Notice2025-21523
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
November 28, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2017-2023 Tesla Model 3 and MY 2020-2023 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 July 24, 2024, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the "Agency") on August 16, 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 90 Issue 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54871-54873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21523]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0065; 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 3 and MY 2020-2023 Model Y motor vehicles do
[[Page 54872]]
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Tesla filed a
noncompliance report dated July 24, 2024, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on August 16, 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 December 29, 2025.
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 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: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7479.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Tesla determined that certain MY 2017-2023 Model 3 and
MY 2020-2023 Model Y motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraphs
S7.3.13.1 and S7.1.2.13 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices,
and Associated Equipment. (49 CFR 571.108).
Tesla filed a noncompliance report dated July 24, 2024, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Tesla petitioned NHTSA on August 16, 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 6,025 MY 2017-2023 Model 3 and
MY 2020-2023 Model Y, manufactured between November 9, 2017, and July
31, 2023, were reported by the manufacturer.
III. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S7.3.13.1 and S7.1.2.13 of FMVSS
No. 108 include the requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraphs
S7.3.13.1 and S7.1.2.13 of FMVSS No. 108 require that each stop lamp be
designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table IX and
Table VII, respectively. Table IX and Table VII provide the minimum and
maximum allowed stop lamp and rear turn signal lamp photometric
intensity values for the number of lamp compartments or individual
lamps, the type of vehicle it is installed on, and the lamp color.
Table IX and VII each limit the stop and rear turn signal photometric
intensity to 300 cd, 360 cd and 420 cd, for one, two and three lighted
sections respectively.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Footnote (3) or Table IX and footnote (4) of Table VII state
``the maximum photometric intensity must not occur over any area
larger than that generated by a 0.5[deg] radius within a solid angle
defined by the test point range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Noncompliance: Tesla explains that the subject vehicles may
have been equipped with stop and rear turn signal lamps, as part of the
left-hand rear combination lamp, that have a photometric intensity of
321.47 cd (candela), exceeding the maximum photometric intensity of 300
cd allowed by FMVSS No. 108 S7.3.13 and S7.1.2.13.
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 was notified bt Transport Canada on January 6, 2024, of a
noncompliance with Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No.
108 in the left-hand rear combination lamp of a 2019 Tesla Model 3. A
Transport Canada contracted test laboratory tested the lamp and found
that the stop lamp and turn signal lamp, part of the rear combination
lamp, exceeded the photometric limits of CMVSS No. 108. After
independently testing other left-hand rear combination lamps, Tesla
concluded that the test sample is the only left-hand rear combination
lamp that Transport Canada's contracted test laboratory, Tesla, or
Tesla's supplier has tested that exceeded the photometric requirements
of CMVSS/FMVSS No. 108. . Tesla then made a voluntary recall
determination on July 17, 2024.
Tesla argues that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety because the difference between a lamp with compliant
photometric intensity and the subject lamps' noncompliant photometric
intensity is indistinguishable. For the affected stop and rear turn
signal lamps, Tesla states that FMVSS No. 108 requires a photometric
intensity of no more than
[[Page 54873]]
300 cd, but the subject lamps' output measured 321.47 cd at test point
HV, or about seven percent higher than the maximum allowed. Tesla
mentions two reports it says NHTSA has referred to in similar cases,
Driver Perception of Just-Noticeable Differences (of Automotive Signal
Lamps) (1994) and Just Noticeable Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp
Intensities (1997), both of which Tesla says concluded that most
drivers cannot distinguish differences of twenty-five percent or less
in automotive lamp intensities. Because the photometric intensity of
the subject lamps exceeds the requirement by seven percent, Tesla
contends that, based on the findings of the two studies mentioned
above, NHTSA should find that the difference between a compliant and
noncompliant combination lamp is imperceptible and inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
Tesla states that there are no complaints or reported accidents or
injuries that may have been caused by this noncompliance. While Tesla
acknowledges that a lack of complaints or reported accidents is not
dispositive in the consideration of a petition for inconsequential
noncompliance, Tesla states that this fact illustrates that field
performance has not been otherwise affected by the noncompliance.
Tesla provides, in Section III of its petition, precedents that
NHTSA has set by granting the following petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance:
<bullet> A 1987 petition by Chrysler Corp. (52 FR 17499) for backup
lamps that fell below the minimum required luminosity. Quoting the
NHTSA decision--``. . . a deficiency of 20 [percent] in this area,
spread over a population of only 800 cars, is statistically unlikely to
produce even one injury over the lifetime of all the cars.''
<bullet> A 1990 petition by Hella, Inc., (55 FR 37601) for
taillamps with a luminosity at most 20 percent greater than the maximum
luminosity allowed by regulation. Quoting NHTSA's decision--``The
agency has also considered information indicating that a reduction of
approximately 25 percent in luminous intensity is required before the
human eye can detect the difference between two lamps.''
<bullet> A 1991 petition by Subaru of America (56 FR 59971) for
side reflex reflectors measured 20 percent below the minimum required
luminous intensity. Quoting the decision by NHTSA--``a reduction of
approximately 25 percent in luminous intensity is required before the
human eye can detect the difference between two lamps.''
<bullet> A 2019 petition by Toyota Motor North America, Inc., (85
FR 39679) for rear reflectors that failed to meet the minimum
photometry requirements by as much as 18 percent below the required
minimum. Tesla states that NHTSA's decision cited the aforementioned
Hella and Subaru petitions and quotes NHTSA as stating--``imperceptible
difference in illumination makes this noncompliance inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.''
<bullet> Tesla also stated, in Section III of its petition, that
``[i]n 2020, NHTSA granted Nissan North America, Inc.'s petition . . .
related to front side marker lamps that do not meet the minimum
photometric intensity requirement . . . . by 15 [percent].'' Tesla
cited ``87 FR 21259'' in footnote 16 of its petition in relation to
this petition. NHTSA notes that the citation 87 FR 21259 was the April
11, 2022, decision notice denying Nissan's petition for its
noncompliance to the minimum required vertical gradient for headlamps.
Tesla states that the noncompliance in this case is similar to
previously granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance and
distinguishable from similar petitions that were denied. Tesla provides
two examples of denied petitions and argues why the petition in
question is different.
<bullet> North American Subaru, Inc. filed a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance in 2022 (87 FR 48764) for side reflex
reflectors that were measured to be almost thirty percent below the
required minimum luminosity. NHTSA denied the petition, stating ``. . .
NHTSA recognizes that the photometry criteria evaluated for reflex
reflectors measured in (cd/incident ft-c) or (mcd/lux) whereas tail
lamps are measured in candela (cd) and therefore it is not proper to
apply the logic of the tail lamp analysis to reflect reflectors,
despite the prior grant.'' Tesla states that, unlike this Subaru
example, the subject noncompliant rear combination lamp is measured in
cd., the signaling function is activated only in transient state, i.e.,
during brake application and/or indication of driver intent to change
vehicle course and that the noncompliant lamp is well within the
twenty-five percent threshold established in the DOT and UMTRI studies
and is therefore imperceptible to most drivers.
<bullet> Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, filed a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance in 2016 (81 FR 21660) for headlamps that
exceeded the maximum allowed photometric intensity by as much as forty
percent. Tesla states that the NHTSA decision to deny the petition was
based on the headlamps being above the twenty-five percent threshold
established in the DOT and UMTRI studies. The subject Tesla rear
combination lamps measure only seven percent above the maximum allowed
photometric intensity, rather than the forty percent in the denied
Mercedes petition.
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 vehicles
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. 2025-21523 Filed 11-26-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 28, 2025.
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.