[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19442]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 10, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. 94-12; Notice 2]

 

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.; Grant of Petition for 
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (Mercedes) of Montvale, New 
Jersey determined that the headlamps on some of its vehicles fail to 
comply with the lens bonding requirements of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices and 
Associated Equipment,'' and filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 
CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Mercedes also 
petitioned to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et 
seq.) (now 49 U.C.C. 30118 and 30120) on the basis that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published on February 11, 
1994 and an opportunity afforded for comment (59 FR 6674). This notice 
grants the petition.
    Section S4 of Standard No. 108 defines ``replaceable bulb 
headlamp'' as one that is comprised of a bonded lens and reflector 
assembly. From August 1991 to December 1993, the petitioner imported 
approximately 46,000 Mercedes-Benz vehicles for sale in the United 
States in which the headlamps were not ``replaceable bulb headlamps'' 
because their lenses were clipped onto their reflectors as an assembly 
rather than bonded. These vehicles included approximately 35,925 S-
Class, 7,379 E-Class, and 2,632 C-Class models. In addition, 
approximately 1,873 noncompliant replacement part headlamps and 
approximately 1,147 noncompliant replacement part headlamp lenses were 
sold to Mercedes-Benz dealerships.
    Mercedes supported its petition for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following.

1. Damaged Lenses Will Be Replaced With Complying Headlamp 
Assemblies

    Based on the number of replacement lenses sold in Model Years 1991-
92, [Mercedes] estimates that approximately 500 lenses are replaced 
each year in the subject vehicles. Thus, the number of vehicles 
involved is relatively low.
    Effective November 2, 1993, [Mercedes] no longer sells lenses as a 
replacement part. This means that no source for replacement lenses now 
exists. Therefore, when lenses are damaged in the future, the owner's 
only recourse will be to replace the entire headlamp assembly that 
complies with Standard 108.
    In the unlikely event that a noncomplying aftermarket lens market 
were developed for the 46,000 vehicles produced, their use would be 
restricted by state inspection laws. At the present time, approximately 
two-thirds of all states have periodic inspection programs. As 
evidenced by * * * state vehicle regulations [which Mercedes included 
with its petition and are contained in the Docket], replacement 
headlamp lenses are required to keep the headlamp in compliance with 
Standard 108. It is our understanding that State Inspection garages 
routinely reject cars if their headlamp lenses do not bear the ``DOT'' 
marking, since the lack of ``DOT'' quickly identifies the headlamp as a 
non-U.S. unit. Therefore, in the unlikely event that a vehicle owner 
replaces a damaged lens with a noncomplying aftermarket lens rather 
than a complying headlamp assembly, the vehicle will fail inspection in 
most states.

2. Headlamp Aim Not Affected

    In a recently published Federal Register notice (Docket 93-57) 
requesting comments on the subject of bonded versus unbonded headlamps, 
NHTSA stated:

    In previous denials of petitions to allow removable headlamp 
lenses, NHTSA argued that mechanical aiming of lamps with lens-
mounted aiming pads could be affected by any change of the alignment 
relationship established between lenses and reflectors at the time 
of manufacture. Thus, alteration of the original alignment during 
lens replacement could misaim the beam. [58 Fed. Reg. 42,924 (August 
12, 1993).]

    This concern is not relevant here because the vehicles in question 
contain on-board aiming devices (vehicle headlamp aiming devices). No 
aiming pads are needed in such advanced technology. Since the lens does 
not participate in the aiming of the headlamp, aiming cannot be 
affected by misalignment of the lens during lens replacement in the 
Mercedes system.

3. Headlamp Beam Formation Not Affected

    In the same Federal Register notice, NHTSA expressed concern that 
replacement lenses may alter the headlamp beam formation due to the 
fluting (prescription) of the lens. Several factors assure photometric 
compliance with Standard 108 for the Mercedes-Benz unbonded headlamp. 
First, in the headlamp manufacturing process, the headlamp is designed 
so that the lens can be clipped onto any housing/reflector assembly and 
be assured of meeting the photometric performance requirements of 
Standard 108. * * * [T]he design permits only a positive and secure 
attachment. There are no shims or adjustments that could influence the 
lens mounting. Second, from a design point of view, the physical size 
of the reflector and lens make the headlamp highly insensitive to 
minute positioning variations in mounting and/or manufacture.

4. Vehicle Maintenance

    All affected vehicles are within the time constraints of the 
warranty period. Thus, within the next 12 months, [Mercedes] will be 
able to remedy the noncompliance when the subject vehicles are brought 
in for service. [Mercedes] will direct dealers to bond the headlamps of 
all noncomplying vehicles brought to authorized dealers for service.

5. Conclusion

    In view of the fact that the headlamps comply with all performance 
aspects of Standard 108, that the replacement lenses are no longer 
available from [Mercedes] or its dealers, and that the vehicles will be 
remedied shortly through routine warranty maintenance, there is no 
adverse impact on safety. Therefore, [Mercedes believes that] NHTSA 
should grant [its] petition for an exemption for an inconsequential 
noncompliance with Standard 108.
    One comment was received, from Volkswagen of North America, Inc., 
which supported granting the petition.
    NHTSA's principal concerns with headlamp compliance are photometric 
performance and durability. The agency accepts the petitioner's 
representation that the accuracy of headlamp aim is not affected by 
lens replacement. The fact that the petitioner has undertaken to bond 
the lenses on vehicles that come in for warranty service addresses the 
agency's concern on durability. NHTSA deems it unlikely that, during 
the warranty period which is early in the life of the headlamp, the 
reflector assembly will deteriorate to a point that it affects 
photometric performance because the lens is clipped rather than bonded. 
Although 100% of the noncompliant vehicles may not be returned for 
warranty work, it is the practice of most vehicle owners to have such 
work done by a factory authorized dealer, and NHTSA deems it likely 
that most cars will have the noncompliance corrected by the end of the 
4-year warranty period.
    The agency is currently considering a petition from Robert Bosch 
GmbH, the manufacturer of the noncompliant headlamps, to permit the use 
of unbonded lenses on replaceable bulb headlamps that are equipped with 
on-vehicle aiming devices. If NHTSA were to grant the petition and to 
propose such an amendment, it might be necessary to include enhanced 
durability requirements that would help to ensure reflector integrity 
and resistance to contaminants between the time the lens is damaged and 
the time it is replaced. At this point, the agency does not know how 
the unbonded Mercedes headlamps would perform under such enhanced 
requirements that are yet to be fully developed and evaluated. 
Therefore, the bonding by Mercedes of its vehicle headlamps seems to be 
a prudent course of action under the circumstances.
    The petition also covered replacement headlamps and replacement 
lenses. NHTSA understands that these parts are intended to replace 
parts on the headlamps covered by the petition, and deems it likely 
that most of the vehicles equipped with the replacement headlamps or 
lenses will be inspected and corrected during the warranty period as 
well.
    In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that 
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., has met its burden of persuasion 
that the noncompliance herein described is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition is granted.

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

    Issued on August 4, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-19442 Filed 8-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P