[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16854-16855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4815]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition submitted by Mr. Brad Lamb, Executive Director, North Carolina 
Consumers Council (NCCC) to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation 
(ODI). The petition was received on December 2, 2005. The petitioner 
requests, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162, that the agency commence a 
proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to motor 
vehicle safety with respect to the performance of the head lamp 
assemblies on model year (MY) 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix vehicles. After a 
review of the petition and other information, NHTSA has concluded that 
further expenditure of the agency's resources on the issue raised by 
the petition does not appear to be warranted. The agency has 
accordingly denied the petition. The petition is herein after 
identified as DP05-010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Leamon H. Strickland, Vehicle 
Integrity Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 2, 2005, ODI received a petition 
submitted by Mr. Brad Lamb, Executive Director of the North Carolina 
Consumers Council, requesting an investigation of an alleged defect 
evidenced by shake or bounce of the head lamps installed on MY 2004 
Pontiac Grand Prix vehicles (subject vehicles), a condition that may 
potentially distract the operators of other motor vehicles being 
approached or followed by the subject vehicles. The petition alleges 
that this condition may be exhibited when the subject vehicles are 
being driven on smooth as well as rough road surfaces. The petition 
states that as a result of this problem, the manufacturer redesigned 
the head lamp bracket and issued a procedure to dealers for retrofit of 
the revised bracket on early models of the subject vehicles to correct 
this problem. The petition also identifies and lists 33 non-duplicative 
reports regarding the alleged defect in the subject vehicles that are 
contained in the ODI consumer complaint database.
    In October 2003, ODI discovered that its consumer letter database 
contained six consumer complaints regarding this matter, and initiated 
a routine screening review of the matter. The review included road 
tests of six randomly selected subject vehicles in order to 
qualitatively assess the potential safety implications of the 
condition. The evaluation concluded that the problem appeared to be 
more apparent on those subject vehicle models equipped with the 
``sport'' suspension system, designed with more rigidity than the 
standard suspension system. The review also found that the condition 
was more noticeable when the subject vehicles were driven on rough road 
surfaces. The details of this initial review were presented to and 
evaluated by a panel of ODI engineers and managers, who decided that 
the issue did not rise to the level of a potential safety-related 
matter that should be formally investigated.
    The current petition prompted an additional and contemporary ODI 
review of the matter. ODI has confirmed that its consumer complaint 
database now contains the 33 consumer complaints cited by the petition, 
plus an additional three complaints, i.e., a total of 36 complaints. 
These complaints, however, contain no allegations or reports of 
accidents or compromise to control of the subject vehicles, or of 
compromise to driver control of other vehicles resulting from head lamp 
bounce or shake in the subject vehicles. It is noted, however, that in 
one instance a driver being followed by a subject vehicle reported 
thinking that he was being signaled, and stopped alongside the roadway 
with no additional consequence. ODI estimates that approximately 
180,000 of the subject vehicles were sold for use in the United Stares.
    ODI has also reviewed Early Warning Reports submitted by the 
manufacturer for any evidence of additional reports of this problem 
through field reports or other documentation generated by the 
manufacturer's evaluations. Some relevant product evaluation reports 
were identified but in each case the concern was reported to be limited 
to operation of the subject vehicles on rough road surfaces, and none 
of these reports noted compromise to safe operation to the subject 
vehicles or to any other vehicles.
    On November 23, 2004, the manufacturer issued a Technical Service 
Bulletin (TSB) on this condition to authorized dealers of the subject 
vehicles. The TSB prescribed a procedure for the installation of 
revised bracket and associated hardware to improve securement of the 
headlamp assembly to the vehicle.
    The subject MY 2004 vehicles were first sold to the public 
beginning approximately in September 2003, and carried a standard 36-
month/36,000-mile warranty. All of the subject vehicles are still 
within the 36 month limit of the original warranty, and that coverage 
continues unless the mileage limits have been exceeded. Therefore, any 
vehicle that developed the headlight shake condition has been eligible 
for repair at no cost to the owner by simply returning it to an 
authorized dealer; this eligibility is still in effect for those 
vehicles for which the mileage limits have not been surpassed. The 
repairs covered under the provisions of the warranty would typically 
involve installation of the revised headlamp bracket using the 
procedures outlined in the TSB issued in November 2004.
    ODI's review disclosed that the first of the 36 consumer complaints 
was dated October 2003, and that the vehicle involved has been eligible 
for repair under the warranty provisions for

[[Page 16855]]

approximately 15 months. Unless the mileage limit of warranty coverage 
has been exceeded, that vehicle is still eligible for warranty repair. 
ODI further noted that 34 of the 36 consumer complaints were submitted 
prior to issuance of the manufacturer's TSB. Only two consumer 
complaints have been submitted since the TSB was issued, and the most 
recent was dated July 2005. It is clear that consumer complaints 
regarding the alleged defect have exhibited a declining trend.
    ODI concludes that no evidence has been identified to suggest that 
headlamp shake in the subject vehicles constitutes significantly more 
than a nuisance, and that no potential safety-related implications of 
this condition have been demonstrated.
    In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an 
order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect as defined 
by the petitioner at the conclusion of the investigation requested in 
the petition. Therefore, and in view of the need to prioritize NHTSA's 
limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the 
petition is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8.

Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-4815 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P