|
|---|
|
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: 27 September 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Tesla |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79358-79360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22181]
[[Page 79358]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0010; 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) 2012-2023 Model S, MY 2016-2024 Model X, MY 2017-2023 Model 3, MY
2019-2024 Model Y, and MY 2024 Cybertruck Tesla vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105,
Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, and FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle
Brake Systems. Tesla filed a noncompliance report dated January 30,
2024, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on February
23, 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 October 28, 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 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: Vince Williams, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-2319.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Tesla determined that certain MY 2012-2023 Model S, MY
2016-2024 Model X, MY 2017-2023 Model 3, MY 2019-2024 Model Y, and MY
2024 Cybertruck Tesla vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.3.5(a) of FMVSS No. 105 and paragraph S5.5.5(a) of FMVSS No.135, (49
CFR 571.105 and 135).
Tesla filed a noncompliance report (Recall 24V-051) dated January
30, 2024, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Subsequently, Tesla amended its Part 573
report on February 21, 2024, and in that report informed NHTSA of its
intent to file a petition for inconsequential noncompliance, as
provided by 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. On February 23, 2024, Tesla
filed its petition for inconsequential noncompliance and requesting an
exemption from the notice requirements in 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119 on
the basis that the noncompliance in Recall 24V-051 is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA is publishing this notice of receipt of Tesla's petition
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. The statements included in this notice
do not represent any agency decision or another exercise of judgment
concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 2,193,869 of the following
Tesla vehicles manufactured between June 1, 2012, and January 22, 2024,
were reported by the manufacturer:
MY 2012-2023 Tesla Model S
MY 2016-2024 Tesla Model X
MY 2017-2023 Tesla Model 3
MY 2019-2024 Tesla Model Y
MY 2024 Tesla Cybertruck
III. Noncompliance: Tesla explains that the letter font size of the
Brake, Park, and ABS visual warning indicators in the subject vehicles
does not meet the font height requirements of paragraph S5.3.5(a) of
FMVSS No. 105 and paragraph S5.5.5(a) of FMVSS No. 135. Specifically,
the font height on the affected vehicles is 1.5 mm while the minimum
font height requirement is 3.2 mm (\1/8\ inch).
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.3.5(a) of FMVSS No. 105 and
paragraph S5.5.5(a) of FMVSS No. 135 include the requirements relevant
to this petition. Paragraph S5.3.5(a) of FMVSS No. 105 requires each
indicator lamp to display word, words or abbreviation, in accordance
with the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 and/or S5.3.5, which must have
letters not less than \1/8\ inch high and be legible to the driver in
daylight when lighted. Words in addition to those required by FMVSS No.
101 and/or S5.3.5 and symbols may be provided for purposes of clarity.
Paragraph S5.5.5(a) of FMVSS No. 135 requires that each visual
indicator display a word or words in accordance with the requirements
of FMVSS No. 101 and S5.5.5, which must be legible to the driver under
all daytime and nighttime conditions when activated. In addition,
unless otherwise specified, the words must have letters not less than
3.2 mm (\1/8\ inch) high and the letters and background must be of
contrasting
[[Page 79359]]
colors, one of which is red. Words or symbols in addition to those
required by FMVSS No. 101 and S5.5.5 may be provided for purposes of
clarity.
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 states that the subject noncompliance was corrected in
vehicle production, and vehicles in the field were also remedied. Tesla
believes that ``[a]ny possible safety risk, however remote, has been
addressed.'' Tesla explains that the remedy involves increasing the
font size of the Brake, Park, and ABS visual warning indicators to a
minimum of 3.2 mm (\1/8\ inch), as required by FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS
No. 135. Additionally, the previous accompanying universal ISO symbols
were removed.
Tesla states that on January 23, 2024, a software release
correcting the subject noncompliance was introduced to the affected
Model S, X, 3, and Y in production. On January 24, 2024, the software
release correcting the noncompliance in the Cybertruck was introduced.
Tesla states that the subject vehicles already in the field received
the remedy as part of an over-the-air (OTA) software release for
installation. The remedy was deployed to certain vehicles on January
23, 2024, and to the remaining vehicles on February 2, 2024.
Tesla reports that as of February 20, 2024, 70 percent of all
subject vehicles in the field have installed the software correcting
the noncompliance and all later software releases will also include the
remedy. Tesla says that owners of any remaining affected vehicles that
are online and have connectivity would need to accept the installation
of the software release, or any later software release, on their
vehicle. Tesla explains that this can be done immediately via the
owner's Tesla smartphone application or on the vehicle user interface
touchscreen. However, Tesla contends that even if an owner does not
install the software release or any later version, the performance of
the vehicle's brake system and park function remains unaffected by the
subject noncompliance. According to Tesla, both systems continue to
operate safely and as designed. Tesla also states that while it
understands not dispositive in considering a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance, Tesla is not aware of any crashes,
injuries, or deaths that may be related to the noncompliance.
Tesla asserts that the Brake, Park, and ABS visual warning
indicators remain easily perceptible despite the subject noncompliance
because they are positioned prominently and dynamically within the
driver's direct field of vision on the instrument cluster alongside
other vehicle data and control displays. Tesla adds that they also
feature descriptive text and universal ISO symbols commonly used in
motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. The text in
the indicators is capitalized for improved visibility and readability
with compliant colors and contrast against the background. Tesla
believes that the functionality of these indicators remains unaffected
when wear or failure of the brake, park, and ABS systems is detected,
regardless of the letter font size. Tesla adds that owners of the
subject vehicles are familiar with the Brake, Park, and ABS visual
warning indicators, as they are self-explanatory and explained in the
owner's manual provided with the vehicle.
Tesla contends that NHTSA has established that its ``only
criteria'' in assessing a petition for a decision of inconsequential
noncompliance is determining if the noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety.\1\ Tesla states that if the noncompliance is found to be
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, ``then any perceived benefit
of notifying affected vehicle owners is not relevant to assessing the
merits of the petition.'' Tesla believes that because the subject
noncompliance has been remedied and there is no ``actual or theoretical
safety risk,'' the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to safety
and NHTSA should grant Tesla's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On page 5 of its petition, Tesla refers to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d), 49 CFR part 556.7, and Porsche Cars North America, Inc.,
Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 88
FR 61006 (Sept. 13, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Tesla argues that the subject noncompliance aligns with
the type of labeling noncompliance that NHTSA finds appropriate for a
determination of inconsequentiality.\2\ Tesla states that the following
NHTSA decisions on petitions for similar noncompliances support its
belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On page 5 of its petition, Tesla refers to a NHTSA's October
2, 2020, determination on a petition submitted by Porsche Cars North
America, Inc., in which Tesla quotes NHTSA as stating ``We note that
the noncompliance at issue concerns a failure to meet a performance
requirement. The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a
failure to comply with performance requirement in a standard--as
opposed to a labeling requirement--is more substantial and difficult
to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such
noncompliances inconsequential.'' (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 88 FR 61006 (Sept. 6, 2023). Tesla
states that in this case, NHTSA found that ``brake wear indicators that
do not meet the minimum lettering height requirements but that use
correct coloring and symbols and are prominently positioned with the
driver's direct field of vision do not have an adverse effect on
vehicle safety.''
2. General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 79 FR 9041 (Feb. 14, 2014). Tesla states
that NHTSA found ``that Park Brake indicators that are displayed using
ISO symbols instead of the symbols required by FMVSS No. 101 and FMVSS
No. 135 have no effect on brake performance, are illuminated as
required and are described in the owner's manual, and drivers recognize
and understand them.''
3. General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 92963 (December 20, 2016) Tesla
states that NHTSA found ``that park brake indicators that do not meet
the minimum letter height requirements as specified in FMVSS No. 135
are more pronounced by all capitalized letters and continue to be
legible, conspicuously located, and illuminated with a contrasting
background as required.''
Tesla argues that the subject noncompliance is similar to the
visual warning indicators at issue in these granted petitions because
they ``illuminate as required, are prominently positioned within the
driver's direct field of vision, and use universal ISO symbols that are
easily recognizable.'' Furthermore, Tesla asserts that ``while the text
of the indicators does not meet the minimum height requirements of
FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 135, the text is easily legible, since each
letter is capitalized and uniform in height, and the colors are
compliant and in contrast to the background of the text.''
Tesla adds that it is only petitioning for an exemption from the
notification requirements of 49 U.S.C 30118 and 30119 and not the
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C 30119 and 30120 because the subject
noncompliance has been remedied and the remedy is available for any
remaining affected vehicle owners to install. Tesla states that ``[a]s
specified in the Safety Act, the only factor that NHTSA may use to
evaluate
[[Page 79360]]
the merits of a petition for inconsequentiality is determining whether
the noncompliance itself is inconsequential to safety.'' Tesla states
this statute requires NHTSA to ``base its decision on the petition
squarely upon the inconsequential nature of the noncompliance. Any
perceived benefit of issuing Part 577 letters via first-class mail to
affected vehicle owners has no bearing on whether the noncompliance has
an impact on motor vehicle safety and is not relevant to assessing the
merits of this 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, 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. 2024-22181 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P