[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33547-33549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15255]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0109; Notice 2]


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

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), has determined that certain 
model year (MY) 2015-2016 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class motor vehicles do not 
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer 
Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. MBUSA filed a Safety Recall 
Report dated September 12, 2016. MBUSA also petitioned NHTSA on October 
4, 2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Kerrin 
Bressant, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-1110, 
facsimile (202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), has determined that certain model 
year (MY) 2015-2016 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class motor vehicles do not fully 
comply with paragraph S4.3(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation 
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles 
with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. MBUSA filed a 
report dated September 12, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect 
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MBUSA also petitioned 
NHTSA on October 4, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) 
and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day 
public comment period on December 20, 2016,

[[Page 33548]]

in the Federal Register (81 FR 92964). No comments were received. To 
view the petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal 
Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instruction to 
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0109.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 6,773 MY 2015-2016 Mercedes-Benz CLS 400 and 
Mercedes-Benz CLS 400 4MATIC motor vehicles manufactured between May 
23, 2014 and April 21, 2016, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    MBUSA explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles 
have tire and loading information placards affixed to their B-pillars 
that incorrectly identify the maximum combined weight of occupants and 
cargo. Specifically, the Mercedes CLS 400 was manufactured with a tire 
and loading information placard that identifies a maximum combined 
weight of 420 kilograms (926 pounds) and the Mercedes CLS 400 4MATIC 
was manufactured with a tire and loading information placard that 
identifies a maximum combined weight of 355 kilograms (783 pounds). 
However, the maximum combined weight of occupants and cargo should be 
315 kilograms (694 pounds) for the Mercedes CLS 400 and 325 kg (717 
pounds) for the CLS 400 4MATIC. Therefore, the vehicles do not comply 
with paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 states:

    S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete 
vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3 (a) through 
(g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information 
specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to 
the driver's side B-pillar. . . .
    (a) Vehicle capacity weight expressed as ``The combined weight 
of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX 
pounds

V. Summary of MBUSA's Petition

    MBUSA described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief 
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, MBUSA submitted the following 
reasoning:
    (a) The tires originally equipped on the subject vehicles are able 
to carry the additional weight indicated on the tire and loading 
information placard. Further, the tire pressure detailed on the placard 
is sufficient to carry those weights. The maximum tire and vehicle load 
information detailed in the table below demonstrates that the tire is 
designed to carry a higher load than that which was incorrectly set out 
on the tire label:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Maximum vehicle load (per
                                                                                               tire)
                         Tire dimension                            Maximum tire  -------------------------------
                                                                    load (lbs)                    CLS 400 4MATIC
                                                                                   CLS 400 (lbs)       (lbs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18'' front......................................................            1708            1243            1289
18'' rear.......................................................            1609            1256            1278
19'' front......................................................            1565            1243            1289
19'' rear.......................................................            1653            1256            1278
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Should the driver follow the maximum combined weight of 
occupants and cargo displayed on the tire and information placard, 
motor vehicle safety is not negatively impacted. The vehicle platform 
(including chassis and axles) serves other CLS vehicle lines and is 
designed for vehicles with a higher gross vehicle weight rating 
(``GVWR''). The platform therefore can handle the potential additional 
weight.
    (c) Subject vehicles are equipped with the B-pillar certification 
information label in accordance with 49 CFR part 567 indicating a GVWR 
of 2260 kilograms (4982 pounds) for vehicle type 218.365, the CLS 400, 
and a GVWR of 2330 kg (5137 pounds) for vehicle type 218.367, the CLS 
400 4MATIC. The GVWR information detailed on the B-pillar certification 
information label is correct. Therefore, the driver can refer to this 
alternative source of information in order to determine the correct 
maximum load weight of the vehicle.
    (d) After identifying the potentially incorrect values in the tire 
label, Daimler AG (DAG) analyzed potential technical implications, 
specifically with respect to the requirements of FMVSS No. 110, 
including potential effects on axles, suspension, brakes, driving 
dynamic, and crashworthiness. Based on this analysis, an impact on 
steering, braking or other vehicle dynamics as a result of the tire 
label weight discrepancy can be excluded.
    (e) Moreover, MBUSA is not aware of any customer complaints, 
accidents or injuries alleged to have occurred as a result of this non-
compliance. Hence, field data supports the assertion that the issue 
described above will have an inconsequential impact on safety.
    MBUSA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: FMVSS No. 110 specifies requirements for tire 
selection to prevent tire overload. The intent of the standard is to 
ensure that vehicles are equipped with tires appropriate to handle the 
vehicle manufacturer's designed maximum vehicle weight.
    The maximum weight of a vehicle is determined by adding to the 
vehicle the manufacturer specified maximum weight of occupants and 
cargo. FMVSS No. 110, paragraph 4.3(a) requires that vehicles be 
labeled with a ``Vehicle Capacity Weight (VCW)'' value which is the 
specified maximum occupant and cargo weight that can be loaded into a 
vehicle. This value is equal to 68 kgs times the vehicle's designated 
seating capacity plus the rated cargo/payload of the vehicle. FMVSS No. 
110, (S4.2.1.1 and S4.3.4(b)), requires that the vehicle maximum load 
on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load 
rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire or greater than the load 
rating of the tire at the manufacturer specified cold inflation 
pressure listed on the tire and loading information placard.
    For the subject vehicles, MBUSA noted that the VCW values on the 
placards are incorrect. The tire and information placard on the CLS 400 
model vehicle specifies a 420 kg VCW which should have been 315 kg, an

[[Page 33549]]

increase of 105 kg. The label on the CLS 400 4MATIC model vehicle 
specifies a 355 kg VCW which should have been 325 kg, an increase of 30 
kg. These errors could cause a consumer to load the subject vehicles 
beyond their original design specifications.
    In its' petition, MBUSA provided an analysis indicating the mounted 
tires on the subject vehicles are sufficient for carrying the maximum 
vehicle loads derived from the higher, incorrect, VCW values. For the 
CLS 400 vehicles the analysis indicates the tire load carrying 
capabilities exceed the maximum tire load by at least 147 kg (710 kg 
tire load rating minus 563 kg maximum tire load). For the CLS 400 
4MATIC vehicles the analysis indicates the tire load carrying 
capabilities exceed the maximum tire load by at least 125 kg (709 kg 
tire load rating minus 584 kg maximum tire load). NHTSA verified the 
tire load ratings specified by MBUSA in accordance with the European 
Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) manual. As shown by MBUSA, 
the tire capacities are more than adequate to handle the additional 
weight of the higher VCW values. MBUSA's analysis shows that the tires 
mounted on the subject vehicles exceed the load requirements of FMVSS 
No. 110.
    MBUSA also mentioned that the certification labels affixed to the 
subject vehicles provide the vehicle's gross axle weight ratings 
(GAWRs) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)in accordance with 49 
CFR 567, Certification. MBUSA stated that the GAWRs and GVWR values 
provided on the subject vehicles are correct as labeled. These ratings 
are established by the vehicle manufacturer and provided as an 
alternative source of information consumers can use to ensure a vehicle 
and its' axles are not overloaded. Vehicle manufacturers specify that 
these ratings should not be exceeded when loading any vehicle. The 
agency reviewed the maximum loads on the axles and vehicles, using the 
higher labeled VCW values, against the certified GAWRs and GVWR of the 
subject vehicles. For the CLS 400 4MATIC vehicles, maximum loads were 
well below the GAWR and GVWR values. For the CLS 400 vehicles, the 
maximum loads are essentially at the certified GAWRs and GVWR values. 
MBUSA also stated in its petition that the platform (chassis and axles) 
utilized on the subject vehicles is used with other CLS vehicle lines 
and is designed for vehicles with higher GVWRs. It appears from this 
analysis the subject vehicles can safely accommodate the higher VCW 
loads without overload concerns.
    No comments were received during the receipt notice comment period.
    NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that 
MBUSA has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 110 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, MBUSA's petition is hereby granted and MBUSA is exempted 
from the obligation to provide notification of, and a remedy for, that 
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision 
only applies to the subject vehicles that MBUSA no longer controlled at 
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the 
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and 
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or 
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of 
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after MBUSA notified them 
that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-15255 Filed 7-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P