Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.; Application for Temporary Exemption From Five Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Topics:  Mercedes-Benz M-Class

L. Robert Shelton
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
February 2, 1998

[Federal Register: February 2, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 21)]
[Notices]               
[Page 5415-5416]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02fe98-114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-3343; Notice 1]

 
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.; Application for Temporary 
Exemption From Five Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

    Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., of Vance, Alabama, has 
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 is that, in the absence of an exemption, the 
manufacturer would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose 
overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a non-exempted 
vehicle. The exemption is sought for two years.
    Notice of receipt of the application is published in accordance 
with agency regulations on the subject and does not represent any 
agency judgment on the merits of the application.
    Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(iv), as implemented by 
49 CFR 555.6(d), the NHTSA Administrator may exempt, on a temporary 
basis of up to two years, motor vehicles 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'' (The Administrator 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.
    Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (``MBUSI'') manufactures the 
Mercedes-Benz M Class sport utility vehicle. It has developed a version 
of the M Class for 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 NHTSA granted GM's petition on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31411).
    Although not required by 49 CFR Part 555, ``MBUSI is currently 
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.''
    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 discussed 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.
    2. Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated 
Equipment. 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. These will be lacking. In addition, the headlamps are 
designed to meet the European photometric specifications of ECE R8 
rather than those of Standard No. 108.
    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.
    With respect to headlamp photometrics, 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 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. * * *''
    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 the applicant, the European drivers will be familiar 
with outside convex mirrors because they are used throughout Europe 
without a legend affixed. No safety value is added by requiring the 
legend to be etched into the mirror.
    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, the tire 
information label must

[[Page 5416]]

contain the information required by European standards.
    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 (name or trademark of the manufacturer, 
distributor, or importer; year of manufacture, model).
    They will, however, meet ECE R16 and bear the required approval 
mark. This is a technical noncompliance and, as with the tire 
information label, it is information based. 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, and the respective European label 
is more appropriate for these vehicles.
    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition 
described above. Comments should refer to the docket and notice number, 
and be submitted to: Docket Management, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date below will be considered, and will be available for 
examination in the docket at the above address both before and after 
that date, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. To the extent 
possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be 
considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in 
the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: March 4, 1998.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50 and 501.4.

    Issued: January 20, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-2485 Filed 1-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P