Volvo Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 48572-48573 [2017-22516]
Download as PDF
48572
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Notices
Announcement of Charter
Renewal of the Motor Carrier Safety
Advisory Committee (MCSAC).
ACTION:
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
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mcsac.
SUMMARY:
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Volvo Trucks North America
(VTNA), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2017 Volvo VNL and
2017 Volvo VNM heavy duty trucks do
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Oct 17, 2017
Jkt 244001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Oct 17, 2017
Jkt 244001
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant 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.
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48573
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: https://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).
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48572-48573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22516]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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