[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22523-22526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07830]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0094; Notice 1]


Hitachi Cable America Inc., Now Known as Proterial Cable America, 
Inc., and Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Hitachi Cable America Inc. (HCA), now known as Proterial Cable 
America, Inc. (PCA), and Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-
Davidson) (collectively, ``the Petitioners'') have determined that 
certain PVC, Nylon, and ``Revised Socket'' Nylon brake hose assemblies 
equipped in certain model year (MY) 2008-2022 Harley-Davidson 
motorcycles, and also sold to Harley-Davidson dealers as replacement 
parts, do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. HCA filed an original noncompliance 
report on July 27, 2022, and amended the report on August 25, 2022, 
October 18, 2022, October 26, 2022, November 16, 2022, and March 30, 
2023. Harley-Davidson filed its initial noncompliance report dated 
August 9, 2022, and amended the report on December 6, 2022, February 7, 
2023, February 8, 2023, and March 8, 2023. HCA petitioned NHTSA (the 
``Agency'') on August 19, 2022, and amended its petition on November 
10, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are 
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. Harley-Davidson 
petitioned NHTSA on September 2, 2022, and amended its petition on 
December 29, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are 
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. This document 
announces receipt of the Petitioners' petitions.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 15, 2023.

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 in the title of this notice and may be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the 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 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m., except on Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.

[[Page 22524]]

     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 comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decision 
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the 
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the 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. The docket ID number for these petitions is 
shown in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manuel Maldonado, General Engineer, 
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: The Petitioners determined that certain PVC, Nylon, 
and ``Revised Socket'' Nylon brake hose assemblies equipped in certain 
MY 2008-2022 Harley-Davidson Touring, CVO Touring, Trike, Softail, 
Revolution Max, VRSC, XG750A, and XL Sportster motorcycles, and also 
sold as replacement parts, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3 of 
FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106).
    HCA filed its initial noncompliance report on July 27, 2022, and 
amended the report on August 25, 2022, October 18, 2022, October 26, 
2022, November 16, 2022, and March 30, 2023, pursuant to 49 CFR part 
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. HCA 
petitioned NHTSA on August 19, 2022, and later amended its petition on 
November 10, 2022, for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that the subject 
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle 
safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 
556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Harley-Davidson filed its initial noncompliance report on August 9, 
2022, and later amended the report on December 6, 2022, February 7, 
2023, February 8, 2023, and March 8, 2023, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Harley-Davidson 
petitioned NHTSA on September 2, 2022, and amended its petition on 
December 29, 2022, for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, 
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of the Petitioners' petitions is published 
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency 
decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the 
petitions.
    II. Motorcycles and Equipment Involved: Approximately 6,174,355 
PVC, Nylon, and ``Revised Socket'' Nylon brake hose assemblies 
manufactured by HCA, between February 28, 2007, and October 13, 2022, 
were reported by HCA as the population of the recall. Approximately 
1,527,260 MY 2008-2022 Harley-Davidson Touring, CVO Touring, Trike, 
Softail, Revolution Max, VRSC, XG750A, and XL Sportster motorcycles, 
manufactured between May 17, 2007, and October 16, 2022, may have been 
equipped with the noncompliant brake hoses assemblies manufactured by 
HCA.
    III. Noncompliance: The Petitioners explain that certain Nylon, and 
``Revised Socket'' Nylon assemblies do not meet high temperature 
impulse (HTI), brake fluid compatibility (BFC), constriction, whip 
resistance, and water absorption whip resistance requirements, and 
certain PVC assemblies did not meet the whip resistance, water 
absorption whip resistance, constriction, tensile, burst, and high 
temperature impulse requirements. Therefore, the subject brake hose 
assemblies do not comply with paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 106.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S5.3, S5.3.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.3, 
S5.3.4, S5.3.7, S5.3.9, and S5.3.12 of FMVSS No. 106 include the 
requirements relevant to the petitions, and are broadly summarized 
herein. A hydraulic brake hose assembly must be capable of meeting the 
requirements when tested under the conditions specified in the standard 
and the applicable procedures of paragraph S6. Paragraph S5.3.1 
pertains to the constriction requirement that every inside diameter of 
the brake hose assembly shall not be less than 64 percent of the 
nominal inside diameter of the brake hose. Paragraph 5.3.2 pertains to 
the expansion and burst strength requirement that the maximum expansion 
of a hydraulic brake hose assembly not exceed the values specified by 
Table 1 at the given psi. The hydraulic brake hose assembly must then 
withstand a water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 minutes without rupture, 
then not rupture at the less than 7,000 psi for a \1/8\ inch hose or 
smaller or at less than 5,000 psi for a hose with a diameter larger 
than \1/8\ inch. Paragraph S5.3.3 pertains to the whip resistance 
requirement that the brake hose assembly not rupture when subjected to 
a 35-hour continuous run on a flexing machine. Paragraph S5.3.4 
pertains to the forces that a brake hose assembly must withstand 
without separation of the hose from its end fittings. Paragraph S5.3.7 
pertains to water absorption and whip resistance, and requires the hose 
not to rupture when subjected to a 35-hour continuous run on a flexing 
machine after immersion in water for 70 hours. Paragraph S5.3.9 
provides the requirements for BFC after the brake hose assembly has 
been exposed to brake fluid for a specified time at a specified 
temperature. These requirements include compliance with constriction, 
per S5.3.1, as well as withstanding water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 
minutes, and then shall not rupture at less than 5,000 psi. Paragraph 
S5.3.12 describes the HTI test, which requires the brake hose assembly 
to withstand pressure cycling, followed by a 2-minute, 4,000 psi 
pressure hold test, during which the hose shall not rupture, and then 
shall not subsequently burst at a pressure less than 5,000 psi.
    V. Summary of the Petitioners' Petitions: The following views and 
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of the Petitioners' 
Petitions,'' are the views and arguments provided by the Petitioners. 
These views and arguments have not been evaluated by the Agency and do 
not reflect the views of the Agency. The Petitioners describe

[[Page 22525]]

the subject noncompliances and contend that the noncompliances are 
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. The 
Petitioners' arguments for PVC, Nylon, and ``Revised Socket'' Nylon 
hoses are combined and considered together, unless otherwise noted.
    The Petitioners believe that the subject noncompliances are 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons, 
which are summarized in detail below:
    1. The Petitioners state that their own testing yielded 
``variable,'' ``inconsistent,'' and ``nonuniform'' results with respect 
to certain provisions of FMVSS No. 106. Furthermore, they argue that, 
while there were failures, the leaking exhibited was minimal, and do 
not pose a significantly greater risk to braking performance.
    2. According to the Petitioners, laboratory testing does not 
reflect use of these brake hose assemblies in the ``real-world.''
    3. The Petitioners argue that supplemental testing demonstrates 
that under extreme conditions, any noncompliances found in the subject 
brake hose assemblies are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Supplemental testing was performed on similar or affected brake hose 
assemblies, and the Petitioners believe that those test results support 
a determination of inconsequential noncompliance.
    4. The Petitioners contend that prior Agency decisions on petitions 
for inconsequential noncompliance support a finding of inconsequential 
noncompliance for the Petitioners' subject petitions.
    5. The Petitioners conducted a review and analysis of field data 
and concluded that the review revealed no documented crashes or 
injuries attributable to the Petitioners' FMVSS No. 106 noncompliances.
    The following summarizes, in more detail, some of the main 
arguments made by the Petitioners.
    With respect to the testing, HCA states that ``failures involved 
leaks at the pre-crimp, which--as Exponent explains in its Supplemental 
Technical Report--is not an anticipated failure mode because the 
rotational test motion applied during Water Whip and Whip testing 
stresses the hose element, not the end fitting pre-crimp area.'' \1\ 
Further, the petitioners argue that the leaks that were observed did 
not result in observed pressure loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See HCA's supplemental petition dated November 10, 2022, 
page 9 available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Petitioners also claim that laboratory testing does not reflect 
use of these brake hose assemblies in the ``real-world.'' The 
Petitioners contend that Harley-Davidson motorcycles do not experience 
the extreme stresses that brake hose assemblies are subjected to during 
FVMSS No. 106 testing. The Petitioners specifically explain that the 
``real-world'' forces that brake hose assemblies are subjected to in 
the subject vehicles are principally vertical in nature between their 
upper and lower suspension stopping points. The Petitioners also argue 
that by contrast, the whip test applies principally rotational force, 
thus, the Petitioners believe that it does not reflect the way 
assemblies are typically mounted and utilized on a motorcycle. For this 
reason, the Petitioners argue that the whip test is sufficient to 
demonstrate that a brake hose assembly is resistant to dynamic fatigue, 
but a failure does not necessarily mean that an assembly will fail when 
exposed to ``real-world'' forces.
    HCA's contractor inspected 156 ``real-world'' motorcycles spanning 
model years 2008-2020, which HCA characterizes as motorcycles that are 
equipped with brake hose assemblies that are included in the scope of 
HCA's recall. HCA explains that no signs of hose fatigue were observed 
on those brake hose assemblies.
    The Petitioners also claim that supplemental testing demonstrates 
that under extreme conditions, any noncompliance found in the subject 
brake hose assemblies is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Supplemental testing was performed on similar or affected brake hose 
assemblies, and the Petitioners believe that those results support a 
determination of inconsequential noncompliance.
    Supplemental testing established by the Petitioners included full 
vehicle brake performance and/or accelerated durability testing on 
similar brake hose assemblies or on samples of affected brake hose 
assemblies. The Petitioners characterize their supplemental tests in 
various ways to include the following: accelerated durability testing, 
full vehicle brake performance testing, ABS certification testing, 
testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 122, laboratory-based dynamic 
fatigue test, pressure and time sensitivity testing, room temperature 
durability testing, elevated temperature durability testing, 
accelerated durability suspension stroke testing, accelerated 
durability suspension stroke testing following water absorption, and 
lifetime accelerated durability testing.
    The Petitioners also claim that the following Agency decisions on 
petitions for inconsequential noncompliance support a finding of 
inconsequentiality for these petitions:
     Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 14325 (March 14, 
2022);
     Coupled Products II, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 70 FR 35774 (June 21, 2005);
     Coupled Products, Grant of Appeal of Decision on 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 70 FR 32397 (June 2, 2005);
     General Motors, Grant of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 57 FR 1511 (January 14, 1992);
     Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, Grant of Petition for 
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 57 FR 1511 (January 14, 
1992);
     Navistar International and Mack Trucks, Inc., Grant of 
Petitions for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 56 FR 
51440 (October 11, 1991);
     Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Inc., Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 83 FR 13002 (March 26, 
2018);
     Ford Motor Co., Grant of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 45 FR 29160 (May 1, 1980);
     Philatron Int'l, Grant of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 57 FR 26687 (June 15, 1992); and
     FCA US, Denial of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 61432 (October 11, 2022).
    Finally, the Petitioners petitions included a review and analysis 
of field data. The Petitioners concluded that the review revealed no 
documented crashes or injuries attributable to the Petitioners' FMVSS 
No. 106 noncompliances. The Petitioners searches included the following 
types of records:
     NHTSA Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (``VOQ'') records;
     Legal claims and lawsuits;
     Warranty data; and
     Customer contacts to Harley-Davidson's Technical Service 
Team's Call Center.
    The Petitioners conclude by stating their belief that the subject 
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle 
safety and their petitions to be exempted from

[[Page 22526]]

providing notification of the noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C. 
30118, and a remedy for the noncompliances, 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 and brake hose 
assemblies that the Petitioners no longer controlled at the time when 
the Petitioners determined that the noncompliances existed. However, 
any decision on these petitions does not relieve equipment and 
motorcycle 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 and brake hose 
assemblies under their control after the Petitioners notified 
distributors and dealers that the subject noncompliances existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-07830 Filed 4-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P