[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29733-29736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13896]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-3343; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.; Grant of Application for
Temporary Exemption From Five Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., of Vance, Alabama
(``MBUSI''), applied for a temporary exemption from five Federal motor
vehicle safety standards on behalf of the Mercedes-Benz M Class
vehicle. The basis of the application was that, in the absence of an
exemption, MBUSI would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose
overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a non-exempted
vehicle. The company asked for an exemption of 2 years.
We published notice of receipt of the application on February 2,
1998, and afforded an opportunity for comment (63 FR 5415), receiving
two of them. James C. Walker of JCW Consulting, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
supported MBUSI. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates'')
opposed granting the requested exemptions for the reasons set forth
below. Subsequently, MBUSI submitted a rebuttal of Advocates' comments.
We also asked MBUSI to submit a photo of the M Class showing its
nighttime illumination from the side, and later requested information
pertaining both to German and U.S. tourist delivery programs.
Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(iv), as implemented by
49 CFR 555.6(d), we may exempt motor vehicles, on a temporary basis of
up to 2 years, from compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard upon a finding that ``(iv) compliance with the standard would
prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall
safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt
vehicles'' (We must also find that the exemption is in the public
interest and consistent with objectives of traffic safety). The
exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles for any 12-month period that it
is in effect.
MBUSI manufactures the Mercedes-Benz M Class sport utility vehicle.
It has developed a version of the M Class for
[[Page 29734]]
export which is manufactured to European specifications. It proposes to
sell a limited number of these vehicles to ``European citizens'' who
``are either visiting or temporarily assigned to work in the United
States.'' This program is similar to those in which a vehicle
conforming to U.S. specifications is sold to Americans from various
factories in Europe. MBUSI relates that its planned program is similar
to one established by General Motors for which we granted GM's petition
on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31411).
MBUSI originally stated that it was developing procedures that will
ensure that the vehicles will, in fact, ``be exported within a one year
time frame, or at the conclusion of a diplomatic assignment, whichever
is applicable.'' Advocates contested the efficacy of such procedures,
saying that it is inevitable that some exempted vehicles will be sold
and operated on American roads. MBUSI stated that it will retain title
along with other shipping documents until the vehicle is exported,
thereby rendering subsequent sale impossible. In addition, each
European owner will be required to place a deposit on the vehicle to
ensure export, refundable at that time. The vehicles will have European
VINs so that it will not be possible to register them in any of the
states. In February 1999, MBUSI informed us that it had reached a
tentative agreement with the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles that
all exempted vehicles that are sold will be fitted with non-renewable
registration plates that expire at the end of the next month following
delivery, i.e., an exempted vehicle delivered on July 15 will bear
plates that expire on August 31. NHTSA is satisfied that MBUSI has met
Advocates' objections on this issue.
In MBUSI's view, it requires partial exemptions from five Federal
motor vehicle safety standards if it is not to be prevented from
selling the M Class. These are set forth below.
1. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. The European
specification M Class brake indicator warning light depicts the ISO
brake symbol, rather than the word ``BRAKE'' as required by Table II of
Standard No. 101 (this is also a requirement imposed by Standard No.
105 Hydraulic Brake Systems).
MBUSI does not believe that this noncompliance degrades the safety
of the vehicle. The ISO symbol is well known to the Europeans who will
own and drive the M Class. On the other hand, the word ``BRAKE'' could
be confusing to operators with a limited command of English.
Advocates opposed granting an exemption from this requirement on
the basis that NHTSA rejected the use of ISO symbols in a recent
rulemaking as ``inferior in design and comprehension to U.S. symbols.
61 FR 27039, 27041 (May 30, 1996).'' The agency did not adopt certain
ISO symbols for vehicles intended for sale in the United States to
inhabitants of this country. But it fails to see the relevance of this
fact to vehicles that will be sold to drivers who are inhabitants of
countries where the ISO symbol is required, and to whom the meaning
should be clear. MBUSI commented that the sale of the exempted vehicles
will occur in Europe, with delivery only in the United States, so that
there is no means by which other persons can purchase a European M
Class in the United States. NHTSA concludes that use of the ISO symbol
by MBUSI ought to provide protection to European drivers at least equal
to the protection provided drivers of American cars though use of the
word ``BRAKE'' in Standard No. 101.
2. Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment. There are two requirements of Standard No. 108 from which
MBUSI requests relief.
A. Front and rear side marker lamps and reflectors. Table II of
Standard No. 108 requires vehicles such as the M Class to be equipped
with front and rear side marker lamps and reflectors. The M Class will
not be equipped with these items.
Although the M Class vehicles will lack side marker lamps and
reflectors, they will be equipped with other lighting equipment not
required by Standard No. 108, such as side turn signal repeaters. In
addition, they will be equipped with front and rear fog lamps. Vehicles
destined for Scandinavian countries will be equipped with daytime
running lamps. In summary, the combined addition of these devices will,
in MBUSI's opinion, add to the visibility of exempted vehicles.
Advocates opposes any exemption from side marker requirements,
saying that these are lamps and reflectors which are intended ``to
provide constant alerting information to other motorists and to
pedestrians of the presence of a motor vehicle under conditions of
adverse visibility.'' It does not regard daytime running lamps and turn
signals as an acceptable substitute for markers that delineate the
side.
Neither do fog lamps, in Advocates' view, serve as an acceptable
substitute, because they are used infrequently, and can even be
disengaged. Their use, according to Advocates, can increase the risks
to highway safety ``because they are often misaimed, resulting in
blinding levels of glare.''
NHTSA has considered these views, and reviewed its 1988 grant of an
exemption to General Motors (GM) from the side marker lamp and headlamp
photometric requirements for a similar tourist delivery program (53 FR
31411). In granting GM's petition, the agency observed:
Although the safety benefits of side marker lamps and reflectors
will not be realized there are other aspects of motor vehicle
conspicuity not covered by Standard No. 108 which will be
benefitted. Side turn signal lamps, daytime running lamps, * * * and
red rear fog lamps have no mandatory U.S. counterparts but will be
fitted on exempted vehicles. (p. 31412).
Thus, there is a precedent for granting MBUSI's request from the
side marker requirements. The M Class has much the same auxiliary
lighting equipment. Moreover, the rear lamp cluster wraps around the
side of the vehicle while the front lamp cluster is oriented so that,
it, too, is visible from the side. NHTSA asked MBUSI to provide a
photograph taken in the dark, showing the side of the vehicle with the
headlamps on. This photograph clearly shows that the light from these
front and rear lamps allows them to serve as surrogate front and rear
side marker lamps, even though the light provided by the headlamp
housing wraparound is white rather than amber. In our view, this
provides an equivalent level of safety, bearing in mind also that the
vehicles will be operated on American roads a limited amount of time
(60 days at most), and that the company expects to sell only a small
number of them (in an informal conversation, fewer than 100 annually).
B. Certain headlamp photometrics. The M Class headlamps are
designed to meet the European photometric specifications of ECE R8
rather than those of Standard No. 108. The exempted M Class would not
meet the minimum candela prescribed by Standard No. 108 for the upper
beam. This affects eight test points. At these points, only 20 percent
to 44.9 percent of the minimum required would be reached. With respect
to the lower beam, there are two test points that fail to reach the
minimum, one achieving 20.2 percent of the required figure and the
other 71 percent. At test point 10U-90U, the maximum candela
established by Standard No. 108 is exceeded by 270.4 percent.
MBUSI relates that the ``continental European low beam pattern puts
less light into the eyes of oncoming drivers * * * thereby reducing the
glare experienced by oncoming drivers.'' Although the headlamps do not
project
[[Page 29735]]
as much light down the road as U.S. headlamps, there are differing
opinions ``as to which set of photometric requirements offers the
optimum compromise in satisfying competing safety objectives.'' Some
countries permit both European and U.S. specification headlamps, but
there are no data from these countries suggesting that one type is over
or under represented in crashes.
With respect to the upper beam, MBUSI states that the lamps do meet
the minimum for test point HV, but not the minima at 9 degrees right
and left and 12 degrees right and left. Because the European owners
will be accustomed to the forward illumination characteristics of
European beam patterns, ``the lighting on these vehicles should provide
`equivalent safety' for these drivers. * * *''
Advocates disagrees with these arguments. In its view, ``the low
beam illumination pattern, in particular, is clearly inadequate for
even minimum illumination of post- and overhead-mounted U.S.
retroreflective traffic control devices, especially signs.'' As a
result, ``it would not be tolerable for the agency to permit the
operation of thousands of vehicles with substandard headlamps in the
U.S. nighttime environment, regardless of the operating familiarity
with the beam patterns and illumination characteristics of such
headlamps by foreign nationals residing temporarily in the U.S.'' In
rebuttal, MBUSI submitted that this deviation from the standard will
not cause any adverse impacts to motor vehicle safety. Since Advocates
has not cited ``any information indicating any potential for drivers
accustomed to this lighting to have a greater likelihood of accidents,
there is no basis to suggest this difference is significant for brief
operation in the United States.''
Again, we would like to emphasize that we are not making a judgment
about the relative equivalence of the U.S. and European beam patterns
for vehicles manufactured for use on roads in the United States. We
have consistently expressed doubts about the adequacy of the light
provided by the European headlamp beam pattern for highway signs and
down-the-road lighting. However, MBUSI is not asking us to make a
judgment about the relative merits of the European headlamp beam for
drivers of vehicles manufactured for use in the United States. Instead,
the question is solely whether this beam pattern offers equivalent
safety for the driver of a vehicle not manufactured for use in the
United States, i.e., European drivers who are familiar with the
European beam pattern. In these narrow circumstances we have concluded
that, given the continental driving experience of the European M Class
purchasers, no safety risk is presented by allowing a limited number of
M Class vehicles to be operated for a limited period of time on
American roads.
3. Standard No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. The passenger side convex
rear view mirror will not contain the warning required by S5.4.2 for
American-market cars that ``Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They
Appear.''
According to MBUSI, the European drivers will be familiar with
outside convex mirrors because they are used throughout Europe without
a legend inscribed, and no safety value is added by requiring the
legend to be etched into the mirror.
Advocates expressed general opposition to this request, without
specific comment. Given that the exempted mirrors will provide an even
larger unobstructed field of view without the legend, and that European
drivers are used to convex mirrors without the warning, we have
concluded that these mirrors will provide an overall level of safety at
least equal to that of passenger side exterior rearview mirrors which
comply with Standard No. 111.
4. Standard No. 120, Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.
The M Class exempted vehicles will not carry a tire information label
as required by S5.3 of Standard No. 120.
However, there will be a European tire pressure information label
adjacent to the fuel filler opening, the location for many European
vehicles. Since Europeans are accustomed to that location for the tire
information label, there is no safety value added by placing the label
in the locations required under the standard. In addition, according to
MBUSI, ``since the vehicle will be permanently exported for use in
Europe, the tire information label must contain the information
required by European standards.''
During the comment period, we asked MBUSI to provide a copy of the
tire information label mentioned in its application. MBUSI did so on
February 24, 1998, with the contradictory statement that ``under
European law, a tire placard is not required. Therefore, there are no
European regulations specifying the contents of a tire placard.''
However, the company voluntarily provides tire pressure information on
a label affixed to the fuel filler door.
Advocates opposed this exemption on general grounds, without
specific comments. MBUSI commented in rebuttal that the location of the
label, near the fuel filler opening, may serve to remind drivers to
check the vehicle's tires and tire inflation pressure when refueling.
Our review of the label shows that it lacks the tire and rim
information required by Standard No. 120. This information is required
to ensure a correct match between a vehicle and its tires, and its
tires and their rims. Given the fact that the vehicles are intended to
be exported after no more than 60 days' use in the United States, it is
unlikely that tires and rims will have to be replaced before that time.
Therefore, while the vehicles are in use in the United States, the tire
pressure information should provide a level of safety at least equal to
that afforded by a conforming label under Standard No. 120.
5. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The seat belts in the
exempted M Class vehicles will not carry the marking required by
S4.1(j) of the standard). They will, however, meet ECE R16 and bear the
required approval mark. MBUSI believes that the purpose of this
information is to allow the belts to be tracked in a recall campaign
occurring in the United States. In this case, the vehicles will be
shipped to Europe, outside the coverage of any recall campaign, or the
United States part-replacement system, and the respective European
label is more appropriate for these vehicles.
The information required under S4.1(j) of Standard No. 209 is the
name or trademark of the manufacturer, distributor, or importer; the
year of manufacture, and the model. During the comment period, we also
asked MBUSI to describe the information required under ECE R16. This
regulation calls for the manufacturer's name, initials or trademark,
the E mark, ``an approval number,'' and symbols indicating the types
and performance characteristics of the restraint.
Advocates opposed a grant of the application for exemption from
Standard No. 209 only on a general basis, without specific comment. We
are satisfied that the ECE marking is sufficiently different from that
of Standard No. 209 that, were a recall or replacement required during
the period the exempted vehicle is being operated in the United States,
the belts could be readily identified. We believe that MBUSI's
procedures to ensure timely export will aid in locating exempted
vehicles in the United States in the event of a recall. In sum, the
information furnished under ECE R16 should provide a level of safety to
European owners of M Class vehicles at
[[Page 29736]]
least equal to that provided to American owners by S4.1(j).
The Public Interest and Safety
MBUSI argued that the exemption ``would be helpful in improving the
trade deficit currently being suffered by the United States,''
possessing the potential to expand into other lines. The owners of
exempted M Class vehicles will contribute to local economies during
their sojourn in the United States. Advocates argued that foreign
tourists will continue to visit the United States and contribute to
local economies if the application is denied. Although it may be in the
public interest to encourage sales of products made in this country,
particularly those that are exclusively made in the United States such
as the M Class, this is not a factor that NHTSA considers in its
regulatory decisions under the vehicle safety law.
Advocates contends that MBUSI's application ``makes only
superficial and conclusory assertions that the vehicles will provide
safety equal to that of vehicles built to all U.S. standards.'' Based
on our review of the MBUSI petition, as supplemented by materials
submitted in response to our request, we conclude that MBUSI has
adequately supported its request.
An exemption from the standards would be consistent with motor
vehicle safety since the exempted vehicles possess an overall level of
safety at least equal to that of nonexempted vehicles and will only be
used for a limited time in the United States in any event.
Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that
compliance with each of the standards discussed above would prevent the
manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level
at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles, and
that an exemption is consistent with the public interest and motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., is
hereby granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 99-3, expiring May 1,
2001, for M Class vehicles, from: providing the word ``brake'' required
by Table 2 of 49 CFR 571.101 Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays,
requirements for side marker lamps and reflectors, and headlamps
complying with S7 of 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment, S5.4.2 of 49 CFR 571.111 Standard
No. 111 Rearview Mirrors, S5.3 of 49 CFR 571.120 Standard No. 120 Tires
for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and S4.1(j) of 49 CFR 571.209
Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Issued on: May 26, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-13896 Filed 6-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
