Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Mercedes-Benz C-Class
|
Jeffrey Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
April 16, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20571-20572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08691]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0029; Notice 1]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt 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 vehicles 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 an appropriate report dated February 9, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Mercedes' Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Mercedes submitted a
petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C.
[[Page 20572]]
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of MBUSA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 9,137 MY 2015
Mercedes-Benz C-Class (205 Platform) passenger cars manufactured
between June 18, 2014 through September 5, 2015 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.
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 amiable 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 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' says they provide service instructions to U.S.
repair shops that specify that horizontal headlamp adjustment is not
permitted and do not even mention that a horizontal headlamp
adjustment screw even 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 stated 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.
In summation, Mercedes believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt Mercedes from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120
should be granted.
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, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Mercedes no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on 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
Mercedes 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 Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-08691 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P