47726 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

9Frank Savino (2020, October). Child restraint 

system, component parts: Model No.: Combi 

Babyride (Report No. 4642921–018). National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 10 70 FR 37731 (June 30, 2005) 11 71 FR 32855 (June 7, 2006) 

12Frank Savino (2005, June). Child restraint 

system, component parts: Model No.: Combi—Baby 

One (Report No. 206827–08). National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

or NHTSA. In NHTSA’s compliance 

tests of the Combi BabyRide 25-mmwide webbing for new webbing breaking 

strength, three samples were tested and 

each sample failed to meet the 

minimum requirement of 11,000 N.9

Combi submitted test data for a single 

sample of the 25-mm-wide webbing 

measuring 9,278 N initial breaking 

strength, also less than the required 

minimum value of 11,000 N and 

consistent with their submitted 2016– 

2019 production data which measured 

between 9,600 N and 9,900 N. 

Combi also submitted test data for two 

samples of the 25-mm-wide webbing 

after being subjected to abrasion and 

referenced a 98.8 percent retention of 

the original breaking strength in 

NHTSA’s testing of the 25-mm-wide 

webbing after exposure to light. The 

Agency is not opining on the 

compliance of these results as they are 

not germane to the subject 

noncompliance, thus not dispositive of 

the inconsequentiality analysis. 

Combi believes that the initial 

minimum breaking strength of 11,000 N 

is much higher than the strength needed 

for a rear-facing car seat like the 

BabyRide, even when occupied by a 

child at the maximum weight, and that 

the 25-mm-wide webbing used in the 

BabyRide exceeds the forces applied in 

a crash. FMVSS No. 213 requires an 

absolute minimum initial breaking 

strength for new webbing to provide a 

margin of safety for use throughout the 

life of a child restraint. In the Agency’s 

analysis in determining a minimum 

breaking strength requirement for new 

webbing, published in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 10 and 

subsequent Final Rule,11 NHTSA 

examined harness webbing compliance 

data for 109 child restraint systems 

collected from 2000 to 2002. That 

compliance data showed that 92 percent 

(100 out of 109) of the harness webbing 

complied with the proposed 11,000 N 

minimum breaking strength 

requirement. In Dorel Juvenile Group; 

Denial of Appeal of Decision on 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 

510 (January 5, 2010) (NHTSA–2008– 

0132) (and decisions cited therein), the 

Agency explained that an 

inconsequentiality petition is not the 

appropriate means to challenge the 

methodology of a specific test and/or 

stringency of a performance requirement 

in a FMVSS. The appropriate venue for 

such arguments is to comment during 

the proposal phase or as a petition for 

rulemaking to amend a current safety 

standard. During the 2005–2006 

proposal and final rulemaking phases 

for the new webbing strength 

requirement, NHTSA published a report 

showing test results for the Combi Baby 

One dated June 10, 2005.12 In that report 

the median new webbing strength of the 

adjuster webbing was 9,207 N 

(converted from 2,070 lbs.). Despite this, 

Combi neither commented on the NPRM 

nor petitioned for reconsideration of the 

final rule with respect to FMVSS No. 

213 paragraph S5.4.1.2(a). 

NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Combi has not 

met its burden of persuasion that the 

subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. Accordingly, Combi’s petition is 

hereby denied, and Combi 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) 

Joseph Kolly, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18356 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0077; Notice 2] 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, 

Denial of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of petition denial. 

SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber 

Company (Cooper Tire) has determined 

that certain Cooper brand tires do not 

fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for 

Light Vehicles. Cooper Tire filed a 

noncompliance report dated May 4, 

2018, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on May 21, 2018, for a decision 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the denial of Cooper Tire’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 

366–5310, facsimile (202) 366–3081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Cooper Tire has determined that 

certain Cooper brand tires do not fully 

comply with paragraph S5.5.1 of 

FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial 

Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR part 

571.139). Cooper Tire filed a 

noncompliance report dated May 4, 

2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports, and 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 

21, 2018, 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 49 

CFR part 556, Exemption for 

Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of Cooper Tire’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on December 6, 

2018, in the Federal Register (83 FR 

62949). No comments were received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents, log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2018– 

0077.’’ 

II. Tires Involved 

Approximately 327 Evolution H/T 

size 245/70R16 tubeless radial tires, 

manufactured between June 4, 2017, 

and June 10, 2017, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

Cooper Tire explains that the 

noncompliance is that the subject tires 

were molded with an incorrectly 

ordered serial week and year on the 

outboard sidewall. This date is required 

by paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 

139. Specifically, the subject tires were 

manufactured with serial week ‘‘1723’’ 

when they should have been 

manufactured with serial week ‘‘2317.’’ 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 

139, includes the requirements relevant 

to this petition: 

• For tires manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2009, each tire must be 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47727 

labeled with the tire identification 

number required by 49 CFR part 574 on 

the intended outboard sidewall of the 

tire. 

• Except for retreaded tires, if a tire 

does not have an intended outboard 

sidewall, the tire must be labeled with 

the tire identification number required 

by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and 

with either the tire identification 

number or a partial tire identification 

number, containing all characters in the 

tire identification number except for the 

date code and, at the discretion of the 

manufacturer, any optional code, on the 

other sidewall. 

V. Summary of Petition 

Cooper Tire described the subject 

noncompliance and contended that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, Cooper Tire 

submitted the following: 

1. While the 327 tires in the subject 

population contain an incorrectly 

ordered week and year for the fourth 

grouping of Tire Identification Number’s 

(TIN), they are in all other respects 

properly labeled and meet all 

performance requirements under the 

FMVSSs. The serial week of 

manufacture has no bearing on the 

performance or operation of a tire and 

does not create a safety concern to either 

the operator of the vehicle on which the 

tires are mounted, or the safety of 

personnel in the tire repair, retread, and 

recycling industry. 

2. Tire registration and traceability 

will not be interrupted. Cooper Tire’s 

internally controlled online registration 

system has been modified to be able to 

accept the incorrectly ordered 1723 date 

code. Any tires registered with that date 

code and TIN will be identified properly 

as having been manufactured in the 

23rd week of 2017. This will ensure that 

Cooper Tire is able to identify these tires 

in the event they must be recalled. If a 

recall is necessary, Cooper Tire will 

explain the date issue in any recall 

notice. 

3. Cooper Tire can also confirm that 

it will not use the same full TIN in year 

2023. Cooper Tire uses the third 

grouping of numbers within the TIN to 

identify the SKU or make of the tire, as 

is permitted at the option of the 

manufacturer under the regulations. See 

49 CFR 574.5(g)(3). In this case, lJ9 is 

the third grouping, which indicates that 

this tire is a Cooper Evolution H/T. 

While Cooper Tire has not yet set its 

year 2023 production schedule, if 

Cooper Evolution H/T tires are made in 

year 2023, Cooper Tire will assign 

another unique identifier so that the 

tires made in year 2017 will be 

distinguishable from the tires made in 

year 2023. This will eliminate the 

potential for SKUs produced in year 

2017 to be confused with those 

produced in year 2023 and will allow 

for Cooper Tire to readily identify the 

327 tires that are the subject of this 

petition. However, this will not be 

obvious to any consumer. Therefore, 

there is a risk a consumer could buy an 

aged tire assuming it is a new tire. 

4. NHTSA has granted a number of 

previous inconsequentiality petitions 

relating to mislabeled TINs, provided 

that the mislabeling does not affect the 

manufacturer’s ability to identify the 

tires. ‘‘The purpose of the date code is 

to identify a tire so that, if necessary, the 

appropriate action can be taken in the 

interest of public safety such as a safety 

recall notice.’’ See Bridgestone/ 

Firestone, Inc.; Grant of Application, 64 

FR 29080 (May 28, 1999); and Cooper 

Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of 

Application, 68 FR 16115 (April 2, 

2003). Accordingly, NHTSA has 

explained in multiple instances that 

‘‘[t]he agency believes that the true 

measure of inconsequentiality to motor 

vehicle safety, in this case, is the effect 

of the noncompliance on the ability of 

the tire manufacturer to identify the 

tires in the event of a recall.’’ 

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Grant of 

Application, 66 FR 45076 (August 27, 

2001). As a result, NHTSA has granted 

petitions and found that TIN 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

safety in cases where the TIN is out of 

sequence or mislabeled, including 

where the week and/or year of 

manufacture is mislabeled and even 

where the date code is missing 

altogether. See, e.g., Bridgestone 

Firestone North America Tire, LLC, 

Grant of Petition, 71 FR 4396 (January 

26, 2006) (granting petition where date 

code was missing because manufacturer 

could still identify and recall the tires); 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant 

of Application, 68 FR 16115 (April 2, 

2003) (granting petition where tires 

were labeled with wrong plant code, 

because ‘‘the tires have a unique DOT 

identification’’); Bridgestone/Firestone, 

Inc., Grant of Application, 66 FR 45076 

(Aug. 27, 2001) (granting petition where 

the date code was labeled incorrectly, 

because ‘‘the information included on 

the tire identification label and the 

manufacturer’s tire production records 

is sufficient to ensure that these tires 

can be identified in the event of a 

recall’’); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.; 

Grant of Application, 64 FR 29080 (May 

28, 1999) (granting petition where the 

wrong year was marked in the date code 

on the tires); Cooper Tire & Rubber 

Company; Grant of Application, 63 FR 

29059 (May 27, 1998) (granting petition 

where the date code was missing where 

tires had a unique TIN for recall 

purposes); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.; 

Grant of Application, 60 FR 57617 

(November 16, 1995) (granting petition 

where the date code was out of 

sequence); Uniroyal Goodrich Tire 

Company; Grant of Petition, 59 FR 

64232 (December 13, 1994) (granting 

petition where week and year were 

mislabeled on tires). As with other cases 

in which NHTSA has granted petitions 

for a determination of inconsequential 

noncompliance, Cooper Tire will be 

able to identify the tires that are the 

subject of this petition in the event of a 

recall. As described above, these tires 

will have a unique DOT identifier that 

will allow for Cooper Tire to identify 

and recall them in the event that any 

issues arise in the future. 

5. Cooper Tire has taken steps over 

the last two years to add additional 

checks in its processes to prevent TIN 

errors. For example, Cooper Tire has 

implemented software that allows for a 

specific plant to choose only its plant 

code from a drop-down menu when 

engraving that portion of the TIN. Date 

codes are updated on a weekly basis and 

often produced in advance of the serial 

week. The serial week and year are 

manually entered into the system and 

then engraved on a plug for use. Cooper 

Tire is working to prevent future issues 

and evaluating the possibility of 

additional technology which will 

restrict the selection of date codes to a 

contained period of time. Cooper Tire is 

also reviewing its inspection processes 

to ensure that errors of this sort are 

identified earlier in the process. 

Cooper Tire concluded that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety and that its petition to be 

exempted from providing notification 

and a remedy for the noncompliance, as 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30118–20, should 

be granted. Lastly, Cooper Tire informed 

the Agency that there are no warranty 

adjustments, personal injury claims, or 

property damage claims related to the 

subject noncompliance. 

VI. NHTSA’s Analysis 

An important issue to consider in 

determining inconsequentiality is the 

safety risk to individuals who 

experience the type of event against 

which the recall would otherwise 

protect. In general, NHTSA does not 

consider the absence of complaints or 

injuries to show that the issue is 

inconsequential to safety. ‘‘Most 

importantly, the absence of a complaint 

does not mean there have not been any 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47728 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

1https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/tires 

(‘‘Should I replace my tires?’’). 

2See http://us.coopertire.com/safety/ 

replacement-guide/tire-service-life (last accessed 

May 26, 2021). 

safety issues, nor does it mean that there 

will not be safety issues in the future.’’ 

‘‘[T]he fact that in past reported cases 

good luck and swift reaction have 

prevented many serious injuries does 

not mean that good luck will continue 

to work.’’ 

Arguments that only a small number 

of vehicles or items of motor vehicle 

equipment are affected have also not 

justified granting an inconsequentiality 

petition. Similarly, NHTSA has rejected 

petitions based on the assertion that 

only a small percentage of vehicles or 

items of equipment are likely to actually 

exhibit a noncompliance. The 

percentage of potential occupants that 

could be adversely affected by a 

noncompliance does not determine the 

question of inconsequentiality. Rather, 

the issue to consider is the consequence 

to an occupant who is exposed to the 

consequence of that noncompliance. 

NHTSA has reviewed Cooper Tire’s 

statements on which it bases its belief 

that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

In this case, the subject tires were 

molded with an incorrectly ordered date 

code on the outboard sidewall. 

NHTSA’s decision considered the 

following arguments: 

1. Markings—On NHTSA’s website, 

the guidance for replacing a tire states 

the following: ‘‘As tires age, they are 

more prone to failure. Some vehicle and 

tire manufacturers recommend 

replacing tires that are six to 10 years 

old regardless of treadwear.’’ 1 In the 

case of the subject tires, the future 

erroneous date code ‘‘1723’’ may 

mislead a consumer about the age of the 

tire during its usage and lifetime. 

The subject tires labeled with the 

incorrect date code ‘‘1723’’ instead of 

the correct date code ‘‘2317’’ may 

confuse consumers because it means the 

tires were made in the 17th week of year 

2023. After the 17th week of year 2023, 

consumers may believe the date code is 

correct. An incorrect date code may 

affect a consumer’s behavior, if the 

consumer believes that the tires are new 

instead of six years old. 

In addition, tire dealers may store 

tires for multiple years before selling 

them. A customer who purchases tires 

with this type of labeling error may 

incorrectly believe the tire is not as old 

as it is and may not replace the tire, 

based on the manufacturer’s 

recommendation for replacing tires due 

to age. For example, Cooper Tire 

recommends that all tires be replaced if 

10 or more years has passed since the 

date of manufacture.2

2. Performance—Cooper Tire stated 

that the subject tires, in all other 

respects, are properly labeled and meet 

all performance requirements. Cooper 

Tire also stated that the date code has 

no bearing on the performance or 

operation of the tires. Cooper Tire 

further argued that the subject 

noncompliance does not pose a safety 

concern to either the operator, the 

vehicle on which the tires are mounted, 

or the safety of personnel in the tire 

repair, retread, and recycling industry. 

NHTSA does not find the arguments 

persuasive. The fact that a new tire 

meets all other minimum performance 

requirements fails to limit the potential 

risk from using a tire beyond the 

manufacturer’s recommended maximum 

service life; thus, this labeling issue has 

potential performance implications. 

3. Other petitions—In its petition, 

Cooper Tire cited a number of 

inconsequentiality petitions relating to 

TINs that the Agency previously 

granted. The Agency believes the facts 

of the petitions cited are sufficiently 

different and do not support granting 

the subject petition. The decision notice 

published at 64 FR 29080 (May 28, 

1999) concerned a tire with an 

incorrectly labeled date code (one year 

past the actual date of production 

instead of six years as in the subject 

tires). The consequence of a consumer 

relying on the incorrect date was 

determined to be inconsequential under 

those circumstances. 

The decision notice published at 71 

FR 4396 (Jan 26, 2006), concerned a 

missing date code. It is distinguished 

from the subject case because it does not 

point to a future production date, and 

therefore, does not mislead consumers 

by providing an incorrect date six years 

into the future. In the decision notice 

published at 60 FR 57617 (Nov 16, 

1995) the date code was correct but 

misplaced. In the Bridgestone/Firestone 

case, 66 FR 45076 (August 27, 2001), the 

date code related to only one year of 

future production in the mislabeling. In 

the prior Cooper Tire case, 68 FR 16115 

(April 2, 2003), the noncompliance was 

irrelevant as it referred to the 

mislabeling of the plant code and not 

the date code, which is the concern in 

the subject tires. The other prior Cooper 

Tire case cited, 63 FR 29059 (May 27, 

1998), is also irrelevant, as it relates to 

mislabeling of the plant code and a 

missing date code. In that Cooper Tire 

case, the missing date code did not 

mislead consumers about the age of the 

tire. 

The Agency considers the Uniroyal 

Goodrich petition, 59 FR 1994 

(December 13, 1994), relevant to the 

petition being considered because the 

mislabeling of the date code is similar 

to the subject Cooper Tire 

noncompliance. However, the Uniroyal 

Goodrich petition was granted in 1994. 

Since then, the Agency’s understanding 

of the negative safety consequences of 

tire aging has evolved. NHTSA now 

recommends that tires be replaced, 

regardless of their service conditions or 

useful tread life, based on the 

manufacturer’s recommended maximum 

service life. NHTSA finds that such a 

mislabeling is not inconsequential to 

safety when the mislabeling has the 

potential to allow a tire to remain in 

service significantly beyond the 

manufacturer’s recommended maximum 

service life by six years. 

4. Other considerations—The Agency 

recognizes that Cooper Tire has taken 

measures to allow customers to register 

their tires with an incorrectly ordered 

date code. NHTSA agrees that this will 

help enable Cooper Tire to identify 

consumers who have purchased and 

registered the affected tires. However, 

this does not, in NHTSA’s view, negate 

the safety risk caused by the incorrect 

date code as tires may not be registered 

or may change hands subsequent to 

registration. 

5. Claims—While Cooper Tire noted 

that there are no claims for property 

damage or crashes reported for the 

subject tires, this is not persuasive as 

the noncompliance likely only poses 

risk in the future. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that Cooper Tire has not 

met its burden of persuasion of 

establishing that the subject FMVSS No. 

139 noncompliance in the affected tires 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. The mislabeled date code present 

in this case presents an obvious risk that 

the tires may be used or perhaps sold 

well after they have aged to the point 

where they cannot be safely used. 

Accordingly, Cooper Tire’s petition is 

hereby denied. Cooper Tire is obligated 

to provide notification of, and a free 

remedy for, the noncompliance under 

49 U.S.C. 30118 through 30120. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47729 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118–30120: 

Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Joseph Kolly, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18354 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0115; Notice 1] 

Harbor Freight Tools, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Harbor Freight Tools (HFT) 

has determined that certain Kenway 

12V Magnetic Towing Light Kits and 

Submersible LED Trailer Lights 

manufactured by Jinhua Eagle King 

Tools Co., Ltd. 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 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. This 

notice announces receipt of HFT’s 

petition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

September 27, 2021. 

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 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 

docket. 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 

HFT has determined that certain 

Kenway 12V Magnetic LED Towing 

Light Kits and 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). 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 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 HFT’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any Agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Equipment Involved 

Jinhua Eagle King Tools Co., Ltd 

manufactured the Kenway 12V 

Magnetic LED Towing Light Kits 

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. Noncompliance 

HFT explains that the noncompliance 

is that the subject trailer lighting kits are 

equipped with turn signal, stop lamp, 

and tail lamps that exceeds the 

maximum and/or minimum 

photometric intensity output 

requirements, as required by FMVSS 

No. 108. 

IV. 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 tail lamp 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES