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

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