Harbor Freight Tools, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 47729-47731 [2021-18355]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47729-47731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18355]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 47730]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Grant of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance; Hella, Inc. 55 FR 37601, September 21, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\

[[Page 47731]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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).
    \3\ See General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 61 FR 1663, January 22, 
1996.
    \4\ HFT'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; 83 FR 51766, October 
12, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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