Notice2024-16481
Tesla, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 26, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2017-2023 Tesla Model and Tesla Model Y motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, And Associated Equipment. Tesla filed a noncompliance report dated March 15, 2024, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the "Agency") on April 8, 2024, and amended its petition on May 3, 2024, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Tesla's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 144 (Friday, July 26, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60682-60684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16481]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0019; Notice 1]
Tesla, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2017-2023 Tesla Model and Tesla Model Y motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, And Associated Equipment. Tesla filed a
noncompliance report dated March 15, 2024, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on April 8, 2024, and amended its petition on
May 3, 2024, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of Tesla's petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before August 26, 2024.
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
[[Page 60683]]
notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the 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 for Federal Holidays.
<bullet> Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-5304.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Tesla determined that certain MY 2017-2023 Tesla Model
3 and MY 2020-2023 Tesla Model Y do not fully comply with paragraph
S10.14.6 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, And Associated
Equipment (49 CFR 571.108).
Tesla filed a noncompliance report dated March 15, 2024, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Tesla petitioned NHTSA on April 9, 2024, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
This notice of receipt of Tesla's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 19,917 MY 2017-2023 Tesla
Model 3 and MY 2020-2023 Tesla Model Y motor vehicles, manufactured
between October 27, 2017, and December 24, 2023, were reported by the
manufacturer.
III. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S10.14.6 of FMVSS No. 108
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Specifically, when
tested according to the test procedure provided by paragraph S14.2.5 of
FMVSS No. 108, each integral beam headlamp must be designed to conform
to the photometry requirements of Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108 for lower
beam, as specified in Table II-c for the specific headlamp unit and
aiming method. As it relates to this petition, the maximum photometric
intensity in the 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U zone for the lower beam is 125
cd.
IV. Noncompliance: Tesla explains that the subject vehicles are
equipped with headlamps that have a low-beam output that exceeds the
maximum photometric intensity stated in paragraph S10.14.6 of FMVSS No.
108. Specifically, the affected right and left-hand headlamp lower
beams may measure as much as 230.1 candela (cd) in the 10[deg]U to
90[deg]U zone, which exceeds the maximum photometric intensity allowed
by 105.1 cd.
V. Summary of Tesla's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Tesla's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by Tesla. They have not been evaluated by
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Tesla describes
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Tesla's headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25
right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the
maximum photometric intensity measured at the 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U zone
was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between
117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla,
these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand
and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure
as much as 230.1 cd in the 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U zone, exceeding the
maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, a left-hand
lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a
maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U zone. Despite these
measurements exceeding the photometric maximum, Tesla believes that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Tesla argues that the noncompliant illuminated area of the subject
headlamp in the 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U zone is positioned off the roadway
both horizontally and vertically, keeping it outside of the driver's
and other road users' natural line of vision. Therefore, Tesla believes
there is no increased risk of glare for surrounding traffic or the
driver of the subject vehicle in any driving conditions.
Tesla's petition provides a plan view, side and orthogonal view
(Figure 1) of the emitted light exceeding 125 cd overlaid onto the
10[deg]U to 90[deg]U zone. For a left-hand headlamp, the affected area
is in the 30[deg] inboard and 20[deg] upward zone, and this is
symmetrical for the right-hand headlamp.
Figure 2 in Tesla's petition shows the subject noncompliance from
the view of the driver of the subject vehicle. Tesla explains that it
simulated the illumination of the noncompliant 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U
zone to demonstrate how the subject noncompliance affects the roadway.
The simulation in Figure 2 shows that the left-hand headlamp exceeds
the 125 cd maximum by 35.3 cd (totaling 160.3 cd), while the right-hand
headlamp exceeds it by 105.1 cd (totaling 230.1 cd). Tesla explains
that these figures represent the largest
[[Page 60684]]
measurements from the 25 sets of headlamps tested by Marelli Automotive
Lighting.
Tesla asserts that the area illuminated by the noncompliant
headlamps in the 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U zone does not affect the driver
of the subject vehicle because its high and outboard position falls
outside the driver's line of vision. Furthermore, Tesla believes that
this illuminated area does not impact the field of vision of oncoming
drivers or other road users due to its extreme location. The light from
the subject headlamp in this zone is projected off and above the
roadway. Therefore, Tesla argues that subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
On May 3, 2024, Tesla amended its petition to provide details of
the low beam testing they conducted. Using the Adaptive Driving Beam
(ADB) protocol test method provided in FMVSS No. 108, S14.9.3.12, Tesla
conducted low beam tests on a proving ground. Tesla explains that the
study aimed to characterize and quantify the low beam glare in the
10[deg]U to 90[deg]U zone on the subject vehicles compared to the same
vehicles equipped with compliant headlamps.
The test involved one Model 3 and one Model Y vehicle, each
equipped with the noncompliant left-hand and right-hand headlamps that
exceeded the FMVSS No. 108 maximum permissible candela in the 10[deg]U
to 90[deg]U zone. Tesla followed the test procedure described in
Scenario #1 of FMVSS No. 108, Table XXII, at 60 mph and opposite
direction.
Tesla argues that meeting the low beam maximum illuminance
permitted by FMVSS No. 108, despite having noncompliant headlamps,
makes the noncompliance at issue inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. This, according to Tesla, ensures that drivers of vehicles
equipped with the subject headlamps and other road users would not
experience glare or distraction from them.
Tesla, in their amended petition, says that the subject vehicles
did not exceed the permitted maximum illuminance values required by
FMVSS No. 108, Table XXI. Tesla believes that these test results
demonstrate that the subject noncompliance does not create glare for
the driver of the subject vehicle or other road users. Therefore, Tesla
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
Tesla adds that they are not aware of any complaints, accidents, or
injuries related to the subject noncompliance.
Tesla has not found any complaints or reports of accidents or
injuries related to this noncompliance in its records or NHTSA Vehicle
Owner Questionnaires. While Tesla acknowledges that this fact is not
dispositive in the consideration of a petition for inconsequential
noncompliance, it mentions this to illustrate that customers have not
reported issues such as excessively bright or glare, and no accidents
or injuries have been attributed to the subject headlamps.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See North American Subaru, Inc., Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 48764, August 10,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla references a 2022 denial of a petition submitted by General
Motors, LLC, (GM) in which Tesla says GM argued that certain
noncompliant lower beam headlamps exceeding the photometry requirements
of S10.15.6 and Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108 were inconsequential to
motor vehicles safety.\2\ Tesla explains that GM could not demonstrate
that the noncompliant headlamps, which measured 450-470 cd and exceeded
the photometric requirement by more than three times, did not cause
glare or were not distracting to other road users. (Id.) Tesla believes
that the subject noncompliance is distinguishable from GM's petition
because the subject headlamps measure 230.1 cd at most. Tesla also uses
the ADB testing it conducted to distinguish its petition from the GM
petition by demonstrating that it believes the subject noncompliance
does not create glare for the driver and other road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 12546, March 4, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla concludes by stating its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
and 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 Tesla 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, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Tesla
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)
Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-16481 Filed 7-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 26, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.