Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices 69551 

(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. JLG’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h) (see 

implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), 

JLG 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 JLG’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. Trailers Involved: Affected are 

approximately 2,940 JLG Triple-L utility 

trailers with a GVWR of less than 10,000 

lbs. that were manufactured between 

August 2005 and July 2014. 

III. Noncompliance: JLG explains that 

the noncompliance is that the tire and 

loading information placard does not 

contain the words ‘‘The weight of the 

cargo should never exceed XXX 

kilograms or XXX pounds’’ as required 

by paragraph S4.3.5 of FMVSS No. 110. 

V. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3.5 of 

FMVSS No. 110 requires in pertinent 

part: 

S6.5 Requirements for trailers. Each 

trailer, except for an incomplete vehicle, 

must show the information specified in S4.3 

(c) through (g), and may show the 

information specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on 

a placard permanently affixed proximate to 

the certification label specified in 49 CFR 

Part 567. Additionally, each trailer must on 

its placard contain a cargo capacity statement 

expressed as ‘‘The weight of cargo should 

never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX 

pounds’’ in the same location on the placard 

specified for the ‘‘vehicle capacity weight’’ 

statement required by the standard . . . 

V. Summary of JLG’s Analyses: JLG 

stated its belief that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety for the following 

reasons: 

(A) With regard to trailers JLG states 

that there is no need to account for 

passenger weight when considering 

cargo weight because there are no 

designated seating positions on the 

trailer and all of the weight capacity is 

designated towards cargo. JLG also 

believes that providing the maximum 

load capacity for the trailer therefore 

provides the same information as 

providing the maximum weight of the 

cargo. 

(B) Although the Tire and Loading 

Information label on the subject trailers 

do not contain the statement set forth in 

S4.3.5, the same information is provided 

on a separate label in the vicinity of the 

Tire and Loading Information label. 

That label states that the ‘‘Max Load 

Capacity xxxx lbs’’ and further instructs 

the operator to ‘‘center load on deck.’’ 

It also draws attention to the maximum 

carrying load of the trailer and ensures 

that drivers loading the trailer are aware 

of the maximum load capacity the 

trailer can carry—the precise 

information the regulatory text intends 

to be conveyed. 

JLG has additionally informed 

NHTSA that it has corrected the 

noncompliance so that all future 

production trailer Tire and Loading 

Information labels will comply with 

FMVSS No. 110. 

In summation, JLG believes that the 

described noncompliance of the subject 

trailers is inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petition, to 

exempt JLG 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 trailers that JLG no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

any decision on this petition does not 

relieve tire distributors and dealers of 

the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 

sale, or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant trailers under their 

control after JLG 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. 2014–27588 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0109; Notice 1] 

RECARO Child Safety, 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: RECARO Child Safety, LLC 

(RECARO) has determined that certain 

RECARO child restraints do not fully 

comply with paragraph S5.1.1(a) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraints. 

RECARO has filed an appropriate report 

and was received by NHTSA on July 30, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

69552 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices 

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. RECARO’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 

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

implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), 

RECARO 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 RECARO’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. Child Restraints Involved: Affected 

are approximately 78,339 RECARO 

ProRide child restraints manufactured 

between April 9, 2010 and July 8, 2014 

and approximately 42,303 RECARO 

Performance RIDE child restraints 

manufactured between January 15, 2013 

and July 8, 2014. 

III. Noncompliance: RECARO 

explains that the noncompliance is that 

the subject child restraints do not 

comply with the system integrity 

requirements of FMVSS No. 213 

paragraph S5.1.1(a) when subjected to 

the dynamic test requirements of 

FMVSS No. 213 S6.1. During NHTSA’s 

compliance tests with the Hybrid II Six 

Year Old Dummy and the Hybrid III 

Weighted Six Year Old Dummy 

configured to the child restraints with 

the internal harness and the child 

restraints attached to the test bench with 

a lap belt and top tether, the tether belt 

separated at the attachment point to the 

child restraints. The top tether belt 

separation exhibited a complete 

separation of a load bearing structural 

element and therefore does not comply 

with the requirements set forth in 

FMVSS No. 213 S5.1.1(a). 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1.1(a) of 

FMVSS No. 213 requires in pertinent 

part: 

S5.1.1 Child Restraint System Integrity. 

When tested in accordance with S6.1 each 

child restraint system shall meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any 

load bearing structural element and no 

partial separation exposing either surfaces 

with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces 

with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above 

the immediate adjacent surrounding 

contactable surface of any structural element 

of the system. 

V. Summary of RECARO’s Analyses: 

RECARO stated its belief that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety for the following 

reasons: 

(A) FMVSS Safety: RECARO believes that 

NHTSA’s test procedure is in direct violation 

of the instructions and warnings included 

with each ProRIDE and Performance RIDE 

child restraint and would constitute a misuse 

of the child restraint by the consumer, as 

seen on page 36 of the ProRIDE/Performance 

RIDE instruction manuals. RECARO designed 

and tested the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE 

child restraints to meet FMVSS No. 213 

requirements when tested according to the 

instruction manuals, which was developed 

from decades of research and experience in 

the automotive industry. Installation in 

accordance with the ProRIDE/Performance 

RIDE instruction manuals decreases the 

likelihood of top tether anchor failure from 

the vehicle. RECARO has limited lower 

anchor and top tether use for the ProRIDE/ 

Performance RIDE since the inception of the 

RIDE platform, and recently lowered the 

LATCH (lower anchors and top tether 

attachment) limit to 45 pounds from the 

previously stated 52 pounds to meet current 

FMVSS No. 213 requirements. RECARO also 

made mention that NHTSA noted in its 2012 

FMVSS No. 213 Final Rule response, 

limitations were added to the lower anchors 

to ‘‘prevent lower LATCH anchor loads from 

exceeding their required strength level 

specified in FMVSS No. 225.’’ RECARO 

states that they used this same rationale 

when they developed the RIDE platform in 

2010 and concluded that a load limit of 52 

pounds would be the safest for consumers. 

(B) Structural Integrity: RECARO stated 

that technology has shown repeatedly that 

collapse, breakage, and crumpling of material 

minimizes energy and increases the rate of 

survival for the occupant in the event of a 

collision. They also stated that vehicles are 

designed to reduce the rate of acceleration, 

and more importantly deceleration, of 

passengers by crushing and breaking to 

absorb the energy. Thus, RECARO believes 

that child restraint technology has fallen inline with vehicle technology in recent years 

and that other child restraints have been 

designated ‘‘compliant’’ even though their 

convertible shell-to-base connection has been 

designed to crack and break during the peak 

loading in a crash, due to life-saving 

decreases in injury criterion values. RECARO 

further stated that the top tether webbing has 

been designed to rip and break apart under 

extreme loads to allow the deceleration time 

to increase for the occupant in the crash 

event. Recaro states that if the injury criterion 

meets industry standards, then controlled 

breakage has proven multiple times to be a 

positive outcome in the event of a vehicle 

crash, as seen in the RIDE platform. 

(C) Publications: RECARO cites the ‘‘2013 

LATCH Manual’’ published by Safe Ride 

News Publication which confirms that top 

tether anchors in vehicles are becoming 

limited more frequently in the weight to 

which they can be subjected. The manual 

states that 16 vehicle models limit the use of 

top tethers to 65 pounds minus the weight of 

the child restraint when using the vehicle 

belt, and 27 vehicle models use the same 

tether limit rationale when installed with 

lower anchors. Recaro indicates that this 

demonstrates that a majority of vehicles on 

the road instruct consumers to use top tether 

load limit restrictions that align with 

RECARO’s top tether load limit of 65 pounds 

minus the 20 pound weight of the child 

restraint equaling a 45 pound load limit. 

When installing the child restraint with a top 

tether and vehicle belt, 26 vehicle models 

advise to follow the child restraint 

manufacturer’s instructions and an 

additional 3 vehicle models limit the child’s 

weight to 48 pounds or less. 

RECARO states that none of the examples 

above disagree with RECARO’s warnings and 

installation instructions and therefore reduce 

consumer confusion when installing their 

child restraint. RECARO also states that they 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices 69553 

have always supported the alignment of child 

restraint anchorage requirements and vehicle 

anchorage requirements for LATCH, such as 

the 2012 Final Rule which amended the 

testing requirements for lower anchor use 

above the combined weight of the child and 

the child restraint. RECARO says they would 

support NHTSA’s review of its current 

testing requirements for top tether use and 

the consideration of either implementing 

similar load limitations for the top tether or 

requirements for the automotive industry to 

increase the load to which the tether 

anchorage can bear. 

RECARO referred to documents published 

in the public docket for the 2012 Final Rule 

amendment of FMVSS No. 213 to limit lower 

anchor loads, which by request of NHTSA 

was performed by ALPHA Technology 

Associates. In this document, which was 

used to justify the increased risk of ‘‘lower 

LATCH loads . . . exceeding their required 

strength,’’ there is a table depicting top tether 

anchor loads at the point in which certain 

makes and models saw a quasi-static failure. 

In another study, the Transportation 

Research Center conducted similar testing of 

vehicles and found failure of the top tether 

of two models at 606 and 1,281 pounds of 

force. 

RECARO believes that these documents, 

which were prepared for NHTSA, give 

validation to the reasoning by RECARO to 

limit the use of the top tether. 

(D) Previous NHTSA Decisions: RECARO 

is aware that NHTSA has a clear precedent 

of denying child restraint manufacturers’ 

petitions for inconsequential noncompliance 

concerning top tether separation. However, 

RECARO believes that the environment in 

which those decisions were made has 

changed. Recaro claims that the methodology 

it uses to limit top tether loads actually 

increases safe installations of child restraints 

by limiting the pounds of force applied and 

decreasing the chance tether anchor load 

failures. RECARO also believes that in the 

event of tether separation the increase to risk 

of safety is non-existent because the head 

excursion limits were not exceeded in 

NHTSA’s compliance tests. RECARO 

indicates that the risk of the subject child 

restraints impacting objects in the vehicle is 

identical to, or better than, other compliant 

child restraints because both restraints meet 

the same head excursion requirements. 

Recaro noted that in an earlier denial of a 

petition for inconsequential noncompliance 

NHTSA noted that if it granted the petition 

it would be contradictory to NHTSA’s 

mission to promote greater use of LATCH 

and tether. RECARO believes that this 

reasoning is no longer relevant due to the 

recently implemented limits on the use of 

lower anchors, and thus consumers are now 

more aware of the limits to the lower anchor 

and top tether which is consistent with 

guidance provided in RECARO’s owner’s 

manual. 

(E) RECARO Accident Reports: Recaro 

states that its accident reports for the four 

years that the subject restraints have been on 

the market indicate no incidents of 

separation in the tether anchorage area. 

Recaro surmises the reason that tether 

separation occurs in testing is due to an 

outdated test bench seat and testing 

apparatus. 

RECARO informed NHTSA that 

production and distribution of the 

subject child restraints affected by the 

noncompliance have been corrected 

effective July 9, 2014. 

In summation, RECARO believes that 

the described noncompliance of the 

subject child restraints is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, 

and that its petition, to exempt RECARO 

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 child restraint that RECARO 

no longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. However, any decision on this 

petition does not relieve child restraint 

distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, 

or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant child restraint under 

their control after RECARO 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. 2014–27586 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0113; Notice 1] 

Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc., 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of Petition. 

SUMMARY: Harley-Davidson Motor 

Company, Inc. (Harley-Davidson) has 

determined that certain MY 2015 

Harley-Davidson model XG500 and 

model XG750 motorcycles do not fully 

comply with table 3, footnote 4, of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 123, Motorcycle Controls 

and Displays. Harley-Davidson has filed 

an appropriate report dated September 

3, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES