Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 5301-5302 [2012-2306]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0005; Notice 1] Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: Ford Motor Company 1 (Ford) has determined that certain model year 2011 Ford E–150, E–250, E–350 and E– 450 motor vehicles manufactured between May 12, 2011 and May 25, 2011, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Ford has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated August 22, 2011). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Ford 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. This notice of receipt of Ford’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. Affected are approximately 4,532 model year 2011 Ford E–150, E–250, E– 350 and E–450 trucks manufactured between May 12, 2011 and May 25, 2011 at Ford’s Ohio assembly plant are affected. 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, these provisions only apply to the 4,532 2 subject vehicles that Ford no srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 1 Ford Motor Company is a motor vehicle manufacturer incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. 2 Ford’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt Ford as a vehicle manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for the 4,532 affected vehicles. However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve vehicle distributors and VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:09 Feb 01, 2012 Jkt 226001 longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. Ford described the noncompliance as the formation of air bubbles in the windshields when subjected to high temperatures specified in paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205. Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 requires in pertinent part: S5.1 Glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must conform to ANSI/SAE Z26.1– 1996 unless this standard provides otherwise. S5.1.1 Multipurpose passenger vehicles. Except as otherwise specifically provided by this standard, glazing for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles shall conform to the requirements for glazing for use in trucks as specified in ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996 * * * Ford expressed its belief that only approximately 100 of the 4,532 subject vehicles may actually develop air bubbles in their windshields. Ford argues that paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 specifies meeting the requirements of ANSI Z26.1–1996 Section 5.4 Boil, Test 4. The affected paragraph 5.4.3 ‘‘Interpretation of Results’’ states ‘‘The glass itself may crack in this test, but no bubbles or other defects shall develop more than 13 mm from the outer edge of the specimen or from any cracks that may develop.’’ Although the affected windshields may develop air bubbles, Ford believes this condition does not present a risk to motor vehicle safety for the reasons described below. The initiation of the air bubbles will most likely occur when the vehicle is parked in the sun with ambient temperatures greater than 80 °F, and they occur very early in the life of the vehicle. This was the case for the initial vehicles that exhibited the condition while still at the assembly plant, that was experiencing high seasonal temperatures at the time. Of the 41 field reports of the condition that had occurred as of August 16, 2011, only one occurred subsequent to delivery to a customer. All other field reports were found during pre-delivery vehicle preparation. The appearance of the air bubbles is a slow process, and there are no reports of air bubbles affecting the entire windshield. If bubbles do occur in the driver vision zone, the vision zone is initially only partially affected. This condition would be noticed by the customer prior to a significant spread of the air bubbles, and the customer would dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 5301 seek repair under Ford’s normal 3/36 warranty. Ford is not aware of accidents or injuries attributed to this condition. In summation, Ford believes that the described noncompliance of its vehicles to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 225 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. Comments: 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 be submitted by any of the following methods: a. 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. b. By hand delivery 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. c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https:// www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed to 1 (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, selfaddressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 5302 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Notices 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. DATES: Comment closing date: March 5, 2012. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: January 27, 2012. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2012–2306 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0004; Notice 1] Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Receipt of Petition. AGENCY: Ford Motor Company 1 (Ford) has determined that certain model year 2012 Ford Focus model passenger cars manufactured between May 12, 2011 and May 18, 2011, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays and paragraphs S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. Ford has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated July 7, 2011). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Ford 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. This notice of receipt of Ford’s petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 1 Ford Motor Company is a motor vehicle manufacturer incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:04 Feb 01, 2012 Jkt 226001 any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition. Affected are approximately 485 model year 2012 Ford Focus model passenger cars that were manufactured between May 12, 2011 and May 18, 2011. 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, these provisions only apply to the 485 2 model year 2012 Ford Focus model passenger cars that Ford no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires: S5.2.1. Except for the Low Tire Pressure Telltale, each control, telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each symbol provided pursuant to this paragraph must be substantially similar in form to the symbol as it appears in Table 1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each symbol provided pursuant to this paragraph must have the proportional dimensional characteristics of the symbol as it appears in Table 1 or Table 2. The Low Tire Pressure Telltale (either the display identifying which tire has low pressure or the display which does not identify which tire has low pressure) shall be identified by the appropriate symbol designated in column 4, or both the symbol in column 4 and the words in column 3. No identification is required for any horn (i.e., audible warning signal) that is activated by a lanyard or by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub; or for a turn signal control that is operated in a plane essentially parallel to the face plane of the steering wheel in its normal driving position and which is located on the left side of the steering column so that it is the control on that side of the column nearest to the steering wheel face plane. However, if identification is provided for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub, the identifier must meet Table 2 requirements for the horn. 2 Ford’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt Ford as a vehicle manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 485 of the affected vehicles. However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Paragraphs S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135 requires in pertinent part: S5.5.5. Labeling. (a) Each visual indicator shall display a word or words in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR 571.101) and this section, which shall be legible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when activated. Unless otherwise specified, the words shall have letters not less than 3.2 mm (1⁄8 inch) high and the letters and background shall be of contrasting colors, one of which is red. Words or symbols in addition to those required by Standard No. 101 and this section may be provided for purposes of clarity. (b) Vehicles manufactured with a split service brake system may use a common brake warning indicator to indicate two or more of the functions described in S5.5.1(a) through S5.5.1(g). If a common indicator is used, it shall display the word ‘‘Brake.’’ * * * Ford explained that the noncompliance is that the telltales used for Brake Warning, Park Brake Warning and Antilock Braking System (ABS) failure warnings are displayed using International Organization for Standardization (ISO) symbols instead of the telltale symbols required by FMVSS Nos. 101 and 135. Ford stated its belief that although the instrument cluster telltale symbols are displayed using ISO symbols the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons: (1) The Owners Guide for the subject vehicles is written for multiple markets and depicts both the ‘‘BRAKE’’ and ISO symbol telltales for brake warning conditions. (2) Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 135 states that the warning indicator must identify a gross loss of fluid or fluid pressure and identify if the parking brake is applied and is satisfied by a separate ABS lamp which complies with all requirements of FMVSS No. 135 and FMVSS No. 101. (3) In the event that the brake fluid level in the master cylinder reservoir is less than the recommended safe level, the ISO symbol will illuminate and a warning message will display in the Message Center that states ‘‘BRAKE FLUID LEVEL LOW SERVICE NOW’’ and an initial warning chime will sound. The message will stay continuously displayed until acknowledged by the operator, provided there are no other serious message(s), which would result in the messages alternating. If the brake fluid is still low on subsequent key cycles the message will be redisplayed in the message center. If the message is acknowledged by the operator a red ‘‘i’’ is illuminated on the instrument cluster noting that an E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5301-5302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2306]



