Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 11871-11872 [2014-04564]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Notices
advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 is of significant concern
to the agency. NHTSA is therefore
particularly interested in comments
regarding the ability of a Registered
Importer to readily alter the subject
vehicles to fully meet the driver and
front outboard passenger frontal crash
protection and child passenger
protection requirements of FMVSS No.
208. The following is a partial listing of
the components that may be affected:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
a. Driver’s frontal air bag module
b. Passenger frontal air bag module
c. Passenger frontal air bag cover
d. Knee air bags
e. Knee bolsters
f. Passenger outboard frontal seat belt
system
g. Driver and front outboard seat
assemblies including seat tracks and
internal seat components
h. Steering wheel components,
including the clock spring assembly,
the steering column, and all
connecting components
i. Instrument panel
j. Instrument panel support structure
(i.e. cross beam)
k. Occupant sensing and classification
systems, including sensors and
processors
l. Restraint control modules
m. Passenger air bag status indicator
light system, including related display
components and wiring
n. Wiring harnesses between the
restraint control module, occupant
classification system and restraint
system components
o. Control system computer software
and firmware
All comments received before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated above will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the
docket at the above addresses both
before and after that date. 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.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A),
(a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–04563 Filed 2–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:40 Feb 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0066; Notice 1]
Ford Motor Company, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2013 Ford Fusion and Lincoln
MKZ passenger cars built from August
12, 2012 through January 14, 2013 do
not fully comply with paragraph
S3.1.4.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102
Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect, or paragraph S5.2.1 of
FMVSS No. 114 Theft Protection and
Rollaway Prevention. Ford has filed an
appropriate report dated March 4, 2013,
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
The closing date for comments
on the petition is April 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: 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:
• Mail: Send comments 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.
• Hand delivery: Deliver comments
by hand 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.
• Electronically: Submit comments
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 (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
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11871
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
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Ford’s Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR Part 556),
Ford submitted a petition 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.
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 4,727 MY 2013 Ford
Fusion and Lincoln MKZ passenger cars
built from August 12, 2012 through
January 14, 2013 at the Hermosillo
Stamping and Assembly Plant (HSAP)
in Hermosillo, Mexico.
III. Noncompliance: Ford has
determined that because the affected
vehicles were inadvertently shipped to
dealers in the ‘‘Factory Mode’’ that the
transmission gear selected in relation to
other gears is not always displayed by
the shift position sequence indicator
(aka, PRNDL) as required by paragraph
S3.1.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 102. In
addition, the affected Ford Fusion
vehicles manufactured with mechanical
key ignition systems do not fully meet
the requirements of paragraph S5.2.1 of
FMVSS No. 114 because under certain
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
11872
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Notices
conditions the mechanical key may be
removed from the ignition lock cylinder
when the transmission shift lever is in
a position other than ‘‘park.’’
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S3.1.4.1(a) of
FMVSS No. 102 specifically states:
S3.1.4.1 Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if
the transmission shift position sequence
includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the positions in
relation to each other and the position
selected, shall be displayed in view of the
driver whenever any of the following
conditions exist:
(a) The ignition is in a position where the
transmission can be shifted; . . .
Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 114
specifically states:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
S5.2.1 For each vehicle type manufactured
by a manufacturer, the manufacturer must
provide at least 1,000 unique key
combinations, or a number equal to the total
number of the vehicles of that type
manufactured by the manufacturer,
whichever is less. The same combinations
may be used for more than one vehicle type.
V. Summary of Ford’s Analyses: Ford
stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
1. The vehicle design is selfremedying. The affected vehicles are
designed to automatically switch from
Factory Mode to Transport Mode after
60 key cycles (beginning with assembly
line initialization). Once in Transport
Mode the vehicles are fully compliant
with FMVSS requirements.
2. While in Factory Mode, affected
vehicles clearly display the message
‘‘Factory Mode Contact Dealer’’ in either
the message center or instrument
cluster). Additionally, the ‘‘Factory
Mode Contact Dealer’’ message does not
obscure any regulatory malfunction
indicator lamps, or (non-mandated)
cautionary warnings.
3. The dealership’s Pre-Delivery
Inspection instructions require
dealerships to change the vehicle into
Customer Mode, prior to delivery,
which ensures the condition will be
remedied before delivery to the
customer. Ford is not aware of any of
the subject vehicles being delivered to
customers in Factory Mode.
4. All other requirements of FMVSS
No. 102 and FMVSS No. 114 are fully
satisfied.
5. Ford is not aware of any owner
complaints, accidents, or injuries
attributed to this condition.
Ford has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
vehicles will comply with FMVSS Nos.
102 and 114.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:40 Feb 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
In summation, Ford believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
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.
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 4,727
vehicles that Ford 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 for delivery or
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after Ford 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)
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–04564 Filed 2–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 35803]
United States Environmental
Protection Agency—Petition for
Declaratory Order
On January 24, 2014, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region IX, filed a petition for
declaratory order requesting that the
Board institute a proceeding to consider
whether two rules concerning railroad
locomotive idling issued by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) would be preempted by 49
U.S.C. 10501(b), if those rules were
approved into the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) under the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.1
1 SCAQMD
submitted the rules to the California
Air Resources Board (CARB), which then submitted
the rules to the EPA for approval into the California
SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The EPA indicates that it must decide
whether to approve the rules into the
California SIP and therefore seeks
guidance on whether § 10501(b) would
preempt the implementation of the rules
if they are approved.
Replies to the EPA’s petition were
submitted by United States
Representative Henry A. Waxman,
SCAQMD, CARB, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP),2
Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the
Association of American Railroads,
BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, East Yard
Communities for Environmental Justice,
and the Center for Community Action &
Environmental Justice and Sierra Club.
The Board has discretionary authority
under 5 U.S.C. 554(e) and 49 U.S.C. 721
to issue a declaratory order to eliminate
a controversy or remove uncertainty.
Here, it is appropriate to institute a
declaratory order proceeding to remove
the uncertainty raised in EPA’s petition
regarding whether the idling rules, if
approved into the California SIP, would
be preempted by § 10501(b). The record
presented to date reveals that this is a
matter of widespread and significant
public interest and warrants thorough
consideration by the Board after the
development of a complete record. The
Board will therefore institute a
declaratory order proceeding to consider
the issues and establish a procedural
schedule for the filing of comments and
replies.3
In its January 24, 2014 filing, the EPA
also requested an expedited proceeding
due to a statutory deadline of February
28, 2014, for the EPA to take action on
CARB’s request that the state-developed
rules be accepted into the California
SIP, which CARB had submitted to the
EPA on August 30, 2012. The EPA’s
proposed schedule, submitted in its
petition to the Board, would not provide
sufficient time for all interested parties
to comment on the preemption issue
and for the Board to fully consider the
matter. Accordingly, the Board hereby
provides notice that issuance of a
decision by February 28, 2014, will not
be possible.
This action will not significantly
affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of
energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. A declaratory order proceeding is
instituted.
2 MassDEP filed a petition to intervene, which
will be granted.
3 Parties that have already replied to the petition
need not refile unless they wish to supplement
what they have already filed.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11871-11872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04564]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0066; 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 (Ford) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2013 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ passenger cars built from
August 12, 2012 through January 14, 2013 do not fully comply with
paragraph S3.1.4.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 102 Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect, or paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 114 Theft
Protection and Rollaway Prevention. Ford has filed an appropriate
report dated March 4, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: 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:
Mail: Send comments 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.
Hand delivery: Deliver comments by hand 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.
Electronically: Submit comments 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 (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 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Ford's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR Part 556), Ford submitted a petition
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.
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 4,727 MY 2013
Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ passenger cars built from August 12, 2012
through January 14, 2013 at the Hermosillo Stamping and Assembly Plant
(HSAP) in Hermosillo, Mexico.
III. Noncompliance: Ford has determined that because the affected
vehicles were inadvertently shipped to dealers in the ``Factory Mode''
that the transmission gear selected in relation to other gears is not
always displayed by the shift position sequence indicator (aka, PRNDL)
as required by paragraph S3.1.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 102. In addition, the
affected Ford Fusion vehicles manufactured with mechanical key ignition
systems do not fully meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS
No. 114 because under certain
[[Page 11872]]
conditions the mechanical key may be removed from the ignition lock
cylinder when the transmission shift lever is in a position other than
``park.''
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S3.1.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 102 specifically
states:
S3.1.4.1 Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission
shift position sequence includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the positions in relation to each other
and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver
whenever any of the following conditions exist:
(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be
shifted; . . .
Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 114 specifically states:
S5.2.1 For each vehicle type manufactured by a manufacturer, the
manufacturer must provide at least 1,000 unique key combinations, or
a number equal to the total number of the vehicles of that type
manufactured by the manufacturer, whichever is less. The same
combinations may be used for more than one vehicle type.
V. Summary of Ford's Analyses: Ford stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
1. The vehicle design is self-remedying. The affected vehicles are
designed to automatically switch from Factory Mode to Transport Mode
after 60 key cycles (beginning with assembly line initialization). Once
in Transport Mode the vehicles are fully compliant with FMVSS
requirements.
2. While in Factory Mode, affected vehicles clearly display the
message ``Factory Mode Contact Dealer'' in either the message center or
instrument cluster). Additionally, the ``Factory Mode Contact Dealer''
message does not obscure any regulatory malfunction indicator lamps, or
(non-mandated) cautionary warnings.
3. The dealership's Pre-Delivery Inspection instructions require
dealerships to change the vehicle into Customer Mode, prior to
delivery, which ensures the condition will be remedied before delivery
to the customer. Ford is not aware of any of the subject vehicles being
delivered to customers in Factory Mode.
4. All other requirements of FMVSS No. 102 and FMVSS No. 114 are
fully satisfied.
5. Ford is not aware of any owner complaints, accidents, or
injuries attributed to this condition.
Ford has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future vehicles will comply with FMVSS Nos.
102 and 114.
In summation, Ford believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject 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.
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 4,727 vehicles that Ford 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 for delivery or introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford 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)
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-04564 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P