BMW of North America, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: BMW R nineT
|
Gregory K. Rea
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
24 August 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58001-58002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20250]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0031; Notice 2]
BMW of North America, 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: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), a subsidiary of BMW AG in
Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2014-2015
BMW R nineT motorcycles do not fully comply with paragraph S6.4.3(a)
(Table V-b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. BMW has filed an
appropriate report dated February 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. BMW then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mike Cole,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5319, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.
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.
Notice of receipt of BMW's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 4, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 FR
31966). 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/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0031.''
II. Motorcycles Involved: Affected are approximately 1,792 MY 2014-
2015 BMW R nineT motorcycles manufactured between November 27, 2013 and
January 26, 2015.
III. Noncompliance: BMW explains that, due to an obstruction caused
by the tail lamp assembly, the noncompliance is that the rear turn
signal lamps were manufactured with a corner point of 5[deg]IB. The
turn signal lamps should have had a corner point of 20[deg]IB as
required by paragraph S6.4.3(a) (Table V-b) of FMVSS No. 108.
BMW has since revised its petition to indicate that the obstructed
lens area was 666 sq-mm and that the photometric test point (20[deg]IB/
5[deg] down) was also obstructed and measured only 1.1 cd (FMVSS No.
108, S6.1.3.1 and S7.1.2.13.2).
IV. Rule Text: FMVSS No 108 requires in pertinent part:
Paragraph S6.1.3.1: Each lamp, reflective device, and item of
associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the
vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be removed
except for repair, within the mounting location and height limits as
specified in Table I, and in a location where it complies with all
applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous
lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all
obstructions considered;
Paragraph S6.4.3(a): When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp
listed in Table V-b each such lamp must provide not less than 1250
sq mm of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any
direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points
specified in Table V-b for each such lamp;
Paragraph S7.1.2.13.2: As an alternative to S7.1.2.13.1, a rear
turn signal lamp installed on a motorcycle may be designed to
conform to the photometry requirements of Table XIII-a.
V. Summary of BMW's Analyses: BMW stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
(A) BMW states that when the subject motorcycles are upright on a
level surface and equipped with standard tires at their recommended
cold tire inflation pressure; the lower edge of the rear turn signal
lenses are approximately 747 mm above ground, the lower edge of the
tail lamp lens is approximately 710 mm above ground and the tail lamp
lens extend upward. BMW believes that due to these geometric conditions
there is some overlap in the vertical direction between the rear turn
signal lenses and the tail lamp lens however, they are not aligned
along the same longitudinal centerline [of the turn signals].
Specifically, the tail lamp is on the motorcycle's longitudinal
centerline while the rear turn signals are on stalks offset from the
centerline. As a result, BMW believes that this has a very minor affect
upon the effective projected luminous lens area.
(B) BMW stated its belief that the obstruction from the tail lamp
only occurs if another road user in a following vehicle has an eye-
point of approximately 747 mm above ground (extremely low for an
average vehicle) and is a worst-case-scenario. For other road users
with a higher eye-point, there is no apparent obstruction and the turn
signal would appear to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
(C) BMW also stated its belief that the effect of the
noncompliance, i.e., the overlap or interference of the turn signal
lamp by the tail lamp does not occur during critical traffic
conditions. A road user, who is following an affected motorcycle, and
in the same lane as an affected motorcycle, will be able to fully view
an affected motorcycle's rear turn signal at a distance of
approximately 1,935 mm (approximately 6 ft). BMW believes that in most
traffic conditions, a road user would not want to be closer to a
motorcycle than 6 ft. Thus, this ``non-visible'' rear turn signal
condition is not likely to occur during the vast majority of traffic
conditions. BMW provided detailed analysis of specific travel
conditions including following directly behind an affected motorcycle
and overtaking/passing an affected motorcycle that it believes supports
its conclusion that the condition caused by the subject noncompliance
will not interfere with the safety of the motorcycle rider or another
road user.
(D) BMW Customer Relations has not received any contacts from
motorcycle riders, or other road users regarding this issue. Also, BMW
is 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 all future production of the subject vehicles
will fully comply with FMVSS No. 108.
In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject motorcycles 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
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
NHTSA'S Decision
NHTSA's Analysis of BMW's Arguments: BMW stated that a number
[[Page 58002]]
of traffic conditions were analyzed to determine whether the
noncompliance is perceptible to other road users and, if so, its affect
upon safety.
The first condition BMW reviewed was the rear turn signal mounting
height. BMW indicates that for another road user with a higher eye-
point, there is no apparent obstruction \1\ and the turn signal would
appear to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. While many road users
will have higher eye-points on a flat road than the mounting height of
these lamps, the downward requirements applicable to lamps are
generally necessary for instances when other road users are below the
preceding vehicles, such as vehicles cresting a hill. NHTSA has
previously relaxed the provisions of downward photometric test angles
for low mounted turn signal lamps,\2\ however, this provision would not
apply to BMW's turn signal lamps due to their moderately higher
mounting height. Regardless, even for lower mounted lamps, the
photometric test angles were relaxed at test points that were 15[deg]
down and 10[deg] down only. Essentially, any photometric requirements
for a low mounted turn signal lamp at the 15[deg] down and 10[deg] down
locations are allowed to be met at 5[deg] down. In the instant case,
BMW's turn signal lamps (as installed) at the 20[deg]IB/5[deg] down
test point are 75% below the required minimum photometric requirements.
As such, we are not compelled by BMW's argument on this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BMW later indicated that the obstruction of the turn signal
that created the noncompliance was due to a redesigned stop lamp.
\2\ See Final Rule at 69 FR 48805, August 11, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second condition that BMW reviewed was a traffic condition of
``Following Directly Behind an Affected Motorcycle.'' BMW's analysis in
this case assumes that the motorcycle and following vehicle are in the
same lane, and the motorcycle is on the left side of the lane directly
in front (and inline) with the driver of the following vehicle. BMW
argues that the following driver would have to be closer than 6 feet
from the motorcycle for the lamp to become obstructed and that would be
unlikely unless they were in bumper to bumper traffic. However, BMW did
not analyze the case where the motorcycle and the following vehicle
were in the same lane, but the motorcycle was oriented on the right
hand side of the lane. In this instance, the motorcycle could be offset
by 7.5 feet or more to the opposite side of the following driver, and
the distance from the motorcycle where the right turn signal lamp would
begin to become obstructed would be over 65 feet. This situation could
occur when the motorcyclist is preparing for a right hand turn and the
following driver may not receive the signal that the motorcycle is
about to slow down for the turn. As such, we are not compelled by BMW's
argument on this point.
The third condition that BMW reviewed was a traffic condition of
``Overtaking/Passing an Affected Motorcycle.'' BMW's analysis in this
case assumes that the following vehicle is not in the same lane as the
motorcycle and that if the motorcyclist used its turn signal to
indicate a turn into the same lane as the following vehicle, the turn
signal lamp would not be obstructed. In this case, where a motorcyclist
indicates a turn into the same lane as a following vehicle, NHTSA
agrees that the turn signal lamp on that side would not be obstructed.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that BMW has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS
No. 108 noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, BMW's petition is hereby denied and BMW 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.
Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-20250 Filed 8-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P