20572 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 

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, onvehicle 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 misaiming 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 endposition, 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°), 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°), 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 

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF 

PEACE 

Notice of Meeting 

DATE/TIME: Friday, April 24, 2015 (10:00 

a.m.–1:45 p.m.) 

LOCATION: 2301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20037. 

STATUS: Open Session—Portions may 

be closed pursuant to Subsection (c) of 

Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States 

Code, as provided in subsection 

1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute 

of Peace Act, Public Law 98–525. 

AGENDA: April 24, 2015 Board Meeting; 

Approval of Minutes of the One 

Hundred Fifty-Fourth Meeting (January 

23, 2015) of the Board of Directors; 

Chairman’s Report; Vice Chairman’s 

Report; President’s Report; Reports from 

USIP Board Committees; Update on 

Afghanistan and Pakistan; Countering 

Violent Extremism Review; Other 

General Issues. 

CONTACT: Denson Staples, Assistant to 

the Board Liaison Email: dstaples@

usip.org. 

Dated: April 9, 2015. 

Michael Graham, 

Senior Vice President for Management and 

Chief Financial Officer, United States 

Institute of Peace. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08608 Filed 4–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–AR–M 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES