Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Notices 48573 

number for this petition shown in the 

heading of this notice. 

NHTSA Decision 

NHTSA Analysis: VTNA explains that 

the noncompliance is that the wheels on 

the subject vehicles incorrectly identify 

the rim size as 24.5′′ x 8.25′′ instead of 

22.5′′ x 8.25′′, and therefore do not meet 

the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of 

FMVSS No. 120. Specifically, the 

marking error overstates the wheel 

diameter by 2′′. 

NHTSA has reviewed VTNA’s 

analyses that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety and provides the following 

analysis: 

When it comes to mating a tire and 

rim combination, it becomes very 

apparent very quickly that either an 

oversized tire on a rim or an undersized 

tire on the same sized rim will not 

properly seat to that rim. In this 

particular case (the former) as VTNA 

has mentioned in its petition, if 

someone tries to mount a 24.5′′ inch tire 

on an undersized rim (22.5′′), it will not 

hold air and therefore cannot be 

inflated. The inability to mount the 

incorrect tire on the rim precludes one’s 

ability to actually drive with an 

incorrect tire-rim combination on public 

roadways. Furthermore, FMVSS No. 120 

paragraph S5.3 requires vehicles be 

labeled with proper tire/rim size 

combinations. This additional 

information is available to provide the 

vehicle operator or technician with the 

correct tire/rim size information. 

NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration 

of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that 

VTNA has met its burden of persuasion 

that the FMVSS No. 120 noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. Accordingly, VTNA’s 

petition is hereby granted and VTNA is 

consequently exempted from the 

obligation to provide notification of, and 

remedy for, the subject noncompliance 

in the affected vehicles 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 

vehicles that VTNA 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 vehicles under their 

control after VTNA 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, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22516 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0013; Notice 2] 

Hyundai Motor America, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Hyundai Motor America 

(Hyundai), on behalf of Hyundai Motor 

Company, has determined that certain 

model year (MY) 2015 Hyundai Sonata 

motor vehicles do not fully comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment. 

Hyundai filed a noncompliance 

information report dated February 5, 

2017. Hyundai also petitioned NHTSA 

on February 3, 2017, for a decision that 

the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

the decision contact Leroy Angeles, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5304, facsimile (202) 366– 

3081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Hyundai Motor America 

(Hyundai), has determined that certain 

model year (MY) 2015 Hyundai Sonata 

motor vehicles do not fully comply with 

paragraph S6.5.3.4.1 of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 

Associated Equipment. Hyundai filed a 

noncompliance information report 

dated February 5, 2017, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Hyundai also petitioned 

NHTSA on February 3, 2017, pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 

49 CFR part 556, 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. 

Notice of receipt of the Hyundai 

petition was published, with a 30-day 

public comment period, on April 17, 

2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR 

18208). 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–2017– 

0013.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

3,054 MY 2015 Hyundai Sonata motor 

vehicles, manufactured between April 

25, 2014, and May 16, 2014, are 

potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance: Hyundai explains 

that the noncompliance is that the lens 

on the replaceable headlamp assembly 

in the subject vehicles is missing the HB 

bulb designation, as required by 

paragraph S6.5.3.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5.3.4.1 of 

FMVSS No. 108 states in pertinent part: 

S6.5.3.4 Replacable bulb headlamp 

markings. 

S6.5.3.4.1 The lens of each replaceable 

bulb headlamp must bear permanent marking 

in front of each replacable light source with 

which it is equipped that states either: The 

HB Type, if the light source conforms to S11 

of this standard for filament light sources, or 

the bulb marking/designation provided in 

compliance with Section VIII of appendix A 

of 49 CFR part 564 (if the light source 

conforms to S11 of this standard for 

discharge light sources) . . . 

