Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
---|
Topics: Mercedes-Benz
|
Barry Felrice
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
February 11, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-3188] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: February 11, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [Docket No. 94-12; Notice 1] Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (Mercedes) of Montvale, New Jersey has determined that the headlamps on some of its vehicles fail to comply with the lens bonding requirements of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment,'' and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Mercedes has also petitioned to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice of receipt of a petition is published under section 157 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417) and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition. Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 108 defines ``replaceable bulb headlamp'' as one that is comprised of a bonded lens and reflector assembly. During the period of August 1991 to December 1993, Mercedes produced approximately 46,000 Mercedes-Benz vehicles for sale in the United States in which the lenses were securely clipped onto their reflectors as an assembly, but not bonded as required by FMVSS No. 108. These vehicles included approximately 35,925 S-Class, 7,379 E-Class, and 2,632 C-Class models. In addition, approximately 1,873 noncompliant replacement part headlamps and approximately 1,147 noncompliant replacement part headlamp lenses were sold to Mercedes-Benz dealerships. Mercedes supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with the following: 1. Damaged Lenses Will Be Replaced With Complying Headlamp Assemblies Based on the number of replacement lenses sold in Model Years 1991-92, (Mercedes) estimates that approximately 500 lenses are replaced each year in the subject vehicles. Thus, the number of vehicles involved is relatively low. Effective November 2, 1993, (Mercedes) no longer sells lenses as a replacement part. This means that no source for replacement lenses now exists. Therefore, when lenses are damaged in the future, the owner's only recourse will be to replace the entire headlamp assembly that complies with Standard 108. In the unlikely event that a noncomplying aftermarket lens market were developed for the 46,000 vehicles produced, their use would be restricted by state inspection laws. At the present time, approximately two-thirds of all states have periodic inspection programs. As evidenced by * * * state vehicle regulations (which Mercedes included with its petition and are contained in the Docket), replacement headlamp lenses are required to keep the headlamp in compliance with Standard 108. It is our understanding that State Inspection garages routinely reject cars if their headlamp lenses do not bear the ``DOT'' marking, since the lack of ``DOT'' quickly identifies the headlamp as a non-U.S. unit. Therefore, in the unlikely event that a vehicle owner replaces a damaged lens with a noncomplying aftermarket lens rather than a complying headlamp assembly, the vehicle will fail inspection in most states. 2. Headlamp Aim Not Affected In a recently published Federal Register notice (Docket 93-57) requesting comments on the subject of bonded versus unbonded headlamps, NHTSA stated: In previous denials of petitions to allow removable headlamp lenses, NHTSA argued that mechanical aiming of lamps with lens- mounted aiming pads could be affected by any change of the alignment relationship established between lenses and reflectors at the time of manufacture. Thus, alteration of the original alignment during lens replacement could misaim the beam. (58 FR. 42,924 (August 12, 1993.) This concern is not relevant here because the vehicles in question contain on-board aiming devices (vehicle headlamp aiming devices). No aiming pads are needed in such advanced technology. Since the lens does not participate in the aiming of the headlamp, aiming cannot be affected by misalignment of the lens during lens replacement in the Mercedes system. 3. Headlamp Beam Formation Not Affected In the same Federal Register notice, NHTSA expressed concern that replacement lenses may alter the headlamp beam formation due to the fluting (prescription) of the lens. Several factors assure photometric compliance with Standard 108 for the Mercedes-Benz unbonded headlamp. First, in the headlamp manufacturing process, the headlamp is designed so that the lens can be clipped onto any housing/reflector assembly and be assured of meeting the photometric performance requirements of Standard 108 * * * [T]he design permits only a positive and secure attachment. There are no shims or adjustments that could influence the lens mounting. Second, from a design point of view, the physical size of the reflector and lens make the headlamp highly insensitive to minute positioning variations in mounting and/or manufacture. 4. Vehicle Maintenance All affected vehicles are within the time constraints of the warranty period. Thus, within the next 12 months, [Mercedes] will be able to remedy the noncompliance when the subject vehicles are brought in for service. [Mercedes] will direct dealers to bond the headlamps of all noncomplying vehicles brought to authorized dealers for service. 5. Conclusion In view of the fact that the headlamps comply with all performance aspects of Standards 108, that the replacement lenses are no longer available from (Mercedes) or its dealers, and that the vehicles will be remedied shortly through routine warranty maintenance, there is no adverse impact on safety. Therefore, [Mercedes believes that] NHTSA should grant [its] petition for an exemption for and inconsequential noncompliance with Standard 108. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on the petition of Mercedes, described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required that six copies be submitted. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment closing date: March 14, 1994. Authority: (15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. Issued on February 7, 1994. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 94-3188 Filed 2-10-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-M