of the eight
(8) test points by at least 37.5% and up
to 191.3%. This data in conjunction
with the fact that the ratio is slightly
greater than required, NHTSA would
agree that license plates illuminated
with these lamps would be legible.
Furthermore, NHTSA reiterates that
the lamp illumination ratio is an
important performance measurement to
ensure license plate legibility.
NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration
of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that
BMW has met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety under these facts and
circumstances. Accordingly, BMW’s
petition is hereby granted and BMW is
consequently exempted from the
obligation to provide notification of, and
remedy for, the subject noncompliance
in the affected vehicles 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
vehicles that BMW no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
or introduction or delivery for
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
55486
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2017 / Notices
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,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2017–25168 Filed 11–20–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Information Collection
Renewal; Comment Request; Bank
Activities and Operations; Investment
in Bank Premises
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
AGENCY:
The OCC, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, invites the
general public and other federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on a continuing information
collection as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements
of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct
or sponsor, and the respondent is not
required to respond to, an information
collection unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment
concerning the renewal of its
information collection titled, ‘‘Bank
Activities and Operations; Investment in
Bank Premises.’’
DATES: You should submit written
comments by January 22, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the
Washington, DC area and at the OCC is
subject to delay, commenters are
encouraged to submit comments by
email, if possible. Comments may be
sent to: Legislative and Regulatory
Activities Division, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Attention:
1557–0204, 400 7th Street SW., Suite
3E–218, Washington, DC 20219. In
addition, comments may be sent by fax
to (571) 465–4326 or by email to
prainfo@occ.treas.gov. You may
personally inspect and photocopy
comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20219. For
security reasons, the OCC requires that
visitors make an appointment to inspect
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:56 Nov 20, 2017
Jkt 244001
comments. You may do so by calling
(202) 649–6700 or, for persons who are
deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202)
649–5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be
required to present valid governmentissued photo identification and submit
to security screening in order to inspect
and photocopy comments.
All comments received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and subject to public disclosure. Do not
include any information in your
comment or supporting materials that
you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance
Officer, (202) 649–5490, for persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY,
(202) 649–5597, Legislative and
Regulatory Activities Division, Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal
agencies must obtain approval from the
OMB for each collection of information
that they conduct or sponsor.
‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined
in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) to include agency requests or
requirements that members of the public
submit reports, keep records, or provide
information to a third party. Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of title 44 requires federal
agencies to provide a 60-day notice in
the Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an
existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB
for approval.
Title: Bank Activities and Operations;
Investment in Bank Premises.
OMB Control No.: 1557–0204.
Description: The information
collection requirements ensure that
institutions conduct their operations in
a safe and sound manner and in
accordance with applicable federal
banking statutes and regulations. The
information is necessary for regulatory
and examination purposes.
The information collection
requirements are as follows:
• 12 CFR 5.37 (Investment in national
bank or federal savings association
premises). A national bank or federal
savings association may invest in
banking premises and other premisesrelated investments, loans, or
indebtedness by filing an application for
prior approval whenever its investment
in bank premises will cause it to exceed
its capital stock. The application must
describe the present and proposed
investment and the business reason for
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exceeding the limit. A bank with a
composite 1 or 2 CAMELS rating
entering a transaction that increases its
aggregate bank premises investment to
not more than 150 percent of its capital
and surplus may proceed without prior
OCC approval, but must provide an
after-the-fact notice.
• 12 CFR 7.1000(d)(1) (National bank
ownership of property—Lease financing
of public facilities). National bank lease
agreements must provide that the lessee
will become the owner of the building
or facility upon the expiration of the
lease.
• 12 CFR 7.1014 (Sale of money
orders at nonbanking outlets). A
national bank may designate bonded
agents to sell the bank’s money orders
at nonbanking outlets. The
responsibility of both the bank and its
agent should be defined in a written
agreement setting forth the duties of
both parties and providing for
remuneration of the agent.
• 12 CFR 7.2000(b) (Corporate
governance procedures—Other sources
of guidance). A national bank shall
designate in its bylaws the body of law
selected for its corporate governance
procedures.
• 12 CFR 7.2004 (Honorary directors
or advisory boards). Any listing of a
national bank’s honorary or advisory
directors must distinguish between
those directors and the bank’s board of
directors or indicate their advisory
status.
