Notice2026-11696
Harbor Freight Tools, Denial 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
June 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Harbor Freight Tools (HFT) has determined that certain Kenway 12V Magnetic Trailer Light Kits and Submersible LED Trailer Lights manufactured by Jinhua Eagle King Tools Co., Ltd. (Jinhua) do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. HFT filed a noncompliance report dated October 26, 2020, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 23, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the denial of HFT's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35610-35613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11696]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0115; Notice 2]
Harbor Freight Tools, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Harbor Freight Tools (HFT) has determined that certain Kenway
12V Magnetic Trailer Light Kits and Submersible LED Trailer Lights
manufactured by Jinhua Eagle King Tools Co., Ltd. (Jinhua) do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. HFT filed a
noncompliance report dated October 26, 2020, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on November 23, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety. This notice announces the denial of HFT's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7479.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
HFT has determined that certain Kenway 12V Magnetic Trailer Light
Kits (``magnetic trailer lights'') and 12V Submersible LED Trailer
Lights (``submersible trailer lights'') manufactured by Jinhua Eagle
King Tools Co., Ltd., do not fully comply with the requirements of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49
CFR 571.108).\1\ HFT filed a noncompliance report dated October 26,
2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. HFT subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
November 23, 2020, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that these
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The manufacturer-submitted Part 573 refers to this product
as a ``towing'' light kit instead of a ``trailer'' light kit, which
is the term HFT uses in the petition. The submitted petition
interchangeably uses the terms ``submersible LED trailer lights''
and ``submersible trailer light kit,'' as well as ``magnetic trailer
light kit'' and ``magnetic LED trailer light kit.'' For ease of
reading, these will be herby referred to as ``submersible trailer
lights'' and ``magnetic trailer lights,'' respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of receipt of HFT's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on August 26, 2021, in the Federal Register (86
FR 47729). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0115.''
II. Equipment Involved
Jinhua Eagle King Tools Co., Ltd manufactured the Kenway 12V
magnetic trailer lights between November 13, 2019, and December 22,
2019, and the Kenway 12V submersible trailer lights between July 1,
2019, and July 9, 2019. Approximately 3,832 units in total are
potentially involved.
III. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S7.1.2, S7.1.2.13, S7.1.2.13.1, S7.2, S7.2.13, S7.3,
S7.3.13, and S7.3.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108 include the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each rear turn signal lamp must be designed
to conform to the photometry requirements of Table VII, when tested
according to the procedure of paragraph S14.2.1, for the number of lamp
compartments or individual lamps, the type of vehicle it is installed
on, and the lamp color as specified by S7.1.2.2. Each taillamp must be
designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table VIII, when
tested according to the procedure of S14.2.1. Each stop lamp must be
designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table IX, when
tested according to the procedure of paragraph S14.2.1, for the number
of lamp compartments or individual lamps and the type of vehicle it is
installed on. Table VII specifies the various minimum and maximum
photometric intensity requirements for rear turn signal lamps at
specified test points. Table VIII specifies the various minimum and
maximum photometric intensity requirements for taillamps at specified
test points. Table IX specifies the various minimum and maximum
photometric intensity requirements for stop lamps at specified test
points.
IV. Noncompliances
HFT explains the noncompliances are that the subject magnetic
trailer lights and submersible trailer lights are equipped with turn
signal lamps, stop lamps, and/or taillamps that exceed the maximum and/
or fail to meet the minimum photometric intensity output requirements,
as required by FMVSS No. 108.
In the case of the submersible trailer lights, a third-party test
laboratory for HFT found that two of six samples failed to comply with
FMVSS No. 108 requirements for turn signal lamps and stop lamps.
Specifically, the group minimum photometric intensity for three lighted
sections for Group number 3, fell below the requirement of 520 cd. One
sample measured 466.33 cd and another sample measured 497.39 cd.
In the case of the magnetic trailer lights, a third-party test
laboratory for HFT found that 3 of 11 right-hand samples failed to
comply with FMVSS No. 108 requirements. Specifically, the first right-
hand sample exceeded the maximum photometric intensity requirement of
420 cd for turn signal
[[Page 35611]]
lamps and stop lamps, measuring 579.81 cd (520.48 cd after
stabilization), and also exceeded the maximum photometric intensity
requirement of 25 cd for tail lamps, measuring 31.87 cd (25.7 cd at
test point H-V). The second right-hand sample exceeded the maximum
photometric intensity requirement of 420 cd for turn signal lamps and
stop lamps, measuring 426.87 cd (361.61 cd after stabilization).
Lastly, the third right-hand sample exceeded the maximum photometric
intensity requirement of 420 cd for the turn signal lamps and stop
lamps, measuring 440.27 cd (418.91 cd after stabilization).
V. Summary of HFT's Petition
In its petition, HFT describes the subject noncompliances and
contends that the noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to
motor vehicle safety. In support of its petition, HFT submitted the
reasoning summarized below. The views and arguments described in this
section do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency.
HFT believes the subject noncompliances are inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because the affected trailer lights exceed the
maximum and/or minimum photometric intensity output requirements by
small margins. According to HFT, the deviation is not ``sufficient
enough to be noticeable to other road users or create an increased
safety risk.''
Submersible Lights
HFT explains that for the two submersible trailer light samples
that did not meet the required candela values, all of the individual
test points within Zone 3 \2\ were found to be at least 60 percent of
the specified value as permitted in the footnote of Table VII and IX of
FMVSS No. 108 and were more than 90 percent of the value for the
individual test point in most cases. Further, HFT says that while the
two noncompliant submersible trailer light samples measured below the
required minimum candela value for Zone 3, they fulfilled 88.6-95.6
percent of the requirement for the zone. Additionally, HFT notes that
none of the individual test points measured below 60 percent of the
specified candela value for the test point. Therefore, HFT believes
that the effects on the photometric output of the zone would overall be
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Zone'' as referred to by the petitioner is actually
``Group'' in FMVSS No. 108 which is a collection of test points
where when combined must meet a separate group minimum photometric
intensity requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, HFT contends that its petition could be granted on
the basis that Zones 1, 2, 4, and 5 all exceeded the minimum candela
value required for their respective zone by 27-44 percent in one sample
and 26-37 percent in the other sample. Therefore, according to HFT, the
noncompliant Zone 3 ``is offset by the substantial (and compliant)
exceedances in the remaining zones.'' HFT states that in consideration
of the overall performance of the lamp, the light from the other zones
``would compensate for the deviation in Zone 3.'' HFT states that this
reasoning is consistent with prior NHTSA decisions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 61 FR 1663 (January 22,
1996); see also BMW of North America, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR 55484 (November 21, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic Lights
HFT explains that for the three magnetic trailer light samples that
did not meet the required candela values, all complied with the
luminosity requirements at all other test points and all other FMVSS
No. 108 requirements to which they were tested.
HFT states that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance ``when the noncompliance is imperceptible
or nearly imperceptible to vehicle occupants or surrounding traffic.''
HFT contends that when the photometric intensity level is within 25
percent above or below the limit, the difference in the light being
emitted is imperceptible to other drivers. HFT states that this metric
has been applied to various types of lighting sources, including turn
signal lighting.\4\ Furthermore, HFT states that NHTSA has applied this
reasoning when considering noncompliances with particular zones, not
just individual test points.\5\ HFT states that for each of the samples
previously described, the values deviated within 25 percent of values
that are required by FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Huey, R., Dekker, D. and Lyons, R. (1994); Driver
perception of just-noticeable differences of automotive signal lamp
intensities (Report No. DOT HS 808 209).
\5\ See General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 61 FR 1663 (January 22,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFT believes that there is no increased risk of glare to
approaching drivers for the magnetic trailer lights because the candela
values exceed the requirement by less than 25 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Grant of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential
Noncompliance; of Hella, Inc., 55 FR 37601 (September 21, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both submersible and magnetic lights, HFT adds that NHTSA has
previously recognized ``the inherent challenges to manufacture all
lamps so that each and every test point within the lamp meets the
minimum criteria.'' HFT contends that this is relevant to the subject
noncompliances because of the 24 sets of lamps tested by a third-party
test laboratory, with production dates from June 2019 to December 2019,
two samples of the submersible trailer lights and three samples of the
magnetic trailer lights did not comply with the photometric
requirements. HFT believes that this indicates that the subject lamps
were ``designed to comply'' with FMVSS No. 108 and the results of the
evaluation ``indicate an isolated number of random failures, not a
systemic lapse in production processes.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment 83 FR 51766 (October
12, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFT notes that it has not received any reports or complaints in
relation to the subject noncompliances. HFT contends that this absence
of reports supports its conclusion that the noncompliances are
undetectable to surrounding drivers.
HFT concludes the subject noncompliances are inconsequential as
they relate 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.
HFT's complete petition and all supporting documents are available
by logging onto the FDMS website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and by
following the online search instructions to locate docket number
``NHTSA-2020-0115.''
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and
difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such
noncompliances inconsequential.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation: Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against
[[Page 35612]]
which a recall would otherwise protect.\9\ In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries when determining if a
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The absence of complaints
does not mean vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety issue,
nor does it mean that there could not be safety issues in the
future.\10\ Moreover, this petition concerns third-party aftermarket
lighting products that would be added to an existing vehicle. It would
be difficult, if not impossible, for roadway users to identify specific
products installed on others' vehicles if the roadway users were even
aware of the products' existence. This is especially true given that
most encounters occur with moving vehicles and, in some cases, under
nighttime conditions. Given these circumstances, it is extremely
unlikely that potentially affected roadway users would file complaints
about lighting products with either the manufacturer or with NHTSA.
Therefore, the Agency does not find this argument persuasive. Further,
because each inconsequential noncompliance petition must be evaluated
on its own facts and determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA
does not consider prior determinations as binding precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\10\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As HFT's petition covers two similar models of lighting equipment,
this analysis will initially cover noncompliances and petitioner's
arguments related to the submersible trailer lights, followed by
noncompliances and petitioner's arguments related to the magnetic
trailer lights, and finally address petitioner's arguments which apply
to both.
Submersible Lights
In the case of the submersible trailer lights, one consideration in
our analysis is if the lamps are visible to other roadway users. One
aspect of visibility is related to the requirements in FMVSS No. 108
that pertain to photometric output of the lamps. Individual test points
are measured to determine if they meet the photometric requirements of
the standard. NHTSA does not concur with HFT's suggestion to grant this
petition based on surrounding zones. When the rule was adopted, per 37
FR 21328, the addition of the zone/group requirement was in response to
the Agency's recognition that the original requirement that taillamps,
stop lamps, parking lamps, and turn signal lamps meet minimum
photometric candlepower requirements at up to 27 individual test points
appeared unnecessarily severe, since deviances at individual test
points are generally not great enough to be discernible to the human
eye. The Agency also stated that the addition of the zone/group
requirement will not have a significant effect on motor vehicle safety
and was designed to set up a more realistic and cost-effective method
of determining compliance with photometric requirements. For these
reasons, the zone/group requirement was added and permits flexibility
to allow test points within a single group to fall below the minimum
requirement by up to 40 percent, provided the minimum requirement for
the group is met.
NHTSA disagrees with the petitioner's argument that failing to meet
the photometric requirements applicable to individual ``groups'' by an
amount of up to 25 percent is inconsequential to safety. Deviating from
requirements for a group of points degrades the overall visibility of
the lamp beyond the flexibilities already allowed for in FMVSS No. 108.
Contrary to a past grant of a General Motors petition, 61 FR 1663,
NHTSA now believes that the rationale for that grant--where one zone/
group's performance can compensate for another's failure--is not
sufficiently compelling to grant a petition for inconsequential
noncompliance. Zones/groups are a collection of specific test points
and make up a portion of a lamp's photometric output. NHTSA does not
believe that even if one zone/group greatly exceeds the requirements,
that it necessarily compensates for another, noncompliant zone/group
such that a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
requirements for individual groups themselves, as previously explained,
incorporate flexibilities and allowances into FMVSS No. 108. Further,
the Agency notes that inconsequential noncompliance determinations are
necessarily highly fact dependent. As such, NHTSA does not consider
prior determinations as binding precedent.
Second, the fabricating manufacturer, Jinhua, tested the subject
lamps at 12.8V, yet HFT's test failed to meet the minimum photometric
requirements when the products were tested at 13.5V. Specifically,
failing to meet the minimum photometric requirements when tested at
13.5V leads NHTSA to conclude that the submersible trailer lights would
likely deviate further from the photometric requirements when tested at
12.8V. According to HFT's third-party test laboratory report, report
no. 200103-03C, page 4, the turn signal lamps and stop lamps had a
ratio multiplier of 91.2 percent of the original value for 12.8V.
Meaning, the photometric intensity is expected to be 91.2 percent of
the values from 13.5V if tested at 12.8V at all test points for turn
signal lamps and stop lamps. Therefore, we believe the lamp could
underperform in use leading to an increased risk to safety.
Magnetic Lights
In the case of the magnetic trailer lights, the noncompliance is
exceeding photometric maximum requirements at certain test points.
Exceeding requirements at specific test points can cause glare that
NHTSA recognizes as a safety concern. Here, the third-party test data
provided by HFT showed that the magnetic trailer lights were tested at
13.5V. At that voltage, the worst-case photometric value exceeded the
maximum requirement of 420 candela by 38.1 percent. At this level,
NHTSA is not persuaded that the noncompliance present in these magnetic
trailer lights is inconsequential to safety because of glare to other
drivers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Agency also notes that HFT's calculation for the
percent of exceedance was incorrect. The test report submitted by
HFT indicates that the worst-case photometric value corresponds to
579.81 cd at 13.5V after one minute for the stop lamp. HFT claimed
that the value, 579.81 cd, exceeded the standard by 27.6 percent.
NHTSA does not need to determine whether a device that exceeded the
standard by 27.6 percent would be an inconsequential noncompliance
for the purposes of ruling on this petition and declines to do so
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While HFT argues that NHTSA has previously granted
inconsequentiality petitions when the noncompliance is imperceptible or
nearly imperceptible to vehicle occupants or surrounding traffic, the
Agency considers each petition on its own merits. Again, NHTSA
determinations are highly fact dependent, and prior determinations do
not bind the agency to grant the petition at issue here. In particular,
the BMW decision notice cited by HFT, 82 FR
[[Page 35613]]
55484, does not appear relevant to this petition as it concerns a
failure to meet the illumination ratio requirement for license plate
lamps. HFT also contends, relying on language in DOT HS 808 209,
``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal
Lamp Intensities,'' that a 25 [percent] deviation from a lighting
requirement is imperceptible and thus inconsequential. We reject that
argument here, as we have in other recent decisions, because the study
does not apply to the noncompliances in question.\12\ Here, this study
is not applicable to the noncompliance concerning the zones/groups
requirements of paragraph S7.1.2.13, Table VII because the study did
not evaluate perception of zones or groups. Further, while HFT
mentioned that there is no increased risk of glare to approaching
drivers for the magnetic trailer lights, the study does not directly
address the risk/potential of glare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Weldon, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 6646 (February 4, 2022); see
also Mack Trucks, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 23017 (April 18, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is not persuaded by HFT's argument stating that their
products were ``designed to comply,'' \13\ NHTSA's Final Rule on ADB
noted that the ``designed to conform'' language was a product of the
technology available back in 1967, and that NHTSA may not come to the
same conclusion if it were to revisit the issue today in light of the
fact that lighting equipment design, technology, and manufacturing have
evolved and advanced since the late 1960s.\14\ Notwithstanding this,
due to the petitioner's lack of root cause analysis, NHTSA cannot
ascertain if the noncompliance was a result of poor design, technology,
or manufacturing of the subject lamps. In the subject case, the root
cause is perhaps moot as NHTSA observes that the petitioners' own data
appears to demonstrate that the subject lamps did not consistently
comply with the regulation. Therefore, NHTSA is not persuaded by the
petitioner's arguments that its products were designed to conform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ While HFT's petition uses the phrase, ``designed to
comply'' and the Final Rule on ADB uses the phrase, ``designed to
conform,'' both phrases are used interchangeably as seen in FMVSS
No. 108's regulatory text.
\14\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment, Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps,
87 FR 9916, 9940 n.92 February 22, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that HFT has
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, HFT's petition is hereby denied and HFT is consequently
obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for those
noncompliances under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 49 CFR part 556; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2026-11696 Filed 6-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 11, 2026.
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.