[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:
    <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 https://www.regulations.gov/. 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 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:
<bullet> MY 2012-2023 Tesla Model S
<bullet> MY 2016-2024 Tesla Model X
<bullet> MY 2017-2023 Tesla Model 3
<bullet> MY 2019-2024 Tesla Model Y
<bullet> 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