Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices 69557 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject low speed vehicles that 

Oreion 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 low speed vehicles 

under their control after Oreion 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. 2014–27582 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0006; Notice 2] 

General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of Petition. 

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM), 

has determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2007 through 2013 GM trucks and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

(MPVs) manufactured from June 19, 

2006, through December 6, 2012 do not 

fully comply with paragraph S4.3 of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and 

Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR 

of 4,536 Kilograms or less. GM filed an 

appropriate report dated December 19, 

2012 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573 Defect 

and Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Stuart Seigel, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–2587, facsimile (202) 366– 

5930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. GM’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule 

implementing those provisions at 49 

CFR Part 556, GM has petitioned 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 June 27, 2013 in 

the Federal Register (78 FR 38801). 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–2013– 

0006.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are 

approximately 5,690: MY 2007 through 

2013 Chevrolet Silverado trucks, 

Suburban MPVs and Tahoe MPVs; MY 

2007 through 2013 GMC Sierra trucks; 

MY 2012 GMC Yukon MPVs; and MY 

2007, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013 Yukon 

XL MPV’s. The affected vehicles were 

manufactured from June 19, 2006 

through December 6, 2012. 

III. Noncompliance: GM explains that 

the noncompliance is that the subject 

vehicles are equipped with special 

equipment options 9S1 & 9U3 and are 

built with 2 front seating positions 

separated by floor space. However, the 

tire and loading placards incorrectly 

indicate that the vehicles have 3 front 

seating positions and therefore do not 

fully comply with paragraph S4.3 of 

FMVSS No. 110. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of 

FMVSS No. 110 requires in pertinent 

part: 

S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a 

trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the 

information specified in S4.3(a) through (g), 

and may show, at the manufacturer’s option, 

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

on a placard permanently affixed to the 

driver’s side B-pillar. In each vehicle without 

a driver’s side B-pillar and with two doors on 

the driver’s side of the vehicle opening in 

opposite directions, the placard shall be 

affixed on the forward edge of the rear side 

door. If the above locations do not permit the 

affixing of a placard that is legible, visible 

and prominent, the placard shall be 

permanently affixed to the rear edge of the 

driver’s side door. If this location does not 

permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, 

visible and prominent, the placard shall be 

affixed to the inward facing surface of the 

vehicle next to the driver’s seating position. 

This information shall be in the English 

language and conform in color and format, 

not including the border surrounding the 

entire placard, as shown in the example set 

forth in Figure 1 in this standard. At the 

manufacturer’s option, the information 

specified in S4.3(c), (d), and, as appropriate, 

(h) and (i) may be shown, alternatively to 

being shown on the placard, on a tire 

inflation pressure label which must conform 

in color and format, not including the border 

surrounding the entire label, as shown in the 

example set forth in Figure 2 in this standard. 

The label shall be permanently affixed and 

proximate to the placard required by this 

paragraph. The information specified in 

S4.3(e) shall be shown on both the vehicle 

placard and on the tire inflation pressure 

label (if such a label is affixed to provide the 

information specified in S4.3(c), (d), and, as 

appropriate, (h) and (i)) may be shown in the 

format and color scheme set forth in Figures 

1 and 2. If the vehicle is a motor home and 

is equipped with a propane supply, the 

weight of full propane tanks must be 

included in the vehicle’s unloaded vehicle 

weight. If the vehicle is a motor home and 

is equipped with an on-board potable water 

supply, the weight of such on-board water 

must be treated as cargo . . . 

(b) Designated seated capacity (expressed 

in terms of total number of occupants and 

number of occupants for each front and rear 

seat location) . . . 

V. Summary of GM’S Analyses: GM 

states that the error resulted in the 

following condition on the subject 

placards of these vehicles: 

• The seating capacity for the front 

row seat is incorrectly shown as 3 

instead of 2. 

• The total seating capacity is 

overstated by 1. For example, the total 

seating capacity is incorrectly shown as 

3 instead of 2 for the vehicles with one 

row of seats, and as 6 instead of 5 for 

the vehicles with two rows of seats. 

• The vehicle capacity weight 

(expressed as a combined weight of 

occupants and cargo) on the placard is 

correct. The seating capacity error has 

no impact on the vehicle capacity 

weight. 

• All other information (front, rear 

and spare tire size designations and 

their respective cold tire inflation 

pressures as well as vehicle capacity 

weight) on the subject placards is 

correct. 

GM stated its belief that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety for the following 

reasons: 

1. The subject vehicles are equipped 

with two bucket seats with one seat belt 

each in the front row. GM believes that 

the number of seats and the number of 

seat belts installed in the vehicle will 

clearly indicate to the customers the 

actual seating capacity, and it will be 

apparent to any observer that there are 

only two front seating positions. Even if 

an occupant references the tire 

information placard to determine the 

vehicle’s seating capacity, it will be 

readily apparent that the front row 

seating capacity is 2 and not 3. 

2. The vehicle capacity weight 

(expressed as a combined weight of 

occupants and cargo) on the placard is 

correct. The seating capacity error has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

69558 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices 

no impact on the vehicle capacity 

weight, and therefore, there is no risk of 

vehicle overloading. 

3. All information required for 

maintaining and/or replacing the front 

and rear tires is correct on the tire 

information placard of the subject 

vehicles. 

4. All other applicable requirements 

of FMVSS No. 110 have been met. 

5. GM is not aware of any customer 

complaints, incidents or injuries related 

to the incorrect seating capacity on the 

subject tire information placards. 

GM additionally informed NHTSA 

that it has corrected the noncompliance 

so that all future production vehicles 

will fully comply with FMVSS No. 110. 

In summation, GM believes that the 

described noncompliance of its 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. 

VI. NHTSA Decision: NHTSA has 

reviewed and accepts GM’s analyses 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Specifically, while the tire and loading 

placards incorrectly indicate the 

number of seating positions, that 

labeling error alone poses little if any 

risk to motor vehicle safety since the 

number of seating positions is readily 

apparent in the subject vehicles. The 

widths and shapes of the seats, 

especially the bucket seats, along with 

the number of seat belt sets installed 

provides a sufficient indication as to the 

maximum number of occupants the 

subject vehicles are intended to carry. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that GM has met its 

burden of persuasion that the FMVSS 

No. 110 noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, GM’s petition is hereby 

granted and GM 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 5,690 

vehicles that GM 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 tires under their 

control after GM 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. 2014–27584 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0055; Notice 2] 

Harley-Davidson Motor Company, 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: Harley-Davidson Motor 

Company, Inc. (Harley-Davidson) has 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2009–2014 Harley-Davidson FL 

Touring motorcycles do not fully 

comply with paragraph S6.1.3 of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective 

devices, and associated equipment. 

Harley-Davidson has filed an 

appropriate report dated April 7, 2014, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Mike Cole, Office 

of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–2334, facsimile (202) 366– 

5930. 

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. 

Notice of receipt of the petition was 

published, with a 30-day public 

comment period, on July 7, 2014 in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 38360). 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–2014– 

0055.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are 

approximately 343,680 MY 2009–2014 

Harley-Davidson FL Touring 

motorcycles manufactured between June 

10, 2008 and March 25, 2014. 

III. Noncompliance: Harley-Davidson 

explains that the noncompliance is that 

the location of the rear reflex reflectors 

on the subject vehicles are mounted 

between an average of 0.3′′ to 0.7′′ below 

the required 15′′ height-above-road 

surface as required by paragraph S6.1.3 

of FMVSS No. 108. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.1.3.1 of 

FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent 

part: 

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. 

V. Summary of Harley-Davidson’s 

Analyses: Harley-Davidson stated its 

belief that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

for the following reasons: 

• Harley-Davidson had a third-party 

conduct testing on the subject 

motorcycles and reflex reflectors and 

they exhibited no reduction in 

conspicuity as compared to compliant 

vehicles. The independent company 

tested five test heights, for a test range 

of 11′′–15′′ height above-road surface, 

and all five tests far exceeded the 

minimum required values at each of the 

10 test points specified in Table XVI. 

Due to the substantial safety margin 

designed into these reflex reflectors, 

photometry remained well above the 

minimums even when mounted a full 4′′ 

inches below the minimum mounting 

height. 

• Harley-Davidson believes that the 

lower mounting height of these 

reflectors may actually increase 

conspicuity and motor vehicle safety 

compared to fully compliant (higher 

mounted) reflectors. 

• Harley-Davidson notes that the 

United Nations ECE regulations specify 

a minimum mounting height of 9.84′′ 

(240mm). And further notes that in one 

study of daytime side vehicle 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES