[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73920-73921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29249]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0101; Notice 1]


Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited \1\ (Morgan) has determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2012 and 2013 Morgan model M3W three-wheeled 
motorcycles do not fully comply with either paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) or 
paragraph S10.7.1.2.2 (depending on the vehicles date of manufacture) 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Morgan has filed an 
appropriate report dated August 6, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited is a manufacturer of motor vehicles 
and is registered under the laws of England.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is January 8, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.

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 be 
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 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. Morgan's petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) 
(see

[[Page 73921]]

implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Morgan 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 Morgan'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 139 MY 2012 and 
2013 Morgan model M3W three-wheeled motorcycles manufactured during the 
period August 1, 2012 to August 14, 2013.
    III. Noncompliance: Morgan explains that the noncompliance is that 
the affected vehicles were equipped with dual horizontally-mounted 
headlamps mounted 29 inches apart (lens edge to lens edge) rather than 
within 200 mm as stated in FMVSS No. 108. In addition, Morgan states 
that the headlamps are not marked with the symbol ``DOT.''
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraphs S7.9.6.2(b) and S10.17.1.2.2 of FMVSS No. 
108 require in pertinent part:

    Paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) (applies only to the subject vehicles 
manufactured before December 1, 2012).
    If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides 
both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either 
at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical 
centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps 
are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the 
distance between the closest edges of their effective projected 
luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200 mm (8 in.).
    Paragraph S10.17.1.2.2 (applies only to the subject vehicles 
manufactured after December 1, 2012).
    If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical 
centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their 
effective projected luminous lens areas must not be greater than 200 
mm.

    V. Summary of Morgan's Analyses: Morgan stated its belief that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for 
the following reasons:
1. Horizontal Separation of the Headlamps
     Morgan contends that the headlamps meet the technical 
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and that the current horizontal spacing 
of 29 inches is in the best interests of road safety. If the M3W were 
compliant with the existing motorcycle head lamp spacing requirement, 
other road users would not have an accurate indication of the width of 
an oncoming M3W.
     For ongoing production Morgan shall source an FMVSS No. 
108 compliant headlamp and shall install such lamp in accordance with 
FMVSS No. 108 along the vertical centerline of the M3W. This lamp shall 
be wired to the vehicle lighting switch. The two lamps separated by 29 
inches shall remain available as optional driving lamps wired to a 
separate switch and shall be supplemental driving lamps. This change in 
specification shall apply to any US retail sales after the date of 
Morgan's notification of noncompliance submitted under 49 CFR part 573 
for the subject vehicles.
II. Lens Marking
     Morgan contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential 
as it relates to motor vehicle safety on the basis that the lamps meet 
the substantive requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and Morgan owners almost 
exclusively go to Morgan dealers for replacement parts.
     For ongoing production, the headlamps shall have all FMVSS 
required markings.
    Morgan also presents several arguments as to how it believes 
previous NHTSA inconsequential noncompliance determinations can be 
applied to a decision on its petition. See Morgan's petition for a 
complete discussion of its reasoning.
    In addition, Morgan knows of no reports of injuries or other safety 
issues in the US or the rest of the world caused by the subject 
noncompliance.
    In summation, Morgan believes that the described noncompliance of 
the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and 
that its petition, to exempt 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.
    In its petition, Morgan also requested that NHTSA amend the 
headlamp spacing requirements in FMVSS No. 108 during future 
rulemaking. This request cannot be considered as part of the instant 
petition as filed under 49 CFR part 556. However, Morgan may consider 
petitioning the Agency for rulemaking. The appropriate type of petition 
to request a change in a rule is one filed under 49 CFR Part 552 
Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Non-Compliance Orders.
    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 vehicles that Morgan no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve vehicle 
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 
sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant motor vehicles under their control after 
Morgan 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.

    Issued on: December 2, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-29249 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P