Document ID: NHTSA-2022-0014-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Porsche Cars North America, Inc.; Receipt
Posted Date: 2023-01-17T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2756-2757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0014; Notice 1]

Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Porsche Cars North America, Inc., (Porsche) has determined 
that certain model year (MY) 2020-2021 Porsche Panamera motor vehicles 
do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light Vehicles, No. 
135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure 
Monitoring Systems. Porsche filed a noncompliance report dated December 
15, 2021. Porsche subsequently petitioned NHTSA on January 14, 2022, 
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces receipt of 
Porsche's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before February 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vince Williams, General Engineer, 
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-2319.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Porsche has determined that certain MY 2020-2021 
Porsche Panamera motor vehicles do not fully comply with the 
requirements of paragraph S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability 
Control Systems for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.126), paragraph S5.5.2 
of No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.135); paragraph 
S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (49 CFR 
571.138). Porsche filed a noncompliance report dated December 15, 2021, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. Porsche subsequently petitioned NHTSA on January 14, 2022, 
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 
U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for 
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Porsche'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: Approximately 4,720 MY 2020-2021 Porsche 
Panamera motor vehicles manufactured between November 3, 2020, and 
December 8, 2021, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Porsche explains that the noncompliance is that 
the digital telltales do not illuminate during the lamp check function 
when the ignition is in the ``On'' position.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 126, paragraph 
S5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 135, and

[[Page 2757]]

paragraph S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 138 include the requirements relevant to 
this petition:
     Except when a starter interlock is in operation, each ESC 
malfunction telltale must be activated as a check of lamp function 
either when the ignition locking system is turned to the ``On'' 
(``Run'') position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition 
locking system is in a position between ``On'' (``Run'') and ``Start'' 
that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.
     All indicators shall be activated as a check function by 
either: (1) automatic activation when the ignition (start) switch is 
turned to the ``On'' (``Run'') position when the engine is not running, 
or when the ignition (``Start'') switch is in a position between ``On'' 
(``Run'') and ``Start'' that is designated by the manufacturer as a 
check position, or (2) a single manual action by the driver, such as 
momentary activation of a test button or switch mounted on the 
instrument panel in front of and in clear view of the driver, or, in 
the case of an indicator for application of the parking brake, by 
applying the parking brake when the ignition is in the ``On'' (``Run'') 
position. In the case of a vehicle that has an interlock device that 
prevents the engine from being started under one or more conditions, 
check functions meeting the two aforementioned requirements need not be 
operational under any condition in which the engine cannot be started. 
The manufacturer must explain the brake check function test procedure 
in the owner's manual.
     Except when a starter interlock is in operation, each low 
tire pressure warning telltale must illuminate as a check of lamp 
function either when the ignition locking system is activated to the 
``On'' (``Run'') position when the engine is not running, or when the 
ignition locking system is in a position between ``On'' (``Run'') and 
``Start'' that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.
    V. Summary of Porsche's Petition: The following views and arguments 
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Porsche's Petition,'' are 
the views and arguments provided by Porsche. They have not been 
evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. 
Porsche begins by describing the subject noncompliance and stating its 
belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    Porsche explains that the telltale displays for several systems 
found in the subject vehicles, including the ESC system, brake system, 
and the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS), do not use light bulbs 
or lamps but instead ``utilize Thin-film-transistor (TFT) LCD 
technology.'' Therefore, according to Porsche, ``the bulb check or lamp 
check requirements of the cited FMVSS would not fulfill the safety 
purpose for which these requirements were originally written.''
    Porsche claims that despite the subject noncompliance, ``there is 
no adverse effect on the function on the warning telltale itself in the 
intended (warning) cases for any of the FMVSS-required telltales'' 
because in the event that the system fails, the corresponding light 
would still illuminate.
    Porsche states that when the bulb check requirements were first 
developed in 1969, vehicles used light bulbs with filament which ``had 
a limited life span and were expected to fail routinely during the life 
of the vehicle,'' therefore the bulb check requirements were intended 
to notify the driver of these anticipated bulb failures. According to 
Porsche, because the subject vehicles instead use LCD displays which 
``do not use filaments and have an expected life span that far exceeds 
the expected useful life of the vehicle,'' the required bulb check 
function is ``superfluous to safety.''
    Furthermore, Porsche says that ``even in the event of an 
illumination failure of the subject displays, the nature of the LCD 
cluster would make the failure obvious to the driver, eliminating the 
need for a bulb check.'' If the display were to malfunction, Porsche 
explains that ``the entire LCD display would go dark, leaving a 
substantial, and obvious portion of the instrument cluster dark'' which 
would immediately alert the driver. Therefore, Porsche claims that 
NHTSA's stated purpose of the bulb check requirement \1\ would be 
fulfilled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from A. Cooke, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to R. 
Clarke, President, Truck Manufacturers Association (March 5, 2007) 
https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/001402rls.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Porsche claims that ``NHTSA also has recognized that 
these types of multi-function displays would not be expected to have 
the same functionality as traditional telltales and therefore may meet 
bulb check requirements in different ways.'' Porsche references the 
FMVSS No. 126 final rule published by NHTSA on April 6, 2007,\2\ to 
support its assertion that NHTSA has previously determined that a bulb 
check is not relevant or necessary to the type of display technology 
utilized for information/message centers. Therefore, if the display 
experiences a problem analogous to one which would be found by a 
telltale's bulb check, the entire message center would be non-
operational, a situation likely to be rapidly discovered by the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 72 FR 17235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Porsche concludes by stating its belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    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 Porsche 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 Porsche 
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.)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-00682 Filed 1-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P