Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Topics: Aston Martin

Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
November 19, 2015

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72484-72486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0139; Notice 2]

Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (AML) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2009-2013 Aston Martin passenger cars do not fully
comply with paragraph S4.4(c)(2), of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. AML has
filed an appropriate report dated November 4, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Kerrin
Bressant, Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-1110,
facsimile (202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, AML submitted a
petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of AML'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. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 3,282 of the
following AML model passenger cars manufactured from September 2009
through October 2013:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Dealer un- Build [date]
Model amlna fleet registered range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB9 Coupe....................................................... 211 41 10/09-10/13
DB9 Volante..................................................... 225 53 10/09-10/13
DBS Coupe....................................................... 153 1 10/09-08/12
DBS Volante..................................................... 147 1 10/09-08/12
Virage Coupe.................................................... 120 0 12/10-08/12
Virage Volante.................................................. 156 0 12/10-08/12
V8 Vantage Coupe................................................ 385 54 10/09-10/13
V8 Vantage Roadster............................................. 279 56 10/09-10/13
V8 Vantage S Coupe.............................................. 170 9 06/10-10/13
V8 Vantage S Roadster........................................... 122 12 06/10-10/13
Rapide.......................................................... 671 0 09/09-02/13
Rapide S........................................................ 74 65 01/13-10/13
Vanquish Coupe.................................................. 197 80 09/12-10/13
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 2910 372 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Noncompliance: AML explains that during testing of the tire
pressure monitoring system (TPMS) it was noted that the fitment of an
incompatible wheel and tire unit was correctly detected and the
malfunction indicator telltale illuminated as required by FMVSS No.
138. However, when the vehicle ignition was deactivated and then
reactivated after a five minute period, there was no immediate re-
illumination of the malfunction indicator telltale as required when the
malfunction still exists. Although the malfunction indicator telltale
does not re-illuminate immediately after the vehicle ignition is
reactivated, it does illuminate within 40 seconds after the vehicle
accelerates above 23 mph.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.4(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 138 requires in
pertinent part:
S4.4 TPMS Malfunction.
. . .
(c) Combination low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. The
vehicle meets the

[[Page 72485]]

requirements of S4.4(a) when equipped with a combined Low Tire
Pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale that:
(2) Flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer
than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition specified in S4.4(a)
after the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On''
(``Run'') position. After each period of prescribed flashing, the
telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a
malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the ``On''
(``Run'') position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be
repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the
``On'' (``Run'') position until the situation causing the
malfunction has been corrected. . . .

V. Summary of AML's Analyses: AML stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
(A) AML stated that although the TPMS malfunction indicator
telltale will not illuminate immediately after the vehicle is
restarted, it generally will illuminate shortly thereafter and in any
event it will illuminate in no more than 40 seconds after the vehicle
accelerates above 23 mph. AML further explained that once the vehicle
has accelerated above 23 mph for a period of 15 seconds, the TPMS will
seek to confirm the sensors fitted to the vehicle, and in the case a
sensor is not fitted, the TPMS will detect this condition within 25
additional seconds and activate the malfunction indicator telltale.
(B) AML explained that if the TPMS fails to detect the wheel
sensors, the TPMS monitor will display on the TPMS pressures screen
``--'' warning the driver that the status of the wheel sensor is
unconfirmed. Once the vehicle starts moving, the system will then
accurately determine if a sensor is present or not.
(C) AML said that the noncompliance (a software design omission) is
confined to one particular aspect of the functionality of the otherwise
compliant TPMS malfunction indicator telltale. All other aspects of the
low-pressure monitoring system functionality are fully compliant with
the requirements of FMVSS No. 138.
(D) AML stated that it is not aware of any customer complaints,
field communications, incidents or injuries related to this condition.
(E) AML said it has fixed all unsold vehicles in its custody and
control so that they are fully compliant with FMVSS No 138.
(F) AML argued that differences exist between the MBUSA TPMS
inconsequential petition that the agency denied and their petition that
should be granted.
In summation, AML believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt AML from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA Decision

NHTSA Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed AML's justification for an
inconsequential noncompliance determination and agrees with AML that
the described noncompliance in the subject vehicles is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
AML explained that although the malfunction indicator telltale does
not re-illuminate immediately after the vehicle is restarted, it will
illuminate shortly thereafter--within 40 seconds after the vehicle
speed exceeds 23 mph.
NHTSA agrees with AML that the malfunction indicator telltale will
not illuminate as required only during very short periods of time when
the vehicle is traveling at low speeds and thus poses little risk to
vehicle safety. Under normal driving conditions, a driver will begin a
trip by accelerating moderately beyond 23 mph, and as explained by AML,
once the vehicle accelerates above 23 mph, the malfunction indicator
telltale re-illuminates and then remains illuminated for the entire
ignition cycle, regardless of vehicle speed. The telltale fails to re-
illuminate only in the very rare case when the driver begins a trip and
never exceeds the 23 mph threshold, the speed required to re-activate
the malfunction indicator telltale. No real safety risk exists because
at such low speeds there is little risk of the driver losing control of
the vehicle due to underinflated tires. Furthermore, the possibility
that the vehicle will experience both a low inflation pressure
condition and a malfunction simultaneously is highly unlikely.
AML stated that if the TPMS fails to detect the wheel sensors, a
supplemental TPMS monitor provides the driver with a warning on the
vehicle's TPMS pressures screen, indicating the status of the wheel
sensor is not confirmed.
The agency evaluated the displays AML uses in the noncompliant
vehicles. In addition to the combination malfunction and low inflation
pressure telltale indicator lamp, the subject vehicles are equipped
with a ``plan view'' icon which displays the pressures for all four
wheels individually. If any wheel has a malfunctioning pressure sensor
the indicator for that wheel displays several dashes ``--'' indicating
the there is a problem with that respective wheel. The additional
information is not required by the safety standard, but can be used as
an aid to the driver to determine the status of a vehicle's tires.
AML discussed that the noncompliance only involves one specific
TPMS functionality requirement and that it believes that the primary
functions of the TPMS, the identification of all other required
malfunctions as well as the identification of low tire inflation
pressure scenarios, is not affected.
The agency agrees with AML that the primary function of the TPMS is
to identify low inflation pressure conditions which AML's system
appears to do as required by FMVSS No. 138. Also, there are a variety
of other malfunctions that can occur in addition to the incompatible
tire malfunction identified in this petition. We understand from AML
that its TPMS will perform as required during all other system
malfunctions.
AML also mentioned that they have not received or are aware of any
consumer complaints, field communications, incidences or injuries
related to this noncompliance. In addition to the analysis done by AML
that looked at customer complaints, field communications, incidents or
injuries related to this condition, the agency conducted additional
checks of its Office of Defects Investigations consumer complaint
database and found no related complaints.
AML stated that unsold vehicles have had the software correction
administered and are now fully compliant with FMVSS 138. NHTSA agrees
and concurs with AML's action to mitigate vehicles in its possession as
of the date that the noncompliance was acknowledged.
AML pointed out that there are differences between the Mercedes-
Benz TPMS related inconsequential noncompliance petition \1\ that the
agency recently denied and AML's subject inconsequential noncompliance
petition. NHTSA agrees with AML that the noncompliance circumstances
are substantially different between the two petitions. The Mercedes-
Benz TPMS would initially display a malfunction warning, but would not
display the warning on subsequent ignition cycles as required by
S4.4(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 138. In the AML vehicles, the TPMS malfunction
warning lamp will illuminate each time the vehicle is

[[Page 72486]]

operated, and it will do so very shortly after the vehicle begins to
move.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 79 FR 47718 (August 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis, NHTSA
has decided that AML has met its burden of demonstrating that the FMVSS
No. 138 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, AML's petition is hereby granted and AML is exempted from
the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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 AML 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 AML
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)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-29474 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P