Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 30239-30241 [2011-12688]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Notices
OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
Jeffrey P. Michael,
Associate Administrator for Research and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2011–12757 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0095; Notice 2]
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
(Volkswagen),1 has determined that
certain 2009 Model Year (MY) passenger
cars and multipurpose passenger
vehicles (MPV) equipped with indirect
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems
(TPMS), do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire
Pressure Monitoring Systems.
Specifically, Volkswagen estimated that
approximately 58,292 2009 MY Audi A6
and S6 model passenger cars, 2010 MY
Audi A6, S6, A5, A5 Cabrio, S5, S5
Cabrio, A4 and S4 passenger cars, and
2010 MY Audi Q5 MPV’s with indirect
TPMS manufactured between October
17, 2008 and April 27, 2010 are affected
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘noncompliant
vehicles’’). Volkswagen filed a report
dated June, 30, 2010 pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), and 49 CFR part 556,
Volkswagen has petitioned for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as
amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of
Volkswagen’s petition was published,
with a 30-day public comment period,
on August 11, 2010, in the Federal
Register (75 FR 48740). One comment
was received from Schrader Electronics,
Ltd. (Schrader), a manufacturer of
direct-type TPMS systems.2
1 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
(Volkswagen) is a vehicle manufacturer
incorporated under the laws of the state of New
Jersey.
2 To view the petition, all supporting documents
and the comment, log onto the Federal Docket
Management System Web site at: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number
‘‘NHTSA–2010–0095.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
For further information on
Volkswagen’s petition or this decision,
contact Mr. John Finneran, Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–0645,
facsimile (202) 366–5930.
Volkswagen reported that the
noncompliance was brought to its
attention on October 15, 2009 and June
8, 2010, by the NHTSA’s Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC)
regarding the results of OVSC’s
compliance test of a 2009 MY Audi A6
model passenger car to FMVSS No. 138
requirements.
On June 3, 2009, OVSC conducted
compliance tests on a MY 2009 Audi A6
four-door passenger car (Audi A6). The
Audi A6 was tested to determine
compliance with FMVSS No. 138, Tire
pressure monitoring systems (TPMS).
During testing, it was discovered that
the Audi A6’s low tire pressure/TPMS
malfunction telltale (TPMS combination
telltale) failed to remain illuminated as
required by FMVSS No. 138.
During the FMVSS No. 138
compliance test of the Audi A6, the
agency simulated a system malfunction
by installing a smaller test vehicle tire
using the procedures in paragraph S6 of
FMVSS No. 138. The test of the Audi A6
transpired without incident until after
OVSC cycled the ignition off, waited
five minutes, cycled the ignition on, and
then began to drive the vehicle. The
TPMS combination telltale’s
illumination sequence repeated, as
required in FMVSS 4.4(c)(2). The Audi
A6 was then driven back to the test
facility to replace the incompatible tire.
When the Audi A6 was driven at speeds
below 12.5 mph, the TPMS combination
telltale extinguished while the
incompatible tire was still mounted on
the vehicle.3
According to 49 CFR 571.138,
S4.4(c)(2), the TPMS combination
telltale must remain continuously
illuminated as long as the malfunction
exists. Therefore, the premature
extinguishment of the TPMS
combination telltale is in contravention
of 49 CFR 571.138 S4.4(c)(2), because
the underlying cause of the malfunction,
an incompatible tire mounted on the
Audi A6, had not been corrected.
Volkswagen’s Analysis of
Noncompliance
After reviewing OVSC’s test results
Volkswagen determined that a
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 138
existed in the OVSC tested vehicle as
well as the other 2009 and 2010 MY
3 Incidentally, the Electronic Stability Control
malfunction telltale also extinguished.
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30239
vehicles. Volkswagen stated that the
TPMS combination telltale does not
remain illuminated during all scenarios
required by paragraph S4.4 of FMVSS
No. 138. Volkswagen also explained that
there is an interrelationship between the
TPMS and Electronic Stability Control
System (ESC) in the noncompliant
vehicles.
Volkswagen stated that when NHTSA
tested the Audi A6 by driving it with
three of the originally installed 245/
40R18 tires and one incompatible 215/
35ZR18 tire (7% smaller in diameter),
the A6’s ESC System (Audi’s name for
ESC is ‘‘Electronic Stability Program’’)
initially detected a malfunction and
illuminated the ESC malfunction
indicator telltale lamp (ESC telltale
lamp). That ESC malfunction detection
will also cause the TPMS combination
telltale to flash for 60–90 seconds. Both
telltale lamps will then remain
illuminated during the rest of the
ignition cycle independent of vehicle
speed. When the ignition is
subsequently cycled, both the ESC and
TPMS combination telltale lamps will
re-illuminate. The nonconforming
scenario occurs when the vehicle is
maintained at a speed range between
6.2–12.5 miles per hour (mph) for
approximately 0.2 mile. Under these
conditions, the ESC malfunction logic
code could be cleared from the control
system, which causes the ESC and
TPMS combination telltale lamps to
extinguish. If the 6.2–12.5 mph speed
range is maintained for a longer period
of time after the ESC and TPMS
combination telltale lamps extinguish
(about 5 minutes), the TPMS acts
independently of the ESC. The TPMS
will recognize the incompatible tire and
set the TPMS malfunction logic code
and re-illuminate the TPMS
combination telltale lamp. The TPMS
combination telltale lamp will stay
illuminated independent of any ESC
malfunctions and perform as described
above for as long as the incompatible
tire is mounted.
Volkswagen argues that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and makes several
arguments. First, after the TPMS
combination telltale lamp is
extinguished, as described above, it will
immediately re-illuminate if the vehicle
is accelerated to a speed above 12.5
mph, and remain on throughout the
ignition cycle regardless of the vehicle’s
speed. Second, the TPMS combination
telltale lamp would re-illuminate within
about 5 minutes if the speed under 12.5
mph and over 6.2 mph was maintained.
Third, given this condition, the function
of the TPMS combination telltale lamp
would never lead to a ‘‘flicker’’ of the
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
30240
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Notices
light or other such confusing
performance of the signal except as
required in FMVSS No. 138 S4.4(c).
Fourth, Volkswagen argues that
operation of the vehicle with an
incompatible tire for a short distance
under 12.5 mph presents no safety risk.
Given that the TPMS combination
telltale lamp would re-illuminate
promptly upon the TPMS recognizing
the incompatible tire at a lower speed
after 5 minutes or upon acceleration to
over 12.5 mph, the chance is
insignificant that a driver might be
confused by the signal, or even notice it.
Fifth, Volkswagen is not aware of any
field or customer complaints regarding
this noncompliance.
Volkswagen also informed NHTSA
that it has corrected the problem that
caused this noncompliance so that it
will not be repeated in future
production.
In summation, Volkswagen believes
that the described noncompliance of its
vehicles with the requirements of
FMVSS No. 138 is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt it 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
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Requirement Background
Tire pressure monitoring systems
provide a warning that indicates to the
operator when a tire is significantly
under inflated. Public Law 106–414
§ 13; 114 Stat. 1800, 1806. Driving on a
significantly under-inflated tire causes
the tire to overheat and can lead to tire
failure. Under-inflation also reduces tire
tread life, and may affect the vehicle’s
handling and stopping ability. When the
low tire pressure telltale illuminates, the
operator is advised by the owner’s
manual to stop and check his or her
tires as soon as possible, and inflate
them to the proper pressure. 49 CFR
571.138 S 4.5(a). As discussed in the
TPMS rulemaking, NHTSA expected
that a typical vehicle will outlast its
original set of tires, and believed that it
is important that drivers continue to
receive the benefits of the TPMS after
the vehicle’s tires are replaced. The
TPMS rule required the TPMS to
include a malfunction indicator that
would alert the driver in situations in
which the TPMS is unable to detect low
tire pressure.4 As is relevant here, the
malfunction indicator is required to
4 70
FR 18136, 18137 (April 8, 2005).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:25 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
detect incompatible replacement tires.5
This provides useful information to the
driver regarding the long-term
operability of the TPMS, thereby
increasing the overall benefits of the
system.6 The indicator illuminates
when tires and rims that are
incompatible with the TPMS are
mounted on the vehicle, not only to
discourage such actions, but also to
provide an ongoing reminder that the
TPMS is unavailable to provide low tire
pressure warnings.7
NHTSA’s Analysis of Volkswagen’s
Reasoning
Based on NHTSA’s testing and
Volkswagen’s explanation in its
petition, the vehicles encompassed by
Volkswagen’s Noncompliance
Information Report will not perform
according to paragraph S4.4 of FMVSS
No. 138. Instead, the TPMS combination
telltale will illuminate as required until
the noncomplying vehicle is turned off.
When the vehicle is restarted, the TPMS
combination telltale will flash on and
off for approximately 65 seconds and
then remain illuminated, unless, after
the TPMS combination telltale stops
flashing, the vehicle is driven at speeds
between 6.2 and 12.5 mph. Under this
condition, the TPMS combination
telltale will extinguish. If the vehicle
reaches a speed greater than 12.5 mph,
the TPMS combination telltale will
again flash on and off for approximately
65 seconds and then remain illuminated
for as long as the vehicle continues to
run. Similarly, if the vehicle is driven at
speeds between 6.2 and 12.5 mph, the
TPMS combination telltale will
extinguish and then re-illuminate
within about 5 minutes of driving, and
then will remain illuminated
continuously until the ignition is turned
off.
NHTSA’s understanding is that the
TPMS combination telltale will not
extinguish and illuminate repeatedly if
the 12.5 mph speed threshold is crossed
repeatedly. This is in line with
Volkswagen’s explanation of the system
operation which indicates that once the
TPMS combination telltale is
illuminated after one extinguishment, it
will remain ‘‘on’’ until the vehicle is
turned off. At most, the TPMS
combination telltale will remain off for
five minutes.
5 70
FR 18136, 18137 (April 8, 2005).
FR 18136, 18137 (April 8, 2005).
7 70 FR 18136, 18151 (April 8, 2005); See also 70
FR at 18159. (In order to ensure continued longterm functionality of the TPMS, the final rule
requires a TPMS malfunction indicator capable of
detecting when a replacement tire is installed
which prevents continued proper functioning of the
TPMS and of alerting the driver about the problem.)
6 70
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Volkswagen states that no field or
customer complaints have been received
regarding the noncompliance. NHTSA
has checked its records and also found
no such complaints have been received.
NHTSA’s Consideration
NHTSA rarely grants
inconsequentiality petitions for
noncompliances of performance
standards.8 The majority of the 49 CFR
Part 556 petitions NHTSA has granted
have been for noncompliances with
labeling requirements in the FMVSSs. In
order for a performance-related petition
to be granted, the petitioner must
demonstrate that the noncompliance
‘‘do[es] not create a significant safety
risk.’’ 9 The relevant issue is whether an
occupant who is affected by the
noncompliance is likely to be exposed
to a significantly greater risk than an
occupant using a compliant vehicle or
equipment.10
In its petition, Volkswagen argues that
driving a vehicle with an incompatible
tire for a short distance at a speed under
12.5 mph presents no safety risk.
Volkswagen explained that the TPMS
combination telltale lamp would reilluminate promptly upon the TPMS
recognizing the incompatible tire at a
lower speed or upon acceleration. A
warning to the driver, in the manner
required by FMVSS No. 138 must be
provided within 20 minutes of
cumulative driving time at vehicle
speeds above 31.1 mph after the
occurrence of a malfunction.
NHTSA Conclusions
First, there appears to be an
insignificant safety risk created by the
noncompliance. The underlying
concern is that the TPMS would not be
working, and the TPMS combination
telltale would not so indicate. But the
TPMS initially detects a malfunction
and the TPMS combination telltale
illuminates and remains illuminated for
the remainder of the drive cycle. It is on
subsequent drive cycles that the TPMS
combination telltale will extinguish if
the vehicle is maintained initially at a
speed under 12.5 mph. The telltale
illuminates and remains illuminated for
the remainder of the drive cycle after
about 5 minutes or when the vehicle
exceeds 12.5 mph, whichever first
occurs. This amounts to an outage of
short duration at slow speeds.
Significantly, the malfunction indicator
would remain illuminated after that.
8 General Motors Corp., 69 FR 19899, 19900
(April 14, 2004); Cosco, Inc., 64 FR 29408, 29409
(June 1, 1999) (NHTSA–99–4033).
9 Cosco, Inc., 64 FR 29409.
10 GM Corp., 69 FR 19900; Cosco, Inc., 64 FR
29409.
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Notices
The driver would lack information that
the TPMS system was not functioning
due to an incompatible tire for such a
limited period of time that there would
not be a significant safety risk.11
Second, the TPMS combination
telltale does not ‘‘flicker’’ 12 off and on in
stop-and-go traffic. A flickering telltale,
due to its inconsistent pattern of
illumination, could confuse drivers and
may lead them to ignore the warning
provided by the TPMS combination
telltale. As Volkswagen demonstrated in
its petition, the vehicle’s TPMS
combination telltale will be
extinguished for a period of about five
minutes at slow speeds, after which it
stays illuminated permanently.
Furthermore, occupants of the
noncomplying vehicles would not be
exposed to significantly greater risk than
if they were occupants in a complying
vehicle. The malfunction indicator
would illuminate shortly after an
incompatible tire is installed and the
vehicle was then driven. This should
provide a highly relevant warning to the
person who had the new tire installed.
The indicator would remain illuminated
for the remainder of the drive cycle. On
subsequent drive cycles, there may be a
five-minute interval near the beginning
of the drive cycle when the TPMS
combination telltale extinguishes.
Otherwise, the TPMS combination
telltale will be illuminated. If an
occupant of a noncomplying vehicle is
unaware of a TPMS malfunction at this
speed for five minutes, we do not
believe that the malfunction would pose
a significant risk when compared to an
occupant in a compliant vehicle.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NHTSA’s Response to Comments
In its comments to the docket,
Schrader stated its belief that the
petition should be denied because, it
alleges, safety deficiencies are inherent
in indirect type TPMS and the
compliance test procedure used by
NHTSA is inadequate for the detection
of such deficiencies. Schrader did not
specifically address the TPMS
combination telltale lamp
noncompliance that is the essence of the
Volkswagen petition. Instead, Schrader
stated that it believes there are more
11 We note that TPMSs were not developed to
warn the driver of extremely rapid pressure losses
that could accompany a vehicle encounter with a
road hazard or a tire blowout. As the agency noted,
presumably, a driver would be well aware of the
tire problem in those situations, and the TPMS
would provide little added benefit. 70 FR 53079,
53083 (Sept. 7, 2005).
12 A ‘‘flicker’’ is different from the standard’s
S4.4(c)(2) requirement that a combination low tire
pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale ‘‘flash’’ for a
period of 60–90 seconds when a malfunction is
detected.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
‘‘problems’’ with the indirect system,
and asked NHTSA to undertake a
comprehensive review and expand its
test procedure.
NHTSA’s safety standards and test
procedures generally are technology
neutral to permit manufacturers to have
maximum flexibility in meeting any
specified performance requirements.
Although Schrader alleges that the test
procedure may be problematic, the
current test procedure (TP–138–03)
follows precisely the testing protocol
specific in FMVSS No. 138 and did
uncover a noncompliance in the Audi
indirect TPMS system.
However, if Schrader still takes issue
with the actual test requirements that
originate in FMVSS No. 138, it should
petition the agency for a rulemaking
revision. Requests for rulemaking
changes should be submitted in a
petition for rulemaking filed under the
provisions of 49 CFR Part 552 Petitions
for Rulemaking, Defect, and
Noncompliance Orders.
Because Schrader’s comments did not
provide any information addressing
Volkswagen’s telltale noncompliance
that is the essence of its petition,
Schrader’s comments do not support
denying the subject petition.
Decision
After a review of Volkswagen’s
arguments, Schrader’s comments, and
the final rule preamble language,
NHTSA is convinced that Volkswagen
has met its burden of demonstrating that
the noncompliance does not present a
significant safety risk. Therefore,
NHTSA agrees with Volkswagen that
this specific noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
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 58,292 13
vehicles that Volkswagen no longer
controlled at the time that it determined
13 Volkswagen’s petition, which was filed under
49 CFR Part 556, requests an agency decision to
exempt Volkswagen as a manufacturer from the
notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR
Part 573 for 58,292 of the affected vehicles.
However, the agency cannot 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
Volkswagen notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30241
that a noncompliance existed in the
subject vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Volkswagen
has met its burden of persuasion that
the FMVSS No. 138 TPMS
noncompliance in the vehicles
identified in Volkswagen’s
Noncompliance Information Report is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Volkswagen’s petition is
granted and the petitioner is exempted
from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a 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 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: May 18, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011–12688 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket ID PHMSA–2011–0125]
Pipeline Safety: Notice of Public
Meetings on Managing Challenges
With Pipeline Seam Welds and
Improving Pipeline Risk Assessments
and Recordkeeping
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
Recent pipeline incidents
involving seam weld anomalies and
gaps in data and recordkeeping are
driving a stronger focus on better
managing these challenges. PHMSA is
holding important public meetings to
discuss its review of inspection
reporting and incident findings in these
areas. In addition, these public meetings
are part of PHMSA’s efforts to address
the Secretary of Transportation’s ‘‘Call to
Action’’ to address pipeline
infrastructure risks, drive for more
aggressive safety efforts and to be more
transparent when executing these safety
measures.
These public meetings are designed to
provide an open forum for exchanging
information on the challenges
associated with pipeline seam welds
and improving pipeline risk
assessments and recordkeeping.
Specifically, these public meetings will
facilitate individual, panel and working
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30239-30241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12688]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0095; Notice 2]
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen),\1\ has determined
that certain 2009 Model Year (MY) passenger cars and multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPV) equipped with indirect Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems (TPMS), do not fully comply with paragraph S4.4 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems. Specifically, Volkswagen estimated that
approximately 58,292 2009 MY Audi A6 and S6 model passenger cars, 2010
MY Audi A6, S6, A5, A5 Cabrio, S5, S5 Cabrio, A4 and S4 passenger cars,
and 2010 MY Audi Q5 MPV's with indirect TPMS manufactured between
October 17, 2008 and April 27, 2010 are affected (hereafter referred to
as ``noncompliant vehicles''). Volkswagen filed a report dated June,
30, 2010 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) is a vehicle
manufacturer incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), and 49 CFR part 556,
Volkswagen has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act as amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice
of receipt of Volkswagen's petition was published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on August 11, 2010, in the Federal Register (75 FR
48740). One comment was received from Schrader Electronics, Ltd.
(Schrader), a manufacturer of direct-type TPMS systems.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To view the petition, all supporting documents and the
comment, log onto the Federal Docket Management System Web site at:
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2010-0095.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on Volkswagen's petition or this decision,
contact Mr. John Finneran, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-0645, facsimile (202) 366-5930.
Volkswagen reported that the noncompliance was brought to its
attention on October 15, 2009 and June 8, 2010, by the NHTSA's Office
of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) regarding the results of OVSC's
compliance test of a 2009 MY Audi A6 model passenger car to FMVSS No.
138 requirements.
On June 3, 2009, OVSC conducted compliance tests on a MY 2009 Audi
A6 four-door passenger car (Audi A6). The Audi A6 was tested to
determine compliance with FMVSS No. 138, Tire pressure monitoring
systems (TPMS). During testing, it was discovered that the Audi A6's
low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale (TPMS combination telltale)
failed to remain illuminated as required by FMVSS No. 138.
During the FMVSS No. 138 compliance test of the Audi A6, the agency
simulated a system malfunction by installing a smaller test vehicle
tire using the procedures in paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 138. The test of
the Audi A6 transpired without incident until after OVSC cycled the
ignition off, waited five minutes, cycled the ignition on, and then
began to drive the vehicle. The TPMS combination telltale's
illumination sequence repeated, as required in FMVSS 4.4(c)(2). The
Audi A6 was then driven back to the test facility to replace the
incompatible tire. When the Audi A6 was driven at speeds below 12.5
mph, the TPMS combination telltale extinguished while the incompatible
tire was still mounted on the vehicle.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Incidentally, the Electronic Stability Control malfunction
telltale also extinguished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to 49 CFR 571.138, S4.4(c)(2), the TPMS combination
telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as the
malfunction exists. Therefore, the premature extinguishment of the TPMS
combination telltale is in contravention of 49 CFR 571.138 S4.4(c)(2),
because the underlying cause of the malfunction, an incompatible tire
mounted on the Audi A6, had not been corrected.
Volkswagen's Analysis of Noncompliance
After reviewing OVSC's test results Volkswagen determined that a
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 138 existed in the OVSC tested vehicle as
well as the other 2009 and 2010 MY vehicles. Volkswagen stated that the
TPMS combination telltale does not remain illuminated during all
scenarios required by paragraph S4.4 of FMVSS No. 138. Volkswagen also
explained that there is an interrelationship between the TPMS and
Electronic Stability Control System (ESC) in the noncompliant vehicles.
Volkswagen stated that when NHTSA tested the Audi A6 by driving it
with three of the originally installed 245/40R18 tires and one
incompatible 215/35ZR18 tire (7% smaller in diameter), the A6's ESC
System (Audi's name for ESC is ``Electronic Stability Program'')
initially detected a malfunction and illuminated the ESC malfunction
indicator telltale lamp (ESC telltale lamp). That ESC malfunction
detection will also cause the TPMS combination telltale to flash for
60-90 seconds. Both telltale lamps will then remain illuminated during
the rest of the ignition cycle independent of vehicle speed. When the
ignition is subsequently cycled, both the ESC and TPMS combination
telltale lamps will re-illuminate. The nonconforming scenario occurs
when the vehicle is maintained at a speed range between 6.2-12.5 miles
per hour (mph) for approximately 0.2 mile. Under these conditions, the
ESC malfunction logic code could be cleared from the control system,
which causes the ESC and TPMS combination telltale lamps to extinguish.
If the 6.2-12.5 mph speed range is maintained for a longer period of
time after the ESC and TPMS combination telltale lamps extinguish
(about 5 minutes), the TPMS acts independently of the ESC. The TPMS
will recognize the incompatible tire and set the TPMS malfunction logic
code and re-illuminate the TPMS combination telltale lamp. The TPMS
combination telltale lamp will stay illuminated independent of any ESC
malfunctions and perform as described above for as long as the
incompatible tire is mounted.
Volkswagen argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and makes several arguments. First, after the
TPMS combination telltale lamp is extinguished, as described above, it
will immediately re-illuminate if the vehicle is accelerated to a speed
above 12.5 mph, and remain on throughout the ignition cycle regardless
of the vehicle's speed. Second, the TPMS combination telltale lamp
would re-illuminate within about 5 minutes if the speed under 12.5 mph
and over 6.2 mph was maintained. Third, given this condition, the
function of the TPMS combination telltale lamp would never lead to a
``flicker'' of the
[[Page 30240]]
light or other such confusing performance of the signal except as
required in FMVSS No. 138 S4.4(c). Fourth, Volkswagen argues that
operation of the vehicle with an incompatible tire for a short distance
under 12.5 mph presents no safety risk. Given that the TPMS combination
telltale lamp would re-illuminate promptly upon the TPMS recognizing
the incompatible tire at a lower speed after 5 minutes or upon
acceleration to over 12.5 mph, the chance is insignificant that a
driver might be confused by the signal, or even notice it. Fifth,
Volkswagen is not aware of any field or customer complaints regarding
this noncompliance.
Volkswagen also informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem
that caused this noncompliance so that it will not be repeated in
future production.
In summation, Volkswagen believes that the described noncompliance
of its vehicles with the requirements of FMVSS No. 138 is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt it 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
Requirement Background
Tire pressure monitoring systems provide a warning that indicates
to the operator when a tire is significantly under inflated. Public Law
106-414 Sec. 13; 114 Stat. 1800, 1806. Driving on a significantly
under-inflated tire causes the tire to overheat and can lead to tire
failure. Under-inflation also reduces tire tread life, and may affect
the vehicle's handling and stopping ability. When the low tire pressure
telltale illuminates, the operator is advised by the owner's manual to
stop and check his or her tires as soon as possible, and inflate them
to the proper pressure. 49 CFR 571.138 S 4.5(a). As discussed in the
TPMS rulemaking, NHTSA expected that a typical vehicle will outlast its
original set of tires, and believed that it is important that drivers
continue to receive the benefits of the TPMS after the vehicle's tires
are replaced. The TPMS rule required the TPMS to include a malfunction
indicator that would alert the driver in situations in which the TPMS
is unable to detect low tire pressure.\4\ As is relevant here, the
malfunction indicator is required to detect incompatible replacement
tires.\5\ This provides useful information to the driver regarding the
long-term operability of the TPMS, thereby increasing the overall
benefits of the system.\6\ The indicator illuminates when tires and
rims that are incompatible with the TPMS are mounted on the vehicle,
not only to discourage such actions, but also to provide an ongoing
reminder that the TPMS is unavailable to provide low tire pressure
warnings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 70 FR 18136, 18137 (April 8, 2005).
\5\ 70 FR 18136, 18137 (April 8, 2005).
\6\ 70 FR 18136, 18137 (April 8, 2005).
\7\ 70 FR 18136, 18151 (April 8, 2005); See also 70 FR at 18159.
(In order to ensure continued long-term functionality of the TPMS,
the final rule requires a TPMS malfunction indicator capable of
detecting when a replacement tire is installed which prevents
continued proper functioning of the TPMS and of alerting the driver
about the problem.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's Analysis of Volkswagen's Reasoning
Based on NHTSA's testing and Volkswagen's explanation in its
petition, the vehicles encompassed by Volkswagen's Noncompliance
Information Report will not perform according to paragraph S4.4 of
FMVSS No. 138. Instead, the TPMS combination telltale will illuminate
as required until the noncomplying vehicle is turned off. When the
vehicle is restarted, the TPMS combination telltale will flash on and
off for approximately 65 seconds and then remain illuminated, unless,
after the TPMS combination telltale stops flashing, the vehicle is
driven at speeds between 6.2 and 12.5 mph. Under this condition, the
TPMS combination telltale will extinguish. If the vehicle reaches a
speed greater than 12.5 mph, the TPMS combination telltale will again
flash on and off for approximately 65 seconds and then remain
illuminated for as long as the vehicle continues to run. Similarly, if
the vehicle is driven at speeds between 6.2 and 12.5 mph, the TPMS
combination telltale will extinguish and then re-illuminate within
about 5 minutes of driving, and then will remain illuminated
continuously until the ignition is turned off.
NHTSA's understanding is that the TPMS combination telltale will
not extinguish and illuminate repeatedly if the 12.5 mph speed
threshold is crossed repeatedly. This is in line with Volkswagen's
explanation of the system operation which indicates that once the TPMS
combination telltale is illuminated after one extinguishment, it will
remain ``on'' until the vehicle is turned off. At most, the TPMS
combination telltale will remain off for five minutes.
Volkswagen states that no field or customer complaints have been
received regarding the noncompliance. NHTSA has checked its records and
also found no such complaints have been received.
NHTSA's Consideration
NHTSA rarely grants inconsequentiality petitions for noncompliances
of performance standards.\8\ The majority of the 49 CFR Part 556
petitions NHTSA has granted have been for noncompliances with labeling
requirements in the FMVSSs. In order for a performance-related petition
to be granted, the petitioner must demonstrate that the noncompliance
``do[es] not create a significant safety risk.'' \9\ The relevant issue
is whether an occupant who is affected by the noncompliance is likely
to be exposed to a significantly greater risk than an occupant using a
compliant vehicle or equipment.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ General Motors Corp., 69 FR 19899, 19900 (April 14, 2004);
Cosco, Inc., 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999) (NHTSA-99-4033).
\9\ Cosco, Inc., 64 FR 29409.
\10\ GM Corp., 69 FR 19900; Cosco, Inc., 64 FR 29409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its petition, Volkswagen argues that driving a vehicle with an
incompatible tire for a short distance at a speed under 12.5 mph
presents no safety risk. Volkswagen explained that the TPMS combination
telltale lamp would re-illuminate promptly upon the TPMS recognizing
the incompatible tire at a lower speed or upon acceleration. A warning
to the driver, in the manner required by FMVSS No. 138 must be provided
within 20 minutes of cumulative driving time at vehicle speeds above
31.1 mph after the occurrence of a malfunction.
NHTSA Conclusions
First, there appears to be an insignificant safety risk created by
the noncompliance. The underlying concern is that the TPMS would not be
working, and the TPMS combination telltale would not so indicate. But
the TPMS initially detects a malfunction and the TPMS combination
telltale illuminates and remains illuminated for the remainder of the
drive cycle. It is on subsequent drive cycles that the TPMS combination
telltale will extinguish if the vehicle is maintained initially at a
speed under 12.5 mph. The telltale illuminates and remains illuminated
for the remainder of the drive cycle after about 5 minutes or when the
vehicle exceeds 12.5 mph, whichever first occurs. This amounts to an
outage of short duration at slow speeds. Significantly, the malfunction
indicator would remain illuminated after that.
[[Page 30241]]
The driver would lack information that the TPMS system was not
functioning due to an incompatible tire for such a limited period of
time that there would not be a significant safety risk.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We note that TPMSs were not developed to warn the driver of
extremely rapid pressure losses that could accompany a vehicle
encounter with a road hazard or a tire blowout. As the agency noted,
presumably, a driver would be well aware of the tire problem in
those situations, and the TPMS would provide little added benefit.
70 FR 53079, 53083 (Sept. 7, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the TPMS combination telltale does not ``flicker'' \12\ off
and on in stop-and-go traffic. A flickering telltale, due to its
inconsistent pattern of illumination, could confuse drivers and may
lead them to ignore the warning provided by the TPMS combination
telltale. As Volkswagen demonstrated in its petition, the vehicle's
TPMS combination telltale will be extinguished for a period of about
five minutes at slow speeds, after which it stays illuminated
permanently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A ``flicker'' is different from the standard's S4.4(c)(2)
requirement that a combination low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction
telltale ``flash'' for a period of 60-90 seconds when a malfunction
is detected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, occupants of the noncomplying vehicles would not be
exposed to significantly greater risk than if they were occupants in a
complying vehicle. The malfunction indicator would illuminate shortly
after an incompatible tire is installed and the vehicle was then
driven. This should provide a highly relevant warning to the person who
had the new tire installed. The indicator would remain illuminated for
the remainder of the drive cycle. On subsequent drive cycles, there may
be a five-minute interval near the beginning of the drive cycle when
the TPMS combination telltale extinguishes. Otherwise, the TPMS
combination telltale will be illuminated. If an occupant of a
noncomplying vehicle is unaware of a TPMS malfunction at this speed for
five minutes, we do not believe that the malfunction would pose a
significant risk when compared to an occupant in a compliant vehicle.
NHTSA's Response to Comments
In its comments to the docket, Schrader stated its belief that the
petition should be denied because, it alleges, safety deficiencies are
inherent in indirect type TPMS and the compliance test procedure used
by NHTSA is inadequate for the detection of such deficiencies. Schrader
did not specifically address the TPMS combination telltale lamp
noncompliance that is the essence of the Volkswagen petition. Instead,
Schrader stated that it believes there are more ``problems'' with the
indirect system, and asked NHTSA to undertake a comprehensive review
and expand its test procedure.
NHTSA's safety standards and test procedures generally are
technology neutral to permit manufacturers to have maximum flexibility
in meeting any specified performance requirements. Although Schrader
alleges that the test procedure may be problematic, the current test
procedure (TP-138-03) follows precisely the testing protocol specific
in FMVSS No. 138 and did uncover a noncompliance in the Audi indirect
TPMS system.
However, if Schrader still takes issue with the actual test
requirements that originate in FMVSS No. 138, it should petition the
agency for a rulemaking revision. Requests for rulemaking changes
should be submitted in a petition for rulemaking filed under the
provisions of 49 CFR Part 552 Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and
Noncompliance Orders.
Because Schrader's comments did not provide any information
addressing Volkswagen's telltale noncompliance that is the essence of
its petition, Schrader's comments do not support denying the subject
petition.
Decision
After a review of Volkswagen's arguments, Schrader's comments, and
the final rule preamble language, NHTSA is convinced that Volkswagen
has met its burden of demonstrating that the noncompliance does not
present a significant safety risk. Therefore, NHTSA agrees with
Volkswagen that this specific noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
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 58,292 \13\ vehicles that Volkswagen no longer
controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed
in the subject vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Volkswagen's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part
556, requests an agency decision to exempt Volkswagen as a
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49
CFR Part 573 for 58,292 of the affected vehicles. However, the
agency cannot 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 Volkswagen notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
Volkswagen has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 138 TPMS
noncompliance in the vehicles identified in Volkswagen's Noncompliance
Information Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is granted and the petitioner is
exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a 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 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: May 18, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-12688 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P