3378 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 

of airport property at the Ottumwa 

Regional Airport (OTM) under the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). 

Representatives of the Sponsor 

requested a release from the FAA to sell 

two tracts of land, 4.51 acres and 2.06 

acres respectively. Both parcels will be 

developed for light industrial use. The 

FAA determined the request to release 

property at the Ottumwa Regional 

Airport (OTM) submitted by the 

Sponsor meets the procedural 

requirements of the Federal Aviation 

Administration and the release of the 

property does not and will not impact 

future aviation needs at the airport. The 

FAA may approve the request, in whole 

or in part, no sooner than thirty days 

after the publication of this notice. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the request: 

The Ottumwa Regional Airport (OTM) 

is proposing the release of two airport 

parcels containing 4.51 acres and 2.06 

acres. The release of land is necessary 

to comply with Federal Aviation 

Administration Grant Assurances that 

do not allow federally acquired airport 

property to be used for non-aviation 

purposes. The sale of the subject 

property will result in the land at the 

Ottumwa Regional Airport (OTM) being 

changed from aeronautical to nonaeronautical use and release the lands 

from the conditions of the Airport 

Improvement Program Grant Agreement 

Grant Assurances in order to dispose of 

the land. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport 

will receive fair market value for the 

property, which will be subsequently 

reinvested in another eligible airport 

improvement project for general 

aviation use. 

Any person may inspect, by 

appointment, the request in person at 

the FAA office listed above under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 

addition, any person may, upon 

appointment and request, inspect the 

application, notice and other documents 

determined by the FAA to be related to 

the application in person at the 

Ottumwa City Hall. 

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 18, 

2022. 

James A. Johnson, 

Director, FAA Central Region, Airports 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01173 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0020; Notice 2] 

Hankook Tire America Corporation, 

Grant of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Hankook Tire America 

Corporation (Hankook) has determined 

that certain Hankook Dynapro MT2 

tires, do not fully comply with Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires 

for Light Vehicles. Hankook filed a 

noncompliance report dated February 

19, 2020, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on March 11, 2020, for a 

decision that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This notice announces 

the grant of Hankook’s petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

(325) 655–0547, jayton.lindley@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Hankook has determined that certain 

Hankook Dynapro MT2 tires, do not 

fully comply with paragraph S5.5(f) of 

FMVSS No. 139, New pneumatic radial 

tires for light vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). 

Hankook filed a noncompliance 

report dated February 19, 2020, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on March 11, 2020, 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. 

Notice of receipt of Hankook’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on August 28, 

2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR 

53436). One comment was received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2020– 

0020.’’ 

II. Tires Involved 

Approximately 175 Hankook Dynapro 

MT2 tires, size LT215/85R16, 

manufactured between October 20, 

2019, and November 30, 2019, are 

potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

Hankook explains that the 

noncompliance is that the subject tires 

were marked with the incorrect number 

of nylon plies in the tread; and, 

therefore, do not meet the requirements 

of paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139. 

Specifically, the tires were marked 

‘‘TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 1 

NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER’’, 

when they should have been marked 

‘‘TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 2 

NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER.’’ 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139, 

includes the requirements relevant to 

this petition. Each tire must be marked 

on one sidewall with the actual number 

of plies in the sidewall and the actual 

number of plies in the tread area, if 

different, as specified in paragraph 

S5.5(f). 

V. Summary of Hankook’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of Hankook’s Petition,’’ are the views 

and arguments provided by Hankook 

and do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. In its petition, Hankook 

describes the subject noncompliance 

and contends that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, Hankook 

offers the following reasoning: 

1. The incorrect ply labeling 

information does not affect the 

operational safety of vehicles on which 

the tires are mounted. 

2. The tires meet or exceed the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 139, and they otherwise comply 

with the labeling and performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 139. 

3. Hankook is not aware of any 

warranty claims, field reports, customer 

complaints, or any incidents, accidents, 

or injuries related to the subject 

condition. 

4. Hankook cites the Transportation 

Recall, Enhancement, Accountability 

and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. 

L. 106–414) and several of NHTSA’s 

past grant notices of petitions for 

decisions of inconsequential 

noncompliance concerning the 

mislabeling of ply information and 

contend those are similar to the subject 

petition. Hankook states that NHTSA 

has routinely concluded the number of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 3379 

1See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

NHTSA-2020-0020-0003. 

2See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 

35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had 

no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect 

on the proper operation of the occupant 

classification system and the correct deployment of 

an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) 

(finding occupant using noncompliant light source 

would not be exposed to significantly greater risk 

than occupant using similar compliant light 

source). 

3 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 

21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

4United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 

754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an 

unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in hazards as 

potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire, and 

where there is no dispute that at least some such 

hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be 

expected to occur in the future’’). 

