Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Mercedes-Benz GLK Class
|
Nancy Lummen Lewis
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 25, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50733-50735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20140]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0166; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG, Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of petition denial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) on behalf of itself and its
parent company Daimler AG (DAG), has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class (X204 platform) multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs), do not fully comply with paragraph S5.1.1.6
\1\ of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. MBUSA filed an
appropriate report dated October 9, 2012 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MBUSA then filed a
petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. 30118 on the basis that the defect is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. We are denying this petition because we believe
that the noncompliant parking lamp is not inconsequential to motor
vehicles safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As published in the 2011 version of 49 CFR 571.108.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mike Cole,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-2334, facsimile
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. MBUSA's petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, MBUSA
has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on August 9, 2013, in the Federal Register (78
FR 448769). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0166.''
II. Vehicles involved: Affected are approximately 2,951 MY 2013
Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class (X204 platform) MPVs manufactured from January
1, 2012 through August 15, 2012.
III. Noncompliance: MBUSA explains that the subject vehicles
contain parking lamps that exceed the maximum designated candlepower
output level provided in FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S5.1.1.6; id. Figure
1b (listing maximum candlepower value of 125 cd for parking lamps). Due
to a programming issue in the electronic control unit, the voltage in
the parking lamp circuit is 12.8 volts which is higher than the design
voltage specification of 7 volts in the affected vehicles. This higher
voltage causes the lamps to exceed the maximum value listed in FMVSS
No. 108.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1.1.6 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in
pertinent part:
S5.1.1.6 Instead of the photometric values specified in Table 1 of
SAE Standards J222 December 1970, or J585e September 1977, a parking
lamp or tail lamp, respectively, shall meet the minimum percentage
specified in Figure 1a of the corresponding minimum allowable value
specified in Figure 1b. The maximum candlepower output of a parking
lamp shall not exceed that prescribed in Figure 1b, or of a
taillamp, that prescribed in Figure 1b at H or above. If the sum of
the percentages of the minimum candlepower measured at the test
points is not less than that specified for each group listed in
Figure 1c, a parking lamp or taillamp is not required to meet the
minimum photometric value at each test point specified in SAE
Standards J222 or J585e respectively.
V. Summary of MBUSA's Analyses: MBUSA stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
Although the parking lamps in the subject vehicles exceed the
candlepower limits of FMVSS No. 108, the level of brightness of the
lamps is very low. As explained below, to evaluate the impact on motor
vehicle safety in actual use, MBUSA analyzed the brightness of the
lamps in use and has confirmed that the potential exceedance is
minimal, and below the level perceptible to the human eye during night-
time driving operations which would be pertinent to determining
potential safety relevance.
MBUSA claims that the agency should consider how the non-compliance
affects how drivers perceive the lower beam headlamp and the parking
lamp together at night because FMVSS No. 108 requires both lamps to be
illuminated at the same time. As noted above, the output limit for
parking lamps is 125 cd. The maximum output value for lower beam
headlamps is 1,000 cd at 0.5U--1.5L to L test points (0.5 degrees up
from the H-point and from 1.5 degrees left of the vertical centerline
to the end of the leftward measurements) and 700 cd for 1 U--1.5L to L
test points (1 degree up from the H-point and from 1.5 degrees left of
the vertical centerline to the end of the leftward measurements). See
FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S7.7; id. Figure 17-2 (photometric test point
values for lower beams). Thus, the maximum output for the combined
parking lamp and lower beam headlamp is 1,125 cd (125 cd + 1,000 cd)
for the 0.5U test points and 825 cd (125 cd + 700 cd) for the 1U test
points.
MBUSA measured the output of the combined parking lamp and lower
beam headlamp on the subject vehicles using two different headlamp
samples. Two samples were used to evaluate the impact of normal part to
part production variations on light output. In order to provide a
complete overview of the brightness of the lights, measurements were
done every 10 cm on the two horizontal lines at 0.5U and 1U, from 20 to
100 cm from the vertical centerline to the left, measured at a distance
of 25 meters. (This is the same method used for certification testing
for lower beam headlamps.)
With the first sample headlamp, all candlepower measurements were
below 1,125 cd (for the 0.5U test points) and below 825 cd (for the 1U
test points). Thus, for this headlamp, there were no exceedances of the
combined brightness standard. For the second headlamp, the candlepower
measurements were below 1,125 cd at all measurements for the 0.5U test
points, and below 825 cd for half of the 1U test point measurements.
The candlepower measurement was slightly above 825 cd (840-920 cd) for
five of the 1U test point measurements with the second headlight. Thus,
even the maximum measurement of 920 cd for the worst-case measurement
location is only 11% above the reference value
[[Page 50734]]
of 825 cd. Overall, the testing indicates that due to these normal
production variations in lower beam headlamps, in many cases, there
will be no exceedance of the combined parking lamp/lower beam headlamp
maximum candlepower, even with the parking lamp over-voltage. The
testing indicated that even in the worst-case measurement locations,
with the worst-case lower beam headlamp sample, there was the potential
for only an 11% exceedance of the combined lamp brightness, which is
below the human detection threshold.
MBUSA is not aware of any incidents or customer complaints related
to the subject noncompliant parking lamps.
MBUSA also notes that NHTSA has granted petitions (55FR37601 and
59FR65428) for non-compliance from the maximum intensity requirements
for other lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 in the past that MBUSA
believes are similar to this petition. Specifically, MBUSA cited 55 FR
37601 (incorrectly cited as 53 FR 37601) and 59 FR 65428.
MBUSA has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so
that all future production vehicles will comply with FMVSS No. 108.
In summation, MBUSA believes that the described noncompliance of
its vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt 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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis of MBUSA's Arguments: NHTSA has reviewed
MBUSA's petition and has determined that the noncompliance is not
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency believes that the
noncompliant parking lamp will be noticeably brighter than a compliant
lamp and potentially glaring to oncoming drivers, and will mask to some
extent the output of the front turn signal lamps, and that this is
consequential to safety.
MBUSA argues that if the parking lamp output were to be combined
with the lower beam headlamp output, then the combination would only
exceed the combined theoretical maximum photometry requirement by 11%
for the worst case scenario, and that this amount would be below the
human detection threshold. To support this assertion, MBUSA referenced
two prior inconsequentiality petitions that were granted when candela
values exceeded the maximum required values by less than 20% and 25%.
Regarding MBUSA's reference to 55 FR 37601, this notice granted an
inconsequentiality petition to Hella Inc., for taillamps that exceeded
the maximum candlepower upwards of 20% at certain test points. Hella
argued that: (1) As installed on the vehicle, the taillamps are driven
by a lower voltage than the laboratory test voltage and would have a
photometric output less than that seen in NHTSA testing; (2) that
studies have established that the human eye cannot detect a change in
intensity unless it is more than a 25% increase or decrease; (3) that
the intensity of the lamps does not present a safety hazard because of
glare; and (4) that Hella was not aware of any complaints, accidents,
or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Regarding MBUSA's reference to 59 FR 65428, this notice granted an
inconsequentiality petition to General Motors for center high mounted
stop lamps (CHMSLs) whose photometric output was partially obscured by
a painted section of glazing. In general, with the largest obscuration
and lowest performing lamps tested, the CHMSL output failed to meet the
minimum photometry requirements by less than 20%.
In both cases, the agency agreed that because the photometric
output was within 20% of the required output at the individual test
points, that this was not discernable by the naked eye. In fact, the
agency stated that up to 25% is a reasonable criterion for use in
inconsequentiality decisions.
We are aware of a University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) report titled ``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-
Beam Headlamp Intensities'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997). This report
concludes that drivers in oncoming vehicles will not notice differences
in the intensity of headlamps that are less than 25 percent. We
believe, however, that it would not be appropriate to use this study to
judge the merits of MBUSA's application. This is based on two factors.
First, the study focuses only on the lower beam of a headlamp
system. The MBUSA vehicles do not comply with the parking lamp
photometry requirements. We cannot presume that a study which examines
light intensity associated with the lower beam mode would also apply to
the light intensity of a lower beam lamp in combination with a parking
lamp. Plus, a lower beam lamp in actual use is susceptible to poor
aiming and increased voltage which could increase the lower beam
intensity significantly and thus become its own source of glare to
oncoming drivers in addition to the noncompliant parking lamp.
Second, the research finds that the just noticeable differences,
under controlled conditions, are between 11 and 19 percent. UMTRI
concludes that, in real world conditions, the just noticeable
differences would be somewhat larger due to the rather simple and
uncluttered environment of a controlled study. In a controlled study,
observers can devote much more attention to small differences due to
the lack of other distractions that are common during driving. This
leads UMTRI to conclude that 25 percent is a reasonable value upon
which to judge inconsequential noncompliance applications. However, we
have noticed in the many complaints received that consumers are very
aware of and sensitive to the glare produced by oncoming drivers'
headlamps. This public sensitivity leads us to believe that glare in
the ``real-world'' is not necessarily like that in laboratory studies.
Many of these complaints can be found at http://www.regulations.gov
(see dockets: NHTSA-1998-4820; NHTSA-2001-8885; and NHTSA-2002-13957).
This demonstrates that glare is of great significance to the public.
Furthermore, the agency previously rejected the argument that other
lamps can compensate for noncompliant lamps in two denials of
inconsequentiality petitions to Nissan in 1997 (62 FR 63416) and GM in
2004 (69 FR 1778).
We are also aware of a NHTSA sponsored study titled ``Driver
Perception of Just Noticeable Difference[s] in [of Automotive] Signal
Lamp Intensities.'' [DOT HS 808 209, September 1994] This study
demonstrated that a change in luminous intensity of 25 percent or less
is not noticeable by most drivers. In applying the just noticeable
differences research to the maximums of a parking lamp, 25% would
equate to 156cd (for the 125cd maximum requirement) or 312cd (for the
250cd maximum requirement).
In this case, MBUSA did not provide the photometric data for the
noncompliant lamp. Rather, it combined the requirements of the parking
lamp and the lower beam headlamp to create a theoretical requirement,
and argues that the failure of the combined light output is less than
20% of the theoretical requirement. By combining the lower beam and
parking lamps to create a theoretical requirement, MBUSA appears to be
inflating the ``25%'' range that the agency would use to evaluate its
petition.
To learn more about the performance of the noncompliant parking
lamp, the agency requested photometry data from
[[Page 50735]]
MBUSA. (the data provided by MBUSA is included in Docket NHTSA-2012-
0166) In reviewing the information, the data shows that the
noncompliant parking lamp exceeded the maximum photometric requirements
at 12 of 18 test points. The overages ranged from 16% to 504% with the
majority (7 out of 12) of failures being over 200%. As such, the actual
performance of the noncompliant parking lamps is far beyond what the
agency would consider to be within the range of the just noticeable
differences research and we believe that it will be noticeably brighter
than a compliant lamp and potentially glaring to oncoming drivers.
Further, MBUSA did not provide any information regarding the
proximity of the noncompliant parking lamp to the front turn signal
lamp. FMVSS No. 108 requires that any front turn signal lamp that is
within a certain distance of any lamp (such as an auxiliary lower beam
or fog lamp used to supplement the lower beam headlamp), to meet higher
intensities in order to comply with the standard. For instance, if the
front turn signal lamp is within 60mm of the lighted edge of the
auxiliary lamp, then the turn signal must be 2.5 times brighter than
the ``base'' turn signal lamp photometric requirements. Other
requirements exist as well depending on the proximity of the turn
signal lamp to the lighted edge of the auxiliary lamp, however no
information was provided by the petitioner on the noncompliant lamp's
key relationship to other lamps for the agency to evaluate. Because the
performance of these noncompliant parking lamps approaches the
performance of a fog lamp and the close proximity of these lamps to the
front turn signal lamps, the agency is concerned that the noncompliant
parking lamp may mask the output of a ``base'' front turn signal lamp.
To address our concerns, the agency requested information regarding the
certification of the front turn signal lamps. MBUSA responded that the
front turn signal lamps were indeed certified to the base photometric
requirements.
VII. NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that MBUSA has not met its burden of persuasion and that the
noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, MBUSA's petition is hereby denied, and MBUSA must notify
owners, purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and provide
a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-20140 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P