Home Page About Us Contribute




Escort, Inc.



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto






By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2010 European Market Ferrari California Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government Topics:  Ferrari F149 California

Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2010 European Market Ferrari California Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

Jeffrey Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
May 4, 2015


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25356-25358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0107, Notice 2]


Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2010 European Market 
Ferrari California Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces a decision by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration that certain Model Year (MY) 2010 Ferrari 
California passenger cars (PCs) that were not originally manufactured 
to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
(FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because 
they are substantially similar to vehicles originally manufactured for 
importation into and sale in the United States that were certified by 
their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S. 
certified version of the MY 2010 Ferrari California PC), and they are 
capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: This decision became effective on April 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For further information contact George Stevens, Office of 
Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not 
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be 
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that 
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle 
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United 
States, certified as required under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same 
model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is 
capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either 
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice 
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords 
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the 
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the 
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is 
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in 
the Federal Register.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland (``JK'') (Registered 
Importer #RI-90-006), petitioned NHTSA to decide whether certain MY 
2010 Ferrari California PCs are eligible for importation into the 
United States. NHTSA published a notice of the petition on March 21, 
2014 (79 FR 15800) to afford an opportunity for public comment. The 
reader is referred to that notice for a thorough description of the 
petition.

Comments

    On April 21, 2014, NHTSA received comments from Ferrari North 
America (FNA), the vehicle's original manufacturer. In its comments, 
Ferrari stated that while it agreed that the U.S. and the non-U.S. 
versions of the vehicle are ``substantially similar'' within the 
meaning of section 30141(a)(1)(A)(i), it strongly disputed JK's 
assertions that the non-U.S. version could be readily altered to comply 
with all applicable FMVSS. FNA elaborated by presenting detailed 
reasons for its assertions with respect to specific FMVSS.
    On May 21, 2014, NHTSA forwarded FNA's comments to JK and asked 
that it respond by June, 4, 2014. By letter dated June 10, 2014, JK 
requested a 45 day extension in order to gather engineering data to 
adequately address the concerns raised by FNA. NHTSA approved JK's 
request for this extension and JK responded on August 15, 2014.
    A summary of FNA's comments, JK's responses, and the conclusions 
that NHTSA has reached with regard to the issues raised by the parties 
is set forth below.

Review of Comments and Conclusions

    NHTSA has reviewed the petition, FNA's comments and JK's responses 
to those comments, and has concluded that the vehicles covered by the 
petition are capable of being readily altered to comply with all 
applicable FMVSS. However, NHTSA has also decided that an RI who 
imports or modifies one of these vehicles must include in the statement 
of conformity and associated documents (referred to as a ``conformity 
package'') it submits to NHTSA under 49 CFR 592.6(d) specific proof to 
confirm that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to, or was 
successfully altered to conform to, each of the following standards:

[[Page 25357]]

    FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays; FNA commented that the 
Electronic Control Unit (``ECU'') for the instrument cluster would have 
to be reflashed with a ``Proxy'' file from the Ferrari factory to 
ensure that all of the other ECUs on the Control Area Network (``CAN'') 
are aware of the new ECU and are communicating properly. FNA 
additionally commented that the necessary reprogramming to achieve 
conformity to the standard can only be completed with proprietary 
hardware and software which is not available to RI's and can only be 
obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
    JK responded that they have the necessary equipment and can obtain 
the files from a donor vehicle.
    NHTSA has decided that a description of how the programming changes 
were completed and how compliance with the standard was verified must 
be included in each conformity package. Photographs, printouts, and/or 
images of the installation computer's monitor (``screenshots''), as 
practicable, must also be submitted as proof that the reprogramming was 
carried out successfully.
    FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; 
FNA commented that the reprogramming identified by JK would necessitate 
reflashing [the control system] with a ``Proxy'' file from the Ferrari 
Factory in order to assure that all aspects of the lighting system 
perform in accordance with this standard.
    JK responded that they have the necessary equipment and can obtain 
the files from a donor vehicle.
    NHTSA has decided that a description of how the programming changes 
were accomplished and how compliance with FMVSS No. 108 is verified 
must accompany each conformity package. Photographs, printouts, and/or 
screenshots, as practicable, must also be submitted as proof that the 
reprogramming was carried out successfully.
    FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors; FNA commented that in addition to 
the modifications noted in the petition, the driver's outside rearview 
mirror would need to be replaced.
    JK responded that no comment is necessary.
    NHTSA has decided that proof, including photographs, must be 
submitted with each conformity package to show that the vehicle is 
equipped with a driver's side rear view mirror that allows the vehicle 
to meet the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111.
    FMVSS No. 114 Theft protection and rollaway prevention; As was the 
case with FMVSS Nos. 101 and 108, FNA contended that reprogramming 
could only be completed with proprietary hardware and software which is 
not available to RI's and can only be obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
    JK responded that they have the necessary equipment and can obtain 
the files from a donor vehicle.
    NHTSA has decided that a description of how the programming changes 
were completed and how compliance was verified must accompany each 
conformity package. Additionally, photographs, printouts, and/or 
screenshots, as practicable, must be submitted as proof that the 
reprogramming was carried out successfully.
    FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated window, Partition, and Roof Panel 
Systems; FNA commented that the reprogramming identified by JK is not 
necessary for the vehicles to conform to the standard.
    NHTSA has decided that a description of how the vehicle's 
conformity was determined must accompany each conformity package. 
Descriptions of any modifications necessary to achieve conformity must 
accompany each conformity package.
    FMVSS No. 138, Tire pressure monitoring systems; In its petition JK 
claims that the subject non-U.S. certified vehicles conform to FMVSS 
No. 138 as originally manufactured. FNA commented that tire pressure 
monitoring systems (TPMS) are not standard equipment on all European 
Ferrari California vehicles and that substantial work would be required 
to bring vehicles into compliance with the standard. FNA further 
asserted that because of the extent and complexity of the required 
changes, vehicles not originally equipped with TPMS cannot be ``readily 
altered'' to comply with the standard.
    JK responded that most non-U.S. certified MY 2010 Ferrari 
California PCs are equipped with TPMS, but that due to varying 
regulations around the world, some vehicles may be missing the system. 
JK further stated that all vehicles entering the U.S. would have to be 
inspected for compliance, both with regard to the material components 
of the system and to the programming of the system. JK also states that 
the vehicle they inspected had a system identical to that found in the 
U.S.-certified vehicle.
    NHTSA has decided that a description of how any applicable 
modifications and/or programming changes were completed and how 
compliance was verified must accompany each conformity package. 
Additionally, photographs, printouts, and/or screenshots, as 
practicable, must be submitted as proof that the reprogramming and/or 
modifications were carried out successfully.
    FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Protection; FNA commented that JK did not 
identify all components that need to be replaced in order to bring the 
airbag system into compliance. FNA specifically notes that the European 
versions of the subject of vehicles are not equipped with a ``PASS AIR 
BAG OFF'' telltale, which is required for compliance. Additionally, FNA 
stated that JK did not identify certain portions of the instrument 
panel that differ from those on the U.S.-certified version of the 
vehicle and that would have to be changed to assure compliance with the 
unbelted crash requirements of the standard.
    JK responded that all vehicles processed under this petition must 
be inspected for compliance with all requirements of FMVSS No. 208. JK 
commented that the modifications for this standard concern the airbags, 
seats, seatbelts, wiring harnesses, air bag light, passenger air bag 
off light, instrument cluster, child seat tethers, and other hardware. 
JK also responded that the entire system would need to be programmed 
with the U.S. advanced air bag programs and that they will run all 
system checks with their ``in house'' weighted dummies in order to 
confirm compliance.
    NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include a 
detailed description of the occupant protection system in place on the 
vehicle at the time it was delivered to the RI, and a similarly 
detailed description of the occupant protection system in place after 
the vehicle is altered, including photographs of all required labeling. 
The description must also include; assembly diagrams and associated 
part numbers for all components that were removed from and installed on 
the vehicle, a description of how the programming changes were 
completed, and a description of how compliance was verified. 
Additionally, photographs (e.g., screenshots) or report printouts, as 
practicable, must be submitted as proof that the reprogramming was 
carried out successfully. Proof must also be furnished that all 
portions of the instrument panel in the vehicle, as altered, are 
identical to the U.S. version instrument panel, or proof in the form of 
dynamic test results that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to the 
unbelted occupant requirements of FMVSS No. 208.

[[Page 25358]]

    FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FNA commented that as pointed 
out by JK in their petition, some European market vehicles are equipped 
with four-point seat belt assemblies that do not comply with this 
standard. FNA contends that the belts could not simply be replaced by a 
registered importer, due to the absence of an anchorage on the B-
pillar.
    JK responded that all vehicles processed under this petition would 
need to be inspected for compliance and that all parts of the system 
are available.
    NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include 
photographic evidence that conforming safety belts have been installed 
in the vehicle. Safety belt anchorages are addressed in the following 
FMVSS No. 210 discussion.
    FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; In its petition JK 
claims that the subject non-U.S. certified vehicles conform to FMVSS 
No. 210 as originally manufactured. FNA commented that European-market 
vehicles that were equipped with optional four point harnesses lack b-
pillar anchorages which are necessary for the installation of compliant 
three point harnesses. FNA expresses concern about the ability of an RI 
to install this anchorage and ensure that it meets the performance 
requirements of the standard without Ferrari's templates and tools, 
which are only used during production.
    JK responded that any vehicle found to be equipped with the 
optional belts and lacking the mentioned anchorage would have to be 
modified to meet this standard. JK further states that they will draw a 
template from the U.S. donor vehicle and that as a result all parts and 
engineering of the anchorage would then be identical to the Ferrari 
mounting point. JK asserts that less than one percent of production is 
equipped with the optional belts.
    NHTSA has decided that conformity packages for vehicles that 
require modification must include a detailed description of the 
alterations made to achieve conformity with the standard. The 
description must include sufficient information to validate how the 
alterations allowed the vehicle to meet the requirements of the 
standard. This information must include photographic evidence that the 
modification was carried out, as well as testing and/or engineering 
analysis reports documenting how the RI has verified that the 
alterations will allow the vehicle to meet all applicable requirements 
of the standard.
    FMVSS No. 301 Fuel system integrity; FNA stated that the 
modifications to the fuel system that JK identified in its petition, 
while necessary to comply with emissions requirements, have no bearing 
on compliance with FMVSS No. 301.
    JK responded that the rollover valves incorporated in the U.S. 
market system are an integral part of the fuel system integrity of the 
vehicle and necessary for compliance.
    NHTSA has decided that the fuel system modifications are necessary 
to bring vehicles into compliance with the standard. Additionally, 
NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include a detailed 
description of all modifications made to achieve conformity with the 
standard. This description must include part numbers for each part 
replaced and be supported with photographic evidence of the 
modifications made to achieve conformity.
    FMVSS No. 401 Interior trunk release; FNA expressed agreement that 
the modifications noted in the petition are necessary to conform the 
vehicle. The company noted, however, that the reprogramming could only 
be completed with proprietary hardware and software which is not 
available to RI's and can only be obtained from Ferrari and/or FNA.
    JK responded that it has the necessary programs from its U.S. model 
vehicle.
    NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include a 
description of how the programming changes were completed and how 
compliance was verified. Additionally, photographs, printouts, and/or 
screenshots, as practicable, must be submitted as proof that the 
reprogramming was carried out.
    49 CFR part 581, Bumper Standard; FNA commented that in addition to 
the modifications noted by JK in its petition, additional bumper 
reinforcements would have to be installed in both the front and the 
rear of the vehicle.
    JK responded that no comment was necessary.
    NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must include a 
detailed description of all modifications made to achieve conformity 
with the standard, including necessary modifications to the bumper 
reinforcements. This description must include part numbers for each 
part replaced and be supported with photographic evidence of the 
modifications made to achieve conformity.
    In addition to the information specified above, each conformity 
package must include evidence showing how the RI verified that the 
changes it made in loading or reprograming vehicle software to achieve 
conformity with each separate FMVSS, did not also cause the vehicle to 
fall out of compliance with any other applicable FMVSS.

Decision

    Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides 
that model year 2010 European model Ferrari California passenger cars 
that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable 
FMVSS, are substantially similar to model year 2010 Ferrari California 
passenger cars manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the 
United States, and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and are capable of 
being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject Vehicles

    The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must 
indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle 
eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. 
VSP-570 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to vehicles 
admissible under this notice of final decision.

    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. 2015-10264 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr


The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute