|
|---|
|
FCA US LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Eileen Sullivan Date: 18 June 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Safety, Tires
Topic: Fiat 500 |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51594-51596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13337]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0041; Notice 2]
FCA US LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC) (FCA), has determined
that certain MY 2014-2019 Fiat 500 motor vehicles do not comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems. FCA filed a noncompliance report dated April 11,
2019, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 3, 2019, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces and explains the denial
of FCA's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kamna Ralhan, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366-7236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
FCA has determined that certain MY 2014-2019 Fiat 500 motor
vehicles do not comply with paragraph S4.2(a) of FMVSS No. 138, Tire
Pressure Monitoring Systems (49 CFR 571.138). FCA filed a noncompliance
report dated April 11, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on May 3, 2019, 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 40 U.S.C. 30118 and 49 U.S.C. 30120, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of FCA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 12, 2019, in the Federal Register
(84 FR 48208). 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-2019-0041.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 12,675 MY 2014-2019 Fiat 500 motor vehicles,
manufactured between July 27, 2013, and February 9, 2019, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
FCA explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
are equipped with incorrectly programmed tire pressure monitor system
(TPMS) sensors that do not meet the minimum activation pressure
requirements of paragraph S4.2(a) of FMVSS No. 138. Specifically, the
TPMS sensors may not illuminate the low tire pressure warning telltale
until the inflation pressure is one to two pounds per square inch (PSI)
below the minimum allowable activation pressure.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S4.2(a) of FMVSS No. 138 provides the requirements
relevant to this petition. The TPMS must illuminate a low tire pressure
warning telltale not more than 20 minutes after the inflation pressure
in one or more of the vehicle's tires, up to a total of four tires, is
equal to or less than either the pressure 25 percent below the vehicle
manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure, or the pressure
specified in the 3rd column of Table 1 of FMVSS No. 138 for the
corresponding sort of tire, whichever is higher.
V. Summary of FCA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of FCA's petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
FCA and do not reflect the views of the Agency. FCA describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FCA states that the subject vehicles comply with FMVSS No. 110
which requires that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not be greater
than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of
the tire. In addition, FCA states that the vehicles are equipped with
tires that meet FMVSS No. 139 requirements which include performance
testing for low tire inflation pressure. In accordance with this
performance testing, a tire is loaded to its maximum tire load capacity
and is then inflated to 140 kPa, (20 PSI). While inflated to 20 PSI,
the tire is loaded to 100 percent of the tire's maximum load carrying
capacity and run on a test axle for 1.5 hours.
FCA explains that the subject vehicles are noncompliant because the
low tire pressure warning telltale illuminates when the pressure
decreases to 28-27 PSI but is required to illuminate when the pressure
decreases to 28.5 PSI. FCA states that 28-27 PSI is more than the 20
PSI required in FMVSS No. 139 testing. Therefore, according to FCA, a
driver of the subject vehicle would have ``sufficient time to check and
inflate tires well before the tires would be susceptible to appreciable
damage.''
FCA adds that it is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with the condition. FCA says that NHTSA has
granted a prior inconsequentiality petition that involved a similar
[[Page 51595]]
noncompliance. Finally, FCA notes that the subject noncompliance is
being corrected in the affected vehicles that have not yet been sold.
FCA concludes by stating its belief 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.
FCA's complete petition and all supporting documents are available
by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov/. and following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number listed in the title of this
notice.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and
difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such
noncompliances inconsequential.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\3\ Further, because each inconsequential
noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its own facts and
determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not consider prior
determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are reminded that they
have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety. Moreover, while we believe that consistency
is a laudable goal, safety remains the paramount concern and the
agency's view of the weight of different factors may change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of FCA's petition and has decided to
deny the petition. FCA explains that the noncompliance is that the
subject vehicles' TPMS may not illuminate the warning telltale as
required by FMVSS No. 138 paragraph S4.2(a) until the inflation
pressure is one to two psi below the minimum activation pressure
requirement. In support of its petition, FCA cited a previously
submitted inconsequential noncompliance petition submitted by the
American Honda Motor Company (77 FR 43145, July 23, 2012). In the case
of the American Honda Motor Company petition, the TPMS warning
similarly did not activate until approximately 1 to 2 psi below FMVSS
No. 138's required threshold of activation at 25% below the
manufacturer's recommended cold inflation tire pressure.
NHTSA granted Honda's petition based on the fact that even at the
lower TPMS threshold, adequate load capacity remained for the tires on
the subject vehicles. The subject vehicles were equipped at the
dealership with the manufacturer's accessory tires (215/40RZ18 85Y) and
wheels without adjusting the TPMS inflation warning threshold at the
correct pressure to accommodate these tires. The TPMS warning threshold
remained set to the standard equipped tires (215/45RZ17 84W) for the
subject vehicles at a pressure of not less than 175 kPa (25 PSI). The
recommended tire inflation pressure of the standard tires was 230 kPa
(33 PSI) which would require, in accordance with S4.2(a), the minimum
allowable TPMS activation threshold to be set at 190 kPa (27 PSI). The
minimum allowable TPMS threshold for the 18-inch accessory wheels
should have been 190 kPa (27 PSI), based on the recommended pressure of
250 kPa (36 PSI) as indicated on the replacement tire pressure placard.
NHTSA concluded that, as relates to FMVSS No. 110, the optional 18-
inch diameter tires had adequate load carrying capacity for the gross
axle weight ratings (GAWR) assigned to any of the subject vehicles
equipped with the dealer-installed tires. The load carrying capacity of
the of the accessory tires was 500 kilograms (1,100 lbs) at 230 kPa (33
PSI)) while the GAWR for each front tire was 477 kilograms (1,050 lbs)
and each rear tire was 425 kilograms (938 lbs). The accessory tires
were also found to have a higher load carrying capacity than the
standard tires at 180 kPa (26 PSI) which was 435 kilograms (959 lbs)
compared to 425 kilograms (937 lbs) for the standard tires.
In comparison, NHTSA disagrees that the lower TPMS activation
pressure of the FCA subject vehicles will provide comparable safety
protection given that the reduced pressure lowers the load carrying
capacity of the same standard equipped tires. According to the Japan
Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association (JATMA) method, as recognized
by NHTSA in FMVSS No. 110, the load carrying capacity of the standard
tires of the 2014-2019 Fiat 500 (195/45R16 80W) at 195kPa (28.3 PSI)
would be appropriately 400 lbs. compared to 388 lbs. at 186kPa (27
PSI). This represents a reduction of 3-percent in the load carrying
capacity of the tires.
The agency has reconsidered the purpose and requirements of FMVSS
Nos 110, 138 and 139 as it relates to inconsequentiality to safety.
FMVSS No. 139 assesses the performance of a tire under severe
conditions for a short period of time. While in comparison, FMVSS No.
138's stated purpose is: ``This standard specifies performance
requirements for tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMSs) to warn
drivers of significant under-inflation of tires and the resulting
safety problems.'' Although FMVSS No. 139 establishes minimum
performance requirements for tires and addresses tire failures that may
occur in the course of the specified test, the conditions present in
that testing are necessarily narrower than those that may be present in
long term consumer use. Further, as a vehicle standard, FMVSS No. 138
dictates that the vehicle present a warning to drivers when the degree
of under-inflation present is severe enough lead to other unsafe
operating conditions such as a loss of vehicle maneuverability and
increased tread wear leading to the possibility of crashes. Decreased
tire pressure causes the sidewalls of the tire to flex more especially
while turning causing reduced steering response timing and
significantly impacts the vehicle's maneuverability during cornering.
Tire sidewalls contacting the road can also lead to premature and
uneven tire tread wear and possible damage to the tire. Lower tire
pressure can also increase braking stopping distances and
[[Page 51596]]
increases the likelihood of hydroplaning while driving in wet
conditions as well as increased tire tread wear which can lead to more
frequent tire maintenance, repairs, and replacements.
NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that FCA has
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 138
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
FCA's petition is hereby denied and FCA 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)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-13337 Filed 6-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P