[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58786-58788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22653, Notice 1]


Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC; Receipt of Application for a Temporary 
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application for a temporary exemption.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR 555.6(b), 
Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC (``MBUSA'') has applied for a Temporary 
Exemption from S.5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 108. The basis of the application is to facilitate the 
development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety feature 
providing a level of safety at least equal to that of the standard. We 
are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in accordance 
with the requirements of 49 CFR 555.7(a), and have made no judgment on 
the merits of the application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than November 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Feygin in the Office of Chief 
Counsel, NCC-112, (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax 202-366-3820; E-Mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8dcae8e2ffeae8a3cbe8f4eae4e3cde3e5f9feeca3e9e2f9a3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c087a5afb2a7a5ee86a5b9a7a9ae80aea8b4b3a1eea4afb4eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>).

I. Background

    MBUSA petitioned the agency on behalf of its parent corporation, 
DaimlerChrysler AG.\1\ The petition seeks a temporary exemption from 
S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. In 
short, S5.5.10 specifies that with certain exceptions not applicable to 
this petition, all lamps, including stop lamps must be wired to be 
steady-burning.\2\ In order to develop and evaluate an innovative brake 
signaling system in the United States, MBUSA seeks a temporary 
exemption from the ``steady-burning'' requirement as it applies to stop 
lamps. This system is currently available in Europe on the S-class, CL-
class, and SL-class Mercedes vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information on MBUSA go to http://www.mbusa.com.
    \2\ See S5.5.10 of 49 CFR Sec.  571.108. Turn signal lamps, 
hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps must be wired 
to flash. Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for 
signaling purposes. Motorcycle headlamps may be wired to modulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MBUSA states that the system enhances the emergency braking signal 
by flashing three stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 during strong 
deceleration. In addition, after emergency braking, the system 
automatically activates the hazard warning lights of the stopped 
vehicle until it starts to move again or the lights are manually 
switched off. The petitioner states that this signaling system reduces 
the following drivers' reaction time by attracting their attention, and 
also enhances visibility of the stopped vehicle, thus helping to reduce 
the incidence and severity of rear end collisions.
    NHTSA previously denied petitioner's request to permanently amend 
FMVSS No. 108 to allow flashing brake signaling systems. Among the 
reasons for the denial was the need for additional data on safety 
benefits of flashing brake lamps. The petitioner argues that granting 
this temporary exemption would allow them to provide the information 
NHTSA found lacking.
    MBUSA requests a two-year exemption period. In accordance with the 
requirements of 49 CFR Sec.  555.6(b)(5), MBUSA will not sell more than 
2,500 exempted vehicles in any twelve-month period within the two-year 
exemption period. For addition details, please see the MBUSA petition 
at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm, Docket No. NHTSA-
2005-22653. The following (Parts II-VI) summarizes MBUSA's petition in 
relevant part.

II. Description of the New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature

    The petitioner states that its brake signaling system provides two 
innovative safety-enhancing features.
    First, three stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 flash at a 
frequency of 5 Hz in the event of strong deceleration. This occurs if 
the velocity is >50 km/h (31 mph) and at least one of the following 
conditions is met:
    1. Deceleration is >7 m/s\2\; or
    2. The brake assist function is active; or
    3. The Electronic Stability Program (ESP) control unit detects a 
panic braking operation.
    The petitioner states that the activation criteria ensures that the 
enhanced brake signals are only activated when truly needed. Thus, the 
brake lights will flash only in severe braking situations, and will 
flash at a relatively high frequency that allows for fast recognition. 
Further, using the panic brake signal from the ESP control unit as a 
trigger would activate the system only when the achievable

[[Page 58787]]

deceleration is substantially smaller than the demanded one. Thus, the 
stop lamps would not flash in routine situations.
    Second, after emergency braking, the system automatically activates 
the hazard warning lights of the stopped vehicle until it starts to 
move again, or the lights are manually switched off.

III. Potential Benefits of the New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature

    The petitioner states that the brake signaling system provides 
important safety enhancements not found in a vehicle equipped with a 
traditional brake signaling system. First, the flashing system reduces 
the following driver's reaction time and encourages maximum 
deceleration of following vehicles. The petitioner expects especially 
strong benefits during adverse weather conditions and for inattentive 
drivers. Second, the activation of hazard warning lamps on the stopped 
vehicle also enhances vehicle recognition after it came to a complete 
stop. The petitioner believes that together, these features will help 
to reduce rear end collisions and improve safety.
    The petitioner is aware of the agency's longstanding restriction on 
flashing stop lamps, in the interest of standardized, instantly 
recognizable lighting functions. However, MBUSA believes its system 
will be easily recognizable, and would not interfere with NHTSA's 
objectives.

IV. The Petitioner's Research and Testing

    The petitioner states that the development of the innovative brake 
light system is based on careful research and testing. The activation 
criteria for the flashing brake lights were established with the help 
of a driver behavior study. The petitioner further states that field 
studies have demonstrated that the brake light system can significantly 
reduce driver reaction times.
    MBUSA used a driver braking behavior study to understand how often 
rapid deceleration braking occurs in the United States. The study 
followed 96 subjects using 15 Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with a 
driver behavior and vehicle dynamics recorder. The study indicated that 
one emergency braking maneuver occurred for every 2291 miles driven. 
The study also suggested that, based on the criteria described in the 
previous section, only 23 out of 100,000 braking maneuvers would 
activate the flashing stop lamps. The petitioner concludes that the 
flashing brake light will occur rarely, which will help to avoid 
``optical pollution'' and enhance the effectiveness of the brake light 
system.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Driver behavior research is described in Attachment A of the 
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MBUSA sponsored additional field and driving simulator studies, 
which showed that ``appropriately designed flashing brake lights 
significantly reduce drivers'' reaction times and thus can reduce the 
incidence and severity of rear-end collisions.'' \4\ Specifically, the 
study compared reaction times in emergency braking situations among 
conventional brake lights, conventional brake lights combined with 
hazard warning lights, flashing brake lights with a flashing frequency 
of 4 Hz, and flashing brake lights with a flashing frequency of 7 Hz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The study was conducted by Dr. Joerg Breuer and Thomas 
Unselt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner states that the study showed that flashing brake 
lights reduce driver reaction time by an average of 0.2 seconds, which 
is a reduction sufficient to meaningfully reduce the number and/or 
severity of rear end collisions. MBUSA argues that even higher 
reduction in reaction time would occur under real-world driving 
conditions, where drivers are less focused on the driving task and 
subject to more sources of distraction. The study also showed positive 
effects from the flashing brake light signal under adverse weather 
conditions and in distraction situations. Finally, the test subjects 
expressed a preference for flashing brake lights when compared to other 
brake light symbols.
    The petitioner states that the Japanese Ministry of Land, 
Infrastructure and Transportation conducted a study to evaluate the 
validity and operating conditions of two types of emergency brake light 
displays, one that flashes upon sudden braking, sand one that enlarges 
the lighting area of the brake lamps. The study found that flashing 
brake lamps reduced following drivers' response time in the drivers' 
peripheral fields of vision. The study also showed that shorter 
flashing intervals are more effective. Finally, the study indicated 
that an emergency brake light display that enlarges the lighting area 
is not as effective as a flashing brake lamp.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This study is described in greater detail in Attachment D of 
the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. How Will a Temporary Exemption Facilitate the Development and Field 
Evaluation of a New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature?

    The petitioner states that it intends to monitor the exempted 
vehicles and study the effectiveness of the brake signaling system. 
First, MBUSA will gather information about rear-end collisions of 
vehicles equipped with the system. This information will be combined 
with the parallel results from the European fleet and, according to the 
petitioner, may prove to be valuable in evaluating the anticipated 
safety benefits of the new brake light system. Second, the test fleet 
may enable MBUSA to evaluate acceptance of the flashing stop lamps 
among the American public.

VI. Why Granting the Petition for Exemption Is in the Public Interest

    As indicated above, the petitioner argues that granting the 
requested exemption from FMVSS 108 would enable them to continue 
developing and evaluating its innovative brake signaling system, thus 
contributing substantially to ongoing efforts to consider the 
effectiveness of enhanced lighting systems in reducing rear-end 
crashes. MBUSA believes that the system will help to significantly 
reduce following driver reaction times, thus reducing rear end 
collisions.
    The petitioner also noted that rear end collisions are a 
significant traffic safety concern, particularly in dense traffic 
areas, and an important cause of rear end collisions is a following 
driver's failure to detect that a leading vehicle has performed an 
emergency braking action. MBUSA believes that an enhanced braking 
signal that alerts following drivers to urgent braking situations has 
the potential to significantly enhance safety.

VII. How You May Comment on This Petition

    We invite you to submit comments on the application described 
above. You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket Number NHTSA-
2005-22653] by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site by clicking on 
``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
    <bullet> Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    <bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.

[[Page 58788]]

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket in order to read background 
documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or 
to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.
    We shall consider all comments received before the close of 
business on the comment closing date indicated below. To the extent 
possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date. 
We shall publish a notice of final action on the application in the 
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 
501.8)

    Dated: October 4, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-20277 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>