
[Federal Register: April 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 81)]
[Notices]               
[Page 22460-22461]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ap08-143]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0067; Notice 1]

 
Automobili Lamborghini SpA, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Automobili Lamborghini SpA (Lamborghini), has determined that 
certain vehicles that it manufactured during the period June 8, 2007 to 
December 18, 2007, did not fully comply with paragraph S5.5 of 49 CFR 
571.205 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 205 Glazing 
Materials. Lamborghini has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
at 49 CFR part 556), Lamborghini 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 Lamborghini'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 approximately 152 model year 2008 Lamborghini Gallardo 
Superleggera coupe passenger cars produced during the period June 8, 
2007 to December 18, 2007. Paragraph S5.5 of 49 CFR 571.205 requires in 
pertinent part that:

    S5.5 Item 4A Glazing. Item 4A glazing may be used in all areas 
in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used, and also for side 
windows rearward of the ``C'' pillar. I.e., Item 4A glazing may be 
used under Item 4A paragraph (b) of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 only in side 
windows rearward of the ``C'' pillar.

    Lamborghini explained that due to a configuration mistake on the 
production line an incorrect component made of polycarbonate (item 4A 
glazing) was used in the rear windows of certain U.S. version coupes 
(hardtops). Lamborghini further explained that based on the 
requirements of paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 205 item 4A glazing is 
permitted in European specification vehicle rear windows and in U.S. 
convertible rear windows, but not in U.S. coupe (hardtop) rear windows.
    Lamborghini stated its belief that the reason why FMVSS No. 205 
excludes item 4A from the rear windows of coupe (hardtop) vehicles is 
twofold:
    (1) The breaking of rigid plastic windows in a crash could leave 
sharp, pointed shards in the window frame which could easily be 
contacted by an occupant's head. There is also concern about occupant 
injury resulting from large shards of rigid plastic glazing being 
propelled inward by vehicle impacts with trees, poles, or other 
vehicles.
    (2) Second, The reduction in visibility through rear windows using 
plastic glazing due to abrasion and weathering creates significant 
safety concerns because a driver may have insufficient visibility to 
avoid a crash in the first place.
    Lamborghini also stated that it believes the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety in the case of the Superleggera 
because neither of the safety concerns discussed above is present 
because:
    (1) The use of polycarbonate glazing creates no greater danger 
because FMVSS No. 201 conformance testing has shown that a passenger 
head cannot physically contact the rear window given its small size and 
location. Also, the rear window is so small and located in a protected 
position between the ``buttresses'' of the vehicle's roof such that 
impacts with trees, poles, or other vehicles, would not create the 
danger of posed by large shards.
    (2) Reduction in visibility due to abrasion and weathering is not 
an issue with the Superleggera. In this vehicle, the driver's rear 
visibility is based on the twin rear side mirrors. Even with no 
abrasion or weathering, the design of the vehicle (and in particular 
the ``buttresses'' of the roof) precludes a large degree of rearward 
visibility. Lamborghini additionally states that it believes that this 
situation is common for performance sports cars.
    Lamborghini further explains that in its opinion NHTSA has 
previously given other reasons that a noncompliance similar to the 
instant one are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety including:
    (1) Such a noncompliance is ``expected to be imperceptible, or 
nearly so, to vehicle occupants or approaching drivers.''
    (2) Under FMVSS No. 205, item 4A glazing is permitted in the rear 
window of a ``convertible'', including hardtop convertibles.
    (3) NHTSA previously held that as regards an exotic vehicle, a 
noncompliance is inconsequential because the vehicle at issue was not 
an ordinary passenger automobile designed for daily use, not designed 
to be used as a family's primary passenger vehicle, and more of a 
collector's piece, produced in very low numbers and driven a low number 
of miles.
    Lamborghini additionally states that no customer complaints related 
to this noncompliance have been received.
    Lamborghini requested that NHTSA consider its petition and grant an 
exemption from the notification and recall requirements of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act on the basis that the 
noncompliance described above is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    Lamborghini also states that it has corrected the problem that 
caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future 
production.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or 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:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open

[[Page 22461]]

on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed 
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    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 27, 2008.

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

    Issued on: April 18, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle, Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-8991 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
