General Motors Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 17159-17160 [E6-4912]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 2006 / Notices visual deficiencies are as safe or safer than drivers in the general population. FMCSA also published a Federal Register Notice announcing the establishment of a Medical Review Board (MRB) on October 3, 2005 (70 FR 57642). The MRB is scheduled to review the vision standard during the third quarter of 2006. The driving experience criteria will remain in effect for the Federal Vision Exemption Program until the conclusion of these initiatives. Two additional comments received were in favor of granting the exemptions and supported the approach FMCSA takes in evaluating the exemption candidates. below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collections and their expected burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was published on January 11, 2006 [Volume 71, No. 7, Page 1782]. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Toth, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6213, NPO–111, Washington, DC 20590. The telephone number for Mr. Toth is (202) 366–5378. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Conclusion After considering the comments to the docket and based upon its evaluation of the 3 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts Doyle F. Heiner and James R. Moretz from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under ‘‘Conditions and Requirements’’ above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to the FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Issued on: March 29, 2006. Rose A. McMurray, Associate Administrator, Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6–4898 Filed 4–4–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice. wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES AGENCY: SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Apr 04, 2006 Jkt 208001 Title: National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). OMB Number: 2127 0021. Type of Request: Continuation. Abstract: The collection of crash data that support the establishment and enforcement of motor vehicle regulations that reduce the severity of injury and property damage caused by motor vehicle crashes is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89– 563, Title 1, Sec. 106, 108, and 112). The National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigates high severity crashes. Once a crash has been selected for investigation, researchers locate, visit, measure, and photograph the crash scene; locate, inspect, and photograph vehicles; conduct a telephone or personal interview with the involved individuals or surrogate; and obtain and record injury information received from various medical data sources. NASS CDS data are used to describe and analyze circumstances, mechanisms, and consequences of high severity motor vehicle crashes in the United States. The collection of interview data aids in this effort. Affected Public: Passenger Motor Vehicle Operators. Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,807 hours. Number of respondents: 13,500. ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725–17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17159 have practical utility; the accuracy of the Departments estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Joseph S. Carra, Associate Administrator for National Center for Statistics and Analysis. [FR Doc. E6–4915 Filed 4–4–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 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 E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM 05APN1 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES 17160 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 2006 / Notices 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 reaiming 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Apr 04, 2006 Jkt 208001 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 https://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 https:// 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 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB–6 (Sub-No. 437X)] BNSF Railway Company— Abandonment Exemption—in Polk County, IA BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon a 0.89-mile line of railroad that extends between Station 0+00 and Station 47+00 near Glake, in Polk County, IA. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Code 50317. BNSF has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic handled on the line can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under Oregon Short Line R. Co.— Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on May 5, 2006, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,1 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by April 17, 2006. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by April 25, 2006, with: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to BNSF’s representative: Sidney L. Strickland, Jr., Sidney Strickland and Associates, PLLC, 3050 K Street, NW., Suite 101, Washington, DC 20007. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. BNSF has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by April 10, 2006. Interested persons may obtain a copy of 1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board’s Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption’s effective date. 2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is set at $1,200, but is scheduled to increase to $1,300, effective April 19, 2006. See Regulations Governing Fees for Services Performed in Connection with Licensing and Related Services—2006 Update, STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 13) (STB served Mar. 20, 2006). See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM 05APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17159-17160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 
https://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 https://
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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.