Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices 68599 

28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii). 

29 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 30 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

time segments does not create an undue 

burden on competition, rather, it 

provides the Market Maker with clarity 

as to the manner in which the System 

counts quotes and orders and thereby 

provides NOM Market Makers with an 

increased ability to monitor 

transactions. 

Rounding 

The Exchange’s amendment to add 

that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to 

the nearest integer, equals or exceeds 

the Specified Percentage, the System 

automatically removes a Market Maker’s 

quotes and orders in all series of an 

underlying security does not create an 

undue burden on competition because 

this amendment also provides the 

Market Maker with clarity as to the 

manner in which the System will 

remove quotes and orders and thereby 

provides NOM Market Makers with an 

increased ability to monitor transactions 

and set risk limits. 

Reset 

The amendment to the rule text 

concerning resetting does not create an 

undue burden on competition. The 

Exchange proposes to amend the 

manner in which a Market Maker may 

re-enter the System after a removal of 

quotes and orders. This amendment 

provides information to NOM Market 

Makers as to the procedure to re-enter 

the System after a trigger. This 

information is intended to provide NOM 

Market Makers with access to the 

market. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were either 

solicited or received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Because the foregoing proposed rule 

change does not: (i) Significantly affect 

the protection of investors or the public 

interest; (ii) impose any significant 

burden on competition; and (iii) become 

operative for 30 days from the date on 

which it was filed, or such shorter time 

as the Commission may designate, it has 

become effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 28 and 

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder.29

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in 

the public interest; (ii) for the protection 

of investors; or (iii) otherwise in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

If the Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. The 

Exchange has provided the Commission 

written notice of its intent to file the 

proposed rule change, along with a brief 

description and text of the proposed 

rule change, at least five business days 

prior to the date of filing of the 

proposed rule change. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

NASDAQ–2015–122 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2015–122. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR– 

NASDAQ–2015–122 and should be 

submitted on or before November 27, 

2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.30

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28143 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee—New Task 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment 

for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee. 

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) a new task to 

provide recommendations regarding 

occupant protection rulemaking in 

normal and transport category rotorcraft 

for older certification basis type designs 

that are still in production. The FAA 

amended regulations to incorporate 

occupant protection rules, including 

those for emergency landing conditions 

and fuel system crash resistance, for 

new type designs in the 1980s and 

1990s. These rule changes do not apply 

to newly manufactured rotorcraft with 

older type designs or to derivative type 

designs that keep the certification basis 

of the original type design. This 

approach has resulted in a very low 

incorporation rate of occupant 

protection features into the rotorcraft 

fleet, and fatal accidents remain 

unacceptably high. At the end of 2014, 

only 16% of U.S. fleet had complied 

with the crash resistant fuel system 

requirements effective 20 years earlier, 

and only 10% had complied with the 

emergency landing requirements 

effective 25 years earlier. A recent fatal 

accident study has shown these 

measures would have been effective in 

saving lives. 

This notice informs the public of the 

new ARAC activity and solicits 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices 

membership for the new Rotorcraft 

Occupant Protection Working Group. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin R. Crane, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 10101 Hillwood 

Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177, 

Martin.R.Crane@faa.gov, phone number 

817–222–5110, facsimile number 817– 

222–5961. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

ARAC Acceptance of Task 

As a result of the September 17, 2015, 

ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and 

ARAC accepted this task establishing 

the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection 

Working Group. The Rotorcraft 

Occupant Protection Working Group 

will serve as staff to the ARAC and 

provide advice and recommendations 

on the assigned task. The ARAC will 

review and accept the recommendation 

report and will submit it to the FAA. 

Background 

The FAA established the ARAC to 

provide information, advice, and 

recommendations on aviation-related 

issues that could result in rulemaking to 

the FAA Administrator, through the 

Associate Administrator of Aviation 

Safety. 

The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection 

Working Group will provide advice and 

recommendations to the ARAC on 

occupant protection rulemaking, 

including both initial certification and 

continued airworthiness. The basic 

concept of occupant protection is to give 

all occupants the greatest possible 

chance to egress an aircraft without 

serious injury after a survivable 

emergency landing or accident. While 

the number of U.S. helicopter accidents 

and the corresponding accident rate 

over the past 10 years have steadily 

decreased, during that same time period 

data associated with fatal helicopter 

accidents and fatalities remains 

virtually unchanged. A number of 

regulations were promulgated in the 

1980s and 1990s to address and greatly 

improve occupant protection in a 

survivable emergency landing or 

accident. These occupant protection 

improvements involve seat systems that 

reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries to 

the occupant in a crash (14 CFR 27.562, 

27.785, 29.562, and 29.785); structural 

requirements that maintain a survivable 

volume and restrain large items of mass 

above and behind the occupant (14 CFR 

27.561 and 29.561); and fuel systems 

that reduce the likelihood of an 

immediate post-crash fire (14 CFR 

27.952 and 29.952). If the occupant 

protection improvement rules are not 

incorporated in new production 

helicopters, there will be no meaningful 

reduction in the number of fatalities in 

helicopter accidents. 

Following a series of accidents 

involving post-crash fires, the 

Australian Civil Aviation Safety 

Authority asked the FAA for assistance 

in determining the airworthiness of 

certain helicopters. This request 

resulted in a collaborative post-crash 

fire/blunt force trauma study performed 

by the FAA’s Rotorcraft Directorate and 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

(CAMI). The data consisted of 97 fatal 

accidents involving U.S. registered, 

type-certificated helicopters in a fiveyear timeframe from 2008 to 2013. Part 

27 rotorcraft comprised the largest mass 

of data (87 of 97 fatal accidents, 90% of 

the total) in the study. The post-crash 

fire portion of the study found that postcrash fires occurred in 30 of 76 (39%) 

of fatal accidents involving part 27 

helicopters without fuel systems that 

meet the full crash resistance 

requirements of 14 CFR 27.952. The 

post-crash fire contributed to a fatality 

in 20% of these fatal accidents. While 

the data set for part 29 rotorcraft was 

much smaller (10 of 97 fatal accidents, 

10% of the total), the results were 

comparable. Through the course of the 

study, the Rotorcraft Directorate further 

discovered that there were only about 

16% of U.S. registered, type-certificated 

rotorcraft that fully complied with the 

fuel system crash resistance provisions 

in §§ 27.952 and 29.952, despite those 

rules having been in effect for 20 years 

at the time of the study. 

In the time since increased rotorcraft 

occupant protection standards became 

effective as federal regulations, research 

efforts have studied injury patterns in 

fatal rotorcraft accidents. In April 2003, 

Aviation, Space, and Environmental 

Medicine published Narinder Taneja 

and Douglas A. Wiegmann’s ‘‘Analysis 

of Injuries Among Pilots Killed in Fatal 

Helicopter Accidents.’’ Using autopsy 

data from 1993 to 1999, Taneja and 

Wiegmann analyzed the pattern of 

specific bony injuries (ribs, skull, and 

pelvis) and organ/visceral injuries 

(brain, lung, and heart) documented in 

74 fatal rotorcraft accidents. They found 

blunt trauma as the cause of death in 

88% of the cases, with the highest 

percentages of injuries to the head and 

core body regions. Among the 

implications cited in their study was, 

‘‘Protection of the occupants exposed to 

a crash is a realistic objective that can 

be achieved if crashworthiness becomes 

a primary element of initial helicopter 

design and future upgrade programs.’’ 

The second component of the 

Rotorcraft Directorate/CAMI study 

involved blunt force trauma. Blunt force 

trauma accounted for cause of death in 

92% of the 2008–2013 fatal accident 

data. In addition, blunt force trauma 

also was the cause of death in 80% of 

the part 27 fatal rotorcraft accidents 

where a post-crash fire occurred. The 

Rotorcraft Directorate and CAMI built 

their study using the framework and 

methodology previously established by 

Taneja and Wiegmann’s 2003 study. 

Further, they used the percentages of 

bony injuries and organ/visceral injuries 

documented in Taneja and Wiegmann’s 

study as a baseline for comparison. The 

intent was to see if a statistically 

significant change occurred in blunt 

force trauma injury patterns in fatal 

rotorcraft accidents in the 10 years since 

the previous study. They concluded 

there was no statistically significant 

difference across most categories of 

bony injuries and across all categories of 

organ/visceral injuries. The Rotorcraft 

Directorate further discovered that only 

10% of U.S. registered, type-certificated 

rotorcraft complied with increased 

occupant protection measures related to 

blunt force trauma mandated in the 

§§ 27.562 and 29.562 rules, despite the 

rules being in effect for 25 years at the 

time of the study. The provisions of 

§§ 27.562 and 29.562 were specifically 

designed for increased protection of the 

head and core body regions, the same 

regions documented with the highest 

levels of injury in the fatal accident 

studies conducted by Taneja and 

Wiegmann and the Rotorcraft 

Directorate/CAMI. 

Additional research found that about 

9,000 occupants had been involved in 

U.S. helicopter accidents in the 25 years 

since §§ 27.562 and 29.562 became 

effective. Only 2% of helicopters in 

those accidents were compliant with 

§§ 27.562 and 29.562. Over 1,300 

occupants were killed in accidents 

involving the 98% of helicopters that 

were not compliant with §§ 27.562 and 

29.562. 

The Task 

The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection 

Working Group is tasked to: 

1. Perform a cost-benefit analysis for 

incorporating the existing occupant 

protection standards 14 CFR 27.561, 

27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 

29.785, and 29.952 via §§ 27.2 and 29.2 

for newly manufactured rotorcraft that 

addresses the following: 

a. Estimate what the regulated parties 

would do differently as a result of the 

proposed regulation and how much it 

would cost. 

b. Estimate the improvement in 

survivability of future accidents. 

c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., 

reduced administrative burden) or costs 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices 68601 

that would result from implementation 

of the occupant protection standards 

identified above. 

2. Develop a cost-benefit analysis 

report containing the information 

explained in task 1 above. 

3. After the FAA accepts and 

considers the cost benefit analysis 

report, the FAA will task the Rotorcraft 

Occupant Protection Working Group 

either to make specific written 

recommendations on how all or part of 

the existing occupant protection 

standards 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 

27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785, 

and 29.952 should be made effective via 

§§ 27.2 and 29.2 for newly 

manufactured rotorcraft, or to propose 

new alternative performance-based 

occupant protection safety regulations 

for newly manufactured rotorcraft that 

will be effective via §§ 27.2 and 29.2. 

4. If new alternative performancebased occupant protection safety 

regulations effective via §§ 27.2 and 29.2 

are proposed, perform a cost-benefit 

analysis that addresses the following: 

a. Estimate what the regulated parties 

would do differently as a result of the 

proposed regulation and how much it 

would cost. 

b. Estimate the improvement in 

survivability of future accidents from 

the proposed recommendations. 

c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., 

reduced administrative burden) or costs 

that would result from implementation 

of the recommendations. 

5. Develop an initial report containing 

recommendations on the findings and 

results of the tasks explained above. 

a. The initial recommendation report 

should document both majority and 

dissenting positions on the findings and 

the rationale for each position. 

b. Any disagreements should be 

documented, including the rationale for 

each position and the reasons for the 

disagreement. 

6. Complete the following after the 

FAA accepts the initial recommendation 

report identified in task 5: 

a. Specifically advise and make 

written recommendations on 

incorporating rotorcraft occupant 

protection improvements and standards 

into the existing rotorcraft fleet. 

Occupant protection standards include 

either all or part of 14 CFR 27.561, 

27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 

29.785, and 29.952, or new alternative 

proposed performance-based 

regulations. 

b. Develop an addendum report 

containing recommendations on the 

findings and results of the tasks 

explained above. 

c. Document both majority and 

dissenting positions on the findings and 

the rationale for each position. 

d. Any disagreements should be 

documented, including the rationale for 

each position and the reasons for the 

disagreement. 

7. The working group may be 

reinstated to assist the ARAC in 

responding to the FAA’s questions or 

concerns after the recommendation 

report has been submitted. 

Schedule 

This tasking notice requires three 

reports. 

• The task 2 cost-benefit analysis 

report must be submitted to the FAA for 

review and acceptance no later than 6 

months after publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. 

• The task 5 initial recommendation 

report must be submitted to the FAA for 

review and acceptance no later than 12 

months after initiation of task 3 above. 

• The task 6 addendum 

recommendation report must be 

submitted to the FAA for review and 

acceptance no later than 6 months after 

the initial recommendation report is 

submitted. 

Working Group Activity 

The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection 

Working Group must comply with the 

procedures adopted by the ARAC as 

follows: 

1. Conduct a review and analysis of 

the assigned tasks and any other related 

materials or documents. 

2. Draft and submit a work plan for 

completion of the task, including the 

rationale supporting such a plan, for 

consideration by the ARAC. 

3. Provide a status report at each 

ARAC meeting. 

4. Draft and submit the 

recommendation reports based on 

review and analysis of the assigned 

tasks. 

5. Present the cost-benefit analysis 

report in task 2 at the ARAC meeting. 

6. Present the initial recommendation 

report at the ARAC meeting. 

7. Present the findings from the 

addendum recommendation report at 

the ARAC meeting. 

Participation in the Working Group 

The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection 

Working Group will be comprised of 

technical experts having an interest in 

the assigned task. A working group 

member need not be a member 

representative of the ARAC. The FAA 

would like a wide range of members 

(normal category rotorcraft 

manufacturers, transport category 

rotorcraft manufacturers, and rotorcraft 

operators from various segments of the 

industry such as oil and gas exploration, 

emergency medical services, and air 

tour operators) to ensure all aspects of 

the tasks are considered in development 

of the recommendations. The provisions 

of the August 13, 2014, Office of 

Management and Budget guidance, 

‘‘Revised Guidance on Appointment of 

Lobbyists to Federal Advisory 

Committees, Boards, and Commissions’’ 

(79 FR 47482), continues the ban on 

registered lobbyists participating on 

Agency Boards and Commissions if 

participating in their ‘‘individual 

capacity.’’ The revised guidance now 

allows registered lobbyists to participate 

on Agency Boards and Commissions in 

a ‘‘representative capacity’’ for the 

‘‘express purpose of providing a 

committee with the views of a 

nongovernmental entity, a recognizable 

group of persons or nongovernmental 

entities (an industry, sector, labor 

unions, or environmental groups, etc.) 

or state or local government.’’ (For 

further information see Lobbying 

Disclosure Act of 1995 as amended, 2 

U.S.C 1603, 1604, and 1605.) 

If you wish to become a member of 

the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection 

Working Group, write the person listed 

under the caption FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that 

desire. Describe your interest in the task 

and state the expertise you would bring 

to the working group. The FAA must 

receive all requests by December 7, 

2015. The ARAC and the FAA will 

review the requests and advise you 

whether or not your request is 

approved. 

If you are chosen for membership on 

the working group, you must actively 

participate in the working group, attend 

all meetings, and provide written 

comments when requested. You must 

devote the resources necessary to 

support the working group in meeting 

any assigned deadlines. You must keep 

your management and those you may 

represent advised of working group 

activities and decisions to ensure the 

proposed technical solutions do not 

conflict with the position of those you 

represent. Once the working group has 

begun deliberations, members will not 

be added or substituted without the 

approval of the ARAC Chair, the FAA, 

including the Designated Federal 

Officer, and the Working Group Chair. 

The Secretary of Transportation 

determined the formation and use of the 

ARAC is necessary and in the public 

interest in connection with the 

performance of duties imposed on the 

FAA by law. 

The ARAC meetings are open to the 

public. However, meetings of the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices 

Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working 

Group are not open to the public, except 

to the extent individuals with an 

interest and expertise are selected to 

participate. The FAA will make no 

public announcement of working group 

meetings. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 30, 

2015. 

Lirio Liu, 

Designated Federal Officer, Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28151 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0053; Notice 2] 

BMW of North America, Inc., Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of Petition. 

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, Inc. 

(BMW) has determined that certain 

model year (MY) 2015 MINI Cooper, 

Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and Cooper S 

hardtop 4 door passenger cars do not 

fully comply with paragraph S4.2.3(a) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 226, Ejection Mitigation. 

BMW has filed an appropriate report 

dated May 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Karen Nuschler, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5829, facsimile (202) 366– 

3081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: 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 the petition was 

published, with a 30-day public 

comment period, on September 1, 2015 

in the Federal Register (80 FR 52845). 

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– 

0053.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are 

approximately 4,208 MY 2015 MINI 

Cooper, Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and 

Cooper S hardtop 4 door passenger cars 

manufactured from February 25, 2015 to 

April 24, 2015. 

III. Noncompliance: BMW explains 

that written information describing the 

ejection mitigation countermeasure 

installed in the vehicles was not 

provided to the vehicle consumers as 

required by paragraph S4.2.3(a) of 

FMVSS No. 226. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.2.3 of 

FMVSS No. 226 requires in pertinent 

part: 

S4.2.3 Written information. 

(a) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation 

countermeasure that deploys in the event of 

a rollover must be described as such in the 

vehicle’s owner manual or in other written 

information provided by the vehicle 

manufacturer to the consumer. . . . 

V. Summary of BMW’s Arguments: 

BMW stated its belief that the subject 

noncompliance in the affected vehicles 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. A summary of its reasoning is 

provided as follows. Detailed 

explanations of its reasoning are 

included in its petition: 

1. The vehicles are equipped with a 

countermeasure that meets the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 226. 

2. The owner’s manuals contain a 

description of the ejection mitigation 

countermeasure in the context of side 

impact. 

3. The owner’s manuals contain 

precautions related to the [ejection 

mitigation] system even though not 

required by FMVSS No. 226. 

4. The [ejection mitigation] system 

uses the FMVSS No. 208 required 

readiness indicator, as allowed by 

FMVSS No. 226. 

5. BMW has not received any 

customer complaints due to this issue. 

6. BMW is not aware of any accidents 

or injuries due to this issue. 

7. NHTSA may have granted similar 

manufacturer petitions re owner’s 

manuals. 

8. BMW has corrected the 

noncompliance so that all future 

production vehicles will comply with 

FMVSS No. 226. 

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’s Decision 

NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA believes 

that while written information was not 

provided to vehicle owners describing 

the installed head air bags (side curtain) 

as vehicle occupant ejection mitigation 

countermeasures that deploy in the 

event of a rollover, the owner’s manuals 

for the affected vehicles otherwise 

effectively describe, and illustrate the 

location of, the head air bags. NHTSA 

also believes that the status of the head 

air bags is monitored by the vehicle’s air 

bag readiness indicator intended to 

show operational readiness of the entire 

airbag system. Therefore, drivers should 

be alerted to a malfunction of the head 

air bags that are intended to provide 

ejection countermeasures in the event of 

a rollover event, and occupant 

protection in the event of a significant 

side impact event. 

BMW has also reported that they have 

not received any complaints from 

vehicle owners regarding the subject 

noncompliance and that vehicle 

production was corrected so that the 

noncompliance did not occur in 

subsequent vehicles. NHTSA’s Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that BMW has met 

its burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 226 noncompliance in the 

affected vehicles is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

BMW’s petition is hereby granted and 

BMW is exempted from the obligation of 

providing notification of, and a remedy 

for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120. 

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, this 

decision only applies to the subject 

vehicles that BMW no longer controlled 

at the time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

Granting of 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. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES