69554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices 

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. Harley-Davidson’s Petition: 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Harley-Davidson 

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 HarleyDavidson’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. Motorcycles Involved: Affected are 

approximately 3,929 MY 2015 HarleyDavidson model XG500 and model 

XG750 motorcycles manufactured from 

March 6, 2014 through August 12, 2014. 

III. Noncompliance: Harley-Davidson 

explains that due to a label design error 

the numerals on the speedometers of the 

affected motorcycles are labeled at 20 

mph intervals instead of 10 mph 

intervals as required by table 3, footnote 

4, of FMVSS No. 123. 

Rule Text: Footnote 4 of FMVSS No. 

123 table 3 requires in pertinent part: 

. . . Major graduations and numerals appear 

at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations at 5 

mph intervals. . . 

V. Summary of HARLEY– 

DAVIDSON’s Analyses: HarleyDavidson stated its belief that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

for the following reasons: 

(A) Harley-Davidson stated that 

FMVSS No. 123 does not require that 

motorcycles be equipped with 

speedometers. Specifically, the standard 

only requires that if motorcycles are in 

fact equipped with a speedometer, that 

the speedometer must be marked in 10 

mph intervals. This has led HarleyDavidson to believe that NHTSA has 

implicitly acknowledged that a 

speedometer is not, itself, necessary for 

the safe operation of motorcycles, which 

is consistent with NHTSA’s decision in 

1982 to rescind FMVSS No. 122 which 

had required installation of 

speedometers on all vehicles. 

(B) Harley-Davidson also stated that 

while the labeling error constitutes a 

technical noncompliance with table 3, 

footnote 4, of FMVSS No. 123, the 

noncompliance does not affect any 

aspect of vehicle performance—braking, 

steering, acceleration, visibility, etc. The 

speedometer remains fully visible to the 

operator and Harley-Davidson believes 

that the 20 mph numeral intervals 

adequately provide indication of speed 

to the rider. 

(C) Harley-Davidson believes that the 

lack of 10 mph numerical labels will not 

present confusion for riders, as 

evidenced by the lack of complaints, 

claims or incidents. Furthermore, they 

believe that motorcycle owners typically 

also own and operate other vehicles, 

such as passenger cars and light trucks, 

which are not subject to any 

speedometer graduation requirements 

and which, in many cases, are equipped 

with speedometers with 20 mph 

numeral intervals. 

Harley-Davidson has additionally 

informed NHTSA that beginning on 

August 22, 2014 it corrected the 

noncompliance so that all future 

production of the subject motorcycles 

comply with FMVSS No. 123. 

In summation, Harley-Davidson 

believes that the described 

noncompliance of the subject 

motorcycles is inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petition, to 

exempt Harley-Davidson 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 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 subject motorcycles that HarleyDavidson no longer controlled at the 

time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, any 

decision on 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 motorcycles under 

their control after Harley-Davidson 

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. 

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 

Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27587 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0107; Notice 1] 

Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of Petition. 

SUMMARY: Continental Tire the 

Americas, LLC (CTA) has determined 

that certain Continental General 

Altimax RT43 replacement tires do not 

fully comply with paragraphs S5.5(c) 

and (f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New 

Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light 

Vehicles. CTA has filed an appropriate 

report dated August 19, 2014, pursuant 

to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is December 22, 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 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices 69555 

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, selfaddressed 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. CTA’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see 

implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), 

CTA 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 CTA’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. Tires Involved: Affected are 

approximately 814 replacement tires 

that were manufactured for sale in the 

United States and Canada. CTA states 

that 181 of the replacement tires are still 

under their control. CTA further 

identified the tires as General Altimax 

RT43 brand 195/65R15 91T passenger 

car tires and General Altimax RT43 

brand 195/65R15 91H passenger car 

tires. 

III. Noncompliance: CTA explains 

that the noncompliance is that due to a 

mold labeling error the sidewall 

markings on both tires incorrectly 

describe the maximum inflation 

pressure as required by paragraph 5.5 (c) 

and the actual number plies in the tread 

area of the tires as required by 

paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139. 

Specifically, the 195/65R15 91T General 

Altimax RT43 tires were manufactured 

with ‘‘Max Inflation Pressure: 350 kPa 

(51 PSI); Tread: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 

2 Polyamide.’’ The correct labeling and 

stamping should have been ‘‘Max 

Inflation Pressure: 300 kPa (44 PSI); 

Tread: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 1 

Polyamide.’’ The 195/65R15 91H 

General Altimax RT43 tires were 

manufactured with ‘‘Max Inflation 

Pressure 300 kPa (44 PSI); Tread: 1 

Polyester + 2 Steel + 1 Polyamide.’’ The 

correct labeling and stamping should 

have been ‘‘Max Inflation Pressure 350 

kPa (51 PSI); Tread: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel 

+ 2 Polyamide.’’ 

V. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5(c) and (f) 

of FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent 

part: 

S5.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (i) of S5.5, each tire 

must be marked on each sidewall with the 

information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) 

and on one sidewall with the information 

specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to 

the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this 

standard . . . 

(C) The maximum permissible inflation 

pressure, subject to the limitation of S5.5.4 

through S5.5.6 of this standard; 

(f) The actual number of plies in the 

sidewall, and the actual number of plies in 

the tread area, if different; 

V. Summary of CTA’s Analyses: CTA 

stated its belief that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety for the following 

reasons: 

(A) Number of Plies: CTA believes 

that the mislabeling of the number of 

plies on the subject tires has no impact 

on the operational performance of the 

subject tires or on the safety of vehicles 

on which these tires are to be mounted. 

CTA states that the subject tires also 

meet or exceed all of the performance 

requirements specified by FMVSS No. 

139. 

(B) Max Inflation Pressure: CTA 

believes that the choice of the maximum 

inflation pressure level is the decision 

of the tire manufacturer, as long as it is 

in compliance with the established 

values under FMVSS No. 139 paragraph 

S5.5.4. CTA also believes that the 

maximum inflation pressure values of 

350 kPa and 300 kPa on both tires are 

acceptable choices and stated that both 

tires can accommodate a maximum 

pressure of 350 kPa (51 PSI.) 

(C) Overloading: CTA believes that 

the use of either of the maximum 

inflation pressures displayed on the 

subject tire sidewalls as the source of 

information for the recommended 

inflation pressure will not result in an 

overloading of the tires or their load 

carrying capacity. CTA says this is 

because both values (300 kPa and 350 

kPa) are above the inflation pressure of 

250 kPa (36 PSI) at which the tire’s 

maximum load capacity is defined by 

the European Tyre and Rim Technical 

Organisation (ETRTO) standard. 

(C) Strength: CTA stated that each 

standard load tire has a specified tire 

strength requirement. Which is defined 

in paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 139 

(and paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 109) 

and must be met whether the selected 

maximum permissible pressure marking 

value is 240 kPa (35 PSI), 300 kPa (44 

PSI), or 350 kPa (51 PSI). CTA believes 

that both of the subject tires meet this 

requirement. 

(D) Incidents: CTA stated that they are 

not aware of any crashes, injuries, 

customer complaints, or field reports 

associated with the subject 

noncompliance. 

(C) Previous Rulings: CTA made 

mention that NHTSA has previously 

granted tire companies 

inconsequentiality exemptions relating 

to errors in sidewall markings. 

CTA has additionally informed 

NHTSA that it has corrected the 

noncompliance so that all future 

production of the subject tires comply 

with FMVSS No. 139. 

In summation, CTA believes that the 

described noncompliance of the subject 

tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety, and that its petition, to exempt 

CTA 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 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 subject tires that CTA no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

any decision on this petition does not 

relieve equipment distributors and 

dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 

offer for sale, or introduction or delivery 

for introduction into interstate 

commerce of the noncompliant tires 

under their control after CTA notified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

69556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices 

them that the subject noncompliance 

existed. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8. 

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 

Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27585 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0106; Notice 1] 

Oreion Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Oreion Motors, LLC (Oreion) 

has determined that certain 2011–2013 

Oreion Reeper low speed vehicles, do 

not fully comply with paragraph 

S5.(b)(10) of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500 

which requires installation of seat belts 

that conform to FMVSS No. 209, Seat 

Belt Assemblies. Oreion has filed an 

appropriate report dated August 13, 

2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is December 22, 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 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, selfaddressed 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. Oreion’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see 

implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), 

Oreion 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 Oreion’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. Low Speed Vehicles Involved: 

Affected are approximately 526 2011– 

2013 Oreion Reeper low speed vehicles 

originally manufactured with seatbelts 

manufactured by Changzhou Dongchen. 

III. Noncompliance: Oreion explains 

that the noncompliance is that the 

seatbelts installed in the subject 

vehicles do not fully comply with the 

requirements of paragraph S5.(b)(10) of 

FMVSS No. 500 because the year that 

the seatbelts were manufactured is not 

included on the seatbelts as specified in 

paragraph S4.1(j) of FMVSS No. 209. 

V. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.(b) of 

FMVSS No. 500 requires in pertinent 

part: 

(b) Each low-speed vehicle shall be 

equipped with: . . . (10) A Type 1 or Type 

2 seat belt assembly conforming to Sec. 

571.209 of this part, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 209, Seat belt 

assemblies, installed at each designated 

seating position. 

Paragraph S4.1(j) of FMVSS No. 209 

requires in pertinent part: 

S4.1(j) Marking. Each seat belt assembly 

shall be permanently and legibly marked or 

labeled with year of manufacture . . . 

V. Summary of Oreion’s Analyses: 

Oreion believes that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety because they 

believe that the lack of the year of 

manufacture on the seat belts has no 

effect on the operational safety of the 

seat belts installed in the subject 

noncompliant vehicles. 

Oreion stated its belief that the seat 

belts in the subject vehicles have 

functioned as deigned during normal 

use. They contend that this is supported 

by their observation that no vehicle 

owner has brought their vehicle back to 

a dealership for seat belt related repairs. 

Oreion stated its awareness that the 

year date stamp may be used with the 

seat belt model number to identify seat 

belt assemblies recalled by the seat belt 

manufacturer. In the event of a safety 

related recall by the seat belt 

manufacturer, Oreion will cooperate 

with the seat belt manufacturer to 

identify the vehicle owners of the 

vehicles containing affected seat belts 

without the need for the year stamp on 

the label. Oreion believes that the model 

number and the build date of the 

vehicle will be sufficient to accomplish 

this task. 

In summation, Oreion believes that 

the described noncompliance of the 

subject low speed vehicle’s seat belt 

assemblies is inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petition, to 

exempt Oreion 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 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 allows 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES