
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48573-48574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22515]


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

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).

[[Page 48574]]

    (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


