Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Lamborghini
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
11 February 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7410-7411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02721]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0077; Notice 2]
Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.(Lamborghini) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2008-2014 Lamborghini 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. Lamborghini
filed a report dated May 23, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Lamborghini then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
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, Lamborghini
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.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 17, 2015, in the Federal Register (80 FR
34788). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2014-0077.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are 690 MY 2012-2014 Lamborghini
Aventador Coupe and Roadster model passenger cars manufactured between
July 15, 2011 and May 13, 2014; 456 MY 2008-2010 Lamborghini
Muricielago Coupe and Roadster model passenger cars manufactured
between April 3, 2007 and April 29, 2010; and 2361 Lamborghini Gallardo
Coupe and Spyder model passenger cars manufactured between June 14,
2007 and November 20, 2013, for a total of 3507 vehicles.
III. Noncompliance: Lamborghini 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 in no more than 40 seconds after the
vehicle is driven above 23 miles per hour (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 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 Lamborghini's Analyses: Lamborghini stated its belief
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons:
(A) Lamborghini stated that although the TPMS malfunction indicator
telltale will not illuminate immediately after the vehicle is
restarted, it will illuminate shortly thereafter and in any event it
will illuminate in no more than 40 seconds. Lamborghini further
explained that once the vehicle has started and is moving above 23 mph
for a period of 15 seconds, the TPMS will seek to confirm the sensors
fitted to the vehicle. Lamborghini explains that a wheel without a
sensor will be detected within an additional 15-25 seconds and
[[Page 7411]]
the TPMS malfunction indicator will then illuminate correctly. Once the
malfunction indicator is illuminated, it will remain illuminated
throughout that ignition cycle regardless of vehicle speed.
(B) Lamborghini explained that if the TPMS fails to detect the
wheel sensors, the TPMS will in fact display on the TPMS pressures
screen within the instrument cluster no value for the tire pressure on
the affected tire, indicating that the status of the wheel sensor is
unconfirmed. This information will provide the driver notification of a
TPMS anomaly.
(C) Lamborghini states that the noncompliance is confined to one
particular aspect of the functionality of the otherwise compliant TPMS
malfunction indicator. All other aspects of the low-pressure monitoring
system functionality are fully compliant with the requirements of FMVSS
No. 138.
(D) Lamborghini mentioned that NHTSA recognized in the TPMS final
rule (70 FR 18150, April 8, 2005), ``A TPMS malfunction does not itself
represent a safety risk to vehicle occupants, and we expect that the
chances of having a TPMS malfunction and a significantly under-inflated
tire at the same time are unlikely.'' Lamborghini responded by saying
that if a TPMS malfunction is not considered a safety risk, then ipso
facto the limited noncompliance of the malfunction indicator in this
case does not present an unreasonable risk to safety.
(E) Lamborghini stated that it is not aware of any customer
complaints, field communications, incidents or injuries related to this
condition.
(F) Lamborghini said it has fixed all unsold vehicles in its
custody and control so that they are fully compliant with FMVSS No 138.
In summation, Lamborghini believes that the described noncompliance
of the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt Lamborghini 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's Decision
NHTSA's Analysis: Lamborghini explained that although the
malfunction indicator does not re-illuminate immediately after the
vehicle is restarted, it will illuminate shortly thereafter--within no
more than 40 seconds once the vehicle has accelerated above 23 mph.
NHTSA agrees with Lamborghini that the malfunction indicator will
not illuminate as required 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
Lamborghini, the malfunction indicator illumination will occur shortly
thereafter--within no more than 40 seconds. The malfunction indicator
subsequently re-illuminates and then it will remain illuminated for the
entire ignition cycle, regardless of vehicle speed. We agree the
noncompliance will only occur in the very rare case where the driver
begins a trip and never exceeds the 23 mph threshold, the speed
required to re-activate the malfunction indicator. No real safety risk
exists because at such low speeds there is little risk of vehicle loss
of control 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.
Lamborghini explained that if the TPMS fails to detect the wheel
sensors, the TPMS will in fact display on the TPMS pressures screen
within the instrument cluster no value for the tire pressure of the
affected tire, indicating that the status of the wheel sensor is
unconfirmed.
The agency evaluated the displays Lamborghini uses in the
noncompliant vehicles. In addition to the combination telltale
indicator lamp, the subject vehicles are equipped with a ``plan view''
icon which displays either the pressures for all four wheels
individually or specifically identifies an individual tire with a large
drop in pressure. If any wheel has a malfunctioning pressure sensor the
indicator for that wheel displays either a red danger symbol (Priority
1) or a yellow warning symbol (Priority 2) depending on the nature of
the problem. This 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.
Lamborghini discussed that the noncompliance only involves one
specific aspect of the malfunction functionality and that the primary
function of the TPMS, identification of other malfunctions and
identification of low inflation pressure scenarios, is not affected.
The agency agrees with Lamborghini's reasoning that the primary
function of the TPMS is to identify low tire inflation pressure
conditions which Lamborghini's system does as required by the safety
standard. There are a variety of other malfunctions that can occur in
addition to the incompatible wheel/tire warning malfunction identified
in this petition. We understand from Lamborghini that the TPMS
installed in the subject vehicles will otherwise perform as required.
Lamborghini 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
Lamborghini that looked at customer complaints, field communications,
incidents or injuries related to this condition, NHTSA conducted
additional checks of NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigations consumer
complaint database and found no related complaints.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis, NHTSA
has decided that Lamborghini has met its burden of demonstrating that
the FMVSS No. 138 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Lamborghini's petition is hereby granted and
Lamborghini is exempted from the obligation of providing notification
of, and a remedy for, the subject 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, this decision
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that Lamborghini no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of 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
Lamborghini 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. 2016-02721 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P