Tesla, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 26 July 2024 Subjects: American Government , Safety Topics: Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model Y

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60682-60684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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:
     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.
     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.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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 
https://www.regulations.gov 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