[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 8473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3895]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-6161; Notice 2]


Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., Inc.; Grant of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., Inc. (MBUSA) has determined that 1,482 of its 
1999 model year vehicles were equipped with convex passenger-side 
mirrors that did not meet certain labeling requirements contained in 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rearview 
Mirrors,'' and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 
573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' MBUSA has also applied to be 
exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    A notice of receipt of the application was published in the Federal 
Register (64 FR 48892) on September 8, 1999. Opportunity was afforded 
for public comment until October 8, 1999. One comment was received from 
JCW Consulting (JCW) in favor of granting the application.
    If a vehicle has a convex passenger-side mirror, paragraph S5.4.2 
of FMVSS No. 111 requires that it have the words ``Objects in Mirror 
Are Closer Than They Appear'' permanently and indelibly marked at the 
lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface.
    From April 5 through April 9, 1999, MBUSA sold and/or distributed 
1,482 C-Class, E-Class, and E-Class Wagons that contain a typographical 
error in the text of the warning label required in paragraph S5.4.2. 
The text on the subject vehicles' mirrors reads ``Objects in Mirror 
Closer Than They Appear.'' The word ``Are'' is not clearly printed or 
visible.
    MBUSA supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following statements:

    MBUSA does not believe that the foregoing noncompliance will 
impact motor vehicle safety for the following reasons. FMVSS 111 
sets forth requirements for the performance and location of rearview 
mirrors to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when 
the driver of a motor vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably 
unobstructed view to the rear. Provisions regarding the use of a 
convex side view mirror were added by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA or the Agency) in an 1982 rulemaking. 
47 FR 38698 (1982). The final rule specifically allowed the use of 
convex passenger side outside mirrors. ``Convex mirrors'' are 
defined as ``a mirror having a curved reflective surface whose shape 
is the same as that of the exterior surface of a section of a 
sphere.'' See Id. at 38700, codified at 49 CFR 571.111 S4. NHTSA 
determined that allowing the installation of a convex mirror on the 
passenger side of vehicles could confer a substantial safety benefit 
in that such mirrors tend to provide a wider field of vision than 
ordinary flat or plane mirrors. Such a view could be highly 
desirable in maneuvers such as moving to the right into an adjacent 
lane. Id. at 38699.
    NHTSA also recognized, however, that there were inherent 
drawbacks to the use of convex mirrors as well. One of the more 
significant drawbacks was that images of an object viewed in a 
convex mirror tend to be smaller than those of the same object 
viewed in a plane mirror. Consequently, drivers used to plane 
mirrors may erroneously assume that vehicles situated immediately 
behind the driver and to the right may be further away than 
anticipated. Such an erroneous perception may cause the drive to 
move to the right and change lanes before it is actually safe to do 
so. In order to address this concern, and at the suggestion of 
several automobile manufacturers, NHTSA required that a warning be 
permanently etched into all convex passenger side view mirrors.
    In the case of MBUSA's affected vehicles, the etched warning 
provides that ``Objects in Mirror Closer Than They Appear.'' The 
missing word ``Are'' is contrary to the exact wording of the warning 
required by FMVSS 111. The cause of this error was traced to a 
defective stencil used in the laser printer which etches the 
warnings onto mirrors. MBUSA believes that the stencil defect, which 
caused the laser printer to inadvertently leave the word ``Are'' 
from the warning, was caused by dirt or some other cosmetic flaw in 
the stencil. This situation apparently was not immediately noticed 
by MBUSA's supplier's quality control department.

    In effect, MBUSA argued that the grammatical error does not alter 
or obscure the required message. Hence, MBUSA urged that this 
noncompliance be found inconsequential.
    In the one public comment that was received, JCW states that ``the 
buyer of a Mercedes vehicle tends to be a very informed and discerning 
automotive consumer'' and it would be unlikely that he or she would be 
confused by such an omission in the label's wording.
    We have reviewed the application and agree with Mercedes that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The label 
still conveys the message intended by the standard, and, although 
grammatically incorrect, it is still easily understood. For this 
reason, it is unlikely that a driver will be confused by the missing 
word in the label.
    In consideration of the foregoing, we do not deem this 
noncompliance to be a serious safety problem warranting notification 
and remedy. Accordingly, we have decided that the applicant has met its 
burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described above is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Therefore, its application is 
granted and the applicant is exempted from providing the notification 
of the noncompliance that is required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from 
remedying the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

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

    Issued on: February 14, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-3895 Filed 2-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P