V. Summary of Hyundai’s Petition: 

Hyundai described the subject 

noncompliance and stated its belief that 

the noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, Hyundai 

submitted the following reasoning: 

(a) The noncompliance has no impact 

on headlamp performance: The 

mismarked headlamps are the correct 

headlamps for the affected vehicles and 

conform to all applicable FMVSS 

photometric and other requirements. In 

a recent decision involving similar facts, 

NHTSA granted an inconsequentiality 

petition involving a noncompliant bulb 

marking because the use of the 

mismarked bulb would ‘‘not create a 

noncompliance with any of the 

headlamp performance requirements of 

FMVSS No. 108 or otherwise present an 

increased risk to motor vehicle safety.’’ 

Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., grant of 

petition for decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 22943, 22944 

(Dep’t of Trans. Apr. 17, 2013). 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
48574 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Notices 

(b) The lens is marked with an 

industry standard bulb type: The 

headlamp lenses in question are clearly 

marked ‘‘9005’’ (the ANSI designation), 

which are well-known alternative 

designations for the HB3 bulb. This 

designation is recognized throughout 

the automotive industry, and is used by 

lighting manufacturers interchangeably 

with a lamp’s HB type. 

(c) The risk of consumer confusion is 

remote: A consumer can use the 9005 

ANSI alternative to properly identify 

and purchase the correct replacement 

headlamp bulb for the affected vehicles. 

Hyundai searched a number of national 

automotive parts stores (Autozone, 

O’Reilly, Advanced Auto Parts, and Pep 

Boys), and found that all HB3 

replacement bulbs in these stores were 

marked with the 9005 ANSI 

designation. In fact, the packaging on 

the replacement bulbs was more 

commonly marked with the ANSI 

designation than the HB type. 

(d) NHTSA precedent supports 

granting this petition: NHTSA has 

previously ruled that the 

noncompliance at issue here (lamps 

marked with the ANSI designation 

rather than the HB type) is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

On January 18, 2017, the Agency 

granted GM’s petition for 

inconsequential noncompliance 

regarding their high-beam headlamp 

lenses on model year 2012–2015 

Chevrolet Sonic passenger cars that 

were not marked with ‘‘HB3’’ (the HB 

bulb type), as required by paragraph 

S6.5.3.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA 

granted the petition stating: 

We agree with GM that the ANSI ‘9005’ 

designation is a well-known alternative 

designation for the HB3 light source and that 

the replacement light source packaging is 

commonly marked with both the HB type 

and ANSI designation. As such, we believe 

that consumers can properly identify and 

purchase the correct replacement upper beam 

light source for the affected vehicles. 

See General Motors, LLC, Grant of 

petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, (NHTSA–2015–0035). 

Hyundai concluded by expressing the 

belief 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. 

NHTSA’S Decision 

NHTSA’s Analysis: We agree with 

Hyundai that the ANSI ‘‘9005’’ 

designation is a well-known alternative 

designation for the HB3 light source and 

that replacement light source packaging 

is commonly marked with both the HB 

type and ANSI designation. As such, we 

believe that consumers can properly 

identify and purchase the correct 

replacement upper beam light source for 

the affected vehicles. Further, the 

unique bulb holder design incorporated 

into the headlamps would prevent 

consumers from installing a light source 

other than an HB3/9005 so there would 

be no effect on headlamp performance. 

NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration 

of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that 

Hyundai has met its burden of 

persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 

108 noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Hyundai’s petition is hereby granted 

and Hyundai 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 

vehicles that Hyundai 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 vehicles under their 

control after Hyundai 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, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22515 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2017–0110] 

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection 

Activities, Revision to Gas Distribution 

Annual Report 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is preparing to 

request Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval for the revision 

of the gas distribution annual report 

currently approved under OMB control 

number 2137–0629. PHMSA proposes 

revising Part A and certain parts of the 

instructions. In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

PHMSA invites comments on the 

proposed revisions to the form and 

instructions. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

December 18, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted in the following ways: 

E-Gov Web site: http://

www.regulations.gov. This site allows 

the public to enter comments on any 

Federal Register notice issued by any 

agency. 

Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

West Building, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on the 

ground level of DOT, West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Identify the docket 

number, PHMSA–2017–0110, at the 

beginning of your comments. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. You 

should know that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

Therefore, you may want to review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19476) or visit 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES