[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21660-21662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0029; Notice 2]


Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (MBUSA), on behalf of itself and its 
parent company Daimler AG (DAG), collectively referred to as 
``Mercedes'' has determined that certain model year (MY) 2015 Mercedes-
Benz C-Class (205 Platform) passenger cars do not fully comply with 
paragraph S10.18.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Mercedes has 
filed a report dated February 9, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Mercedes then 
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mike Cole, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-2334, facsimile 
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Mercedes' Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) 
and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Mercedes 
has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of Mercedes' petition was published, with a 30-
day public comment period, on April 16, 2015 in the Federal Register 
(80 FR 20571). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0029.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 9,137 MY 2015 
Mercedes-Benz C-Class (205 Platform) passenger cars manufactured from 
June 18, 2014 through September 5, 2014 at Mercedes' Tuscaloosa, 
Alabama plant.
    III. Noncompliance: Mercedes explains that the subject vehicles 
were manufactured with horizontal adjustment-visually aimed headlamps 
that have a lower beam and a horizontal adjustment mechanism that was 
not made inoperative at the factory. Specifically, the horizontal 
adjustment screw was not properly sealed off with non-removable sealing 
caps as necessary to fully meet the requirements of paragraph S10.18.4 
of FMVSS No. 108.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S10.18.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in 
pertinent part:

S10.18.4 Horizontal adjustment-visually aimed headlamp. A visually/
optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam must not have a 
horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the 
requirements of this standard for on vehicle aiming as specified in 
S10.18.8.

    V. Summary of MBUSA's Analyses: Mercedes stated its belief that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for 
the following reasons:
    (A) Mercedes believes that new manufacturing methods, including the 
use of optical image processing to adjust the horizontal and the 
vertical illumination levels of headlamps in addition to the reduction 
in assembly tolerances for headlamp assemblies, has resulted in optimal 
headlamp adjustments on vehicles leaving their manufacturing plants. As 
a result, on-vehicle aiming devices are no longer common in the 
industry. Mercedes believes that this has led to the elimination of the 
need for horizontal headlamp adjustment on in-use

[[Page 21661]]

vehicles. Regarding the subject vehicles, Mercedes says there is 
generally no need for customers or repair shops to adjust the 
horizontal aim of headlamps.
    (B) Mercedes states that they have only received five customer 
complaints in the United States, relating to alleged headlamp mis-
aiming in the subject vehicles. None of the complaints relate to 
horizontal mis-aiming of the headlamps. In all instances customers 
brought their vehicles in for service by Mercedes repair shops, who 
know how to perform a headlamp readjustment properly, without using the 
horizontal adjustment screw.
    (C) Mercedes states that they provide service instructions to U.S. 
repair shops that horizontal headlamp adjustment is not permitted and 
do not even mention that a horizontal headlamp adjustment screw exists. 
Similarly, the vehicle owner's manual does not include information 
about performing headlamp illumination adjustment. Thus, since the 
horizontal headlamp screw's existence is not mentioned in any sales or 
service instructions or manuals, use of the screw by the customer or 
repair facilities would be extremely unlikely.
    (D) Mercedes also states that even if the screw were to be used, 
such adjustment would result in only minimal differences in 
illumination levels compared to the original levels because it provides 
only a minimal range of adjustment. Mercedes elaborated by stating that 
when the horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the far left or far 
right end-position, only a few measuring points are slightly above or 
below the FMVSS No. 108 required levels. Specifically, when the 
horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the maximum left end-position 
(-2.8[deg]), only 4 out of 24 measuring points are above (3) or under 
(1) the required illumination levels. And when the horizontal 
adjustment screw is turned to the maximum right end-position 
(+3.2[deg]), only 2 out of 24 measuring points are under the required 
illumination levels. Thus, the difference between these worst-case 
levels and the required minimum or maximum levels are very small. 
According to Mercedes' headlamp development engineers, a difference of 
300 cd [candela] is unlikely to be noticed by a driver and would not 
affect oncoming traffic or visibility in any material way. In addition, 
the subject headlamps rely on a reflection-based system which Mercedes' 
believes leads to less glare then projection-based system.
    Mercedes has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the 
subject noncompliance on vehicles in subsequent production and that all 
future vehicles will be in full compliance with FMVSS No. 108.
    In summation, Mercedes believes that the described noncompliance of 
the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and 
that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA'S Analysis: Mercedes states that its service instructions to 
U.S. repair shops specify that horizontal headlamp adjustment is not 
permitted and that they do not mention the existence of a horizontal 
headlamp adjustment screw. Similarly, the vehicle owner's manual does 
not include information about performing headlamp adjustment. As a 
result, Mercedes concludes that use of the headlamps horizontal aiming 
screw by a customer or repair facilities would be extremely unlikely. 
This argument is not persuasive. As these vehicles get older and fall 
out of the warranty period, consumers will have more options for 
servicing than Mercedes dealerships. Further, many states also have 
vehicle inspection stations that periodically check and adjust headlamp 
aim and these entities may not be familiar with this headlamp design. 
Therefore, NHTSA contends that it is possible that entities not 
familiar with the subject vehicle's design may use the screw to adjust 
the horizontal aim.
    NHTSA has granted prior inconsequentiality petitions with similar 
arguments; however, the prior petitions also demonstrated that the 
horizontal aiming mechanisms were difficult to access (see Bentley 
Motors, Inc., 76 FR 4744, and General Motors, 71 FR 34415). That is not 
the case for the Mercedes petition. Because no mention was made of the 
accessibility of the horizontal aiming mechanism, a NHTSA 
representative inspected a 2015 Mercedes C-Class and found that a non-
sealed horizontal aiming mechanism would be easily accessible, and 
would likely be the first adjustment screw used to alter the headlamp 
adjustment by someone unfamiliar with this headlamp design. This is 
because the horizontal aiming mechanism screw is in plain view, 
whereas, the required vertical aiming mechanism is out of sight and 
only accessible through a non-descript hole in the upper radiator 
support using a long tool.
    Mercedes also argued that even if the horizontal aim were adjusted, 
it would result in only minimal differences in illumination levels that 
would be unlikely to be noticed by a driver or affect oncoming traffic 
in any material way. To substantiate its claim, Mercedes provided 
photometric test data at the extreme right and left adjustment of the 
horizontal aiming mechanism. (Mercedes did not provide any test data at 
intermediate locations of horizontal adjustment) When adjusted to the 
extreme left position, the initial measured intensity level was 1,035 
candela at test point 1U-1.5L which is nearly 48% over the required 
maximum of 700 candela. Using a \1/4\ degree reaim, an adjustment 
permitted by the standard for compliance test purposes, the measured 
intensity level dropped to 982 candela, but this is still 40% over the 
required maximum of 700 candela. A NHTSA sponsored study titled 
``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal 
Lamp Intensities'' (DOT HS 808 209, September 1994) demonstrated a 
change in luminous intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by 
most drivers and is a reasonable criterion for determining the 
inconsequentiality of non-compliant signal lamps. The University of 
Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) performed a follow-
up study relative to lower beam headlamps titled ``Just Noticeable 
Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp Intensities.'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 
1997) In that report, UMTRI determined that the 25% limit for 
inconsequential noncompliance determinations was suitable for 
photometric test points that specified maximum intensities for glare 
protection. Based on these reports, exceeding the maximum intensity 
specification by 40% at test point 1U-1.5L, a glare protection point 
that limits the amount of light into the eyes of oncoming drivers, 
would be noticeable to other drivers. As explained in the agency's 
report, ``Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance,'' (Report to 
Congress, February 2007) increased glare reduces seeing distance 
because it causes light to scatter in the eyes, which in turn reduces 
the contrast of roadway objects. Glare decreases visibility distance, 
increases reaction times to objects in the roadway, and increases 
recovery time after the eyes have been exposed to increased glare. All 
of these factors increase risks during nighttime driving.
    NHTSA'S Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds 
that Mercedes has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject 
FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, NHTSA hereby denies Mercedes'

[[Page 21662]]

petition and Mercedes is consequently obligated to provide notification 
of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 
30120.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-08361 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P