80 FR 33332 - BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 112 (June 11, 2015)

Page Range		33332-33333
FR Document		2015-14254

BMW of North America, LLC, (BMW) a subsidiary of BMW AG in Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2013 BMW 5 Series sedan passenger vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S8.1.11 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. BMW has filed an appropriate report dated March 26, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33332-33333]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14254]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0040; 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) a subsidiary of BMW AG in
Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2013 BMW 5
Series sedan passenger vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph
S8.1.11 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. BMW has filed an
appropriate report dated March 26, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 13, 2015.

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 http://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, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://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 http://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

[[Page 33333]]

close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed 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 be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BMW's Petition

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 13,899 MY 2013 BMW 5 Series sedan
passenger cars manufactured between January 30, 2013 and June 28, 2013.

III. Noncompliance

BMW explains that the noncompliance is that some of the rear reflex
reflectors on the affected vehicles do not fully conform to the minimum
photometry performance required by paragraph S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108.

IV. Rule Text

Paragraph S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent part:

S8.1.11 Photometry. Each reflex reflector must be designed to
conform to the photometry requirements of Table XVI-a when tested
according to the procedure of S14.2.3 for the reflex reflector color
as specified by this section.

V. Summary of BMW's Analyses

BMW used Ricco's Law to determine a minimum required reflection
coefficient in its analysis. BMW chose Ricco's Law because they believe
it best corresponds to the human physiological condition in which a
light source of a given size and intensity is minimally capable (i.e.
illumination threshold) of producing visual perception.
As such, BMW created a graph whereby the y-axis represented the
reflection coefficient in units consistent with FMVSS No. 108. While
the x-axis represented the distance between two vehicles in order to
simulate the condition of an approaching vehicle and a parked or
stopped vehicle.
BMW provided the graph to illustrate that even with parameters
representing a ``worst-case scenario,'' sufficient visibility of the
rear reflex reflectors of the affected vehicles exists.
BMW stated that it has not received any contacts from vehicle
owners or other road users regarding issues related to the subject
noncompliance and is also not aware of any accidents or injuries that
have occurred as a result of this issue.
BMW has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that subsequent vehicle production will conform to
paragraph 8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108.
In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt BMW from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject 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 Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-14254 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

33332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices

(A) CTA believes that the mislabeling The use of steel cord construction in the Series sedan passenger vehicles do not
of the number of plies on the subject sidewall and tread is the primary safety fully comply with paragraph S8.1.11 of
tires has no impact on the operational concern of these industries. In this case, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
performance of the subject tires or on since the tire sidewall is marked (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
the safety of vehicles on which these correctly for the number of steel plies, Devices and Associated Equipment.
tires are to be mounted. CTA states that this potential safety concern does not BMW has filed an appropriate report
the subject tires also meet or exceed all exist. dated March 26, 2015, pursuant to 49
of the performance requirements NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration CFR part 573, Defect and
specified by FMVSS No. 139. of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided Noncompliance Responsibility and
(B) CTA states that they are unaware that CTA has met its burden of Reports.
of any accidents or injuries that have persuasion that the noncompliance DATES: The closing date for comments
occurred as a result of this described is inconsequential to motor on the petition is July 13, 2015.
noncompliance. vehicle safety. Accordingly, CTA’s
(C) CTA states that NHTSA has ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
petition is hereby granted and CTA is
previously granted similar petitions for invited to submit written data, views,
exempted from the obligation of
Inconsequential Noncompliances in the and arguments on this petition.
providing notification of, and remedy
past. Comments must refer to the docket and
for the subject noncompliance.
CTA has additionally informed notice number cited at the beginning of
NHTSA notes that the statutory
NHTSA that it has corrected the subject this notice and submitted by any of the
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
noncompliance. following methods:
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
In summation, CTA believes that the • Mail: Send comments by mail
file petitions for a determination of
described noncompliance of the subject addressed to: U.S. Department of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
exempt manufacturers only from the
safety, and that its petition, to exempt 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
duties found in sections 30118 and
CTA from providing recall notification W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
of noncompliance as required by 49 Washington, DC 20590.
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or • Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by
U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance and to remedy the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. hand to: U.S. Department of
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30120 should be granted. decision only applies to the subject tires 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
NHTSA’s Decision that CTA no longer controlled at the W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
NHTSA’s Analysis of CTA’s time it determined that the Washington, DC 20590. The Docket
Arguments: The agency agrees with noncompliance existed. However, the Section is open on weekdays from 10
CTA that the noncompliance is granting of this petition does not relieve a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. tire distributors and dealers of the • Electronically: Submit comments
The agency believes that the true prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, electronically by: logging onto the
measure of inconsequentiality to motor or introduction or delivery for Federal Docket Management System
vehicle safety in this case is that there introduction into interstate commerce of (FDMS) Web site at http://
is no effect of the noncompliance on the the noncompliant tires under their www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
operational safety of the vehicles on control after CTA notified them that the instructions for submitting comments.
which these tires are mounted. The subject noncompliance existed. Comments may also be faxed to (202)
safety of people working in the tire Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 493–2251.
retread, repair and recycling industries Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and Comments must be written in the
must also be considered. 501.8). English language, and be no greater than
Although tire construction affects the Jeffrey Giuseppe, 15 pages in length, although there is no
strength and durability, neither the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. limit to the length of necessary
agency nor the tire industry provides attachments to the comments. If
[FR Doc. 2015–14252 Filed 6–10–15; 8:45 am]
information relating tire strength and comments are submitted in hard copy
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
durability to the number of plies and form, please ensure that two copies are
types of ply cord material to the tread provided. If you wish to receive
and sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION confirmation that your comments were
customers should consider the tire received, please enclose a stamped, self-
construction information along with National Highway Traffic Safety addressed postcard with the comments.
other information such as load capacity, Administration Note that all comments received will be
maximum inflation pressure, and tread posted without change to http://
wear, temperature, and traction ratings, [Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0040; Notice 1] www.regulations.gov, including any
to assess performance capabilities of personal information provided.
BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt
various tires. In the agency’s judgement, Documents submitted to a docket may
of Petition for Decision of
the incorrect labeling of the tire be viewed by anyone at the address and
Inconsequential Noncompliance
construction information will have an times given above. The documents may
inconsequential effect on motor vehicle AGENCY: National Highway Traffic also be viewed on the Internet at
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

safety because most consumers do not Safety Administration (NHTSA), http://www.regulations.gov by following
base tire purchases or vehicle operation Department of Transportation (DOT). the online instructions for accessing the
parameters on the number of plies in a ACTION: Receipt of petition. dockets. DOT’s complete Privacy Act
tire. Statement is available for review in the
The agency believes the SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC, Federal Register published on April 11,
noncompliance will have no (BMW) a subsidiary of BMW AG in 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
measureable effect on the safety of tire Munich, Germany, has determined that The petition, supporting materials,
retread, repair and recycling industries. certain model year (MY) 2013 BMW 5 and all comments received before the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1

Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:07:24
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:07:24

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Receipt of petition.
Dates		The closing date for comments on the petition is July 13, 2015.
FR Citation		80 FR 33332

80 FR 33332 - BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 112 (June 11, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration