[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4961-4963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1079]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22653, Notice 2]


Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC; Grant of Application for a Temporary 
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Application for a Temporary Exemption from S5.5.10 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants the Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC (``MBUSA'') 
application for a temporary exemption from the requirements of S5.5.10 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In accordance with 49 CFR 
Part Sec.  555.6(b), the basis for the grant is to facilitate the 
development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety feature 
providing a level of safety at least equal to that of the standard. 
Pursuant to Sec.  555.6(b)(5), MBUSA is permitted to sell not more than 
2,500 exempted vehicles in any twelve-month period of the exemption. 
Because the exemption period is 24 months, this grant affects up to a 
total of 5,000 vehicles.

DATES: The exemption from S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 is effective from 
January 23, 2006 until January 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Feygin in the Office of Chief 
Counsel, NCC-112 Room 5215, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 
(Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax: 202-366-3820; E-Mail: 
[email protected]).

I. Background

    MBUSA petitioned the agency on behalf of its parent corporation, 
DaimlerChrysler AG.\1\ The petition seeks a temporary exemption from 
S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. In 
short, S5.5.10 specifies that with certain exceptions not applicable to 
this petition, all lamps, including stop lamps must be wired to be 
steady-burning.\2\ In order to develop and evaluate an innovative 
flashing brake signaling system in the United States, MBUSA sought a 
temporary exemption from the ``steady-burning'' requirement as it 
applies to stop lamps. This system is currently available in Europe on 
the S-class, CL-class, and SL-class Mercedes vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information on MBUSA, go to http://www.mbusa.com.
    \2\ See S5.5.10 of 49 CFR 571.108. Turn signal lamps, hazard 
warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps must be wired to 
flash. Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for 
signaling purposes. Motorcycle headlamps may be wired to modulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MBUSA stated that the system enhances the emergency braking signal 
by flashing three stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 during strong 
deceleration. In addition, after emergency braking, the flashing brake 
signaling system automatically activates the hazard warning lights of 
the stopped vehicle until it starts to move again or the lights are 
manually switched off. The petitioner stated that this signaling system 
reduces the following drivers' reaction time by attracting their 
attention, and also enhances visibility of the stopped vehicle, thus 
helping to reduce the incidence and severity of rear end collisions.
    NHTSA previously denied petitioner's request to amend FMVSS No. 108 
to allow flashing brake signaling systems. Among the reasons for the 
denial was the need for additional data on safety benefits of flashing 
brake lamps. The petitioner argued that granting this temporary 
exemption would allow them to provide the information NHTSA found 
lacking.
    MBUSA requested a two-year exemption period. In accordance with the 
requirements of 49 CFR Sec.  555.6(b)(5), MBUSA will not sell more than 
2,500 exempted vehicles in any twelve-month period within the two-year 
exemption period. For additional details, please see the MBUSA petition 
at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm, Docket No. NHTSA-
2005-22653. The following (Parts II-VI) summarizes MBUSA's petition in 
relevant part.

II. Description of the New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature

    The petitioner states that its flashing brake signaling system 
provides two innovative safety-enhancing features.
    First, three stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 flash at a 
frequency of 5 Hz in the event of strong deceleration. This occurs if 
the velocity is >50 km/h (31 mph) and at least one of the following 
conditions is met:
    1. Deceleration is >7 m/s\2\; or
    2. The brake assist function is active; or
    3. The Electronic Stability Program (ESP) control unit detects a 
panic braking operation.
    The petitioner states that the activation criteria ensures that the 
flashing brake signaling system is only activated when truly needed. 
Thus, the brake lights will flash only in severe braking situations, 
and will flash at a relatively high frequency that allows for fast 
recognition. Further, using the panic brake signal from the ESP control 
unit as a trigger would activate the system only when the achievable 
deceleration is substantially smaller than the demanded one. Thus, the 
stop lamps would not flash in routine situations.
    Second, after emergency braking, the system automatically activates 
the hazard warning lights of the stopped vehicle until it starts to 
move again, or the lights are manually switched off.

III. Potential Benefits of the New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature

    The petitioner states that the flashing brake signaling system 
provides important safety enhancements not found in a vehicle equipped 
with a traditional brake signaling system. First, the flashing system 
reduces the following driver's reaction time and encourages maximum 
deceleration of following vehicles. The petitioner expects especially 
strong benefits during adverse weather conditions and for inattentive 
drivers. Second, the activation of hazard warning lamps on the stopped 
vehicle also enhances vehicle recognition after it comes to a complete 
stop. The petitioner believes that together, these features will help 
to reduce rear end collisions and improve safety.
    The petitioner acknowledged the agency's longstanding restriction 
on flashing stop lamps, in the interest of standardized, instantly 
recognizable lighting functions. However, MBUSA indicated that its 
system will be easily recognizable, and would not interfere with 
NHTSA's objectives since activation of the flashing brake signaling 
system would be infrequent.

[[Page 4962]]

IV. The Petitioner's Research and Testing

    The petitioner stated that the development of the flashing brake 
signaling system is based on careful research and testing. The 
activation criteria for the flashing brake lights were established with 
the help of a driver behavior study. The petitioner further states that 
field studies have demonstrated that the brake light system can 
significantly reduce driver reaction times.
    MBUSA used a driver braking behavior study to understand how often 
rapid deceleration braking occurs in the United States. The study 
followed 96 subjects using 15 Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with a 
driver behavior and vehicle dynamics recorder. The study indicated that 
one emergency braking maneuver occurred for every 2,291 miles driven. 
The study also suggested that, based on the criteria described in the 
previous section, only 23 out of 100,000 braking maneuvers would 
activate the flashing stop lamps. The petitioner concludes that the 
flashing brake light will occur rarely, which will help to avoid 
``optical pollution'' and enhance the effectiveness of the brake light 
system.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MBUSA submitted supporting documentation, including the 
driver behavior study, under the claim of confidentiality. NHTSA 
granted the confidentiality request in part and denied it in part. 
The time for MBUSA to seek reconosideration of our confidentiality 
determination has not elapsed. In accordance with our regular 
procedures, the supporting documentation has not been placed in the 
public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MBUSA sponsored additional field and driving simulator studies, 
which showed that ``appropriately designed flashing brake lights 
significantly reduce drivers'' reaction times and thus can reduce the 
incidence and severity of rear-end collisions.'' \4\ Specifically, the 
study compared reaction times in emergency braking situations among 
conventional brake lights, conventional brake lights combined with 
hazard warning lights, flashing brake lights with a flashing frequency 
of 4 Hz, and flashing brake lights with a flashing frequency of 7 Hz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The study was conducted by Dr. Joerg Breuer and Thomas 
Unselt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner states that the study showed that flashing brake 
lights reduce driver reaction time by an average of 0.2 seconds, which 
is a reduction sufficient to reduce meaningfully the number and/or 
severity of rear-end collisions. MBUSA argues that even greater 
reduction in reaction time would occur under real-world driving 
conditions, where drivers are less focused on the driving task and 
subject to more sources of distraction. The study also showed positive 
effects from the flashing brake light signal under adverse weather 
conditions and in distraction situations. Finally, the test subjects 
expressed a preference for flashing brake lights when compared to other 
brake light signals.
    The petitioner states that the Japanese Ministry of Land, 
Infrastructure and Transportation conducted a study to evaluate the 
validity and operating conditions of two types of emergency brake light 
displays, one that flashes upon sudden braking, and one that enlarges 
the lighting area of the brake lamps. The study found that flashing 
brake lamps reduced following drivers' response time in the drivers' 
peripheral fields of vision. The study also showed that shorter 
flashing intervals are more effective. Finally, the study indicated 
that an emergency brake light display that enlarges the lighting area 
is not as effective as a flashing brake lamp.

V. How Will a Temporary Exemption Facilitate the Development and Field 
Evaluation of a New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature?

    The petitioner stated that it intends to monitor the exempted 
vehicles and study the effectiveness of the flashing brake signaling 
system. First, MBUSA will gather information about rear-end collisions 
of vehicles equipped with the system. This information will be combined 
with the parallel results from the European fleet and, according to the 
petitioner, should prove to be valuable in evaluating the anticipated 
safety benefits of the new brake light system. Second, the test fleet 
should enable MBUSA to evaluate acceptance of the flashing stop lamps 
among the American public.

VI. Why Granting the Petition for Exemption Is in the Public Interest

    As indicated above, the petitioner argued that granting the 
requested exemption from FMVSS No. 108 would enable them to continue 
developing and evaluating its innovative flashing brake signaling 
system, thus contributing substantially to ongoing efforts to consider 
the effectiveness of enhanced lighting systems in reducing rear-end 
crashes. MBUSA believes that the system will help to reduce 
significantly following driver reaction times, thus reducing rear end 
collisions.
    The petitioner also noted that rear end collisions are a 
significant traffic safety concern,\5\ particularly in dense traffic 
areas, and an important cause of rear end collisions is a following 
driver's failure to detect that a leading vehicle has performed an 
emergency braking action. MBUSA believes that an enhanced braking 
signal that alerts following drivers to urgent braking situations has 
the potential to significantly enhance safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NCSA 2004 Traffic Safety Facts show 1,334,000 rear 
collisions involvoing passenger cars and 1,060,000 rear collisions 
involving light trucks (see Tables 42 and 44 at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004EE.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Comments Regarding the MBUSA Petition

    NHTSA published a notice of receipt of the application on October 
7, 2005, and afforded an opportunity for comment.\6\ The agency 
received two comments, from Candlepower, Inc.\7\ and Richard L. Van 
Iderstine.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 70 FR 58786.
    \7\ See Docket Nos. NHTSA-2005-22653-4.
    \8\ See Docket Nos. NHTSA-2005-22653-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In his comments, Mr. Van Iderstine argued that NHTSA only recently 
denied a petition to amend S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 in order to allow 
flashing brake signaling systems being considered in this document. In 
short, Mr. Van Iderstine asked what has changed since the denial of 
that petition.
    In its comments, Candlepower argued that temporary exemptions 
should be granted ``only in extreme and unusual circumstances, e.g., 
evidenced, demonstrable manufacturer hardship.'' It also argued that 
MBUSA's petition is ``tantamount to requesting permission to use 
American roads as a research laboratory, possibly because European 
regulations in force in most of the rest of the world are more 
restrictive regarding nonstandard lighting functions.'' Further, it 
argued that a novel, nonstandard signal, such as flashing stop lamp, 
would cause the observing driver involuntarily to pause and attempt to 
comprehend the signal. It also argued that unlike Europe where turn 
signals must be amber and not red, in U.S., a flashing stop signal 
could be mistaken for a turn signal. Finally, Candlepower cautioned 
that new lighting devices tend to spawn ``poor-quality, noncompliant, 
unsafe copies in the aftermarket.''

VIII. The Agency's Decision and Response to Public Comments

    The petitioner has met the burden of showing that an exemption 
would make easier the field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety 
feature providing, within the context of 49 CFR part 555, ``a safety 
level at least equal to that of the standard.'' This new safety device 
is the same as current stop lamps, except

[[Page 4963]]

that it flashes during emergency braking. We note, however, that some 
of the benefits associated with signal lamps relate to standardization. 
We have not made any determination as to whether it would be 
appropriate to permit flashing stop lamps more generally. Instead, the 
granting of this petition will help the agency gather additional 
information necessary to evaluate more fully the effects of flashing 
brake signaling systems on motor vehicle safety.
    As required by Sec.  555.6(b), MBUSA described the flashing brake 
signaling system and provided research, development, and testing 
documentation. This information included a detailed description of how 
a vehicle equipped with the MBUSA flashing brake signaling system 
differs from one that complies with the standard. MBUSA also explained 
how an exemption would facilitate their safety research efforts. 
Specifically, MBUSA will gather information about rear-end collisions 
of vehicles equipped with the system. This information will be combined 
with the parallel results from the European fleet in order to provide 
data upon which the agency may base its evaluation of potential safety 
benefits of flashing brake signals.
    Based on the petitioner's driver behavior study and other 
supporting research, we tentatively conclude that the flashing brake 
signaling system provides the level of safety that is at least equal to 
that of systems that comply with FMVSS No. 108.
    Finally, we believe that an exemption is in the public interest 
because the new field data obtained through this temporary exemption 
would enable the agency to make more informed decisions regarding the 
effect of flashing brake signaling systems on motor vehicle safety.
    With respect to Mr. Van Iderstine's comments, we note that the 
agency decision is fully consistent with our previous decision not to 
amend FMVSS No. 108. Instead of a broad and permanent change in the 
long-standing policy regarding flashing stop lamps, this document 
grants a narrow temporary exemption to a discreet group of (at most) 
5,000 vehicles. In denying the petition to amend FMVSS No. 108, we 
indicated that NHTSA has been conducting research related to signal 
enhancements at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, and also 
analyzing crash and ``close call'' data from a 100-car naturalistic 
driving study to determine the potential of enhanced rear signaling as 
a means to reduce rear crashes. Together with that information, we 
believe that the field data obtained through this temporary exemption 
would enable the agency to make more informed decisions regarding the 
effect of flashing brake signaling systems on motor vehicle safety. We 
also believe that more recent data on the effectiveness of flashing 
stop lamps (compared to NHTSA's 1981 large scale field study) would be 
beneficial.
    With respect to Candlepower comments, we first note that the 
statutory temporary exemption provisions found in 49 U.S.C. 30113 
provide for more than one basis for granting a temporary exemption and 
specifically contemplate limited temporary exemptions for the purposes 
of field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features.\9\ We also 
note that vehicles equipped with this safety feature are already being 
sold in Europe. Therefore, this petition is not an attempt to 
circumvent more restrictive European regulations, as suggested by 
Candlepower. Finally, we note that the statute authorizing the agency 
to grant temporary exemptions for the purposes of field evaluation of 
new motor vehicle safety features specifically contemplates their use 
on U.S. roads. As the petitioner indicated, considerable research has 
already been performed. However, to aid the agency in evaluating the 
potential safety benefits of brake lights that flash during extreme 
deceleration, it would be beneficial to obtain field data from a 
discreet group of motor vehicles. This temporary exemption, which would 
apply to up to 5,000 vehicles, affords the agency this opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 49 U.S.C. Sec.  30113(b)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Candlepower raised certain concerns regarding potential negative 
safety consequences of the brake flashing signaling system contemplated 
by the petitioner. However, Candlepower has not provided any data in 
support of their position.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the agency is granting the MBUSA 
petition for a temporary exemption from the requirements of S5.5.10 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment in order to facilitate the 
development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety feature 
providing a level of safety at least equal to that of the standard.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii), MBUSA is granted 
NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 05-6, from Paragraph S5.5.10 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The exemption will remain 
in effect until January 23, 2008.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 
501.8)

    Issued on: January 23, 2006.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E6-1079 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P