[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 29, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35755-35757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-14255]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0065; 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 AG (MBAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (MBUSA)
(collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz'' or ``Petitioner'') have determined
that certain model year (MY) 2020 Mercedes-Benz CLA 250 motor vehicles
do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 111, Rear Visibility. Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report
dated May 11, 2020. Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June
3, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces the denial of Mercedes-Benz's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kamna Ralhan, Compliance Engineer,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-6443.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2020 Mercedes-Benz CLA
250 motor vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility (49 CFR 571.111).
Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated May 11, 2020, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 3, 2020,
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, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition was published with a
30-day public comment period, on September 18, 2020, in the Federal
Register (85 FR 58425). One comment was received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number NHTSA-2020-0065.
II. Vehicles Involved
Mercedes-Benz reported approximately 155 MY 2020 Mercedes-Benz CLA
250 vehicles manufactured between June 19, 2019, and August 21, 2019,
do not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111.
III. Noncompliance
Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance is that the rearview
camera displays in the subject vehicles do not fully meet the field-of-
view requirements outlined in paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 111.
Specifically, the warning message text box obscures
[[Page 35756]]
a portion of the top of the rear middle test object (Object B).
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 111 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. When tested according to the procedures in
paragraph S14.1, the rearview image must include: (a) A minimum of a
150-mm wide portion along the circumference of each test object located
at positions F and G specified in S14.1.4; and (b) The full width and
height of each test object located at positions A through E specified
in paragraph S14.1.4 of FMVSS No. 111.
V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section are the
views and arguments provided by Mercedes-Benz and do not reflect the
views of NHTSA. Mercedes-Benz described the subject noncompliance and
contended that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
Mercedes-Benz explains that subject vehicles' rearview camera
visibility systems display a text box with an alert message when the
vehicle is placed in reverse and throughout the backing maneuver.
Mercedes-Benz states that this message is intended to remind drivers
``to pay attention to their surroundings.'' The alert message remains
on the display until the vehicle is no longer in the reverse position.
When the alert message appears, there is a black border surrounding
the text box that obscures approximately the topmost 10 percent of Test
Object B. This 10 percent obstruction of the rear middle test object is
not compliant with the ``field of view'' requirements given in S5.5.1
of FMVSS No. 111. According to Mercedes-Benz, the remaining 90 percent
of Test Object B appears on the display without issue. In its May 11,
2020, report, Mercedes-Benz adds that no other test objects are
affected by the noncompliance and the rearview camera display otherwise
functions as intended.
Mercedes-Benz states that the purpose of field of view requirement
is ``to ensure that persons located at the rear of the vehicle remain
visible to the driver.'' Mercedes-Benz contends that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the
purpose of the field of view requirement is still fulfilled by the
remaining 90 percent of the lower portion of the test object being
visible.
Mercedes-Benz states that overall, FMVSS No. 111 is intended ``to
mitigate against the potential for accidents or injuries due to
striking persons, including children, located at the rear of the
vehicle.'' Mercedes-Benz claims that when developing FMVSS No. 111,
NHTSA ``considered the safety benefits related to the use of overlays
such as text-based alert messages, guidance markers, and other
indicators on rear camera visibility systems during the development of
the FMVSS No. 111 rulemaking'' and identified specific concerns related
to the use of overlays. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA ``carefully
considered whether and how to regulate the use of overlays in order to
mitigate against a specific type of concern, the potential for overlays
to create blind spots in the rearview image that could obscure or mask
small objects or persons at the rear of the vehicle, particularly
children. See 79 FR 19178, 19210 (April 7, 2014).''
Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA ultimately ``declined to mandate
specific performance criteria related to the use of overlays, largely
due to a lack of practical means of testing the wide variations of
overlay use and design without additional research.'' Mercedes-Benz
states that NHTSA instead ``considered the field of view requirements
to have been met as long as they did not cover any of the required
portions of the test objects if activated automatically or if the
overlay was manually activated by the driver.'' Mercedes-Benz adds that
while declining to mandate specific performance requirements NHTSA
stated that this ``decision does not relieve manufacturers from
designing the overlay system to provide a reasonable ability to see the
required field of view. Id. at 19211.'' Mercedes-Benz claims that at
the time of publishing the FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA's ``key concern related
to the use of overlays'' was the potential for an overlay to obscure
the required field of view.
Mercedes-Benz argues that the topmost 10 percent of Test Object B
obscured by the subject noncompliance is ``limited to the extreme edge
of the test object.'' Mercedes-Benz specifies that the height of the
test object as shown on the display is 800 mm and the ``uppermost
portion of the test object is 150 mm.'' Mercedes-Benz says that when
the text box appears on the display, the border causing the
noncompliance obscures ``approximately half of the 150 mm strip of the
text object, or 75 mm.'' According to Mercedes-Benz, the rear camera
visibility system ``still operates to provide the driver an ability to
fully and safely see the required field of view'' despite the subject
noncompliance. Mercedes-Benz adds that a driver would still be able to
use the display to recognize if a person or child was present behind
the vehicle.
Mercedes-Benz notes that it is not aware of any reports or
complaints regarding the subject noncompliance.
Mercedes-Benz concluded by contending 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.
Mercedes-Benz's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from the public. This comment was
submitted by Pee Yaw who expressed the opinion that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential. The commenter expressed the view that
this feature is a plus providing more information to drivers, and that
the pop-up box only takes up a small portion of the screen.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement--as opposed to a labeling
requirement with no performance implications--in an FMVSS is
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the NHTSA has not found
many such noncompliances inconsequential.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ Additionally, the
number of
[[Page 35757]]
non-compliant vehicles is not a primary consideration, it is important
to emphasize the importance of safety irrespective of the quantity of
vehicles affected. Furthermore, in general, NHTSA does not consider the
absence of complaints or injuries when determining if a noncompliance
is inconsequential to safety. The absence of complaints does not mean
vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean
that there will not be safety issues in the future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has reviewed the Mercedes-Benz inconsequentiality petition
and does not concur with the conclusion that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The petition is therefore
denied.
NHTSA issued the Rear Visibility (FMVSS No. 111) final rule in 2014
to reduce the risk of devastating backover crashes involving vulnerable
populations (including very young children) and to satisfy the mandate
of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. The
final rule established a required field of view with complete
visibility of designated test objects for all passenger cars, trucks,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds. NHTSA anticipated the
final rule would significantly reduce backover crashes involving
children, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other pedestrians
who currently have the highest risk associated with backover crashes.
Specifically, the rule specified an area behind the vehicle which must
be visible to the driver when the vehicle is placed into reverse and
other related performance requirements.
The final rule established a minimum field of view of 10 feet by 20
feet behind the vehicle where the full width and height of test objects
A through E must be observed (the test objects are 0.3 m wide and 0.8 m
tall).\4\ These requirements are based on safety needs, extensive
research on backover, and considerations of practicability.\5\
Mercedes-Benz's overlay blocks the required field of view in violation
of FMVSS No. 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The reasoning behind the minimum field of view requirement
in FMVSS No. 111 is thoroughly explained in the 2014 Rear Visibility
(FMVSS No. 111) final rule. See 79 FR 19178, 19205 (April 7, 2014).
\5\ Id. at 19179-19184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz concedes that NHTSA ``considered the field of view
requirements to have been met as long as [overlays] did not cover any
of the required portions of the test objects if activated automatically
or if the overlay was manually activated by the driver.'' Mercedes-Benz
acknowledges its overlay covers 10 percent of Test Object B, in
violation of the quoted language. However, Mercedes-Benz argues this 10
percent is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because ``the driver
is still able to recognize a person or child present behind the
vehicle.'' Similarly, NHTSA received one comment in favor of granting
the petition because the feature provides more information to drivers,
and the pop-up box only takes up a small portion of the screen.
To the extent the text box covers a minimal area of the backup
camera view, NHTSA disagrees with Mercedes and commenters that the
obstruction is inconsequential to safety. NHTSA is concerned that, the
text box overlay by covering 10 percent of the Test Object B reduces
the rearview area covered for a driver to ascertain certain situations
such as an approaching vehicle from a distance, children playing, and a
person walking. Also, it would be difficult to ascertain in a situation
if there is an uneven terrain. Not having a clear rear view on a hilly
road or a road with turns and slopes would make it difficult in case
one wants to use a backup camera view for a clear rear view. The agency
notes that Test Object B is among the furthest objects from the vehicle
making it possible for the driver to confuse far away objects
especially those that would be obscured by the text box.
NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion
and disagrees with its assertion. Ultimately, Mercedes-Benz's
noncompliant rearview image leads to a greater risk of backover crashes
since it does not show the minimum required field of view during a
backing maneuver and is consequential to motor vehicle safety.
Therefore, NHTSA does not find that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Mercedes-
Benz has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
111 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz's petition is hereby denied, and Mercedes-
Benz is consequently obligated to provide notification of and 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)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2025-14255 Filed 7-28-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P