82_FR_24304 82 FR 24204 - DRV, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

82 FR 24204 - DRV, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 100 (May 25, 2017)

Page Range24204-24205
FR Document2017-10744

DRV, LLC (DRV), a wholly owned subsidiary of Thor Industries, Inc., has determined that certain model year (MY) 2003-2016 DRV trailers do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. DRV filed a noncompliance report dated July 31, 2015, that was later revised on August 18, 2015. DRV also petitioned NHTSA on August 14, 2015, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017) 
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24204-24205]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0092; Notice 2]


DRV, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: DRV, LLC (DRV), a wholly owned subsidiary of Thor Industries, 
Inc., has determined that certain model year (MY) 2003-2016 DRV 
trailers do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. 
DRV filed a noncompliance report dated July 31, 2015, that was later 
revised on August 18, 2015. DRV also petitioned NHTSA on August 14, 
2015, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential 
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Michael 
Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5319, facsimile 
(202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    DRV, LLC (DRV), a wholly owned subsidiary of Thor Industries, Inc., 
has determined that certain model year (MY) 2003-2016 DRV trailers do 
not fully comply with paragraph S8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment. DRV filed a noncompliance report dated July 31, 2015, that 
was later revised on August 18, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. DRV also 
petitioned NHTSA on August 14, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 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 to motor 
vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day 
public comment period, on October 8, 2015, in the Federal Register (80 
FR 60955). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0092.''

II. Trailers Involved

    Affected are approximately 7,465 of the following trailers:

 MY 2003-2016 DRV Mobile Suites (Manufactured between April 22, 
2003 and July 22, 2015)
 MY 2014-2015 DRV Traditions (Manufactured between April 1, 
2013 and July 24, 2015)
 MY 2013-2016 DRV Estates (Manufactured between April 1, 2012 
and July 24, 2015)
 MY 2006-2016 DRV Elite Suites (Manufactured April 1, 2005 and 
July 24, 2015)
 MY 2014-2016 DRV Full House (Manufactured April 1, 2013 and 
July 24, 2015)

III. Noncompliance

    DRV explained the noncompliance as the location of the front side 
reflex reflectors on the subject trailers at approximately 8'' and 10'' 
above the maximum 60'' height-above-road surface required by paragraph 
S8.1 of FMVSS No. 108.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S8.1 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent part:
    S8.1 Reflex reflectors.
    . . .
    S8.1.4 Mounting Height. See Tables I-a, I-b, I-c.
    . . .

[[Page 24205]]



                                Table I-b--Required Lamps and Reflective Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Lighting device           Number and color    Mounting location    Mounting height    Device activation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL TRAILERS
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Reflex Reflectors. A trailer      2 Amber. None       On each side as     Not less than 15    Not applicable.
 equipped with a conspicuity       required on         far to the front    inches, nor more
 treatment in conformance with     trailers less       as practicable      than 60 inches.
 S8.2 of this standard need not    than 1829 mm [6     exclusive of the
 be equipped with reflex           ft] in overall      trailer tongue.
 reflectors if the conspicuity     length including
 material is placed at the         the trailer
 locations of the required         tongue.
 reflex reflectors.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of DRV's Arguments

    DRV stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because a reflex reflector is 
present as required by FMVSS No. 108 but the reflector is located 
approximately 8'' to 10'' above the maximum allowable height for such 
reflectors.
    DRV also stated that it has received no complaints, and does not 
know of any accidents that have occurred, due to the reflectors being 
in the non-compliant position.
    In summation, DRV believes that the described noncompliance of the 
subject trailers is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. DRV asks 
NHTSA to grant a petition to exempt DRV from providing notification of 
a noncompliance recall as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: After review of DRV's petition, NHTSA has 
determined that the petitioner has not met the burden of persuasion 
that the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. DRV failed to 
provide any data supporting its conclusion that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential and, except for stating it had not received any 
complaints about the location of the reflectors, did not address any of 
the potential safety risks associated with the noncompliance.
    For the purposes of FMVSS No. 108, the primary function of a reflex 
reflector is to prevent crashes by permitting early detection of an 
unlighted motor vehicle at an intersection or when parked on or by the 
side of the road. Because reflex reflectors are not independent light 
sources, their performance is wholly reliant upon the amount of 
illumination they receive from vehicle headlamps. Ideally, a reflex 
reflector would achieve its highest performance when the reflex 
reflector is mounted at the height of another vehicle's lower beam 
``hot spot.'' Due to the significant range of permissible mounting 
heights for headlamps (between 22 and 54 inches), achieving such ideal 
performance is impractical. FMVSS No. 108, which establishes minimum 
performance standards for reflex reflectors, specifies a range of 
acceptable reflector mounting heights (not less than 15 inches or more 
than 60 inches) to ensure that reflex reflectors are exposed to enough 
illumination to be effective. The standard also provides allowances in 
the fore and aft location of reflex reflectors (e.g., as far to the 
front as practicable). This flexibility provides vehicle manufacturers 
with sufficient flexibility in mounting locations to ensure that the 
mounting height remains in the appropriate range to ensure adequate 
reflex reflector performance relative to headlamps that would 
illuminate them.
    DRV also states that it was not aware of any complaints or 
accidents that occurred due to the positioning of the reflex reflector. 
In NHTSA's view, the absence of complaints does not provide persuasive 
evidence demonstrating a lack of a safety issue here, nor does it mean 
that there will not be safety issues in the future. As such, NHTSA does 
not consider this to be a determining factor that DRV's noncompliance 
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds 
that DRV has not met its burden of persuasion in support of the claim 
that the FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance in the subject trailers is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. DRV has not presented any data 
indicating that the performance of a reflex reflector mounted at a 
height of 68 to 70 inches above the ground provides a level of safety 
performance equivalent to that of a reflector mounted within the range 
of heights specified by FMVSS No. 108. Accordingly, DRV's petition is 
hereby denied and DRV is obligated to provide notification of, and a 
free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Associate Administrator, Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2017-10744 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

24204 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 100 / Thursday, May 25, 2017 / Notices of the required minimum performance BMW has not met its burden of (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective requirements. Based on the agency’s persuasion that the FMVSS No. 108 Devices, and Associated Equipment. review of BMW’s technical analysis, we noncompliance is inconsequential to DRV filed a noncompliance report dated do not believe they have fully accounted motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, July 31, 2015, that was later revised on for the complexities of real world BMW’s petition is hereby denied and August 18, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR driving in their proposed minimum BMW is obligated to provide part 573, Defect and Noncompliance perceivable performance. Additional notification of, and a remedy for, that Responsibility and Reports. DRV also factors must be accounted for in the noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 petitioned NHTSA on August 14, 2015, determination of minimum and 30120. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and performance, some include: Dirt Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 buildup on the device, older driver’s delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and CFR part 556), for an exemption from visual perception skills, a variety of 501.8). the notification and remedy ambient illumination and surrounding requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 contrast scenes, and the continually Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, on the basis that this noncompliance is changing viewing geometry between the Acting Associate Administrator, Enforcement. inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. reflex reflector and observer. [FR Doc. 2017–10743 Filed 5–24–17; 8:45 am] Notice of receipt of the petition was In consideration that the primary BILLING CODE 4910–59–P published, with a 30-day public function of a rear reflex reflector is to comment period, on October 8, 2015, in reduce crashes by permitting early the Federal Register (80 FR 60955). No detection of unlighted preceding motor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION comments were received. To view the vehicles or those parked by the side of petition and all supporting documents, the road, NHTSA has concluded that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration log onto the Federal Docket BMW’s assessment that 2.5 mcd/lux is Management System (FDMS) Web site a suitable ‘‘required reflection [Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0092; Notice 2] at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow coefficient,’’ a value representing less the online search instructions to locate than 1.7% of the FMVSS No. 108 DRV, LLC, Denial of Petition for docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015–0092.’’ required minimum values, is not Decision of Inconsequential compelling. Noncompliance II. Trailers Involved BMW did not provide any test reports AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Affected are approximately 7,465 of detailing the performance of its noncompliant rear reflex reflectors; Safety Administration (NHTSA), the following trailers: however, it did indicate that the worst Department of Transportation (DOT). • MY 2003–2016 DRV Mobile Suites measured values were 154, 120, and 91 ACTION: Denial of Petition. (Manufactured between April 22, mcd/lux at certain test points. These 2003 and July 22, 2015) SUMMARY: DRV, LLC (DRV), a wholly values are substantially below the • MY 2014–2015 DRV Traditions owned subsidiary of Thor Industries, minimum values required by FMVSS (Manufactured between April 1, 2013 Inc., has determined that certain model No. 108 (420, 280, and 140 mcd/lux) by and July 24, 2015) year (MY) 2003–2016 DRV trailers do 63%, 57%, and 35%, respectively. not fully comply with Federal Motor • MY 2013–2016 DRV Estates Based on these photometric (Manufactured between April 1, 2012 Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. performance failures, NHTSA believes and July 24, 2015) that BMW’s noncompliant reflex 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. DRV filed a • MY 2006–2016 DRV Elite Suites reflectors present a consequential risk to (Manufactured April 1, 2005 and July motor vehicle safety. noncompliance report dated July 31, 2015, that was later revised on August 24, 2015) BMW also states that it had not 18, 2015. DRV also petitioned NHTSA • MY 2014–2016 DRV Full House received contacts from vehicle owners, on August 14, 2015, for a decision that (Manufactured April 1, 2013 and July or other road users, regarding this issue. the subject noncompliance is 24, 2015) Nor is it aware of any accidents or injuries that have occurred as a result of inconsequential as it relates to motor III. Noncompliance this issue. NHTSA does not consider the vehicle safety. ADDRESSES: For further information on DRV explained the noncompliance as absence of complaints to show that a this decision contact Michael Cole, the location of the front side reflex noncompliance is inconsequential to Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the reflectors on the subject trailers at safety. Vehicle lighting functions as a National Highway Traffic Safety approximately 8″ and 10″ above the signal to other motorists and Administration (NHTSA), telephone maximum 60″ height-above-road surface pedestrians; if other motorists found the (202) 366–5319, facsimile (202) 366– required by paragraph S8.1 of FMVSS noncompliant lighting confusing, it is 3081. No. 108. unlikely that those motorists would have been able to identify the subject SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IV. Rule Text vehicle and make a complaint to either I. Overview Paragraph S8.1 of FMVSS No. 108 NHTSA or BMW. Most importantly, the DRV, LLC (DRV), a wholly owned requires in pertinent part: absence of a complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, subsidiary of Thor Industries, Inc., has S8.1 Reflex reflectors. nor does it mean that there will not be determined that certain model year . . . safety issues in the future. (MY) 2003–2016 DRV trailers do not S8.1.4 Mounting Height. See Tables I– NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration fully comply with paragraph S8.1 of a, I–b, I–c. of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard . . . VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 May 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 100 / Thursday, May 25, 2017 / Notices 24205 TABLE I–b—REQUIRED LAMPS AND REFLECTIVE DEVICES Lighting device Number and color Mounting location Mounting height Device activation ALL TRAILERS * * * * * * * Reflex Reflectors. A trailer equipped with a con- 2 Amber. None required On each side as far to Not less than 15 inches, Not applicable. spicuity treatment in conformance with S8.2 of this on trailers less than the front as practicable nor more than 60 standard need not be equipped with reflex reflec- 1829 mm [6 ft] in over- exclusive of the trailer inches. tors if the conspicuity material is placed at the lo- all length including the tongue. cations of the required reflex reflectors. trailer tongue. * * * * * * * V. Summary of DRV’s Arguments headlamps (between 22 and 54 inches), Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: achieving such ideal performance is Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and DRV stated its belief that the subject 501.8) noncompliance is inconsequential to impractical. FMVSS No. 108, which motor vehicle safety because a reflex establishes minimum performance Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, reflector is present as required by standards for reflex reflectors, specifies Acting Associate Administrator, Enforcement. FMVSS No. 108 but the reflector is a range of acceptable reflector mounting [FR Doc. 2017–10744 Filed 5–24–17; 8:45 am] located approximately 8″ to 10″ above heights (not less than 15 inches or more BILLING CODE 4910–59–P the maximum allowable height for such than 60 inches) to ensure that reflex reflectors. reflectors are exposed to enough DRV also stated that it has received no illumination to be effective. The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION complaints, and does not know of any standard also provides allowances in accidents that have occurred, due to the the fore and aft location of reflex National Highway Traffic Safety reflectors being in the non-compliant Administration reflectors (e.g., as far to the front as position. practicable). This flexibility provides [Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0103; Notice 2] In summation, DRV believes that the vehicle manufacturers with sufficient described noncompliance of the subject Michelin North America, Inc., Mootness trailers is inconsequential to motor flexibility in mounting locations to ensure that the mounting height remains of Petition for Decision of vehicle safety. DRV asks NHTSA to Inconsequential Noncompliance grant a petition to exempt DRV from in the appropriate range to ensure providing notification of a adequate reflex reflector performance AGENCY: National Highway Traffic noncompliance recall as required by 49 relative to headlamps that would Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the illuminate them. Department of Transportation (DOT). noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. DRV also states that it was not aware ACTION: Mootness of Petition. 30120. of any complaints or accidents that SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. NHTSA Decision occurred due to the positioning of the (MNA), has determined that certain reflex reflector. In NHTSA’s view, the Michelin heavy truck tires do not fully NHTSA’s Analysis: After review of absence of complaints does not provide comply with Federal Motor Vehicle DRV’s petition, NHTSA has determined that the petitioner has not met the persuasive evidence demonstrating a Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New burden of persuasion that the lack of a safety issue here, nor does it Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with noncompliance is inconsequential to mean that there will not be safety issues a GVWR of More than 4,536 kilograms safety. DRV failed to provide any data in the future. As such, NHTSA does not (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. MNA supporting its conclusion that the consider this to be a determining factor filed a noncompliance report dated noncompliance is inconsequential and, that DRV’s noncompliance is September 18, 2015. MNA then except for stating it had not received inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. petitioned NHTSA on October 1, 2015, any complaints about the location of the for a decision that the subject NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration reflectors, did not address any of the noncompliance is inconsequential as it of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that DRV potential safety risks associated with the relates to motor vehicle safety. has not met its burden of persuasion in noncompliance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For support of the claim that the FMVSS For the purposes of FMVSS No. 108, further information on this decision No. 108 noncompliance in the subject the primary function of a reflex reflector contact Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle trailers is inconsequential to motor is to prevent crashes by permitting early Safety Compliance, the National detection of an unlighted motor vehicle vehicle safety. DRV has not presented Highway Traffic Safety Administration at an intersection or when parked on or any data indicating that the performance (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–5310, by the side of the road. Because reflex of a reflex reflector mounted at a height facsimile (202) 366–5930. reflectors are not independent light of 68 to 70 inches above the ground SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: sources, their performance is wholly provides a level of safety performance reliant upon the amount of illumination equivalent to that of a reflector mounted I. Overview they receive from vehicle headlamps. within the range of heights specified by Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), Ideally, a reflex reflector would achieve FMVSS No. 108. Accordingly, DRV’s has determined that certain Michelin its highest performance when the reflex petition is hereby denied and DRV is heavy truck tires do not fully comply reflector is mounted at the height of obligated to provide notification of, and with paragraphs S6.5(a) and (j) of another vehicle’s lower beam ‘‘hot a free remedy for, that noncompliance Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard spot.’’ Due to the significant range of under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires permissible mounting heights for for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 May 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1


Document Created: 2018-11-08 08:53:01
Document Modified: 2018-11-08 08:53:01
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionDenial of Petition.
FR Citation82 FR 24204 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR