[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38342-38343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-18305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8014; Notice 2]


Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C., (MBUSA) of Montvale, New Jersey, 
determined that a number of Mercedes-Benz CL500 vehicles were produced 
with upper beam headlamps that exceed the photometric limits of FMVSS 
No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.'' MBUSA 
has 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.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 59247) on October 4, 2000. Opportunity was afforded for 
public comment until November 3, 2000. No public comments were 
received.
    Mercedes-Benz CL500 vehicles are equipped with high intensity 
discharge headlamps (HIDs). When the HIDs are activated, their light 
is, through the use of a mechanical flap, directed at an angle that 
optimizes illumination of the road surface in front of the vehicle. 
When the upper beam mode is activated, a mechanical flap alters the 
angle of the HID illumination to provide a higher angle of 
illumination. In 613 model year 2000 CL500 vehicles, a separate H7 lamp 
was improperly wired to illuminate at the same time the mechanical flap 
was activated to increase the HID light angle. In the upper beam mode, 
the HID and H7 lamp combination produce 89,000 candela (cd) at test 
point H-V and 12,731 cd at test point 4D-V. FMVSS No. 108 establishes 
maximums of 75,000 cd at H-V and 12,000 cd at 4D-V. When they are in 
the lower beam mode, these headlamps meet all photometric requirements 
of FMVSS No. 108.
    MBUSA supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following statements:

    (1) Only a very limited number of Mercedes-Benz CL500 vehicles 
were produced containing the foregoing noncompliance (613 units). 
This number represents only minimal percentage of all vehicles 
operating in the United States.
    (2) Upper beam headlamps are not legal in states for operation 
in the presence of oncoming traffic. Therefore, the higher output 
upper beam headlamps will likely not even be noticed by other 
drivers or vehicle occupants. Moreover, MBUSA believes that the 
approximately 20% increase in upper beam headlamp output in affected 
CL500's is indistinguishable to occupants of oncoming vehicles.
    (3) With regards to the driver of the affected vehicles, MBUSA 
believes that the increase in output for upper beam headlamps may 
actually enhance vehicle safety in that drivers will have a greater 
view down the road thereby providing earlier warning of obstacles in 
the vehicle's intended path of travel.
    (4) MBUSA has not received, nor is the Company aware of any 
complaints, accidents or injuries caused by the higher output upper 
beam headlamps.

    The agency has reviewed the application and has decided that the 
noncompliances are not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The 
noncompliant vehicles' headlamps, in their upper beam mode, produce 
18.6 percent more light at H-V and 6.1 percent more light at 4D-V than 
the standard allows. The noncompliance at H-V is particularly troubling 
in that it could be further exacerbated by factors such as poor aiming 
and increased voltage. This could increase the light intensity 
significantly and, thus, contribute more problematic glare at the 
distances prescribed by the various states for dimming headlamps in the 
presence of oncoming vehicles.
    We are aware of a University of Michigan Transportation Research 
Institute (UMTRI) report titled ``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-
Beam Headlamp Intensities'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997). This report 
concludes that drivers in oncoming vehicles will not notice differences 
in the intensity of headlamps that are less than 25 percent.
    We believe, however, that it would not be appropriate to use this 
study to judge the merits of MBUSA's application. This is based on two 
factors. First, the study focuses only on the lower beam mode in 
headlamp systems. The MBUSA vehicles do not comply when the upper beam 
mode is activated. We cannot presume that a study which examines light 
intensity associated with the lower beam mode would also apply to the 
light intensity of the upper beam mode. The upper beam mode produces 
substantially more intensity down the road. UMTRI does not mention any 
correlations between upper and lower beam modes in its study.
    Second, the research finds that the just noticeable differences, 
under controlled conditions, are between 11 and 19 percent. UMTRI 
concludes that, in real world conditions, the just noticeable 
differences would be somewhat larger due to the rather simple and 
uncluttered environment of a controlled study. In a controlled study, 
observers can devote much more attention to small differences due to 
the lack of other distractions that are common during driving. This 
leads UMTRI to conclude that 25 percent is a reasonable value upon 
which to judge inconsequential noncompliance applications. However, we 
have noticed in the many complaints received that consumers are very 
aware of and sensitive to the glare produced by oncoming drivers' 
headlamps. This public sensitivity leads us to believe that glare in 
the ``real-world'' is not necessarily like that in laboratory studies. 
Many of these complaints can be found on the Department of 
Transportation's Docket Management System website, http://dms.dot.gov 
docket NHTSA-98-4820. This demonstrates that glare is of great 
significance to the public.
    MBUSA attempts to support its rationale for granting the 
application by pointing out that there is a limited number of 
noncompliant vehicles (613). In order for the agency to grant an 
inconsequentiality application, it is necessary to determine whether 
the particular noncompliance is likely to increase the risk that the 
requirement is intended to prevent. Arguments that only a small number 
of vehicles or pieces of motor vehicle equipment are affected generally 
will not justify granting a petition. But, more importantly, the key 
issue is whether the noncompliance is likely to increase the safety 
risk.
    MBUSA states that there are State laws prohibiting the operation of 
upper beam headlamps in the presence of oncoming traffic. For this 
reason, it believes that the increased output of the subject lamps will 
not be noticed by other drivers. The agency does not concur with this 
rationale. State laws generally require drivers to dim their headlamps 
at a prescribed distance from oncoming traffic. This distance is based 
on the intensity of available upper beams. Therefore, if the intensity 
of upper beams is increased, this distance may not be effective in 
reducing glare for oncoming drivers.
    Finally, MBUSA states that the increase in output from the subject 
lamps may actually enhance vehicle safety as drivers will have greater 
visibility. We agree with MBUSA that

[[Page 38343]]

the increased output of the subject lamps will increase drivers' views 
down the road. However, the purpose of the minimum light intensity 
requirements for upper beam headlamps is to protect oncoming drivers 
from problematic glare. There must be a balance between the need of 
drivers to have a clear view of the roadway and the need to reduce 
glare for oncoming drivers. While MBUSA is correct in assuming that the 
extra light provided by the subject lamps would be advantageous to 
drivers of the vehicle, it does not mention the obvious ill effects it 
would have on oncoming drivers. For this reason, we do not accept 
MBUSA's rationale.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
applicant has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
it describes is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and it should 
not be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of the 
statute. Accordingly, its application is hereby denied.

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

    Issued on: July 17, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-18305 Filed 7-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P