7410 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

safety standard. Also, there are a variety 

of other malfunctions that can occur in 

addition to the delayed re-illumination 

malfunction identified in this petition. 

We understand from FNA that the 

TPMS installed in the subject vehicles 

will otherwise perform as required. 

FNA 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 FNA 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 two subject vehicle 

complaints both of which were 

determined to be unrelated to this 

petition. 

NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration 

of the foregoing analysis, NHTSA has 

decided that FNA has met its burden of 

demonstrating that the FMVSS No. 138 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

FNA’s petition is hereby granted and 

FNA 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 FNA 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 FNA 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. 2016–02726 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

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

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., Grant 

of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Automobili Lamborghini 

S.p.A.(Lamborghini) has determined 

that certain model year (MY) 2008–2014 

Lamborghini passenger cars do not fully 

comply with paragraph S4.4(c)(2), of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure 

Monitoring Systems. Lamborghini filed 

a report dated May 23, 2014, pursuant 

to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Lamborghini then petitioned 

NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 

requesting a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Kerrin Bressant, 

Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance, 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–1110, facsimile (202) 366– 

3081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule 

implementing those provisions at 49 

CFR part 556, Lamborghini submitted a 

petition for an exemption from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. 

Notice of receipt of the petition was 

published, with a 30-day public 

comment period, on June 17, 2015, in 

the Federal Register (80 FR 34788). No 

comments were received. To view the 

petition and all supporting documents 

log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web site 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2014– 

0077.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are 690 

MY 2012–2014 Lamborghini Aventador 

Coupe and Roadster model passenger 

cars manufactured between July 15, 

2011 and May 13, 2014; 456 MY 2008– 

2010 Lamborghini Muricielago Coupe 

and Roadster model passenger cars 

manufactured between April 3, 2007 

and April 29, 2010; and 2361 

Lamborghini Gallardo Coupe and 

Spyder model passenger cars 

manufactured between June 14, 2007 

and November 20, 2013, for a total of 

3507 vehicles. 

III. Noncompliance: Lamborghini 

explains that during testing of the tire 

pressure monitoring system (TPMS) it 

was noted that the fitment of an 

incompatible wheel and tire unit was 

correctly detected and the malfunction 

indicator telltale illuminated as required 

by FMVSS No. 138. However, when the 

vehicle ignition was deactivated and 

then reactivated after a five minute 

period, there was no immediate 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES