[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 1999)] [Notices] [Pages 29733-29736] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 99-13896] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 98-3343; Notice 2] Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.; Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From Five Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., of Vance, Alabama (``MBUSI''), applied for a temporary exemption from five Federal motor vehicle safety standards on behalf of the Mercedes-Benz M Class vehicle. The basis of the application was that, in the absence of an exemption, MBUSI would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a non-exempted vehicle. The company asked for an exemption of 2 years. We published notice of receipt of the application on February 2, 1998, and afforded an opportunity for comment (63 FR 5415), receiving two of them. James C. Walker of JCW Consulting, Ann Arbor, Michigan, supported MBUSI. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates'') opposed granting the requested exemptions for the reasons set forth below. Subsequently, MBUSI submitted a rebuttal of Advocates' comments. We also asked MBUSI to submit a photo of the M Class showing its nighttime illumination from the side, and later requested information pertaining both to German and U.S. tourist delivery programs. Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(iv), as implemented by 49 CFR 555.6(d), we may exempt motor vehicles, on a temporary basis of up to 2 years, from compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard upon a finding that ``(iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles'' (We must also find that the exemption is in the public interest and consistent with objectives of traffic safety). The exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles for any 12-month period that it is in effect. MBUSI manufactures the Mercedes-Benz M Class sport utility vehicle. It has developed a version of the M Class for [[Page 29734]] export which is manufactured to European specifications. It proposes to sell a limited number of these vehicles to ``European citizens'' who ``are either visiting or temporarily assigned to work in the United States.'' This program is similar to those in which a vehicle conforming to U.S. specifications is sold to Americans from various factories in Europe. MBUSI relates that its planned program is similar to one established by General Motors for which we granted GM's petition on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31411). MBUSI originally stated that it was developing procedures that will ensure that the vehicles will, in fact, ``be exported within a one year time frame, or at the conclusion of a diplomatic assignment, whichever is applicable.'' Advocates contested the efficacy of such procedures, saying that it is inevitable that some exempted vehicles will be sold and operated on American roads. MBUSI stated that it will retain title along with other shipping documents until the vehicle is exported, thereby rendering subsequent sale impossible. In addition, each European owner will be required to place a deposit on the vehicle to ensure export, refundable at that time. The vehicles will have European VINs so that it will not be possible to register them in any of the states. In February 1999, MBUSI informed us that it had reached a tentative agreement with the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles that all exempted vehicles that are sold will be fitted with non-renewable registration plates that expire at the end of the next month following delivery, i.e., an exempted vehicle delivered on July 15 will bear plates that expire on August 31. NHTSA is satisfied that MBUSI has met Advocates' objections on this issue. In MBUSI's view, it requires partial exemptions from five Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is not to be prevented from selling the M Class. These are set forth below. 1. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. The European specification M Class brake indicator warning light depicts the ISO brake symbol, rather than the word ``BRAKE'' as required by Table II of Standard No. 101 (this is also a requirement imposed by Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems). MBUSI does not believe that this noncompliance degrades the safety of the vehicle. The ISO symbol is well known to the Europeans who will own and drive the M Class. On the other hand, the word ``BRAKE'' could be confusing to operators with a limited command of English. Advocates opposed granting an exemption from this requirement on the basis that NHTSA rejected the use of ISO symbols in a recent rulemaking as ``inferior in design and comprehension to U.S. symbols. 61 FR 27039, 27041 (May 30, 1996).'' The agency did not adopt certain ISO symbols for vehicles intended for sale in the United States to inhabitants of this country. But it fails to see the relevance of this fact to vehicles that will be sold to drivers who are inhabitants of countries where the ISO symbol is required, and to whom the meaning should be clear. MBUSI commented that the sale of the exempted vehicles will occur in Europe, with delivery only in the United States, so that there is no means by which other persons can purchase a European M Class in the United States. NHTSA concludes that use of the ISO symbol by MBUSI ought to provide protection to European drivers at least equal to the protection provided drivers of American cars though use of the word ``BRAKE'' in Standard No. 101. 2. Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. There are two requirements of Standard No. 108 from which MBUSI requests relief. A. Front and rear side marker lamps and reflectors. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires vehicles such as the M Class to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps and reflectors. The M Class will not be equipped with these items. Although the M Class vehicles will lack side marker lamps and reflectors, they will be equipped with other lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108, such as side turn signal repeaters. In addition, they will be equipped with front and rear fog lamps. Vehicles destined for Scandinavian countries will be equipped with daytime running lamps. In summary, the combined addition of these devices will, in MBUSI's opinion, add to the visibility of exempted vehicles. Advocates opposes any exemption from side marker requirements, saying that these are lamps and reflectors which are intended ``to provide constant alerting information to other motorists and to pedestrians of the presence of a motor vehicle under conditions of adverse visibility.'' It does not regard daytime running lamps and turn signals as an acceptable substitute for markers that delineate the side. Neither do fog lamps, in Advocates' view, serve as an acceptable substitute, because they are used infrequently, and can even be disengaged. Their use, according to Advocates, can increase the risks to highway safety ``because they are often misaimed, resulting in blinding levels of glare.'' NHTSA has considered these views, and reviewed its 1988 grant of an exemption to General Motors (GM) from the side marker lamp and headlamp photometric requirements for a similar tourist delivery program (53 FR 31411). In granting GM's petition, the agency observed: Although the safety benefits of side marker lamps and reflectors will not be realized there are other aspects of motor vehicle conspicuity not covered by Standard No. 108 which will be benefitted. Side turn signal lamps, daytime running lamps, * * * and red rear fog lamps have no mandatory U.S. counterparts but will be fitted on exempted vehicles. (p. 31412). Thus, there is a precedent for granting MBUSI's request from the side marker requirements. The M Class has much the same auxiliary lighting equipment. Moreover, the rear lamp cluster wraps around the side of the vehicle while the front lamp cluster is oriented so that, it, too, is visible from the side. NHTSA asked MBUSI to provide a photograph taken in the dark, showing the side of the vehicle with the headlamps on. This photograph clearly shows that the light from these front and rear lamps allows them to serve as surrogate front and rear side marker lamps, even though the light provided by the headlamp housing wraparound is white rather than amber. In our view, this provides an equivalent level of safety, bearing in mind also that the vehicles will be operated on American roads a limited amount of time (60 days at most), and that the company expects to sell only a small number of them (in an informal conversation, fewer than 100 annually). B. Certain headlamp photometrics. The M Class headlamps are designed to meet the European photometric specifications of ECE R8 rather than those of Standard No. 108. The exempted M Class would not meet the minimum candela prescribed by Standard No. 108 for the upper beam. This affects eight test points. At these points, only 20 percent to 44.9 percent of the minimum required would be reached. With respect to the lower beam, there are two test points that fail to reach the minimum, one achieving 20.2 percent of the required figure and the other 71 percent. At test point 10U-90U, the maximum candela established by Standard No. 108 is exceeded by 270.4 percent. MBUSI relates that the ``continental European low beam pattern puts less light into the eyes of oncoming drivers * * * thereby reducing the glare experienced by oncoming drivers.'' Although the headlamps do not project [[Page 29735]] as much light down the road as U.S. headlamps, there are differing opinions ``as to which set of photometric requirements offers the optimum compromise in satisfying competing safety objectives.'' Some countries permit both European and U.S. specification headlamps, but there are no data from these countries suggesting that one type is over or under represented in crashes. With respect to the upper beam, MBUSI states that the lamps do meet the minimum for test point HV, but not the minima at 9 degrees right and left and 12 degrees right and left. Because the European owners will be accustomed to the forward illumination characteristics of European beam patterns, ``the lighting on these vehicles should provide `equivalent safety' for these drivers. * * *'' Advocates disagrees with these arguments. In its view, ``the low beam illumination pattern, in particular, is clearly inadequate for even minimum illumination of post- and overhead-mounted U.S. retroreflective traffic control devices, especially signs.'' As a result, ``it would not be tolerable for the agency to permit the operation of thousands of vehicles with substandard headlamps in the U.S. nighttime environment, regardless of the operating familiarity with the beam patterns and illumination characteristics of such headlamps by foreign nationals residing temporarily in the U.S.'' In rebuttal, MBUSI submitted that this deviation from the standard will not cause any adverse impacts to motor vehicle safety. Since Advocates has not cited ``any information indicating any potential for drivers accustomed to this lighting to have a greater likelihood of accidents, there is no basis to suggest this difference is significant for brief operation in the United States.'' Again, we would like to emphasize that we are not making a judgment about the relative equivalence of the U.S. and European beam patterns for vehicles manufactured for use on roads in the United States. We have consistently expressed doubts about the adequacy of the light provided by the European headlamp beam pattern for highway signs and down-the-road lighting. However, MBUSI is not asking us to make a judgment about the relative merits of the European headlamp beam for drivers of vehicles manufactured for use in the United States. Instead, the question is solely whether this beam pattern offers equivalent safety for the driver of a vehicle not manufactured for use in the United States, i.e., European drivers who are familiar with the European beam pattern. In these narrow circumstances we have concluded that, given the continental driving experience of the European M Class purchasers, no safety risk is presented by allowing a limited number of M Class vehicles to be operated for a limited period of time on American roads. 3. Standard No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. The passenger side convex rear view mirror will not contain the warning required by S5.4.2 for American-market cars that ``Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear.'' According to MBUSI, the European drivers will be familiar with outside convex mirrors because they are used throughout Europe without a legend inscribed, and no safety value is added by requiring the legend to be etched into the mirror. Advocates expressed general opposition to this request, without specific comment. Given that the exempted mirrors will provide an even larger unobstructed field of view without the legend, and that European drivers are used to convex mirrors without the warning, we have concluded that these mirrors will provide an overall level of safety at least equal to that of passenger side exterior rearview mirrors which comply with Standard No. 111. 4. Standard No. 120, Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The M Class exempted vehicles will not carry a tire information label as required by S5.3 of Standard No. 120. However, there will be a European tire pressure information label adjacent to the fuel filler opening, the location for many European vehicles. Since Europeans are accustomed to that location for the tire information label, there is no safety value added by placing the label in the locations required under the standard. In addition, according to MBUSI, ``since the vehicle will be permanently exported for use in Europe, the tire information label must contain the information required by European standards.'' During the comment period, we asked MBUSI to provide a copy of the tire information label mentioned in its application. MBUSI did so on February 24, 1998, with the contradictory statement that ``under European law, a tire placard is not required. Therefore, there are no European regulations specifying the contents of a tire placard.'' However, the company voluntarily provides tire pressure information on a label affixed to the fuel filler door. Advocates opposed this exemption on general grounds, without specific comments. MBUSI commented in rebuttal that the location of the label, near the fuel filler opening, may serve to remind drivers to check the vehicle's tires and tire inflation pressure when refueling. Our review of the label shows that it lacks the tire and rim information required by Standard No. 120. This information is required to ensure a correct match between a vehicle and its tires, and its tires and their rims. Given the fact that the vehicles are intended to be exported after no more than 60 days' use in the United States, it is unlikely that tires and rims will have to be replaced before that time. Therefore, while the vehicles are in use in the United States, the tire pressure information should provide a level of safety at least equal to that afforded by a conforming label under Standard No. 120. 5. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The seat belts in the exempted M Class vehicles will not carry the marking required by S4.1(j) of the standard). They will, however, meet ECE R16 and bear the required approval mark. MBUSI believes that the purpose of this information is to allow the belts to be tracked in a recall campaign occurring in the United States. In this case, the vehicles will be shipped to Europe, outside the coverage of any recall campaign, or the United States part-replacement system, and the respective European label is more appropriate for these vehicles. The information required under S4.1(j) of Standard No. 209 is the name or trademark of the manufacturer, distributor, or importer; the year of manufacture, and the model. During the comment period, we also asked MBUSI to describe the information required under ECE R16. This regulation calls for the manufacturer's name, initials or trademark, the E mark, ``an approval number,'' and symbols indicating the types and performance characteristics of the restraint. Advocates opposed a grant of the application for exemption from Standard No. 209 only on a general basis, without specific comment. We are satisfied that the ECE marking is sufficiently different from that of Standard No. 209 that, were a recall or replacement required during the period the exempted vehicle is being operated in the United States, the belts could be readily identified. We believe that MBUSI's procedures to ensure timely export will aid in locating exempted vehicles in the United States in the event of a recall. In sum, the information furnished under ECE R16 should provide a level of safety to European owners of M Class vehicles at [[Page 29736]] least equal to that provided to American owners by S4.1(j). The Public Interest and Safety MBUSI argued that the exemption ``would be helpful in improving the trade deficit currently being suffered by the United States,'' possessing the potential to expand into other lines. The owners of exempted M Class vehicles will contribute to local economies during their sojourn in the United States. Advocates argued that foreign tourists will continue to visit the United States and contribute to local economies if the application is denied. Although it may be in the public interest to encourage sales of products made in this country, particularly those that are exclusively made in the United States such as the M Class, this is not a factor that NHTSA considers in its regulatory decisions under the vehicle safety law. Advocates contends that MBUSI's application ``makes only superficial and conclusory assertions that the vehicles will provide safety equal to that of vehicles built to all U.S. standards.'' Based on our review of the MBUSI petition, as supplemented by materials submitted in response to our request, we conclude that MBUSI has adequately supported its request. An exemption from the standards would be consistent with motor vehicle safety since the exempted vehicles possess an overall level of safety at least equal to that of nonexempted vehicles and will only be used for a limited time in the United States in any event. Decision In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that compliance with each of the standards discussed above would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles, and that an exemption is consistent with the public interest and motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 99-3, expiring May 1, 2001, for M Class vehicles, from: providing the word ``brake'' required by Table 2 of 49 CFR 571.101 Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays, requirements for side marker lamps and reflectors, and headlamps complying with S7 of 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, S5.4.2 of 49 CFR 571.111 Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors, S5.3 of 49 CFR 571.120 Standard No. 120 Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and S4.1(j) of 49 CFR 571.209 Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: May 26, 1999. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator. [FR Doc. 99-13896 Filed 6-1-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P