Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 7410-7411 [2016-02721]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7410-7411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0077; Notice 2]


Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.(Lamborghini) has determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2008-2014 Lamborghini passenger cars do not 
fully comply with paragraph S4.4(c)(2), of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. Lamborghini 
filed a report dated May 23, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect 
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Lamborghini then 
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the 
rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Lamborghini 
submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day 
public comment period, on June 17, 2015, in the Federal Register (80 FR 
34788). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2014-0077.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are 690 MY 2012-2014 Lamborghini 
Aventador Coupe and Roadster model passenger cars manufactured between 
July 15, 2011 and May 13, 2014; 456 MY 2008-2010 Lamborghini 
Muricielago Coupe and Roadster model passenger cars manufactured 
between April 3, 2007 and April 29, 2010; and 2361 Lamborghini Gallardo 
Coupe and Spyder model passenger cars manufactured between June 14, 
2007 and November 20, 2013, for a total of 3507 vehicles.
    III. Noncompliance: Lamborghini explains that during testing of the 
tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) it was noted that the fitment of 
an incompatible wheel and tire unit was correctly detected and the 
malfunction indicator telltale illuminated as required by FMVSS No. 
138. However, when the vehicle ignition was deactivated and then 
reactivated after a five minute period, there was no immediate re-
illumination of the malfunction indicator telltale as required when the 
malfunction still exists. Although the malfunction indicator telltale 
does not re-illuminate immediately after the vehicle ignition is 
reactivated, it does illuminate in no more than 40 seconds after the 
vehicle is driven above 23 miles per hour (mph).
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.4(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 138 requires in 
pertinent part:

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

    V. Summary of Lamborghini's Analyses: Lamborghini stated its belief 
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety for the following reasons:
    (A) Lamborghini stated that although the TPMS malfunction indicator 
telltale will not illuminate immediately after the vehicle is 
restarted, it will illuminate shortly thereafter and in any event it 
will illuminate in no more than 40 seconds. Lamborghini further 
explained that once the vehicle has started and is moving above 23 mph 
for a period of 15 seconds, the TPMS will seek to confirm the sensors 
fitted to the vehicle. Lamborghini explains that a wheel without a 
sensor will be detected within an additional 15-25 seconds and

[[Page 7411]]

the TPMS malfunction indicator will then illuminate correctly. Once the 
malfunction indicator is illuminated, it will remain illuminated 
throughout that ignition cycle regardless of vehicle speed.
    (B) Lamborghini explained that if the TPMS fails to detect the 
wheel sensors, the TPMS will in fact display on the TPMS pressures 
screen within the instrument cluster no value for the tire pressure on 
the affected tire, indicating that the status of the wheel sensor is 
unconfirmed. This information will provide the driver notification of a 
TPMS anomaly.
    (C) Lamborghini states that the noncompliance is confined to one 
particular aspect of the functionality of the otherwise compliant TPMS 
malfunction indicator. All other aspects of the low-pressure monitoring 
system functionality are fully compliant with the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 138.
    (D) Lamborghini mentioned that NHTSA recognized in the TPMS final 
rule (70 FR 18150, April 8, 2005), ``A TPMS malfunction does not itself 
represent a safety risk to vehicle occupants, and we expect that the 
chances of having a TPMS malfunction and a significantly under-inflated 
tire at the same time are unlikely.'' Lamborghini responded by saying 
that if a TPMS malfunction is not considered a safety risk, then ipso 
facto the limited noncompliance of the malfunction indicator in this 
case does not present an unreasonable risk to safety.
    (E) Lamborghini stated that it is not aware of any customer 
complaints, field communications, incidents or injuries related to this 
condition.
    (F) Lamborghini said it has fixed all unsold vehicles in its 
custody and control so that they are fully compliant with FMVSS No 138.
    In summation, Lamborghini believes that the described noncompliance 
of the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and 
that its petition, to exempt Lamborghini from providing recall 
notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 
should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: Lamborghini explained that although the 
malfunction indicator does not re-illuminate immediately after the 
vehicle is restarted, it will illuminate shortly thereafter--within no 
more than 40 seconds once the vehicle has accelerated above 23 mph.
    NHTSA agrees with Lamborghini that the malfunction indicator will 
not illuminate as required during very short periods of time when the 
vehicle is traveling at low speeds and thus poses little risk to 
vehicle safety. Under normal driving conditions, a driver will begin a 
trip by accelerating moderately beyond 23 mph, and as explained by 
Lamborghini, the malfunction indicator illumination will occur shortly 
thereafter--within no more than 40 seconds. The malfunction indicator 
subsequently re-illuminates and then it will remain illuminated for the 
entire ignition cycle, regardless of vehicle speed. We agree the 
noncompliance will only occur in the very rare case where the driver 
begins a trip and never exceeds the 23 mph threshold, the speed 
required to re-activate the malfunction indicator. No real safety risk 
exists because at such low speeds there is little risk of vehicle loss 
of control due to underinflated tires. Furthermore, the possibility 
that the vehicle will experience both a low inflation pressure 
condition and a malfunction simultaneously is highly unlikely.
    Lamborghini explained that if the TPMS fails to detect the wheel 
sensors, the TPMS will in fact display on the TPMS pressures screen 
within the instrument cluster no value for the tire pressure of the 
affected tire, indicating that the status of the wheel sensor is 
unconfirmed.
    The agency evaluated the displays Lamborghini uses in the 
noncompliant vehicles. In addition to the combination telltale 
indicator lamp, the subject vehicles are equipped with a ``plan view'' 
icon which displays either the pressures for all four wheels 
individually or specifically identifies an individual tire with a large 
drop in pressure. If any wheel has a malfunctioning pressure sensor the 
indicator for that wheel displays either a red danger symbol (Priority 
1) or a yellow warning symbol (Priority 2) depending on the nature of 
the problem. This additional information is not required by the safety 
standard, but can be used as an aid to the driver to determine the 
status of a vehicle's tires.
    Lamborghini discussed that the noncompliance only involves one 
specific aspect of the malfunction functionality and that the primary 
function of the TPMS, identification of other malfunctions and 
identification of low inflation pressure scenarios, is not affected.
    The agency agrees with Lamborghini's reasoning that the primary 
function of the TPMS is to identify low tire inflation pressure 
conditions which Lamborghini's system does as required by the safety 
standard. There are a variety of other malfunctions that can occur in 
addition to the incompatible wheel/tire warning malfunction identified 
in this petition. We understand from Lamborghini that the TPMS 
installed in the subject vehicles will otherwise perform as required.
    Lamborghini mentioned that they have not received or are aware of 
any consumer complaints, field communications, incidences or injuries 
related to this noncompliance. In addition to the analysis done by 
Lamborghini that looked at customer complaints, field communications, 
incidents or injuries related to this condition, NHTSA conducted 
additional checks of NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigations consumer 
complaint database and found no related complaints.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis, NHTSA 
has decided that Lamborghini has met its burden of demonstrating that 
the FMVSS No. 138 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety. Accordingly, Lamborghini's petition is hereby granted and 
Lamborghini is exempted from the obligation of providing notification 
of, and a remedy for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 
and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision 
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that Lamborghini no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve 
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer 
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after 
Lamborghini notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-02721 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P