48572 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Notices 

ACTION: Announcement of Charter 

Renewal of the Motor Carrier Safety 

Advisory Committee (MCSAC). 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the 

charter renewal of the MCSAC, a 

Federal Advisory Committee that 

provides the Agency with advice and 

recommendations on motor carrier 

safety programs and motor carrier safety 

regulations through a consensus 

process. This charter renewal took effect 

on September 29, 2017, and will expire 

after 2 years. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to 

the Associate Administrator for Policy, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

(202) 385–2395, mcsac@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463), FMCSA is giving notice of the 

charter renewal for the MCSAC. The 

MCSAC was established to provide 

FMCSA with advice and 

recommendations on motor carrier 

safety programs and motor carrier safety 

regulations. 

The MCSAC is composed of up to 20 

voting representatives from safety 

advocacy, safety enforcement, labor, and 

industry stakeholders of motor carrier 

safety. The diversity of the Committee 

ensures the requisite range of views and 

expertise necessary to discharge its 

responsibilities. See the MCSAC Web 

site for details on pending tasks at 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mcsac. 

Issued on: October 12, 2017. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22581 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0015; Notice 2] 

Volvo Trucks North 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: Volvo Trucks North America 

(VTNA), has determined that certain 

model year (MY) 2017 Volvo VNL and 

2017 Volvo VNM heavy duty trucks do 

not fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

120, Tire selection and rims and motor 

home/recreation vehicle trailer load 

carrying capacity information for motor 

vehicles with a GVWR of more than 

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). VTNA 

filed a noncompliance information 

report dated February 9, 2017. VTNA 

also petitioned NHTSA on February 28, 

2017, and revised its petition on April 

29, 2017, for a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Kerrin Bressant, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–1110, facsimile (202) 366– 

5930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Volvo Trucks North 

America (VTNA), has determined that 

certain model year (MY) 2017 Volvo 

VNL and 2017 Volvo VNM heavy duty 

trucks do not fully comply with 

paragraph S5.2(b) of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

120, Tire selection and rims and motor 

home/recreation vehicle trailer load 

carrying capacity information for motor 

vehicles with a GVWR of more than 

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). VTNA 

filed a noncompliance report dated 

February 9, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. VTNA also 

petitioned NHTSA on February 28, 

2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) 

and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, and 

revised its petition on April 29, 2017, to 

obtain 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 petition was 

published with a 30-day public 

comment period, on July 20, 2017, in 

the Federal Register (82 FR 33549). No 

comments were received. 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–2017– 

0015.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

862 MY 2017 Volvo VNL and 2017 

Volvo VNM heavy duty trucks, 

manufactured between August 15, 2016, 

and November 10, 2016, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance: 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′′. 

IV. Rule Text: paragraph S5.2 of 

FMVSS No. 120 states: 

S5.2 Rim marking. Each rim or, at the 

option of the manufacturer in the case of a 

single-piece wheel, wheel disc shall be 

marked with the information listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph, 

in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high, 

impressed to a depth or, at the option of the 

manufacturer, embossed to a height of not 

less than 0.125 millimeters . . . 

(b) The rim size designation, and in case 

of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. 

For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5. 

V. Summary of VTNA’s Petition: 

VTNA 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, VTNA 

referenced a letter to NHTSA, dated 

December 5, 2016, from Arconic Wheel 

and Transportation Products (Arconic), 

which is the rim manufacturer, and 

provided the following reasoning: 

1. A 24.5′′ inch tire will not seat on 

the rim; therefore, if someone tries to 

mount a 24.5′′ tire to the rim, it will not 

hold air and therefore cannot be 

inflated. 

2. When tires are replaced, the 

technician will select the tire based on 

the size and rating of the tire being 

replaced. When Volvo manufactured the 

vehicle, the tire used was a 22.5′′ (i.e. 

the correct size for the rim). Therefore, 

the tires installed by Volvo have the 

correct size on the sidewall of the tire. 

3. Volvo is required to list the tires 

size and inflation pressures on the 

certification label as required by 49 CFR 

567. The information printed on the 

label is the correct size, a 22.5′′ inch tire 

and reflects the tires that were installed 

when manufactured. The certification 

label is located inside the driver’s door 

and can be easily accessed by the tire 

installer. 

Volvo 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. 

To view VTNA’s petition analyses in 

its entirety you can visit https://

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets and by using the docket ID 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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