Notice2022-02825
Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 10, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Automobili Lamborghini) has determined that certain model year (MY) 20152012;2020 Lamborghini Huracan motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Automobili Lamborghini filed a noncompliance report dated March 4, 2020, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 25, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces and explains the denial of Automobili Lamborghini's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7918-7919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02825]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0031; Notice 2]
Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Automobili Lamborghini) has
determined that certain model year (MY) 20152012;2020 Lamborghini
Huracan motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. Automobili Lamborghini filed a noncompliance
report dated March 4, 2020, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March
25, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces and explains the denial of Automobili Lamborghini's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5304, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Automobili Lamborghini has determined that certain MY 20152012;2020
Lamborghini Huracan motor vehicles do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraph S10.18.9.2 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108).
Automobili Lamborghini filed a noncompliance report dated March 4,
2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March
25, 2020, 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.
Notice of receipt of Automobili Lamborghini's petition was
published with a 30-day public comment period, on July 15, 2020, in the
Federal Register (85 FR 42979). One comment was received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2020-0031.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 4,727 MY 20152012;2020 Lamborghini Huracan motor
vehicles manufactured between July 30, 2014, and February 26, 2020, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Automobili Lamborghini explains that the noncompliance is that the
subject vehicles are equipped with headlamp assemblies that do not
fully meet the requirements in paragraph S10.18.9.2 of FMVSS No. 108.
Specifically, it is possible to adjust the horizontal aim of the lower
beam because the beam horizontal adjustment screw is not covered by a
blanking cap, and the headlamp is not otherwise equipped with a
horizontal vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD).
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S10.18.9.2 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. The standard requires that the headlamp not
be adjustable in terms of horizontal aim unless the headlamp is
equipped with a horizontal VHAD.
V. Summary of Automobili Lamborghini's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Automobili Lamborghini's Petition,'' are the views and
arguments provided by Automobili Lamborghini and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. Automobili Lamborghini describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Automobili Lamborghini states that ``[t]he horizontal aim
adjustment of the subject beams is possible, due to the absence of a
blanking cap over the beam horizontal adjustment screw.'' Customers
with advanced technical knowledge can reach the horizontal adjustment
screw by demounting the luggage compartment liner and make the
horizontal adjustment themselves. However, Automobili Lamborghini
argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons:
1. ``First, the adjustment screw is hidden by the luggage liner
when the vehicle's hood is open, so the screw is not visible.''
2. ``Second, the Owner's Manual does not identify this screw, so
no vehicle owner would ever need to try to search for and adjust the
screw in question.''
3. ``The only possibility to reach the adjustment screw without
removing the luggage liner is through a small hole in the luggage
liner using a long screwdriver, but without any possibility to see
it and without any indication [of] how to do it.''
4. ``Automobili Lamborghini is unaware of any accidents,
injuries, or customer complaints related to the horizontal aim
adjustment of the subject beams.''
5. The issue was corrected in production during calendar week 15
(fifteen) of 2020.
Automobili Lamborghini concludes by again contending that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety, and asking 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, be
granted.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from the general public which was
outside the scope of this petition.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7919]]
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries as evidence
that the issue is inconsequential to safety. The absence of complaints
does not mean vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety issue,
nor does it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected also do not justify granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\4\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential
risk to safety. Rather, NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant
who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\5\ The Safety
Act is preventive, and manufacturers cannot and should not wait for
deaths or injuries to occur in their vehicles before they carry out a
recall. See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754,
759 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Indeed, the very purpose of a recall is to
protect individuals from risk. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
\5\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of Automobili Lamborghini's petition
and has decided to deny the petition.
The purpose of a blanking cap on the horizontal adjustment screw is
to prevent adjustment of the horizontal aim in cases where there are no
references or scales relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
Such references or scales are necessary to assume correct aim for the
purposes of repeatable photometric testing and proper on-vehicle aim.
The obvious possible safety risk associated with a headlamp that is
missing a blanking cap is that someone could locate and improperly
adjust the lower beam horizontal adjustment mechanism either
intentionally or inadvertently. Improper horizontal aim, in turn, can
pose one or more of the following safety risks, which can lead to a
crash: Glare to other motorists/road users, reduced visibility on one
of the sides of the road, and reduced down-road visibility.
In the vehicles subject to the petition, the location of the
horizontal adjustment screw is near the vertical adjustment screw, and
both can be accessed through a small hole in the luggage liner. While
the Agency does not disagree with Lamborghini that the horizontal
adjustment screw itself is not visible, it does not find this argument
compelling because the screw can be accessed using a long screwdriver
via a hole in the luggage liner and potentially be confused with the
vertical adjustment screw. The Agency also does not find compelling
Lamborghini's argument that there is no information in the owner's
manual that documents the location of the horizontal adjustment screw,
because the horizontal screw is located both in close proximity to the
vertical adjustment screw, and where the vertical adjustment access
point would typically be located in vehicles. Accordingly, it is
possible for the horizontal adjustment screw to be mistaken for the
vertical adjustment screw, resulting in an improper adjustment of the
horizontal adjustment screw-which, as noted above, poses several safety
risks.
NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
Automobili Lamborghini has not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Automobili Lamborghini's petition is hereby denied
and Automobili Lamborghini is consequently obligated to provide
notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-02825 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 10, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.