Hyundai Motor America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 18208-18210 [2017-07614]

Download as PDF 18208 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 2017 / Notices mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Each of the 132 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver’s ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the 132 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA– 2006–24016; FMCSA–2009–0067; FMCSA–2011–0040; FMCSA–2011– 0058; FMCSA–2013–0012; FMCSA– 2013–0014; FMCSA–2014–0315; FMCSA–2015–0057. IV. Request for Comments FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver’s safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by May 17, 2017. FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 132 individuals from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register publications. Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Apr 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver. V. Submitting Comments VI. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA–2006–24016; FMCSA–2009– 0067; FMCSA–2011–0040; FMCSA– 2011–0058; FMCSA–2013–0012; FMCSA–2013–0014; FMCSA–2014– 0315; FMCSA–2015–0057 and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, click ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and you will find all documents and comments related to this notice. Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 [FR Doc. 2017–07672 Filed 4–14–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0013; Notice 1] You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA–2006–24016; FMCSA–2009– 0067; FMCSA–2011–0040; FMCSA– 2011–0058; FMCSA–2013–0012; FMCSA–2013–0014; FMCSA–2014– 0315; FMCSA–2015–0057 and click the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page, enter information required including the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period. PO 00000 Issued on: April 10, 2017. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy. Hyundai Motor America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: 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. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 17, 2017. 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 submitted by any of the following methods: • 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 Delivery: 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. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM 17APN1 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 2017 / Notices 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 petition is 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 this petition 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). 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. This notice of receipt of Hyundai’s petition is published under 49 U.S.C. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Apr 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition. 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) (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 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18209 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 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 vehicles that Hyundai no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM 17APN1 18210 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 2017 / Notices 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. 2017–07614 Filed 4–14–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0107; Notice 2] The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition. AGENCY: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), has determined that certain Goodyear tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and motorcycles. Goodyear filed a noncompliance report dated September 27, 2016. Goodyear then petitioned NHTSA on September 27, 2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–5310, facsimile (202) 366– 5930. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), has determined that certain Goodyear tires do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and motorcycles. Goodyear filed a noncompliance report dated September 27, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Goodyear then petitioned NHTSA on September 27, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Apr 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 30120(h) and their implementing regulations at 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 petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on November 14, 2016 in the Federal Register (81 FR 79557). 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–2016– 0107.’’ II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 381 Goodyear G182 RSD size 11R22.5 LR G commercial truck tires manufactured between July 3, 2016, and August 20, 2016. III. Noncompliance: Goodyear explains that because the sidewall markings on the reference side of the subject tires incorrectly identify the number of plies as ‘‘TREAD 4 PLIES STEEL CORD’’ instead of the correct labeling ‘‘TREAD 5 PLIES STEEL CORD,’’ the tires do not meet the requirements of paragraph S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119. IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119 provides, in pertinent part: S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section . . . (f) The actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area; . . . V. Summary of Goodyear’s Petition: Goodyear 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, Goodyear submitted the following: Goodyear believes this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because these tires were manufactured as designed and meet or exceed all applicable Federal Motor Vehicles Safety performance standards. All of the sidewall markings related to tire service (load capacity, corresponding inflation pressure, etc.) are correct. Even though the tires were labeled incorrectly as ‘‘TREAD 4 PLIES STEEL CORD’’ on one side of the tires, the tires were manufactured with ‘‘TREAD 5 PLIES STEEL CORD’’, which is correctly marked on the opposite tire sidewall. The mislabeling of these tires PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 is not a safety concern and also has no impact on the retreading and recycling industries. The affected tire mold has already been corrected and all future production will have the correct number of plies shown on both sidewalls. Goodyear noted that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for the same noncompliance related to tire construction information on tires because of surveys that show most consumers do not base purchases on tire construction information found on the tire sidewall. Goodyear 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: The agency agrees with Goodyear that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency believes that one measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety is that there is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. Another measure of inconsequentiality which is relevant to this petition is the safety of people working in the tire retread, repair and recycling industries. Although tire construction affects the strength and durability of tires, neither the agency nor the tire industry provides information relating tire strength and durability to the number of plies and types of ply cord material in the tread sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and customers should consider the tire construction information along with other information such as the load capacity, maximum inflation pressure, and tread wear, temperature, and traction ratings, to assess performance capabilities of various tires. In the agency’s judgement, the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on the number of plies in a tire. The agency also believes the noncompliance will have no measureable effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling industries. The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and tread is the primary safety concern of these industries. In this case, because of the sidewall marking indicate that some E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM 17APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 72 (Monday, April 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18208-18210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07614]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0013; Notice 1]


Hyundai Motor America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt 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.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 17, 2017.

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 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     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 Delivery: 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.

[[Page 18209]]

    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 petition is 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 this petition 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).

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.
    This notice of receipt of Hyundai'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. 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)
    (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 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 vehicles that Hyundai no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer 
for sale,

[[Page 18210]]

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. 2017-07614 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P