Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 72484-72486 [2015-29474]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72484
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 223 / Thursday, November 19, 2015 / Notices
(5) Vehicle Fitment: Paragraph S6 of
FMVSS No. 119 requires that the
marking should contain load capacity
values in pounds and kilograms as well
as a letter designating the load range.
This information is used by vehicle
owners to ensure adequate tire load
capacity for the specific vehicle
configuration. Although the subject tire
lacks the letter designating the load
range, MNA believes that the ETRTO
standard load capacity values and ISO
load indices for single and dual
application which are widely
recognized in the industry are present to
ensure proper application.
MNA has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected its internal
systems error to prevent similar tires
from being released for sale in the U.S.
market in the future.
In summation, MNA believes that the
described noncompliances of the subject
tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt
MNA from providing recall notification
of noncompliances 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 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 tires that MNA 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 tires
under their control after MNA 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. 2015–29473 Filed 11–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Aston Martin Lagonda
Limited (AML) has determined that
SUMMARY:
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.
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.
ADDRESSES:
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
amlna fleet
Model
Dealer
un-registered
Build [date]
range
211
225
153
147
120
156
385
279
170
122
671
74
197
41
53
1
1
0
0
54
56
9
12
0
65
80
10/09–10/13
10/09–10/13
10/09–08/12
10/09–08/12
12/10–08/12
12/10–08/12
10/09–10/13
10/09–10/13
06/10–10/13
06/10–10/13
09/09–02/13
01/13–10/13
09/12–10/13
Total ......................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DB9 Coupe ..................................................................................................................................
DB9 Volante .................................................................................................................................
DBS Coupe ..................................................................................................................................
DBS Volante ................................................................................................................................
Virage Coupe ...............................................................................................................................
Virage Volante .............................................................................................................................
V8 Vantage Coupe ......................................................................................................................
V8 Vantage Roadster ..................................................................................................................
V8 Vantage S Coupe ...................................................................................................................
V8 Vantage S Roadster ...............................................................................................................
Rapide ..........................................................................................................................................
Rapide S ......................................................................................................................................
Vanquish Coupe ..........................................................................................................................
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:00 Nov 18, 2015
Jkt 238001
then reactivated after a five minute
period, there was no immediate reillumination 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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 223 / Thursday, November 19, 2015 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:00 Nov 18, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 reactivate 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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72485
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
1 79
FR 47718 (August 14, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
72486
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 223 / Thursday, November 19, 2015 / Notices
operated, and it will do so very shortly
after the vehicle begins to move.
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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 35974]
Union Pacific Railroad Company—
Temporary Trackage Rights
Exemption—BNSF Railway Company
Madill Subdivision, a distance of
approximately 51.7 miles.
The transaction may be consummated
on or after December 3, 2015, the
effective date of the exemption (30 days
after the verified notice of exemption
was filed).
The purpose of the transaction is to
allow UP to move loaded and empty
unit ballast trains to be used for UP
maintenance of way projects. UP states
that, under the terms of the agreement,
the trackage rights are temporary in
nature and will be effective from
January 1, 2016, until December 31,
2018.
As a condition to this exemption, any
employees affected by the trackage
rights will be protected by the
conditions imposed in Norfolk &
Western Railway—Trackage Rights—
Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605
(1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast
Railway—Lease & Operate—California
Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).
This notice is filed under 49 CFR
1180.2(d)(7).2 If the notice contains false
or misleading information, the
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C.
10502(d) may be filed at any time. The
filing of a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption. Petitions for stay must
be filed no later than November 25,
2015 (at least seven days before the
exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD
35974, must be filed with the Surface
Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20423–0001. In
addition, a copy of each pleading must
be served on Jeremy M. Berman, Union
Pacific Railroad Company, 1400 Douglas
Street, STOP 1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’
Decided: November 16, 2015.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2015–29544 Filed 11–18–15; 8:45 am]
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)
have agreed to enter into a written
trackage rights agreement,1 under which
BNSF will grant temporary overhead
trackage rights to UP between milepost
579.3 near Mill Creek, Okla., on BNSF’s
Creek Subdivision and milepost 631.0
near Joe Junction, Tex., on BNSF’s
1 A copy of the temporary trackage rights
agreement was filed with the notice of exemption.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:00 Nov 18, 2015
Jkt 238001
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
2 Because the trackage rights covered by the
notice of exemption are longer than one year in
duration, the Board’s class exemption for temporary
trackage rights under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8) does not
apply. Instead, UP has filed under the trackage
rights class exemption at 1180.2(d)(7) and
concurrently has filed, in Docket No. FD 35974
(Sub-No. 1), a petition for partial revocation of this
exemption to permit these proposed trackage rights
to expire on December 31, 2018, as provided in the
parties’ agreement. The Board will address that
petition in a separate decision.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request for Regulation Project
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is
soliciting comments concerning an
existing rulings and determination
letters.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before January 19, 2016
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Michael Joplin, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the regulations should be
directed to Kerry Dennis at Internal
Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20224, or through the Internet at
Kerry.Dennis@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Rulings and Determination
Letters.
OMB Number: 1545–1522.
Revenue Procedure: RP 2012–1.
Abstract: This revenue procedure
explains how the Service provides
advice to taxpayers on issues under the
jurisdiction of the Associate Chief
Counsel (Corporate), the Associate Chief
Counsel (Financial Institutions and
Products), the Associate Chief Counsel
(Income Tax and Accounting), the
Associate Chief Counsel (International),
the Associate Chief Counsel
(Passthroughs and Special Industries),
the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure
and Administration), and the Division
Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax
Exempt and Government Entities). It
explains the forms of advice and the
manner in which advice is requested by
taxpayers and provided by the Service.
The agency needs this information in
order to use resources more efficiently
and to provide more guidance to
individual corporate taxpayers and their
shareholders.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
]]>Agencies
[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