5See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23, 2001) 

(rejecting argument that noncompliance was 

inconsequential because of the small number of 

vehicles affected); Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.; 

Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) 

(noting that situations involving individuals 

trapped in motor vehicles—while infrequent—are 

consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; 

Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21664 (Apr. 12, 

2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be 

granted because the vehicle was produced in very 

low numbers and likely to be operated on a limited 

basis). 

6See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for 

Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 

69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14, 2004); Cosco Inc.; 

Denial of Application for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 

29409 (June 1, 1999). 

plies is inconsequential to vehicle 

safety. Hankook believes the same 

reasoning applies to the subject tires 

and that mislabeling the number of 

nylon plies does not affect the 

operational safety of the vehicles. 

Further, Hankook states, the subject 

tires correctly label the number of steel 

plies, alleviating the safety concern for 

the tire retread, repair, and recycling 

industries.’’ 

Hankook argues that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety, and that 

its petition to be exempted from 

providing notification of the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

Hankook’s complete petition and all 

supporting documents are available by 

logging onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at: 

https://www.regulations.gov and by 

following the online search instructions 

to locate the docket number as listed in 

the title of this notice. 

VI. Public Comment 

NHTSA received one comment from 

the general public regarding Hankook’s 

petition from Mr. Bruce Grim.1 Mr. 

Grim stated that although mislabeling a 

tire sidewall may seem inconsequential, 

for some in the industry it is still an 

important aspect of safety for 

consumers. He suggested that the public 

is not sufficiently notified at the point 

of sale of the potential perils or hazards 

due to the subject noncompliance. Mr. 

Grim also states that in the event of a 

recall, it is important that retailers and 

consumers can identify the subject tires. 

VII. NHTSA’s Analysis 

A. General Principles 

An important issue to consider in 

determining inconsequentiality is the 

safety risk to individuals who 

experience the type of event against 

which the recall would otherwise 

protect.2 In general, NHTSA does not 

consider the absence of complaints or 

injuries to show that the issue is 

inconsequential to safety. ‘‘Most 

importantly, the absence of a complaint 

does not mean there have not been any 

safety issues, nor does it mean that there 

will not be safety issues in the future.’’ 3

‘‘[T]he fact that in past reported cases 

good luck and swift reaction have 

prevented many serious injuries does 

not mean that good luck will continue 

to work.’’ 4

Arguments that only a small number 

of vehicles or items of motor vehicle 

equipment are affected have also not 

justified granting an inconsequentiality 

petition.5 Similarly, NHTSA has 

rejected petitions based on the assertion 

that only a small percentage of vehicles 

or items of equipment are likely to 

actually exhibit a noncompliance. The 

percentage of potential occupants that 

could be adversely affected by a 

noncompliance does not determine the 

question of inconsequentiality. Rather, 

the issue to consider is the consequence 

to an occupant who is exposed to the 

consequence of that noncompliance.6

B. NHTSA’s Response to Hankook’s 

Petition 

NHTSA has evaluated the merits of 

the inconsequential noncompliance 

petition submitted by the petitioner and 

agrees that, based on the facts presented, 

this specific noncompliance of the 

subject tires is inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety. The Agency considered 

the following prior to making this 

determination: 

1. Operational Safety & Performance: 

NHTSA agrees that in this case, the 

incorrect number of nylon plies labeled 

on the tire has no effect on the 

operational safety of vehicles when the 

affected tires meet the other 

performance and labeling requirements 

of the applicable FMVSS. 

2. Tire Identification and Traceability: 

The tires have the required information 

per 49 CFR 574.5 to ensure that the tires 

may be properly registered for the 

purposes of a safety recall. The entire 

TIN, including the plant code and 

manufacturing date is both legible and 

easily discernible. 

3. Downstream Operations: The 

Agency must also consider other 

stakeholders, in addition to the 

manufacturer and end-user. 

Downstream entities involved in tire 

repair, retreading, and recycling 

operations require certain information 

to determine if tires may be safely used 

in their operations. The existence of 

steel in a tire’s sidewall and tread can 

be relevant to the manner in which it 

should be repaired or retreaded. The use 

of steel cord construction in the 

sidewall and tread is the primary safety 

concern of these industries. The Agency 

believes the noncompliance of the 

subject tires will have no measurable 

effect on the safety of the tire retread, 

repair, and recycling industries since 

the tire sidewalls are marked correctly 

for the number of steel plies. 

4. Consumer Feedback and Focus 

Groups: The Agency has concluded, 

based on previous feedback, that the tire 

construction information, specifically 

the number of plies and cord material in 

the sidewall and tread plies, influences 

very few consumers when they are 

deciding to buy a motor vehicle or 

replacement tires. This conclusion is 

based on information gathered from the 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 1, 2000, (65 FR 75222). 

5. Public Comments: In response to 

Mr. Grim’s comments, the Agency 

agrees that the safety of the end-users is 

a priority and has taken that into 

consideration when analyzing this 

petition. Furthermore, the Agency 

agrees that the user’s ability to identify 

a tire in the event of a recall is 

important and finds nothing in the facts 

of this petition that would impede tire 

identification of the subject tires in the 

event of a recall. 

In summary, the Agency believes that 

the specific incorrect labeling of the tire 

construction information present in this 

instance will have an inconsequential 

effect on motor vehicle safety or any 

related downstream tire repair, retread, 

or recycling operations. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
3380 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 

VIII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that Hankook has met its 

burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance in the 

affected tires is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Hankook’s petition is hereby granted 

and Hankook is consequently exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a free 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 subject tires 

that Hankook no longer controlled at the 

time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

granting of this petition does not relieve 

equipment 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 Hankook 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) 

Otto G. Matheke, III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01133 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0006; Notice 2] 

Volkswagen Group of 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: Volkswagen Group of 

America, Inc. (Volkswagen), has 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2015–2016 Audi A3 and Audi S3 

motor vehicles do not comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment. 

Volkswagen filed a noncompliance 

report dated January 28, 2019, and a 

petition was received by NHTSA on 

January 28, 2019, for a decision that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the grant of Volkswagen’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

(202) 366–5304, Leroy.Angeles@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Volkswagen has 

determined that certain MY 2015–2016 

Audi A3 Sedan, S3 Sedan, and A3 

Cabriolet motor vehicles do not comply 

with paragraph S9.3.6. of FMVSS No. 

108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 

Associated Equipment (49 CFR 

571.108). Volkswagen filed a 

noncompliance report dated January 28, 

2019, pursuant to 49 CFR 573, Defect 

and Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports, and a petition received by 

NHTSA on January 28, 2019, 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 40 U.S.C. 30118 and 49 U.S.C. 30120, 

Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of Volkswagen’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on July 9, 2019, 

in the Federal Register (84 FR 32830). 

One comment was received. To view the 

petition and all supporting documents 

log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2019– 

0006.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

81,831 MY 2015–2016 Audi A3, S3 

Sedan, and A3 Cabriolet motor vehicles, 

manufactured between November 28, 

2013, and July 28, 2016, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance: Volkswagen 

explains that the noncompliance is that 

the subject vehicles are equipped with 

turn signal pilot indicators that do not 

meet the flashing rate as required by 

paragraph S9.3.6 of FMVSS No. 108. 

Specifically, the left turn signal 

indicator does not have a significant 

change in the flashing rate when the left 

rear turn signal LED array becomes 

inoperative. 

IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph 

S9.3.6 of FMVSS No. 108 provides the 

requirements relevant to this petition. 

Failure of one or more turn signal 

lamps, such that the minimum 

photometric performance specified in 

Tables VI or VII of FMVSS No. 108 is 

not being met, must be indicated by the 

turn signal pilot indicator by a ‘‘steady 

on,’’ ‘‘steady off,’’ or by a significant 

change in the flashing rate. 

V. Summary of Volkswagen’s Petition: 

Volkswagen describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. The 

following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of Volkswagen’s Petition,’’ are the views 

and arguments provided by Volkswagen 

and do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. 

In support of its petition, Volkswagen 

offers the following reasoning: 

(a) The driver receives two different 

indicator warnings that the rear brake light is 

inoperative in the instrument cluster 

immediately upon failure of the turn signal 

lamp to comply with the photometry 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108. This 

happens because the brake light and 

indicator light/turn signal are combined. 

(b) The subject condition, the lack of a turn 

signal pilot indicator flash rate change, is 

limited to the condition in which the 

outermost left rear turn signal lamp fails. 

(c) In the case of LED array failure, both the 

brake light and indicator light/turn signal 

become inoperative. Should the required left 

turn signal become inoperative, Volkswagen 

confirmed that other auxiliary left turn signal 

lights located on the trunk and the left side 

mirror are still operational. Additionally, the 

back-up lamp in the left rear tail lamp 

assembly, the left brake light in the trunk lid 

assembly, and the center high mount stop 

lamp, will remain operational. 

Volkswagen concludes that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petition to be 

exempted from providing notification of 

the noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

VI. Public Comments: NHTSA 

received one comment from the public. 

This comment was received from an 

individual who believed that 

Volkswagen’s reasoning is unclear as it 

stands, and that NHTSA should request 

more information from Volkswagen or 

deem the noncompliance consequential. 

The commenter said that it is unclear as 

to whether the ‘‘two different indicator 

warnings in the instrument cluster’’ are 

compliant and that a redundancy 

should not be considered an appropriate 

substitute for a well-functioning, 

compliant failure indicator that’s 

required by the FMVSS. The commenter 

also said that the rule requirements are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1