[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44961-44964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-14506]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0019; Notice 2]
Tesla, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2017-2023 Tesla Model 3 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 the denial of Tesla'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: Tesla determined that certain MY 2017-2023 Tesla Model
3 and MY 2020-2023 Tesla Model Y motor vehicles 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.
Notice of receipt of Tesla's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 26, 2024, in the Federal Register (89 FR
60682). Two comments were received. To view the petition, the comments,
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System
[[Page 44962]]
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2024-0019.''
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 allowed in the 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R
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 do not comply
with the photometric requirements 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 and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R 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 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 in the 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U and
90[deg]L to 90[deg]R 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 and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R zone, exceeding the maximum
photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that 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 and
90[deg]L to 90[deg]R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the
allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, 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 and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R zone is
positioned off the roadway both horizontally and vertically, keeping it
outside of the driver's or 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
condition.
Tesla's petition provides a plan, side, and orthogonal view (Figure
1) of the emitted light exceeding 125 cd overlaid onto the 10[deg]U to
90[deg]U and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R zone. The noncompliant area falls in
the 30[deg] inboard and 20[deg] upward area of the zone respectively
for both the left-hand headlamp and 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 and
90[deg]L to 90[deg]R zone to demonstrate how the subject noncompliance
affects the roadway from the view of the driver of the subject vehicle.
The simulation in Figure 2 shows that the left-hand headlamp exceeds
the maximum 125 cd 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 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 and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R zone
does not affect the driver of the subject vehicle because its high and
outboard position falls outside the driver's line of vision.\1\
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 away from the roadway. Therefore, Tesla argues that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refer to Figure 1 of the petition for a visual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 3, 2024, Tesla amended its petition to provide details of
the low beam testing it 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. Specifically, 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 and
90[deg]L to 90[deg]R 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 for
adaptive driving beam photometry as detailed in Table XXI of 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 or other road users would not experience glare or distraction
from them.
Tesla, in its 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 has not found any complaints or reports of accidents or
injuries related to this noncompliance in its records or NHTSA Vehicle
Owner Questionnaires. Tesla also adds that it is not aware of any
complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the subject
noncompliance.
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 glaring headlamps, and no accidents or
injuries have been attributed to the subject headlamps.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See North American Subaru, Inc., Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 48764, August 10,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla distinguishes its petition from a 2022 petition denial to
General Motors, LLC, (GM) in which Tesla claims GM argued that certain
noncompliant replaceable bulb lower beam headlamps exceeding the
photometry requirements
[[Page 44963]]
of S10.15.6 and Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108 were inconsequential to
motor vehicles safety.\3\ While Tesla's noncompliant lamps are an
integral beam headlamp, integral beam headlamps follow similar
photometry requirements to GM's replaceable bulb headlamps. Tesla
explains that GM could not demonstrate that the noncompliant headlamps,
which measured 450-470 cd and exceeded the photometric maximum 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-protocol 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 or other road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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.
VI. Public Comments: NHTSA received two comments regarding Tesla's
petition. The first commenter expressed concern that the subject
vehicles are equipped with lower beam headlamps that produce
significant glare, causing lingering spots in their vision after
exposure. The commenter further noted that these vehicles are prevalent
in their area and requested relief from the excessive glare.
The second commenter expressed the belief that the manufacturer did
not successfully demonstrate that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The commenter stated that the
arguments and data provided in the petition are ``not relevant,
incomplete and unconvincing.'' The commenter provided their own views,
and arguments to support their belief that Tesla's petition should be
denied. First, the commenter stated that Tesla underestimates the
severity or maximum candela of the subject noncompliance. The commenter
stated that the data Tesla provides regarding the testing of 25 sets of
affected headlamps does not support its conclusion that the maximum
photometric intensity is 230.1 cd because there is nearly a 100 percent
defect rate in the 25 sets of headlamps and the sample population size
is relatively small. The commenter elaborated that the mean and
standard deviation of the sample population are not reported in Tesla's
petition and if that data were reported then statistical process
capability estimates could be made of the affected population, and it
would be clear that 230.1 is not the maximum photometric intensity of
the subject noncompliance in the overall population.
Second, the commenter stated that Tesla's arguments concerning the
subject noncompliance occurring outside the driver and other road
users' line of vision are not relevant because the purpose of the 10
degrees up to 90 degrees up and 90 degrees left to 90 degrees right
test points is not to prevent direct line of vision glare. The
commenter pointed out that the purpose of these test points is to
prevent veiling glare or back scatter of light to the driver in adverse
weather conditions such as rain, fog, snow, and smog. The commenter
noted that Tesla does not provide test data on the subject
noncompliance's impact in these adverse weather conditions.
Next, the commenter stated that the ADB testing and conclusions are
most relevant but are ``misleading and incomplete.'' The commenter
stated that the purpose of the ADB maximum illumination values provided
in Table XXI of FMVSS No. 108 is to evaluate direct glare light, not
veiling glare light; further, the photometric intensity limits and
illumination detector positions were not designed to detect veiling
glare nor direct glare in the region of the 10 degrees up to 90 degrees
up and 90 degrees left to 90 degrees right test points relevant to this
petition. The commenter noted that Tesla's argument is also
unpersuasive because only the first of eight (8) total scenarios
provided in FMVSS No. 108 was tested, and, even without considering the
ADB illumination detector vertical and horizontal angular limitations,
if all scenarios had been tested, the other curve scenarios may have
been more severe than the one tested because that one represents a
straight road. The commenter asserted that, therefore, Tesla's ADB
argument is incomplete.
Last, the commenter stated that even without consumer complaints or
reports of accidents or injuries related to the subject noncompliance,
the impact of real-world direct and veiling glare is a given because of
the nature of higher intensity light above the horizon exceeding
regulatory limits. The commenter pointed out that there are too many
contributors to real-world glare for cause and effect to be assigned,
and these glare instances mainly occur at night when road users would
likely look away and not try to identify the make, model, and year of
the vehicle or find the specific cause and whether it came from glare
test point maximum exceedance, misaim, road surface pitch, vehicle
loading, etc. The commenter stated that observations would fall under
the same common NHTSA consumer complaint umbrella of ``too much
headlamp glare.''
VII. NHTSA's Analysis: In determining inconsequentiality of a
noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise
protect.\4\ 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 will not be safety issues in the future.\5\ Complaints are
typically submitted to NHTSA via a form \6\ or verbal report to the
NHTSA vehicle safety hotline \7\ and those complaints are published on
the NHTSA website.\8\ While no reports of glare associated with the
subject vehicles were received via a form or verbal report to the NHTSA
vehicle safety hotline prior to the comment period, NHTSA did receive
one comment from the public during the comment period stating that they
have experienced glare from what the Agency believes to be the subject
vehicle(s). NHTSA considers this comment as a customer complaint as it
relates to this petition. NHTSA received one other comment from the
public, and
[[Page 44964]]
NHTSA concurs with the commenter's points as it relates to this
petition. Specifically, NHTSA agrees with the commenter's analysis of
Tesla's arguments as described in this decision notice. In addition,
NHTSA has previously received and ruled on a petition requesting NHTSA
to issue an order of noncompliance related to headlamp glare in MY 2021
Tesla Model 3 vehicles, among others.\9\ While NHTSA disagreed with the
petitioner's argument that LED headlamps are de facto noncompliant with
FMVSS No. 108, the petition nonetheless complained of excessive glare
from MY 2021 Tesla Model 3 vehicles. 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. In this instance,
Tesla determined that there was in fact a noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
\5\ 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'').
\6\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem.
\7\ NHTSA Vehicle Safety Hotline 888-327-4236.
\8\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls.
\9\ See Soft Lights Foundation, Denial of Petition for Decision
of Non-Compliance Order; 87 FR 75327, December 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA disagrees with Tesla's conclusion that there is no increased
risk of glare for surrounding traffic or the driver of the subject
vehicle in any driving conditions. NHTSA believes, as previously stated
in the GM petition also referenced by Tesla, that the purpose of having
a maximum of 125 cd at test points 10 degrees up to 90 degrees up and
90 degrees left to 90 degrees right is to reduce the presence of glare
and veiling glare \10\ from oncoming or surrounding vehicles. Certain
weather conditions such as rain, snow, and fog could result in light
from the noncompliant lamps causing veiling glare to the driver or
other road users driving in the proximity of the vehicle having the
noncompliant lamp(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Veiling glare or veiling reflection is defined by the
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) to be a regular (specular)
reflection, superimposed on diffuse reflection from an object, that
partially or totally obscures the details to be seen by reducing the
contrast. This sometimes is called reflected glare. Another kind of
veiling reflection occurs when one looks through a pane of glass. A
reflected image of a bright element or surface may be seen
superimposed on what is viewed through the glass pane. https://www.ies.org/definitions/veiling-reflection/. Accessed 14 November
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA finds that the subject petition is similar to GM's petition,
in that in both cases, the noncompliance exceeded the maximum
requirement in the zone bounded by 10 degrees up to 90 degrees up and
90 degrees left to 90 degrees right. Regardless of the difference in
amount of exceedance and different locations in the 10 degrees up to 90
degrees up and 90 degrees left to 90 degrees right zone, Tesla has not
provided any argument, evidence, or justification that indicates the
subject noncompliance would not cause veiling glare to the driver or
other road users as mentioned previously.
NHTSA does not believe the additional ADB-protocol testing
conducted by Tesla indicates that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety and does not create glare for the driver or
other road users. The additional ADB-protocol testing only considers
glare directed at other road users in a single scenario with ideal
driving conditions where the sky is clear and the road is dry. This
additional testing is, therefore, insufficient to persuade the Agency
that the subject noncompliance will not cause glare to other drivers or
road users during adverse weather conditions such as rain, snow, and
fog. Regardless, the ADB-protocol testing conditions \11\ are not
intended to evaluate glare as a result of the subject noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In addition to the track testing required for ADB lamps,
the standard also requires ADB lamps to meet laboratory test
requirements as specified in S9.4.1.6.4.3 of FMVSS No. 108 which the
subject lamp fails to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Tesla's petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is
consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2026-14506 Filed 7-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P