• 12 CFR 7.2014(b) (Indemnification
of institution-affiliated parties—
Administrative proceeding or civil
actions not initiated by a federal
agency). A national bank shall designate
in its bylaws the body of law selected
for making indemnification payments.
• 12 CFR 7.2024(a) (Staggered terms
for national bank directors). Any
national bank may adopt bylaws that
provide for the staggering the terms of
its directors. National banks shall
provide the OCC with copies of any
bylaws so amended.
• 12 CFR 7.2024(c) (Size of bank
board). A national bank seeking to
increase the number of its directors
must notify the OCC any time the
proposed size would exceed 25
directors.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profit.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,294.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 611
hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55484-55486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25168]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0025; Notice 2]
BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2016 BMW 7 Series motor vehicles do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
reflective devices and associated equipment. BMW filed a noncompliance
report dated January 21, 2016. BMW also petitioned NHTSA on February
12, 2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
decision contact Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366-5304, facsimile (202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2016 BMW 7 Series motor vehicles 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 noncompliance report dated January 21, 2016,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. BMW also petitioned NHTSA on February 12, 2016, pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556), for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on March 4, 2016, in the Federal Register (81 FR
11645). One comment was received. To view the petition, comments and
all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0025.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 5,076 MY 2016 BMW 7 Series
passenger cars, which were manufactured between August 03, 2015, and
November 20, 2015, are potentially involved.
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
[[Page 55485]]
each of the eight (8) test points satisfies the applicable FMVSS No.
108 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 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's Decision
Comments: One comment was received by Mr. Chris Janik. Mr. Janik
said ``This is a technical non-compliance that is based only on
laboratory measurement and calculation of the illumination ratio. To
me, the compelling argument to grant the petition is that there are no
customer complaints regarding the issue and that the difference between
license plate bulb that comply with the requirements and those that do
not is not perceptible to anyone that is behind the vehicle. There is
no unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, so this petition should
clearly be granted''
NHTSA thanks Mr. Janik for his comment. NHTSA has reviewed the
petition and made its decision based on the reasons described below.
NHTSA's Analysis: Based on test data provided by BMW, NHTSA found
that the percent difference of the lamp's illumination ratio in the
subject vehicles exceed the maximum requirement by 9% to 10.6%. Even
though the lamps exceed the illumination ratio the lamps satisfy all
other FMVSS No. 108 requirements. However, NTHSA is unable to verify
the validity of BMW's claim that this difference cannot be detected by
the human eye.
License plates are necessary on motor vehicles to allow law
enforcement personnel and the general public to uniquely identify
vehicles. When it is dark and motor vehicle lighting is in use, the
required license plate lamp is necessary to illuminate the license
plate on the rear of a vehicle so it can be identified. FMVSS No. 108
contains various photometric and geometric requirements for the purpose
of assuring legibility of the license plate. One such requirement is
the illumination ratio to protect against shadowing across the license
plate, which could make the license plate difficult to read.
As in the case of BMW's petition, the burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard is substantial and difficult to meet, and the
agency has not found many such noncompliances to be inconsequential.
However, one area in which the agency has granted such petitions has
been where the noncompliance is expected to be imperceptible, or nearly
so, to vehicle occupants or approaching drivers. NHTSA found BMW's
assessment of human visual perception of the test specimens to be
interesting, yet insufficient to justify granting the petition. Instead
NHTSA is relying on the test data which indicates that the license
plate lamps on these vehicles exceeded the minimum photometric
performance levels at each of the eight (8) test points by at least
37.5% and up to 191.3%. This data in conjunction with the fact that the
ratio is slightly greater than required, NHTSA would agree that license
plates illuminated with these lamps would be legible.
Furthermore, NHTSA reiterates that the lamp illumination ratio is
an important performance measurement to ensure license plate
legibility.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that BMW has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
under these facts and circumstances. Accordingly, BMW's petition is
hereby granted and BMW is consequently exempted from the obligation to
provide notification of, and remedy for, the subject noncompliance in
the affected vehicles 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 vehicles that BMW no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for
[[Page 55486]]
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,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2017-25168 Filed 11-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
