[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17159-17160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4912]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24137; Notice 1]


General Motors Corporation, Receipt 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.'' GM has filed 
an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), GM has petitioned 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.
    This notice of receipt of GM'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.
    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 horizontal adjustment, then 
they must meet the applicable headlamp aim requirements in S7.8.5.2. 
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

[[Page 17160]]

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 any adjustments will be 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.
    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.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and 
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by 
any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on 
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of 
the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 
10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. Comments may be submitted 
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at 
http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to obtain instructions for filing 
the document electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1-202-493-2251, 
or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: May 5, 2006.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: March 30, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E6-4912 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P