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
47730 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

1See Grant of Petition for Determination of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance; Hella, Inc. 55 FR 

37601, September 21, 1990. 

2See Driver perception of just-noticeable 

differences of automotive signal lamp intensities, 

Huey, R., Dekker, D. and Lyons, R. (1994); (Report 

No. DOT HS 808 209). 

3See General Motors Corporation; Grant of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance; 61 FR 1663, January 22, 1996. 

minimum and maximum photometric 

intensity requirements for tail lamps at 

specified test points. Table IX specifies 

the various minimum and maximum 

photometric intensity requirements for 

stop lamps at specified test points. 

V. Summary of HFT’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of HFT’s Petition,’’ are the views and 

arguments provided by HFT. They have 

not been evaluated by the Agency and 

do not reflect the views of the Agency. 

HFT describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, HFT 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. HFT contends that the subject 

trailer light kits deviate only by small 

margins at certain points and not by a 

degree that is sufficient enough to be 

noticeable to other road users or create 

an increased safety risk. 

2. HFT explains that the trailer light 

kits are combination lamps with turn 

signal, stop lamp and tail lamp 

functions and that use light emitting 

diodes (LEDs) as their light source. HFT 

explains that it engaged Calcoast to 

conduct comprehensive compliance 

monitoring of its trailer light products. 

In certain individual units, portions of 

the LEDs used in specific production 

batches have candela values that were 

either marginally below and/or were 

slightly above the luminous intensity 

output provided for in FMVSS No. 108. 

HFT states that the deviation from the 

photometry requirements is slight and 

all but one case falls within 25% of the 

required output. Thus, HFT claims, the 

actual performance of HFT’s lamps 

compared to compliant lamps would 

not be perceptible to the human eye and 

therefore would not create an enhanced 

risk to safety. A description of each of 

the products and associated test results 

from Calcost are set out below. 

a. Submersible LED Trailer Lights—Part 

Number 64274 

i. HFT’s submersible trailer light kit 

consists of a pair of replacement trailer 

lamps to be used on trailers less than 80 

inches in overall width. The LED lamps 

used in the kit, function as a 

combination lamp with three lighted 

sections. 

ii. In this case, a total of six tests were 

conducted on samples from the same 

production batch produced in calendar 

week 27. Four of the samples meet all 

of the FMVSS No. 108 requirements to 

which they were tested. Two individual 

test samples fell below the required 

candela values for turn signals and stop 

lamps only in Zone 3. 

iii. The minimum candela value for 

Zone 3 for a lamp with three lighted 

sections is 520 cd. For these two test 

samples, one sample measured 466.33 

cd in Zone 3 and the other sample 

measured 497.39 cd in Zone 3—a 

deviation of 4.5% and 10.4%, 

respectively. In each case, all of the 

individual test points that make up 

Zone 3 were at least 60% of the required 

candela value and in many cases, were 

more than 90% of the value for the 

individual test point. 

iv. Overall, HFT says that in each 

case, although Zone 3 fell below the 

minimum candela value, it nevertheless 

fulfilled 89.6%–95.6% of the 

requirement for the zone. In other 

words, the zone itself was only 10.4% 

and 4.4% lower than the minimum 

required candela value. In addition, 

none of the individual test points fell 

below 60% of the specified candela 

value for the test point. Because all of 

the test points within the zone are 

compliant, this accounts for the 

minimal effects on the photometric 

output of the zone overall. 

v. Further, HFT claims that the lamps 

met the photometric requirements for all 

other testing zones and met all other 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to 

which they were tested. 

b. Magnetic Trailer Light Kit—Part 

Number 64282 

i. The second product at issue is a 

12V magnetic LED trailer light kit each 

trailer light kit consists of a pair of 

lamps that are intended to be 

magnetically attached to the rear of a 

trailer and that are wired to the towing 

vehicle’s tail lamps. Each lamp is a 

combination lamp that functions as a 

turn signal, stop lamp and tail lamp 

with three lighted sections. 

ii. A total of 13 sets of lamps were 

tested for this product and the Calcoast 

test results indicate that individual 

units within two separate production 

batches (calendar week 46 and calendar 

week 52) had individual test units that 

did not meet the photometry 

requirements for stop lamps, turn 

signals and tail lamps. 

iii. For this product, the 

noncompliance occurred at certain 

individual test points, not at the zone 

level. HFT states that the lamps met the 

photometric requirements at all other 

test points and met all other 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to 

which they were tested. 

iv. For the magnetic trailer light kit 

produced in calendar week 46, two 

samples measured slightly higher 

candela values for a single test point 

when evaluated under the photometric 

intensity values for turn signals and 

stop lamps. Where the maximum 

candela value is 420 cd, in one sample 

a single test point (1.0U/0.7R) measured 

579.81 cd after one minute (an 

exceedance of 27.6%)5 and in the other 

sample a single test point (0.7D/0.3L) 

measured 426.87 cd after one minute 

(an exceedance of 1.7%). However, HFT 

claims, the overall photometric 

requirements for all of the test zones 

were met. 

v. In addition, there were slight 

exceedances of the tail lamp photometry 

provisions. In one sample, a single test 

point slightly exceeded the tail lamp 

maximum output of 25 candelas, where 

one sample measured 25.7 cd at the H– 

V point and in another sample a single 

test point (at 1.0U/0.9R) measured 31.87 

cd. This is a range of 2.7%–21.5% above 

the maximum candela value. All of the 

overall photometric requirements for 

each of the zones were met. 

vi. Separately, a batch of magnetic 

trailer light kits produced in week 52 

was evaluated. In that case, one 

exemplar unit had a single test point 

(0.5D/1.3L) that measured 440 cd after 

one minute, an exceedance of 4.6% and 

above the 420 cd maximum value for 

any test point. Again, all of the overall 

photometric requirements for each of 

the zones were met. 

vii. Further, HFT states, for the 

magnetic trailer light kits there is no 

increased risk of glare to oncoming 

motorists because the photometric 

exceedances are minimal and in all 

cases, below the threshold metric of 

25% so that the differences are not 

perceptible to other drivers.1

3. HFT says that historically, NHTSA 

has granted inconsequentiality petitions 

when the noncompliance is 

imperceptible or nearly imperceptible to 

vehicle occupants or surrounding 

traffic. HFT states that when the 

photometric intensity level is within 

25% above or below the boundary limit, 

the difference in the light being emitted 

is typically not perceptible to other 

drivers. This objective metric has been 

applied to various types of lighting 

sources, including turn signal lighting.2

NHTSA has also applied this reasoning 

to noncompliances with particular 

zones, not just individual test points.3


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47731 

4HFT’s petition and the attachments can be 

found in full 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. 

5See General Motors Corporation; Grant of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance; 61 FR 1663, January 22, 1996; see 

also BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 82 

FR 55484, November 21, 2017. 

6See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 

Equipment; 83 FR 51766, October 12, 2018. 

In each of the samples, HFT states that 

the deviation is well within 25% of the 

required values. The plot diagram at 

Attachment 7 4 provides a visual 

depiction of the relationship between 

the two outlier values to the 520 cd 

minimum for the Zone 3 test results for 

the submersible trailer light kits tested 

by Calcoast. The plot diagram at 

Attachment 8 gives a visual depiction of 

the relationship between the outlier 

values and the photometric 

requirements for the magnetic trailer 

light kits. 

4. HFT states that an alternative basis 

on which to grant the petition is the 

performance exceedances of each of the 

other surrounding zones. Zones 1, 2, 4 

and 5 all exceeded the minimum 

candela value for their respective zone 

by wide margins (e.g. from a range of 

27%–44% higher than the minimum 

candela value for the zone for one 

sample and 26%–37% higher than the 

minimum candela value for each zone 

for the other sample). Thus, HFT claims 

the minor discrepancy in one zone is 

offset by the substantial (and compliant) 

exceedances in the remaining zones. 

Taking the performance of the lamp as 

a whole, and because drivers view the 

output of lamps as a whole rather than 

at individual points within the lamp, 

the additional light from the other zones 

would compensate for the deviation in 

Zone 3. HFT states that this rationale is 

consistent with the agency’s findings in 

other similar petitions which concluded 

that enhanced photometric values in 

other areas of the same lamp could 

effectively minimize a minor deviation 

in one portion of the lamp.5

5. Separately, HFT also states that 

NHTSA has recognized the inherent 

challenges to manufacture all lamps so 

that each and every test point within the 

lamp meets the minimum criteria. HFT 

claims that is the case here. When HFT 

commissioned Calcoast to review and 

confirm the performance of these 

lighting products, it tested a total of 24 

sets of lamps produced over a seven 

month/year period. Of that universe, 

there were just two samples of 

submersible trailer light kits that had 

slightly reduced photometric values and 

three samples of the magnetic trailer 

light kit that experienced minimal 

exceedances. HFT claims that this 

indicates that the LED lamps were in 

fact designed to comply with FMVSS 

No. 108 and that the results of the 

monitoring testing indicate an isolated 

number of random failures, not a 

systemic lapse in production processes. 

NHTSA has stated that it will not 

consider a lamp to be noncompliant if 

its failure to meet a test point is random 

and occasional.6 Thus, historically, 

there has never been an absolute 

requirement that every motor vehicle 

lighting device meet every single 

photometric test point to comply with 

FMVSS No. 108. 

6. Finally, HFT has reviewed its 

systems and has not received any 

reports or complaints about the levels of 

brightness for these trailer lighting kits. 

The lack of reports or indications that 

the subject trailer lights are either too 

bright or too dim supports the 

conclusion that the condition is 

undetectable to road users such as 

drivers following a vehicle equipped 

with either of the lighting products. 

HFT is providing copies of the relevant 

Calcoast test reports with this petition at 

Attachment 2 for the submersible trailer 

light kits and at Attachments 3 and 4 for 

the magnetic trailer light kits. 

HFT concludes that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety and that 

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. 

HFT’s complete petition and all 

supporting documents are available by 

logging onto the FDMS website at 

https://www.regulations.gov and by 

following the online search instructions 

to locate the docket number as listed in 

the title of this notice. 

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 equipment that HFT no 

longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. However, any decision on this 

petition does not relieve equipment 

distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, 

or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant equipment under 

their control after HFT 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. 2021–18355 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; American Honda Motor Co., 

Inc. 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s 

(Honda) petition for exemption from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard (theft prevention standard) for 

its Acura RDX vehicle line beginning in 

model year (MY) 2022. The petition is 

granted because the agency has 

determined that the antitheft device to 

be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2022 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 

W43–439, NRM–310, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366– 

5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 

U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary of 

Transportation (and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) by delegation) is required to 

promulgate a theft prevention standard 

to provide for the identification of 

certain motor vehicles and their major 

replacement parts to impede motor 

vehicle theft. NHTSA promulgated 

regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft 

prevention standard) to require partsVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Aug 25, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM 26AUN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES