7918 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 

1Cf. 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). 

through www.dot.gov/privacy. To 

facilitate comment tracking and 

response, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. Whether 

or not commenters identify themselves, 

all timely comments will be fully 

considered. 

(Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 

46 U.S.C. 12121) 

* * * * * 

By Order of the Acting Maritime 

Administrator. 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02818 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

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 https://

www.regulations.gov/. 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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Notices 7919 

2See 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). 

3See 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’’). 

4See 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). 

5See 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). 

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

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. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Renewal; 

Comment Request; Renewal Without 

Change of Prohibition on 

Correspondent Accounts for Foreign 

Shell Banks; Records Concerning 

Owners of Foreign Banks and Agents 

for Service of Legal Process 

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN), Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, FinCEN invites comments on 

the proposed renewal, without change, 

of a currently approved information 

collection found in existing Bank 

Secrecy Act regulations. Specifically, 

the regulations prohibit covered 

financial institutions from maintaining 

correspondent accounts for or on behalf 

of a foreign shell bank. The regulations 

require that a covered financial 

institution take reasonable steps to 

ensure that any correspondent account 

that it maintains in the United States for 

a foreign bank is not used by the foreign 

bank to indirectly provide banking 

services to a foreign shell bank. The 

regulations also mandate that a covered 

financial institution maintaining 

correspondent accounts in the United 

States for foreign banks retain records in 

the United States identifying: The 

owners of each such foreign bank whose 

shares are not publicly traded, unless 

the foreign bank files a Form FR–Y with 

the Federal Reserve Board identifying 

the current owners of the foreign bank; 

and the name and address of a person 

who resides in the United States who is 

authorized to serve as each such foreign 

bank’s agent for service of legal process 

for records regarding each such 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1