Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 21836-21838 [2014-08713]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21836
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Notices
many FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S. certified counterparts, or are
capable of being readily altered to
conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that
non-U.S. certified 2012 Mercedes-Benz
S-Class passenger cars are identical to
their U.S. certified counterparts with
respect to compliance with Standard
Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever
Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect, 103
Windshield Defrosting and Defogging
Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and
Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113
Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle
Brake Fluids, 124 Accelerator Control
Systems, 126 Electronic Stability
Control Systems, 135 Light Vehicle
Brake Systems, 139 New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles, 201
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,
202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering
Control Rearward Displacement, 205
Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and
Door Retention Components, 210 Seat
Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212
Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact
Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance,
219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225
Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, and
302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
The petitioner also contends that the
vehicles are capable of being readily
altered to meet the following standards,
in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101 Controls and
Displays: replacement of the instrument
cluster with a U.S.-model component
and reprogramming the unit to indicate
correct vehicle mileage.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment:
Replacement of the headlamps, side
marker lamps, and tail lamps with U.S.model components and reprogramming
the vehicle computer to activate
necessary systems.
Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and
Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR
of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or
Less: installation of a tire information
placard.
Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors:
replacement of the passenger side
rearview mirror with a U.S.-model
component or inscription of the
required warning statement on the face
of that mirror.
Standard No. 114 Theft Protection
and Rollaway Prevention:
reprogramming the vehicle computer to
activate the key warning system.
Standard No. 118 Power-Operated
Window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems: reprogramming of the vehicle
computer.
Standard No. 138 Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems: Replacement of,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
non-U.S.-model parts and software with
U.S.-model components so that the
vehicle is identical to the U.S.-model in
regards to the standard.
Standard No. 207 Seating Systems:
replacement of non-conforming seating
systems with U.S.-model components.
Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash
Protection: inspection to confirm that
belts, airbags, sensors, control units,
wiring harnesses, knee bolsters, labels,
and braces bear U.S.-model part
numbers. Non-U.S.-model parts will be
replaced with U.S.-model components
so that the vehicle identical to the U.S.model in regards to the standard. The
vehicle computer must also be
reprogrammed to activate the seat belt
warning system.
Standard No. 209 Seat Belt
Assemblies: inspection of seatbelts and
replacement of non-conforming belts
with U.S.-model components.
Standard No. 301 Fuel System
Integrity: inspection of all vehicles and
replacement of any non U.S.-model fuel
system components with U.S.-model
components as necessary to conform to
the requirements of FMVSS No. 301.
Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk
Release: installation of U.S.-model
interior trunk release components.
The petitioner states that the bumpers
and bumper support structure are
identical to that of the U.S. certified
model. However, the bumper impact
absorbers must be replaced with U.S.model components to comply with 49
CFR part 581.
The petitioner additionally states that
a vehicle identification plate must be
affixed to the vehicle near the left
windshield post to meet the
requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
Because the subject petition covers
nonconforming vehicles that have been
manufactured on or after September 1,
2006, compliance with the 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:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–08714 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0110; Notice 2]
Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
AGENCY:
Ford Motor Company (Ford)
has determined that certain model year
2009–2012 Ford F–650 and F–750
trucks manufactured from April 14,
2008, through May 1, 2012 do not fully
comply with paragraph S5.3.2(a) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Notices
Electric Brake Systems. Ford has filed
an appropriate report dated July 2, 2012
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573 Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
For further information on
this decision contact Stuart Seigel,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5287, facsimile (202) 366–
7002.
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Ford’s Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing
those provisions 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.
On February 21, 2014 Ford
supplemented its original petition of
July 23, 2012, by updating the number
of affected vehicles and their dates of
manufacture, and including additional
justification for a decision of
inconsequential noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of the July 23, 2012
petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on January 25,
2013 in the Federal Register (78 FR
5560). No comments were received. To
view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2012–
0110.’’
II. Vehicles Involved
Affected are approximately 7,393
model year 2009–2012 Ford F–650 and
F–750 trucks that were manufactured
from April 14, 2008, through May 1,
2012.
III. Noncompliance
Ford explains that the noncompliance
is that the subject vehicles do not
illuminate the parking brake telltale
lamp when the ignition switch is in the
‘‘on’’ or ‘‘start’’ positions as required by
FMVSS No. 105.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105
requires: Except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section, all
indicator lamps shall be activated as a
check of lamp function either when the
ignition (start) switch is turned to the
‘‘on’’ (run) position when the engine is
not running, or when the ignition (start)
switch is in a position between ‘‘on’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
(run) and ‘‘start’’ that is designated by
the manufacturer as a check position.
V. Summary of Ford’s Analyses
Ford stated its belief that although the
affected vehicles do not illuminate the
parking brake telltale lamp when the
ignition start switch is in the ‘‘on’’ or
‘‘start’’ positions that the condition is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
1. The parking brake telltale lamp
functions as intended—only the telltale
bulb check at start-up is not
illuminated—unless the parking brake is
applied.
2. Unlike most other telltales, the
parking brake telltale will
simultaneously illuminate when the
customer applies the handbrake—
essentially functioning as a bulb check.
And, if the lamp does not illuminate
when the handbrake is applied, the
customer is able to identify the
condition.
3. If customers inadvertently operate
the vehicle with the parking brake
applied, the service brakes will not be
affected because the design of the
subject vehicles utilizes a separate,
dedicated parking brake mounted on the
driveshaft. Additionally, inadvertent
application of the parking brake will
result in poor vehicle acceleration and
‘‘drag’’ providing further indications
that the parking brake is engaged.
4. Instrument panel telltale bulbs are
highly reliable. Engineering has
reported no parking telltale bulb
warranty claims for any of the affected
F–650 & F–750 vehicles, from 2009
through 2012.
5. The physical position of the
parking brake handle (on the tunnel)
provides a readily apparent indication
when the parking brake is applied.
Partial parking brake applications are
not a concern because the handle
mechanism utilizes an over-cam locking
design, which assures the parking brake
is either fully applied or fully released.
This design precludes a parking brake
from being partially applied.
6. The 2011–2012 model year vehicles
incorporate a warning chime which
activates (in addition to the parking
brake telltale) when the parking brake is
applied and the vehicle is driven over
4 miles-per-hour.
7. The operators of these vehicles are
typically professional drivers, requiring
additional licensing and are familiar
with the operation of these types of
over-cam, driveshaft-mounted parking
brakes.
Ford is also unaware of any field
reports, accidents or injuries attributed
to this condition.
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21837
Ford additionally indicated that
changes were made in production on
May 1, 2012, and that they had taken
multiple steps to help ensure that the
parking brake telltale ‘‘check of lamp
function’’ issue that resulted in the noncompliance does not occur in the future,
including Ford validation of the design
with no planned cluster/parking brake
revisions until new model updates.
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.
VI. NHTSA Decision
NHTSA has reviewed Fords analyses
that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Specifically, the parking brake telltale is
not activated as a check of lamp
function either when the ignition (start)
switch is turned to the ‘‘on’’ (run)
position when the engine is not
running, or when the ignition (start)
switch is in a position between ‘‘on’’
(run) and ‘‘start’’ as required by
Paragraph S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105.
If the parking brake telltale lamp bulb
fails, the vehicle operator would not be
alerted by illumination of the parking
brake telltale that the vehicle’s parking
brake is applied. However, as the
vehicle in this condition is driven, a
number of indicators would provide
feedback to the vehicle operator that the
parking brake is applied. First, the
vehicle drivability would be affected
with poor acceleration and ‘‘drag.’’ A
warning chime for the 2011–2012 model
year vehicles would be activated when
the vehicle is driven over 4 miles per
hour. Lastly, the physical position of the
parking brake handle located on the
tunnel, would provide a visual
indication that the parking brake is
applied. The parking brake has an overcam locking design that assures that the
brake is not partially applied. The
combination of the aforementioned
operator feedback indicators is
sufficient that in the event of a nonoperative parking brake telltale light, an
operator would have sufficient warning
and information to take corrective
action. In addition, the parking brake is
mounted on the drive shaft and,
therefore, separate from the service
brake system. Thus, in the unlikely
event that the vehicle was driven with
an applied parking brake the service
brake system would not be
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21838
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Notices
compromised thereby reducing the
severity of the noncompliance.
We also note that this telltale is
specific only to the application of the
parking brake, and is not a combined
indicator for multiple brake
malfunctions. As a separate indicator,
the severity of the noncompliance is
further reduced as it indicates only one
versus multiple brake system
malfunctions.
Furthermore, each application of the
parking brake activates the dedicated
parking brake indicator telltale. This
effectively functions as a secondary defacto bulb check. Drivers that routinely
use the parking brake in the subject
vehicles will become accustomed to
seeing a telltale with the word ‘‘Park’’
activated when setting the parking brake
and are consequently likely to recognize
a malfunction if this expected telltale
does not illuminate.
The affected vehicles, the F–650 and
F–750 trucks, are medium duty work
trucks typically operated by
professional drivers that are
experienced with and knowledgeable of
their work equipment including the
operation of the over-cam, driveshaftmounted parking brake systems. It is
highly likely that even without a visual
indicator, these individuals will readily
determine when the parking brake is set
simply by the altered feel of vehicle
drivability.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Ford has met
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS
No. 105 noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Ford’s petition is hereby
granted and Ford is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, that noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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, this
decision only applies to the subject
noncompliant vehicles that Ford no
longer controlled at the time it
determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
Jeff Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–08713 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0003 (PDA–
37(R)]
New York City Permit Requirements for
Transportation of Certain Hazardous
Materials
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Public notice and invitation to
comment.
AGENCY:
Interested parties are invited
to comment on an application by the
American Trucking Associations, Inc.
(ATA) for an administrative
determination whether Federal
hazardous material transportation law
preempts requirements of the New York
City Fire Department for a permit to
transport certain hazardous materials by
motor vehicle through New York City,
or for transshipment from New York
City, and the fee for the permit.
DATES: Comments received on or before
June 2, 2014 and rebuttal comments
received on or before July 16, 2014 will
be considered before an administrative
determination is issued by PHMSA’s
Chief Counsel. Rebuttal comments may
discuss only those issues raised by
comments received during the initial
comment period and may not discuss
new issues.
ADDRESSES: ATA’s application and all
comments received may be reviewed in
the Docket Operations Facility (M–30),
U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The application
and all comments are available on the
U.S. Government Regulations.gov Web
site: https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
PHMSA–2014–0003 and may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Docket Operations
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
A copy of each comment must also be
sent to (1) Boyd Stephenson, Director,
Hazardous Materials & Licensing Policy,
American Trucking Associations, 950
Glebe Road, Suite 210, Arlington, VA
22203, and (2) Salvatore J. Cassano,
Commissioner, New York City Fire
Department, 9 Metrotech Center, New
York, NY 11201. A certification that a
copy has been sent to these persons
must also be included with the
comment. (The following format is
suggested: ‘‘I certify that copies of this
comment have been sent to ATA and
the New York City Fire Department at
the addresses specified in the Federal
Register.’’)
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 a comment
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 (65 FR
19477–78), or you may visit https://
www.regulations.gov.
A subject matter index of hazardous
materials preemption cases, including a
listing of all inconsistency rulings (IRs)
and preemption determinations (PDs), is
available through PHMSA’s home page
at https://phmsa.dot.gov. From the home
page, click on ‘‘Regulations,’’ then on
‘‘Preemption of State and Local Laws’’
(in the ‘‘Hazmat Safety’’ column). A
paper copy of the index will be
provided at no cost upon request to Mr.
Hilder or Mr. Lopez, at the address and
telephone number set forth in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frazer C. Hilder or Vincent Lopez,
Office of Chief Counsel (PHC–10),
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone No. 202–366–4400; facsimile
No. 202–366–7041.
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21836-21838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08713]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0110; Notice 2]
Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford) has determined that certain model
year 2009-2012 Ford F-650 and F-750 trucks manufactured from April 14,
2008, through May 1, 2012 do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.2(a)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic and
[[Page 21837]]
Electric Brake Systems. Ford has filed an appropriate report dated July
2, 2012 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Stuart
Seigel, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5287,
facsimile (202) 366-7002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Ford's Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions 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.
On February 21, 2014 Ford supplemented its original petition of
July 23, 2012, by updating the number of affected vehicles and their
dates of manufacture, and including additional justification for a
decision of inconsequential noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of the July 23, 2012 petition was published, with
a 30-day public comment period, on January 25, 2013 in the Federal
Register (78 FR 5560). No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0110.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Affected are approximately 7,393 model year 2009-2012 Ford F-650
and F-750 trucks that were manufactured from April 14, 2008, through
May 1, 2012.
III. Noncompliance
Ford explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
do not illuminate the parking brake telltale lamp when the ignition
switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' positions as required by FMVSS No.
105.
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105 requires: Except as provided
in paragraph (b) of this section, all indicator lamps shall be
activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start)
switch is turned to the ``on'' (run) position when the engine is not
running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between
``on'' (run) and ``start'' that is designated by the manufacturer as a
check position.
V. Summary of Ford's Analyses
Ford stated its belief that although the affected vehicles do not
illuminate the parking brake telltale lamp when the ignition start
switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' positions that the condition is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
1. The parking brake telltale lamp functions as intended--only the
telltale bulb check at start-up is not illuminated--unless the parking
brake is applied.
2. Unlike most other telltales, the parking brake telltale will
simultaneously illuminate when the customer applies the handbrake--
essentially functioning as a bulb check. And, if the lamp does not
illuminate when the handbrake is applied, the customer is able to
identify the condition.
3. If customers inadvertently operate the vehicle with the parking
brake applied, the service brakes will not be affected because the
design of the subject vehicles utilizes a separate, dedicated parking
brake mounted on the driveshaft. Additionally, inadvertent application
of the parking brake will result in poor vehicle acceleration and
``drag'' providing further indications that the parking brake is
engaged.
4. Instrument panel telltale bulbs are highly reliable. Engineering
has reported no parking telltale bulb warranty claims for any of the
affected F-650 & F-750 vehicles, from 2009 through 2012.
5. The physical position of the parking brake handle (on the
tunnel) provides a readily apparent indication when the parking brake
is applied. Partial parking brake applications are not a concern
because the handle mechanism utilizes an over-cam locking design, which
assures the parking brake is either fully applied or fully released.
This design precludes a parking brake from being partially applied.
6. The 2011-2012 model year vehicles incorporate a warning chime
which activates (in addition to the parking brake telltale) when the
parking brake is applied and the vehicle is driven over 4 miles-per-
hour.
7. The operators of these vehicles are typically professional
drivers, requiring additional licensing and are familiar with the
operation of these types of over-cam, driveshaft-mounted parking
brakes.
Ford is also unaware of any field reports, accidents or injuries
attributed to this condition.
Ford additionally indicated that changes were made in production on
May 1, 2012, and that they had taken multiple steps to help ensure that
the parking brake telltale ``check of lamp function'' issue that
resulted in the non-compliance does not occur in the future, including
Ford validation of the design with no planned cluster/parking brake
revisions until new model updates.
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.
VI. NHTSA Decision
NHTSA has reviewed Fords analyses that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically, the parking
brake telltale is not activated as a check of lamp function either when
the ignition (start) switch is turned to the ``on'' (run) position when
the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a
position between ``on'' (run) and ``start'' as required by Paragraph
S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105.
If the parking brake telltale lamp bulb fails, the vehicle operator
would not be alerted by illumination of the parking brake telltale that
the vehicle's parking brake is applied. However, as the vehicle in this
condition is driven, a number of indicators would provide feedback to
the vehicle operator that the parking brake is applied. First, the
vehicle drivability would be affected with poor acceleration and
``drag.'' A warning chime for the 2011-2012 model year vehicles would
be activated when the vehicle is driven over 4 miles per hour. Lastly,
the physical position of the parking brake handle located on the
tunnel, would provide a visual indication that the parking brake is
applied. The parking brake has an over-cam locking design that assures
that the brake is not partially applied. The combination of the
aforementioned operator feedback indicators is sufficient that in the
event of a non-operative parking brake telltale light, an operator
would have sufficient warning and information to take corrective
action. In addition, the parking brake is mounted on the drive shaft
and, therefore, separate from the service brake system. Thus, in the
unlikely event that the vehicle was driven with an applied parking
brake the service brake system would not be
[[Page 21838]]
compromised thereby reducing the severity of the noncompliance.
We also note that this telltale is specific only to the application
of the parking brake, and is not a combined indicator for multiple
brake malfunctions. As a separate indicator, the severity of the
noncompliance is further reduced as it indicates only one versus
multiple brake system malfunctions.
Furthermore, each application of the parking brake activates the
dedicated parking brake indicator telltale. This effectively functions
as a secondary de-facto bulb check. Drivers that routinely use the
parking brake in the subject vehicles will become accustomed to seeing
a telltale with the word ``Park'' activated when setting the parking
brake and are consequently likely to recognize a malfunction if this
expected telltale does not illuminate.
The affected vehicles, the F-650 and F-750 trucks, are medium duty
work trucks typically operated by professional drivers that are
experienced with and knowledgeable of their work equipment including
the operation of the over-cam, driveshaft-mounted parking brake
systems. It is highly likely that even without a visual indicator,
these individuals will readily determine when the parking brake is set
simply by the altered feel of vehicle drivability.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Ford has
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 105 noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Ford's petition
is hereby granted and Ford is exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
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, this decision
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that Ford no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of 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 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.
Jeff Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-08713 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
