[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 4744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1582]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0114; Notice 2]


Bentley Motors, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Bentley Motors, Inc. (Bentley) has determined that certain 
headlamps in 2005-2008 Bentley Arnage and Azure passenger cars do not 
fully comply with paragraph S7.8.2.1(b) of 49 CFR 571.108, Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices 
and Associated Equipment. Bentley 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), Bentley 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. Notice of receipt of Bentley's petition was published, with a 
30-day public comment period, on 7/30/2009, in the Federal Register (74 
FR 38082). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System Web 
site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search 
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2009-0114.''
    For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Mike Cole, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-2334, facsimile 
(202) 366-7002.
    Bentley estimated that 1,115 model year 2005-2008 Bentley Arnage 
and Azure passenger cars manufactured between January 13, 2004 and 
November 9, 2007 are involved. Bentley also stated that based on its 
preliminary investigation it believes that only 50% of those vehicles 
have the subject noncompliance.
    Paragraph S7.8.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent part:

    S7.8.5.3 Visual/optical aiming. Each visually/optically aimable 
headlamp shall be designed to conform to the following requirements: 
* * *
    (b) Horizontal aim, lower beam. There shall be no adjustment of 
horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal 
VHAD. If the headlamp has a VHAD, it shall be set to zero.

    Bentley explained that the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 is that 
horizontal aim adjustment of the subject lower beams is possible due to 
the absence of a blanking cap over the lower beam horizontal adjustment 
screw.
    Bentley also stated that they discovered this noncompliance as a 
result of a special production line quality audit investigation.
    Bentley further stated that it believes that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for three reasons. First, the 
adjustment screw is always hidden by an engine cover when the vehicle's 
hood is open. Second, when the engine cover is removed the screw is 
still hidden down a small dark guide hole, so the screw is not 
immediately visible and it is not immediately obvious that a disabling 
cap is not present. Last, the workshop manual clearly identifies that 
this screw is not functional on North American specification vehicles 
so no vehicle repairer would ever need to try to search for and adjust 
the screw in question.
    Bentley also has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem 
that caused this noncompliance.
    In summation, Bentley states that it believes that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no 
corrective action is warranted.

NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA agrees with Bentley that the noncompliance is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety. The only possible safety risk is that someone 
could locate and improperly adjust the lower beam 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 as originally installed in the subject vehicles are 
properly aimed and the need for re-aiming is unlikely. In addition, 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. 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 Bentley.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Bentley 
has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 
headlamps noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, Bentley's petition is granted and the petitioner is 
exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy 
for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

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

    Issued on: January 19, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-1582 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P