KBC America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 47720-47722 [2014-19190]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
47720
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Notices
Regarding the malfunction telltale
that does not initially flash for 60–90
seconds, MBUSA has provided the
required visual telltale, a combined
telltale which is the plan view of the
vehicle, although one that does not flash
before it remains continuously
illuminated, but instead adds several
additional text messages that clearly
communicate a system malfunction and
continue to be displayed until the
malfunction has been corrected. NHTSA
believes that because the subject
vehicles contain this additional
information, the failure of the vehicle’s
malfunction telltale to initially flash has
an inconsequential impact on safety.
MBUSA’s second noncompliance
involves the scenario where all four
wheel sensors are simultaneously
malfunctioning or missing. Under this
scenario the subject vehicle’s TPMS will
initially display a separate dedicated
malfunction warning, but will not
automatically display the warning on
subsequent ignition cycles as required
by FMVSS No. 138 S4.4(b)(3). MBUSA
judges the noncompliance
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
on the basis that, although the situation
presents a technical noncompliance
with FMVSS 138 No. S4.4, there is no
negative impact on safety, because the
circumstances causing the noncompliance can only exist if owners
deliberately decide to install
replacement wheels without TPMS
sensors. MBUSA asserts there is no
reason to assume that replacement
wheels will not have TPMS sensors
given the normal experiences of S-Class
owners and existing precautions.
MBUSA also points out that the absence
of a ‘‘significant safety risk’’
substantiates exemption from
notification and remedy requirements as
NHTSA explained in the Volkswagen’s
petition for inconsequential treatment of
a noncompliance with the TPMS
malfunction warning requirements of
FMVSS No. 138 S4.4(c)(2) (76 FR 30240,
May 24, 2010).
The intent of FMVSS No. 138 is stated
in paragraph S1 Purpose and scope:
This standard specifies performance
requirements for TPMSs to warn drivers
of significant under-inflation of tires
and the resulting safety problems. A
malfunction will reduce the
effectiveness of the TPMS or, in some
scenarios, can render it inoperative. As
such, the lack of a malfunction indicator
to warn the driver of a malfunction until
the malfunction has been resolved is
one of the critical requirements of the
standard to address the safety concerns
of an inoperative TPMS. MBUSA
contends that there is no safety risk but
fails to acknowledge that a vehicle
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Aug 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
owner in some cases may not be aware
that the wheel sensors have been
removed. For example, if the ignition
were cycled by a second party after the
sensors were removed and prior to the
vehicle being returned to the owner, the
owner may never see the first and only
malfunction indication. The potential
risk is that the vehicle can then be
operated with a TPMS that appears to be
functioning properly. It also is possible
after long periods of time for owners to
forget that the wheel sensors are missing
or even for a subsequent owner to
purchase one of the 252 vehicles
without knowing the sensors are
missing. When a low inflation pressure
condition occurs, these owners would
not be warned, and this condition could
lead to a vehicle crash.
MBUSA also explained that
replacement wheels will always have
TPMS sensors included (either the
original ones transferred or new ones)
and that statements in the MB S-Class
Operator’s Manual or optional OEM tire
and wheel packages can address a
variety of use conditions which will
discourage the use of unapproved tires
and rims and encourage the use of
wheel sensors. Despite these factors,
NHTSA believes the possibility still
remains for owners to install wheel
packages not having TPMS sensors. For
example, an authorized dealership may
not be in close proximity to an owner
or an owner may want custom wheels
or upsized wheel options that are not
available through MBUSA. In these
instances, there would be a safety risk
for these owners.
Finally, MBUSA believes that owner’s
manual warnings or its marketing of
optional equipment are sufficient
enough to prevent owners from entering
into misuse situations. However,
owner’s manuals may be ignored or not
read by vehicle owners and there is no
guarantee that a manual will remain
with the vehicle throughout its entire
useful life. Furthermore, owners may
also choose not to buy MBUSA optional
tire and wheel packages for economic
reasons (i.e., these packages may cost
considerably more). Therefore, given
these factors, NHTSA concludes
MBUSA’s claim that the noncompliance
has no significant safety risk is
unsubstantiated.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In
consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
has decided that MBUSA has not met its
burden of persuasion that the FMVSS
No. 138 noncompliance identified in its
Part 573 Report and Petition is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, MBUSA’s petition is
hereby denied. For the remaining
vehicles not remedied, MBUSA must
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
notify owners, purchasers and dealers
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
provide remedy in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 30120.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and
501.8).
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014–19191 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0145; Notice 2]
KBC America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
AGENCY:
KBC America, Inc. ‘‘KBCA’’
has determined that certain motorcycle
helmets manufactured by KBC
Corporation for Harley-Davidson as
Harley-Davidson brand helmets do not
fully comply with paragraph S5.6 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets.
KBCA has filed an appropriate report
dated December 12, 2013, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
SUMMARY:
For further information on
this decision contact Claudia Covell,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5293, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. KBCA’s Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556),
KBCA 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 KBCA’s petition
was published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on June 6, 2014 in the
Federal Register (79 FR 32817). One
comment was received. In that
comment, Harley-Davidson Motor
Company reiterated KBCA’s points
supporting their belief that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM
14AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Notices
motor vehicle safety. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2013–
0145.’’
II. Helmets Involved: Affected are
approximately 566 Jet model helmets
that KBC Corporation manufactured in
December 2012 for Harley Davidson,
who in turn marketed these helmets
under its own brand by the model name
‘‘Black Label Retro 3⁄4.’’
III. Noncompliance: KBCA explains
that the subject helmets fail to fully
comply with the requirements of
S5.6.1(e) of FMVSS No. 218 that was in
effect on the date of manufacture of
these helmets because the goggle strap
holders on the rear of the helmets can
obscure the DOT certification label from
view.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.6.1(e) of
FMVSS No. 218 requires in pertinent
part:
S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled
permanently and legibly, in a manner such
that the label(s) can be read easily without
removing padding or any other permanent
part, with the following: . . .
(e) The symbol DOT, constituting the
manufacturer’s certification that the helmet
conforms to the applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. This symbol shall
appear on the outer surface, in a color that
contrasts with the background, in letters at
least 3/8 inch (1 cm) high, centered laterally
with the horizontal centerline of the symbol
located a minimum of 1 1/8 inches (2.9 cm)
and a maximum of 1 3/8 inches (3.5 cm) from
the bottom edge of the posterior portion of
the helmet.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
V. Summary of KBCA’s Analyses:
KBCA stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
1. KBCA believes that the subject helmets
comply with the performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 218 and that neither the
presence of the strap holder nor the fact that
it can obscure the DOT label affects the
helmet’s ability to protect the wearer in the
event of a crash.
2. KBCA states that other than the subject
noncompliance the DOT label on the subject
helmets comply with the requirements of
FMVSS No. 218.
3. KBCA also believes that while the DOT
label is not visible when the strap holder is
fastened, a user can easily view the label by
unfastening the strap holder to confirm that
the helmet has been certified and thus
complies with the requirements set forth in
FMVSS No. 218.
4. KBCA further believes that if their
company were required to do a recall of the
subject helmets, it would be likely that a very
low percentage of helmets would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Aug 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
returned, if any, and that in doing so would
leave the owners without a helmet while the
subject helmets are retrofitted with a new
label.
5. KBCA expressed its belief that in similar
situations NHTSA has granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance regarding
other products that have incorrect or missing
label information required by other FMVSS’s.
KBCA has additionally informed
NHTSA that it no longer manufactures
the subject helmets.
In summation, KBCA believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
helmets is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt KBCA 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’S DECISION:
NHTSA’s Analysis of KBCA’s
Petition:
Because the goggle strap on this
helmet can cover the certification label
and prevents it from being easily read,
KBCA acknowledges and NHTSA agrees
that the subject helmets do not comply
with the following language of
Paragraph S5.6.1(e) of FMVSS No. 218:
S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled . . . in
a manner such that the label(s) can be read
easily . . . with the following: . . .
(e) The symbol DOT . . . This symbol shall
appear on the outer surface . . .
The certification label indicates that
the manufacturer has certified the
helmet to meet or exceed all
requirements of FMVSS No. 218.
FMVSS No. 218 requires the
certification label be placed in a
specified location so that it is readily
visible. Being visible to consumers is
important so that consumers can ensure
motorcycle helmets they purchase are
certified to the standard. In addition,
law enforcement personnel need to be
able to easily read certification labels to
enforce motorcycle helmet laws. This
point was recently discussed in a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking 1 issued by
NHTSA.
KBCA raises several points in support
of its request to be exempt from the
notification and remedy requirements
for this helmet. KBCA believes that a
very low percentage of helmets would
be returned if a recall were conducted.
In addition, they believe conducting a
recall would leave owners without a
helmet while the subject helmets are
retrofitted with a new label. NHTSA
notes that anticipating a low recall
completion rate is no justification for
not conducting a notification and
1 73
PO 00000
FR 57297 published October 2, 2008.
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47721
remedy campaign. Furthermore, NHTSA
has worked with many manufacturers
who have devised strategies to minimize
customers’ inconvenience while having
their recalled products remedied.
KBCA states and NHTSA agrees that
the presence of the strap holder which
obscures the DOT label does not affect
the helmet’s ability to protect the wearer
in the event of a crash if that helmet
meets or exceeds the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 218. In this
instance, KBCA has certified this helmet
and states in their petition that this
helmet complies with all aspects of the
standard other than the aspect for which
it is requesting relief.
KBCA points out that when the goggle
strap holder is unfastened, the helmet
certification label can be read easily.
Consumers, who might be asked by law
enforcement personnel about the
certification of this helmet, would be
able to unfasten the goggle strap holder
to reveal the certification label which
conforms in content and location to the
requirements of FMVSS No. 218.
KBCA expressed its belief that in
similar situations NHTSA has granted
petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance regarding other
products that have incorrect or missing
label information required by other
FMVSS’s. NHTSA responds that the
agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety based on the
specific facts of each case.
NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration
of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided
that KBCA has met its burden of
persuasion and that in this instance, the
subject FMVSS No. 218 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, KBCA’s petition is
hereby granted and KBCA is exempted
from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
However, a recent publication of
changes to FMVSS No. 218 became
effective on May 13, 2013 and allowed
helmets manufactured on or after May
13, 2013 to display the certification
label in a wider range of locations and
therefore accommodate a variety of
helmet designs. Along with the recently
published changes came an emphasis on
the importance of label visibility to law
enforcement. For these reasons and
others, NHTSA may not view future,
similar requests for inconsequential
non-compliance as inconsequential to
safety.
NHTSA also notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM
14AUN1
47722
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Notices
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
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the subject
helmets that KBCA no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve
distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant helmets under their
control after KBCA 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. 2014–19190 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0078; Notice 1]
AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc.,
Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
AGENCY:
AGC Flat Glass North
America, Inc., dba AGC Automotive
Americas Co. (AGC) has determined that
certain glazing that it manufactured as
replacement equipment for model year
2003–2008 Toyota Matrix vehicles, do
not fully comply with paragraphs S5.1
and S5.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205,
Glazing Materials. AGC has filed an
appropriate report dated May 23, 2013,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
SUMMARY:
The closing date for comments
on the petition is September 15, 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 be submitted by any of
the following methods:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:42 Aug 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
• 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 https://
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 https://
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 https://
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. AGC’s Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556),
AGC 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This notice of receipt of AGC’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. Replacement Equipment Involved:
Affected are approximately 1,435
replacement back windows (backlites)
for model year 2003–2008 Toyota
Matrix vehicles that AGC manufactured
on February 28, 2012. The subject glass
is labeled ‘‘AGC Automotive, DOT–376
M2H5 AS2, 30B, Temperlite.’’
In the associated Defect and
Noncompliance Report that AGC
submitted to NHTSA pursuant to 49
CFR Part 573, AGC indicated that, as of
May 23, 2014, approximately 941 of the
affected backlites have already been
removed from the stream of commerce.
III. Noncompliance: AGC explains
that the noncompliance is that the
affected glazing does not fully comply
with Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205
because some portions of the glass
located in the wing area of the backlites
may not fragment into pieces that are
small enough to meet the standard set
forth in ANSI Z26.1–1996 (fragment
must weigh less than 4.25 g).
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1 of
FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by
reference ANSI Z26.1–1996 and other
industry standards. Paragraph S5.7
(Fracture Test) of ANSI Z26.1–1996
requires that no individual fragment free
of cracks and obtained within 3 minutes
subsequent to test shall weigh more
than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.).
V. Summary of AGC’s Analyses: AGC
stated its belief that the noncompliance
exhibited by some glass fragments
breaking into pieces that weigh more
than 4.25 g does not create a risk to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
1. AGC testing demonstrates that the
noncompliant fragments have no
adverse impact on the characteristics of
the glass performing as tempered glass.
2. The design of the 2003–2008
Toyota Matrix leaves it unlikely to cause
any safety risks to any vehicle occupant
if the ARG backlite breaks.
3. AGC’s destructive testing
confirmed all noncompliant fragments
do not impact the safety of the vehicle
or its occupants.
AGC stated that while it recognizes
that its tests were static and that the
actual results in a crash might be
somewhat different if a collision broke
this glass, AGC stated its belief that in
a rear or partial rear collision, if the
glass breaks, most of that glass will fall
and remain in the general area of the
breakage since the remainder of the
vehicle will be propelled forward in the
E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM
14AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47720-47722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19190]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0145; Notice 2]
KBC 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: KBC America, Inc. ``KBCA'' has determined that certain
motorcycle helmets manufactured by KBC Corporation for Harley-Davidson
as Harley-Davidson brand helmets do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218,
Motorcycle Helmets. KBCA has filed an appropriate report dated December
12, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Claudia
Covell, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5293,
facsimile (202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. KBCA's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), KBCA 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 KBCA's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 6, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR
32817). One comment was received. In that comment, Harley-Davidson
Motor Company reiterated KBCA's points supporting their belief that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
[[Page 47721]]
motor vehicle safety. To view the petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at:
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions
to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0145.''
II. Helmets Involved: Affected are approximately 566 Jet model
helmets that KBC Corporation manufactured in December 2012 for Harley
Davidson, who in turn marketed these helmets under its own brand by the
model name ``Black Label Retro \3/4\.''
III. Noncompliance: KBCA explains that the subject helmets fail to
fully comply with the requirements of S5.6.1(e) of FMVSS No. 218 that
was in effect on the date of manufacture of these helmets because the
goggle strap holders on the rear of the helmets can obscure the DOT
certification label from view.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.6.1(e) of FMVSS No. 218 requires in
pertinent part:
S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled permanently and legibly, in
a manner such that the label(s) can be read easily without removing
padding or any other permanent part, with the following: . . .
(e) The symbol DOT, constituting the manufacturer's
certification that the helmet conforms to the applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards. This symbol shall appear on the
outer surface, in a color that contrasts with the background, in
letters at least 3/8 inch (1 cm) high, centered laterally with the
horizontal centerline of the symbol located a minimum of 1 1/8
inches (2.9 cm) and a maximum of 1 3/8 inches (3.5 cm) from the
bottom edge of the posterior portion of the helmet.
V. Summary of KBCA's Analyses: KBCA stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
1. KBCA believes that the subject helmets comply with the
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 218 and that neither the
presence of the strap holder nor the fact that it can obscure the
DOT label affects the helmet's ability to protect the wearer in the
event of a crash.
2. KBCA states that other than the subject noncompliance the DOT
label on the subject helmets comply with the requirements of FMVSS
No. 218.
3. KBCA also believes that while the DOT label is not visible
when the strap holder is fastened, a user can easily view the label
by unfastening the strap holder to confirm that the helmet has been
certified and thus complies with the requirements set forth in FMVSS
No. 218.
4. KBCA further believes that if their company were required to
do a recall of the subject helmets, it would be likely that a very
low percentage of helmets would be returned, if any, and that in
doing so would leave the owners without a helmet while the subject
helmets are retrofitted with a new label.
5. KBCA expressed its belief that in similar situations NHTSA
has granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance regarding
other products that have incorrect or missing label information
required by other FMVSS's.
KBCA has additionally informed NHTSA that it no longer manufactures
the subject helmets.
In summation, KBCA believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject helmets is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt KBCA 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'S DECISION:
NHTSA's Analysis of KBCA's Petition:
Because the goggle strap on this helmet can cover the certification
label and prevents it from being easily read, KBCA acknowledges and
NHTSA agrees that the subject helmets do not comply with the following
language of Paragraph S5.6.1(e) of FMVSS No. 218:
S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled . . . in a manner such that
the label(s) can be read easily . . . with the following: . . .
(e) The symbol DOT . . . This symbol shall appear on the outer
surface . . .
The certification label indicates that the manufacturer has
certified the helmet to meet or exceed all requirements of FMVSS No.
218. FMVSS No. 218 requires the certification label be placed in a
specified location so that it is readily visible. Being visible to
consumers is important so that consumers can ensure motorcycle helmets
they purchase are certified to the standard. In addition, law
enforcement personnel need to be able to easily read certification
labels to enforce motorcycle helmet laws. This point was recently
discussed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking \1\ issued by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 73 FR 57297 published October 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
KBCA raises several points in support of its request to be exempt
from the notification and remedy requirements for this helmet. KBCA
believes that a very low percentage of helmets would be returned if a
recall were conducted. In addition, they believe conducting a recall
would leave owners without a helmet while the subject helmets are
retrofitted with a new label. NHTSA notes that anticipating a low
recall completion rate is no justification for not conducting a
notification and remedy campaign. Furthermore, NHTSA has worked with
many manufacturers who have devised strategies to minimize customers'
inconvenience while having their recalled products remedied.
KBCA states and NHTSA agrees that the presence of the strap holder
which obscures the DOT label does not affect the helmet's ability to
protect the wearer in the event of a crash if that helmet meets or
exceeds the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 218. In this
instance, KBCA has certified this helmet and states in their petition
that this helmet complies with all aspects of the standard other than
the aspect for which it is requesting relief.
KBCA points out that when the goggle strap holder is unfastened,
the helmet certification label can be read easily. Consumers, who might
be asked by law enforcement personnel about the certification of this
helmet, would be able to unfasten the goggle strap holder to reveal the
certification label which conforms in content and location to the
requirements of FMVSS No. 218.
KBCA expressed its belief that in similar situations NHTSA has
granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance regarding other
products that have incorrect or missing label information required by
other FMVSS's. NHTSA responds that the agency determines whether a
particular noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
based on the specific facts of each case.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that KBCA has met its burden of persuasion and that in this
instance, the subject FMVSS No. 218 noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, KBCA's petition is hereby granted
and KBCA is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
However, a recent publication of changes to FMVSS No. 218 became
effective on May 13, 2013 and allowed helmets manufactured on or after
May 13, 2013 to display the certification label in a wider range of
locations and therefore accommodate a variety of helmet designs. Along
with the recently published changes came an emphasis on the importance
of label visibility to law enforcement. For these reasons and others,
NHTSA may not view future, similar requests for inconsequential non-
compliance as inconsequential to safety.
NHTSA also notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of
[[Page 47722]]
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 noncompliance and to
remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only
applies to the subject helmets that KBCA no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or
delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant
helmets under their control after KBCA 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. 2014-19190 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
