[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 34415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-24137; Notice 2]


General Motors Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    General Motors Corporation (GM) has determined that certain 2006 
model year Cadillac XLR vehicles do not comply with S7.8.2.1(c) of 49 
CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, 
``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.'' Pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), GM has petitioned for a determination 
that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and 
has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect 
and Noncompliance Reports.'' Notice of receipt of a petition was 
published, with a 30-day comment period, on April 5, 2006, in the 
Federal Register (71 FR 17159). NHTSA received no comments.
    Affected are a total of approximately 1,074 model year 2006 
Cadillac XLR vehicles produced between July 26, 2005 and November 3, 
2005. S7.8.2.1(c) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that if visually/optically 
(VO) aimable headlamps are equipped with a horizontal adjustment 
mechanism, then the mechanism must meet the applicable headlamp aim 
requirements in S7.8.5.2. That standard requires that a headlamp system 
that is capable of being aimed include a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device 
that includes the necessary references and scales to assure correct aim 
and that a label containing aiming instruction be affixed adjacent to 
the device. The noncompliant headlamps are equipped with a horizontal 
adjustment but do not meet the S7.8.5.2 requirements. GM explains that 
during the assembly process the horizontal adjuster is supposed to be 
disabled but in the case of the subject lamps, the disabling was not 
done. GM has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that 
they will not be repeated in future production.
    GM believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. GM offers 
several bases for this assertion.
    First, GM states that the location of the horizontal adjuster makes 
it difficult to access, because it is recessed six inches behind the 
opening under the top of the fender and there is no information in the 
owner's manual indicating the location.
    Second, GM states that the horizontal adjuster requires a different 
tool than the vertical adjuster, a tool which is not commonly available 
to the public.
    Third, GM states that the lamps are properly aimed and the need for 
re-aiming is unlikely. GM explains that VO headlamps have a wider beam 
pattern, making horizontal aiming unnecessary, supported by the fact 
that GM is not aware of warranty claims or customer complaints 
regarding the headlamps' horizontal aim.
    Fourth, GM states that it is unlikely that owners will try to 
adjust headlamp aim for the following reasons. The owner's manual 
instructs drivers to take the vehicle to the dealer if the lamps need 
to be re-aimed, a four-year 50,000 mile warranty on the vehicle makes 
it more likely that owners will seek to have any adjustments performed 
by the dealer, the wide beam reduces the need for headlamp adjustment, 
and it is unlikely that luxury car customers would make their own 
repairs.
    Fifth, GM asserts that it is unlikely that dealers will try to 
horizontally adjust the lamps because they are not aware of the 
horizontal adjustment. Instead, dealers are likely to replace lamps 
that develop an incorrect horizontal aim.
    Sixth, GM states that the lamps are designed to compensate for 
build variation and vehicle repair, and it conducted additional testing 
which it believes validates that road vibration will not result in the 
lamps being out of aim.
    Seventh, GM states that it is not aware of crashes, injuries, 
complaints, or field reports related to the noncompliance.
    NHTSA agrees with GM that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety. The only possible safety risk is that someone 
could locate and improperly adjust the horizontal adjustment mechanism. 
That risk is extremely small. The location of the horizontal adjuster 
makes it difficult to access and there is no information in the owner's 
manual or given to the dealer which indicates the location. Further, 
the lamps are properly aimed and the need for re-aiming is unlikely 
since these headlamps have a wider beam pattern which makes horizontal 
aiming unnecessary. In addition, as GM points out, it is unlikely that 
owners will try to adjust the headlamp aim since the owner's manual 
instructs drivers to take the vehicle to the dealer if the lamps need 
to be re-aimed, and a four-year, 50,000-mile warranty on the vehicle 
makes it more likely that owners will seek to have any adjustments 
performed by the dealer. Because dealers are generally not aware that 
the horizontal aim can be adjusted, they are likely to replace the 
lamps that may need adjustment. Moreover, to the extent this notice 
increases awareness on the part of owners or dealers that the 
horizontal adjustment mechanism is present on these vehicles, the 
notice will also inform them that any horizontal adjustment issue 
should be addressed by replacing the lamps and/or contacting GM.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM's 
petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation 
of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: June 9, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E6-9279 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P