[[Page 5301]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0005; Notice 1]


Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company \1\ (Ford) has determined that certain 
model year 2011 Ford E-150, E-250, E-350 and E-450 motor vehicles 
manufactured between May 12, 2011 and May 25, 2011, do not fully comply 
with paragraph S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 205, Glazing Materials. Ford has filed an appropriate report 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports (dated August 22, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ford Motor Company is a motor vehicle manufacturer 
incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
at 49 CFR part 556), Ford 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.
    This notice of receipt of Ford'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.
    Affected are approximately 4,532 model year 2011 Ford E-150, E-250, 
E-350 and E-450 trucks manufactured between May 12, 2011 and May 25, 
2011 at Ford's Ohio assembly plant are affected.
    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, these provisions 
only apply to the 4,532 \2\ subject vehicles that Ford no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ford's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556, 
requests an agency decision to exempt Ford as a vehicle manufacturer 
from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 
for the 4,532 affected vehicles. However, a decision on this 
petition cannot relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the 
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery 
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant 
vehicles under their control after Ford notified them that the 
subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford described the noncompliance as the formation of air bubbles in 
the windshields when subjected to high temperatures specified in 
paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205.
    Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.1 Glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must conform to 
ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 unless this standard provides otherwise.
    S5.1.1 Multipurpose passenger vehicles. Except as otherwise 
specifically provided by this standard, glazing for use in 
multipurpose passenger vehicles shall conform to the requirements 
for glazing for use in trucks as specified in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 * 
* *

    Ford expressed its belief that only approximately 100 of the 4,532 
subject vehicles may actually develop air bubbles in their windshields.
    Ford argues that paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 specifies meeting 
the requirements of ANSI Z26.1-1996 Section 5.4 Boil, Test 4. The 
affected paragraph 5.4.3 ``Interpretation of Results'' states ``The 
glass itself may crack in this test, but no bubbles or other defects 
shall develop more than 13 mm from the outer edge of the specimen or 
from any cracks that may develop.'' Although the affected windshields 
may develop air bubbles, Ford believes this condition does not present 
a risk to motor vehicle safety for the reasons described below.
    The initiation of the air bubbles will most likely occur when the 
vehicle is parked in the sun with ambient temperatures greater than 
80[emsp14][deg]F, and they occur very early in the life of the vehicle. 
This was the case for the initial vehicles that exhibited the condition 
while still at the assembly plant, that was experiencing high seasonal 
temperatures at the time. Of the 41 field reports of the condition that 
had occurred as of August 16, 2011, only one occurred subsequent to 
delivery to a customer. All other field reports were found during pre-
delivery vehicle preparation.
    The appearance of the air bubbles is a slow process, and there are 
no reports of air bubbles affecting the entire windshield. If bubbles 
do occur in the driver vision zone, the vision zone is initially only 
partially affected. This condition would be noticed by the customer 
prior to a significant spread of the air bubbles, and the customer 
would seek repair under Ford's normal 3/36 warranty.
    Ford is not aware of accidents or injuries attributed to this 
condition.
    In summation, Ford believes that the described noncompliance of its 
vehicles to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 225 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.
    Comments: 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 be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
    a. 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.
    b. By hand delivery 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.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed 
to 1 (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 https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the

[[Page 5302]]

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.
    DATES: Comment closing date: March 5, 2012.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: January 27, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-2306 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P