Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 28903-28909 [2018-13307]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices
As
described by the applicant the intended
service of the vessel MAYAN SOL is:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
—Intended Commercial Use of Vessel:
‘‘Yacht charter operation in Marina
del Rey harbor, Los Angeles,
California’’
—Geographic Region: ‘‘California’’
The complete application is given in
DOT docket MARAD–2018–0095 at
https://www.regulations.gov. Interested
parties may comment on the effect this
action may have on U.S. vessel builders
or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and
MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part
388, that the issuance of the waiver will
have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.vessel builder or a business that uses
U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a
waiver will not be granted. Comments
should refer to the docket number of
this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the
comments. Comments should also state
the commenter’s interest in the waiver
application, and address the waiver
criteria given in section 388.4 of
MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part
388.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
DOT/MARAD solicits comments from
the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts
these comments, without edit, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to
facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of
names is completely optional. Whether
or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully
considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact
the agency for alternate submission
instructions.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
(Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103,
46 U.S.C. 12121)
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: June 18, 2018.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr.,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018–13309 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Jun 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
28903
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
grant or deny the petition for a hearing.
See 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.6.
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition Background Information
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0058]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of a petition for a hearing
on remedy of defect.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrations (NHTSA) decision and
reasons for denying a petition, (DP15–
001) submitted to NHTSA requesting
that the agency conduct a hearing to
examine the remedy for Ford recall
14S05 (NHTSA recall 14V–284) and to
require Ford to provide an adequate
remedy.
SUMMARY:
Mr.
Chris Lash, Vehicle Defects Division A,
Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–
366–2370. Email chris.lash@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Introduction
After a vehicle or an item of motor
vehicle equipment has been determined
to contain a defect that relates to motor
vehicle safety, any interested person
may petition the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
requesting that the agency hold a
hearing to determine if a manufacturer
has met the defect notification and
remediation requirements imposed by
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (‘‘the Safety Act’’), 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(2), 49
CFR 557. Upon receipt of a properly
filed petition, the agency conducts a
review of the petition, any material
submitted with the petition, and any
additional relevant information. See 49
U.S.C. 30120(c); 49 CFR 557.4. The
review may consist solely of a review of
information already in the possession of
the agency, or it may include the
collection of information from the motor
vehicle manufacturer and/or other
sources. After considering the available
information and taking into account
appropriate factors, including the nature
of the complaint, seriousness of the
alleged breach of the manufacturer’s
obligation to remedy, existence of
similar complaints, ability of NHTSA to
resolve the problem without a hearing,
and assessing whether the remedy
provided resolves the safety risk
presented by the defect, the agency will
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In a submission dated February 3,
2015, Ms. Abigail Dayton (the
Petitioner) filed a petition (DP15–001)
requesting that NHTSA conduct a
hearing to examine the remedy for Ford
recall 14S05 (NHTSA Recall No. 14V–
284) and require Ford to provide an
adequate remedy. The Petitioner alleges
that, after a dealer performed the recall
remedy on her vehicle by performing a
software update, she experienced a
failure in the Ford Electric Power
Assisted Steering (EPAS) system that
required replacement of the steering
column at her own expense. She further
alleges that the EPAS failure
necessitating the replacement of her
steering column was ‘‘the precise issue
for which Ford issued recall 14S05 in
the first place.’’ The petition also
presented accounts of similar postremedy failures reported by other
consumers on ‘‘various forums and
websites.’’
NHTSA has reviewed the material
cited by the Petitioner. The results of
this review and our evaluation of the
petition are set forth in the DP15–001
Petition Analysis Report, published in
its entirety below.
The facts Petitioner alleges are cause
for concern regarding the approach
adopted by Ford and are a source of
significant frustration for Petitioner and
others similarly situated who simply
want their vehicle to run the way it was
designed to, particularly after being
repaired by the vehicle manufacturer.
However, in light of NHTSA’s statutory
authority, after thorough assessment of
the material submitted by the Petitioner
and the factors NHTSA is required to
consider in determining the proper
resolution of a petition for a hearing on
whether a manufacturer has reasonably
met its obligation to remedy, NHTSA
has decided not to grant the petition to
hold a hearing. Accordingly, and for the
reasons more fully explained in the
below Petition Analysis Report for
DP15–001, the petition is denied.
Petition Analysis Report—DP15–001
1.0
Introduction
In a letter dated May 27, 2014, Ford
Motor Company (Ford) submitted a
Defect Information Report (DIR) to the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) describing an
Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS)
system defect in certain model year
2008 through 2011 Ford Escape and
Mercury Mariner vehicles (NHTSA
Recall 14V–284, Ford 14S05) (the
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
28904
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
recall).1 The DIR described a defect in
the EPAS torque sensor that could result
in a loss of power steering assist while
driving. The DIR did not identify any
other defects in the EPAS system.
Ford’s remedy involved updating the
system’s software to mitigate the
occurrence of loss of power steering
assist while driving due to the torque
sensor defect. Vehicles diagnosed with
a torque sensor fault code at the time of
the recall repair would have the torque
sensor replaced, while vehicles
diagnosed with fault codes related to
other EPAS components would have the
steering column replaced.2 Ford has not
initiated any separate field actions to
extend the warranty coverage for repairs
of torque sensor failures, or any other
EPAS component faults, occurring after
the recall repairs were completed.3
In a petition dated February 3, 2015,
and received by NHTSA on February 5,
2015, (DP15–001) Ms. Abigail Dayton
(the Petitioner) requested that the
agency conduct a hearing to examine
the remedy for the recall and require
Ford to provide an adequate remedy. On
November 1, 2014, a dealer performed
the recall remedy on the Petitioner’s
2008 Ford Escape vehicle by performing
the software update. On January 5, 2015,
65 days after the recall remedy was
completed on her vehicle, the
Petitioner’s vehicle experienced a
failure in the EPAS system requiring her
to pay for replacement of the steering
column. Replacement of the steering
column was an alternative remedy in
the recall depending on what fault
codes were present at the time the repair
was made by a Ford dealer. The
Petitioner alleged that the post-remedy
steering column EPAS failure was ‘‘the
precise issue for which Ford issued
recall 14S05 in the first place.’’ The
Petitioner also alleged that a pattern of
similar post-remedy failures reported by
other consumers on ‘‘various forums
and websites’’, along with several
additional allegations, support her
1 Documents related to the recall are available at
www.nhtsa.gov under recall ID number 14V–284
https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls).
2 Replacement of the torque sensor with the
redesigned service part or the steering column
assembly, which includes the torque sensor, would
serve the dual purpose of repairing the diagnosed
fault condition and removing the defect identified
in Ford’s DIR.
3 Warranty extension programs, also known as
special policy adjustments, are field actions that are
separate and distinct from safety recalls. Safety
recalls require the manufacturer to identify the
defect, develop a remedy, and apply the remedy to
all of the affected vehicles to prevent a specific
safety hazard from occurring. Warranty extensions
adjust the vehicle age and mileage for which the
manufacturer will cover the cost of repairing
specific components after they have failed or
display certain symptoms.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Jun 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
request that the agency hold a hearing
and order Ford to provide a different
remedy for the defect.
1.1 Petition Allegations
The Petitioner claims that the recall
remedy conducted on her vehicle did
not resolve the safety defect. Further,
the Petitioner explains that she received
a recall notice in July 2014 for NHTSA
Recall No. 14V–284 and she obtained a
repair from an authorized dealer in
November 2014. However, Petitioner
asserts that the remedy, in fact, did not
repair the vehicle, as evidenced by the
fact that the power steering assist failed
‘‘soon thereafter.’’ When Petitioner
returned to the dealership in January
2015, the vehicle returned fault code
B2277, which would authorize her for a
different remedy under the recall had
her vehicle not previously been repaired
in November 2014. Petitioner goes on to
surmise based on the alternative
remedies available based on different
fault codes, and the way that fault codes
are pulled from the vehicles, that:
Ford either knew the PSCM 4 would fail
intermittently and would not always provide
a fault codes (sic), knowing that requiring the
dealership to pull a specific ‘fault code’
before replacing affected components may
potentially not repair the defect or,
alternatively, Ford’s software update caused
or accelerated issues with affected vehicles’
PSCMs requiring eventual replacement of the
affected components.
Pet. at 9.5 Petitioner also notes that
her own ‘‘investigation quickly
revealed’’ at least 20 other individuals
reported the same issue on various
websites and online forums. Pet. at 4.
Ultimately, through a series of related
statements the Petitioner alleges that
‘‘the software update does not mitigate
the risk associated with the recall,’’ ‘‘the
software update did not . . . ‘repair’ the
defect associated with Recall 14S05’’
and Ford’s ‘‘[f]ailure to repair the
affected vehicles which experienced
PCSM (sic) loss and/or torque sensor
issues after receiving the software
update does not address the concern
and underlying reason for the recall: To
prevent affected vehicles for (sic) safety
related failures and resulting accidents
and injuries.’’ Pet. at 8.
2.0
Background
2.1 Legal Background
The Safety Act requires vehicle
manufacturers to remedy safety-related
defects in their vehicles by repairing the
vehicle; replacing the vehicle with an
identical or reasonably equivalent
vehicle; or refunding the purchase price,
4 Power
Steering Control Module (PSCM).
from page 9 of the petition.
5 Excerpt
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
less a reasonable allowance for
depreciation. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). The
statute allows a manufacturer to choose
its own remedy and NHTSA does not
approve manufacturers’ remedies. See
id. If a manufacturer elects to repair a
safety-related defect, the repair must be
done adequately within a reasonable
time. 49 U.S.C. 30120(c). If the repair is
not done adequately within a reasonable
time, the manufacturer must replace the
vehicle with an identical or reasonably
equivalent vehicle, or refund the
purchase price, less a reasonable
allowance for depreciation. Id.
2.2 Sequence of Events in NHTSA
Recall No. 14V–284
As noted above, Ford initiated the
recall by filing the DIR on May 27, 2014.
The DIR described the defect as ‘‘a poor
signal to noise ratio in the torque sensor
within the Electric Power Steering (EPS)
that does not allow the PSCM to
determine the driver’s steering input.’’
As noted above, the safety consequence
was stated to be loss of power assist
while driving. The DIR described the
remedy as follows:
Dealers will update the Power Steering
Control Module (PSCM) and instrument
cluster module software. The updated PSCM
software changes the torque sensor fault
strategy and will no longer remove power
steering assist during an ignition cycle for a
single torque sensor fault. Additionally, the
software update will provide audible and
visual warnings to the driver in the unlikely
event that a torque sensor fault is detected.
Two days later, on May 29, 2014, Ford
issued a bulletin to Ford dealers
advising them of the recall. This
bulletin described the defect as a fault
in the torque sensor and stated that a
complete Dealer Bulletin relating to the
issue would be provided when software
to perform the repair became available.
On May 30, 2014, Jennifer Timian,
Chief of NHTSA’s Recall Management
Division, responded to the Ford DIR in
an acknowledgement letter confirming
receipt of the defect notice. Among
other things, the letter described the
remedy for the defect as follows:
Ford will notify owners, and dealers will
update the software for the power steering
control module and the instrument cluster
module, free of charge. The recall is expected
to begin by July 25, 2014. Owners may
contact Ford customer service at 1–800–392–
3673. Ford’s number for this recall is 14S05.
Ford filed an amended DIR on June 2,
2014. According to Ford’s cover letter,
this amended DIR provided additional
detail pertaining to the remedy program.
Thus, while Ford’s description of the
defect (encompassing only the torque
sensor) remained unchanged, the
amended remedy description stated:
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices
Dealers will check the Power Steering
Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic
Trouble Codes (DTC):
• If no loss of steering assist DTCs are
present, dealers will update the PSCM and
instrument cluster module software. The
updated PSCM software changes the torque
sensor fault strategy and will no longer
remove power steering assist during an
ignition cycle for a single torque sensor fault.
Additionally, the software update will
provide audible and visual warnings to the
driver in the unlikely event that a torque
sensor fault is detected.
• If upon initial inspection certain loss of
steering assist DTCs are present, the dealer
will either replace the torque sensor or the
PSCM, depending on the DTC present.6
NHTSA acknowledged receipt of the
June 2, 2014 amended DIR by a letter
dated June 4, 2014. This June 4, 2014
letter described the remedy as follows:
Ford will notify owners, and dealers will
update the software for the power steering
control module (PSCM) and the instrument
cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle
shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor
signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM
when the vehicle is brought in for the recall
remedy, the affected components will be
replaced, free of charge. The recall is
expected to begin by July 25, 2014.
On July 1, 2014 Ford sent instructions
to its dealers providing information
about how to complete the recall. This
notice advised dealers that the software
needed to perform the recall repair was
still not available and would be released
on July 9, 2014. The July 1 dealer notice
described the repair procedure for the
defect:
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Dealers are to check the Power Steering
Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic
Trouble Codes (DTCs).
• If DTC B1342, B2277, or B2278 are NOT
present, reprogram the PSCM and the
Instrument Cluster (IC) module.
• If only DTC B2278 is present, replace the
torque sensor.
• If DTC B1342 or B2277 is present,
replace the steering column assembly.
The July 1, 2014 dealer notice further
stated that the software update remedy
option would not be available until July
9, and that until that date vehicles
should only be repaired if a ‘‘vehicle
arrives at your dealership with a
customer complaint of loss of steering
assist accompanied by one of the DTCs’’
identified in that bulletin (i.e., those
requiring replacement of the torque
sensor or steering column assembly).
The ‘‘Dealer Q&A’’ portion of the
bulletin also directed dealers to inform
6 Ford’s amended report should have indicated
replacement of the steering column assembly rather
than the PSCM. Steering column replacement is
required to repair faults in the PSCM or motor,
neither of which can be serviced separately. This
error was corrected in subsequent dealer
instructions sent by Ford on July 1, 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Jun 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
owners of vehicles that received the
software update that any post-remedy
replacement of the torque sensor or
steering column would not be covered
by Ford’s recall because ‘‘the modules
were reprogrammed to prevent sudden
loss of steering assist while driving.’’
In its May 15, 2015 information
request letter (IR letter) to Ford, NHTSA
requested information to assist in the
evaluation of DP15–001.7 The IR letter
asked Ford to explain why the remedy
procedure for the recall provides for free
replacement of the torque sensor or
steering column for fault codes
associated with the torque sensor, PSCM
or EPAS motor or at the time the remedy
is performed, but not after the remedy
is performed. Ford’s June 26, 2015
response to NHTSA’s IR letter included
the following explanation: 8
The purpose of the remedy procedure is to
mitigate the occurrence of the loss of power
steering assist while driving due to the torque
sensor, and to provide audible and visual
warnings to the driver if a torque sensor fault
is detected by updating the PSCM software.
Additionally, if DTC’s related to the PSCM
(B2277 and B1342) or Torque Sensor (B2278)
are present at the time of service, additional
parts were replaced to better manage
customer expectations.
Ford’s strategy appears to have been
effective in managing customer
expectations when dealers performed
the recall repairs on the subject
vehicles, as there have been very few
complaints related to that service.
However, the strategy appears to have
produced additional customer
expectations regarding how Ford would
manage post-remedy EPAS repairs to
the torque sensor and other EPAS
components covered by Ford as part of
the recall repair procedure (i.e., PSCM
or motor faults requiring steering
column replacement). Most of the postremedy complaints received by NHTSA
through the end of 2017 include
references to unhappiness with Ford’s
policy for handling repair costs
associated with torque sensor repairs
and a variety of other EPAS conditions
after performing recall repairs.
2.3 NHTSA’s Analysis of Safety
Hazards Associated With Loss of Power
Steering
Prior investigations and recalls
associated with defect conditions that
may result in loss of power steering
assist have established that such failures
may result in an increased risk of
7 Jeffrey Quandt, letter to Todd Fronckowiak, May
15, 2015 (https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2015/
INIM-DP15001-62000.pdf).
8 Wayne Bahr, letter to Frank Borris, June 26,
2015 (https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2015/INRLDP15001-62304P.pdf).
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28905
crashes during low-speed vehicle
maneuvers when they occur while
driving and without warning. Testing
conducted as part of several defect
investigations by NHTSA’s Vehicle
Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East
Liberty, Ohio, and others have found
that the increases in driver hand-wheel
efforts that result from loss of power
steering assist are greater at parking lot
speeds. The greatest efforts are required
when the vehicle is stationary and the
steering torque must overcome the static
frictional forces from the tire contact
patch with the road surface. Front-axle
weight, tire size and tire inflation
pressure are the primary factors
affecting tire-road frictional forces when
stopped and in low-speed parking and
turning maneuvers.9 10 Additional
increases in steering torque in lowspeed maneuvers are primarily
influenced by steering angle.11 Changes
in steering torque in higher speed
maneuvers are primarily influenced by
the lateral acceleration of the vehicle.
Steering torque requirements decrease
with increasing speed, as the safe and
normal ranges of steering angles and
lateral accelerations become smaller and
smaller. At all speeds, while more
difficult, drivers are able to maintain
vehicle control after losing power
steering assist because the mechanical
linkage between the steering wheel and
the road is maintained at all times.
There are very few published studies
related to the effects of loss of power
steering assist on vehicle directional
control and crash risk. A study
conducted by Transport Canada focused
on the effects in low-speed turns,
evaluating driver response to
unexpected loss of assist in right-hand
turns at a simulated traffic light at
approximately 10 km/h (6 mph).12 The
study included vehicles ranging in size
from compact passenger cars to a large
sport utility vehicle and a mixed
demographic group of drivers. The
study found that, for each of the
9 There are multiple other factors affecting
steering torque, including rack friction, steering and
suspension ball joint friction, and scrub radius.
Additional factors affecting manual steering effort
include steering ratio and steering wheel diameter.
These effects are normally minor in comparison
with front axle weight.
10 For purposes of this discussion, speeds less
than 20 km/h (13 mph) are considered low speed.
11 Sharp, R.S., Granger, R. (2003). On Car Steering
Torques at Parking Speeds, Electrical and
Electronic Engineering, Imperial College of Science,
Technology and Medicine, Exhibition Road,
London SW7 2BT.
12 Harbluk, J.L., Burns, P.C., Malone, D.,
Hamilton, J. (2014). Power Steering Assist Failures:
Driver Behavior, Safety Impacts, and Implications
for Automated Vehicles, Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual
Meeting, 2073–2077.
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
28906
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices
vehicles evaluated, at least 40 percent of
drivers were not able to safely complete
the turning maneuvers after an
unexpected loss of steering assist.13 The
same study found that, when aware of
the loss of power steering assist, drivers
were able to negotiate the course
without any unsafe turns at the same
speeds as recorded with full power
steering assist. Similar results have been
noted in human factors testing
conducted by VRTC in support of
NHTSA loss of power steering
investigations.14
NHTSA considers the facts and
evidence for each issue independently
when deciding when to investigate
allegations of loss of power steering
assist. Based in part on vehicle testing
and analysis of field data from prior
investigations, NHTSA considers
multiple factors, including: Operating
mode, warning, vehicle factors, system
factors and failure rate.15 Conditions
that result in loss of assist at start-up or
after prior visual, audible and/or tactile
warning do not present a significant risk
of crash or injury.
2.3.1
Ford EPAS: System Design
In the Ford EPAS system, a columnmounted electric motor drives the
steering gear to provide steering assist to
the driver using battery power. The
system senses the speed, direction, and
amount of effort, or torque, applied to
the steering wheel by means of a torque
sensor located in the steering column
assembly. The signal from the torque
sensor is relayed to an electronic control
unit (the PSCM). A PSCM control
algorithm generates a signal to drive the
motor to provide steering assistance in
proportion to the driver’s steering effort
and vehicle speed. The system reduces
the amount of assist supplied to the
driver as vehicle speed increases to
provide the desired road feel at the
steering wheel.
The Ford EPAS system continuously
performs diagnostics to identify faults
that could potentially result in safety
hazards (e.g., unintended steering
torques) or damage to the system. The
system responds to fault detection by
transitioning to appropriate failsafe
operating modes, including removing
assist and transitioning to manual
steering mode. Table 1 shows the
primary fault conditions and failsafe
modes associated with the subject EPAS
system prior to the software update
associated with the subject recall.
TABLE 1—FAULT CONDITIONS AND FAILSAFE MODES RELATED TO REDUCED OR REMOVED ASSIST FOR SUBJECT
VEHICLES BEFORE THE RECALL SOFTWARE UPDATE
Fault name
Failsafe mode
Conditions to restore EPAS
C195C ............
Low voltage (<11V) .................................
B1342 ............
High voltage (>16V) ................................
High voltage (>18V) or Low voltage (<9
V).
Micro test failure ......................................
Reduced performance state following
voltage capability of the vehicle.
Ramp out to zero assist.
Remove assist.
Voltage returns to value within specified
tolerance within same ignition cycle.
B1317 ............
B1318 ............
Remove assist .........................................
Reevaluate at next ignition cycle if condition still exists.
B2277 ............
B2278 ............
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Fault code
Motor failure ............................................
Torque sensor failure ..............................
Remove assist.
Remove assist.
As shown in Table 1, prior to the
remedy software update, the EPAS
system responded to certain faults
detected in the torque sensor, PSCM or
motor by removing assist and
transitioning to manual steering. The
system remains in the failsafe mode
until the conditions are met for clearing
the fault and restoring normal EPAS.
For faults detected in the torque sensor,
PSCM, or motor, the vehicle remains in
failsafe mode for the remainder of the
ignition cycle in which the fault is
detected—meaning that the vehicle
must be turned off and restarted to clear
the fault code and re-establish power
steering. The system restores steering
assist if the fault condition is no longer
present on a subsequent ignition cycle.
Each of the fault codes associated
with the subject EPAS system, including
those shown in Table 1, are stored for
64 ignition cycles before the system
clears them from memory.
Some of the reports pertain to reduced
assist resulting from low battery voltage, such
as when the vehicle is exposed to low
ambient conditions, and operated at near idle
engine speed, and with heavy electrical load.
When the electric power assist system detects
low system voltage, it will reduce the amount
of assist it provides. Reduced assist is a
protective response from the EPAS system to
prevent engine stalling due to the low system
voltage. It is not a defect of the EPAS system
but instead a symptom of a potentially failing
battery or other electrical system concern.
13 The study classified turns as safe if the driver
completed the maneuver without stopping or
departing the intended lane of travel to any degree.
14 See document files for investigation ID’s RQ10–
004 and PE10–038 at www.nhtsa.gov (https://
www.nhtsa.gov/recalls).
15 Vehicle factors include size/mass (i.e., steer
axle weight) and steering design factors that
influence the magnitude and proportion of the
change in steering effort when transitioning to
manual mode; system factors include the likelihood
of the fault occurring in a critical operating state
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Jun 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
2.3.2 Ford EPAS: Temporary Reduced
Assist
In its June 26, 2015 response to
NHTSA’s IR letter, Ford identified
several factors that may result in
temporary ‘‘reduced assist’’ in the
subject EPAS system and which may be
reported by some owners as a loss of
power steering assist. For example, Ford
provided the following description of
how the system may temporarily reduce
assist during periods of low battery
voltage:
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Service bulletin SSM 20895 and the
workshop manual direct the technician to
inspect the vehicle electrical system for the
root cause of the low system voltage. This
condition of reduced assist could mistakenly
be reported as a loss of assist.
In addition to low battery voltage,
Ford indicated that the EPAS may also
temporarily reduce assist when the
steering is fully turned to one side or the
other (i.e., the steering is turned near the
physical rack stops) or during extreme
usage conditions that result in PSCM
overheating due to heavy sustained use
by the driver. Reductions in steering
assist that result from these factors are
most likely to be experienced in lowspeed parking maneuvers with
significant steering inputs, such as
parallel parking.
2.3.3 Ford EPAS: Torque Sensor
Failures
The EPAS system at issue uses a
contact-type torque sensor to measure
driver steering input. Over time, the
and the harshness of the steering feedback, if any,
in the transient state.
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
subject torque sensors may develop a
poor signal-to-noise ratio (noisy signal)
due to degradation of the sensor
conductive surfaces. This may result in
distortion, interruption or dropout of
the signals, resulting in a Steering Shaft
Torque Sensor Malfunction fault (DTC
B2278). Early in MY 2011 production,
Ford began using an improved torque
sensor with lubricant added to the
conductive surfaces to reduce long-term
degradation. Vehicles built on or after
September 11, 2010 were equipped with
steering column assemblies containing
the improved design and thus, were not
included in the recall.
Ford’s analysis found that the
conductive surface degradation occurs
at or near the on-center position where
the steering wheel is held for the
majority of road travel time and miles.
This can result in noisy signals from the
torque sensor, which may initially cause
a perceptible steering wheel dither
condition for some period prior to a loss
of power steering.16 Complaints
describe the dither condition as a
shimmy, vibration, pulsing, or shaking
of the steering wheel. The condition is
most evident when the vehicle is
stopped and idling and the steering
wheel is in a position that aligns with
the degraded contact surfaces.17 Prior to
being remedied, noisy signals from the
torque sensor may result in detection of
a Steering Shaft Torque Sensor
Malfunction (DTC B2278) fault, which
would immediately remove the power
assist with no audible or visual warning
provided to the driver. Ford provided
the following description of the dither
condition in its IR response letter:
Steering wheel dithering prior to a loss of
assist has been noted in a number of reports,
providing tactile feedback that the system is
not functioning normally. As previously
noted, the degradation of the conductive
surface of the torque sensor may result in
increased levels of signal noise to the PSCM.
This increased signal noise may result in the
steering wheel dither experienced by the
driver. The amount of input supplied by the
EPAS system to the steering column during
this dithering is limited to approximately 2
Nm maximum and, while readily noticeable,
can be easily managed by the driver. The
updated PSCM software provided with the
recall remedy is more tolerant of the signal
noise. However, if the signal noise increases
beyond this level, a diagnostic trouble code
(DTC B2278) for the torque sensor will be
stored in the system and a visual and audible
warning will be given to the driver. Should
the signal noise persist and/or increase, the
PSCM may eventually remove power steering
16 ‘‘Dither’’ is a term used by Ford and other
automotive companies to describe a low-amplitude
oscillation of the steering wheel.
17 Torque sensor signal dropouts generally occur
near the center or zero-degree steering position.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Jun 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
assist, but only at the beginning of the next
key cycle (with the accompanying visual and
audible warnings). The repair for this
condition, as defined in the workshop
manual, is torque sensor replacement.
Prior to February 2014, the torque
sensor was not available as a separate
replacement part and repairing failed
torque sensors required replacement of
the entire steering column assembly.
This changed in February 2014 when
Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin
TSB 14–0016 and began providing
torque sensor kits as service parts for
faulty torque sensors, thereby reducing
the repair cost for torque sensor failure
by over 50 percent.18
In May 2014, Ford submitted the DIR
to NHTSA for the subject recall. As
previously noted, the recall remedy
involved updating the PSCM software to
change the conditions under which the
EPAS removes power assist following
detection of torque sensor faults related
to the noisy signal condition. Once the
EPAS software update is completed, the
system alerts the driver with an audible
chime and warning lamp when EPAS
detects the torque sensor fault; however,
the system maintains full power steering
assist through that ignition cycle and
the fault does not result in a sudden loss
of assist while driving. If the torque
sensor fault persists or worsens, the
system may remove power steering
assist when the driver starts the vehicle
at the beginning of the next ignition
cycle. Owner notification for the recall
started in July 2014.
2.3.4 Ford EPAS: Recall 14V–284
Defect Description
Ford’s Part 573 letter for the subject
recall described the defect condition as
follows:
In some of the affected vehicles, a poor
signal to noise ratio in the torque sensor
within the Electric Power Steering (EPS)
system does not allow the PSCM to
determine the driver’s steering input. Once
this condition is detected, the system
removes power steering assist, and defaults
to manual steering mode. In the event of a
loss of power steering assist, the mechanical
linkage between the steering wheel and the
road is maintained at all times. Loss of power
steering assist while driving would require
higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds,
which may result in an increased risk of a
crash.
As defined by Ford and confirmed by
NHTSA’s examination of available data,
the defect here consists of a torque
18 The torque sensor kit included a redesigned
torque sensor service part (Part Number CL8Z–
3F818–A) and instructions for replacing the torque
sensor. The repair costs for replacing the torque
sensor using the kit may range from $500 to $700,
while costs for steering column replacement may
range from $1,200 to $1,500 on average.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28907
sensor design that is prone to
contaminant accumulation leading to
incomprehensible, noisy or intermittent
signals being sent to the PSCM (which
results in loss of power steering assist
while the vehicle is being driven).
Accordingly, Ford’s defect report
described the safety risk as a loss of
power steering assist while driving. The
defect identified does not include other
torque sensor failure conditions, failures
in other EPAS components such as the
PSCM or PSM, EPAS faults at vehicle
start-up (i.e., not while driving), and
faults that are not associated with the
EPAS system.
3.0
Analysis of the Petition
Per the regulatory requirements,
NHTSA’s analysis of the petition
includes the following factors: The
nature of the complaint; the seriousness
of the alleged breach of the vehicle
manufacturer’s obligation to remedy
defects; the existence of similar
complaints; NHTSA’s ability to resolve
the problem without holding a hearing;
and other pertinent matters.
The nature of the Petitioner’s
complaint is that the remedy provided
by ‘‘Ford has failed to adequately
remedy’’ the safety defect. As evidence
for this, the Petitioner points to her own
experience with loss of power steering
assist after receiving the remedy:
Soon thereafter, I started experiencing
issues with my power steering (i.e., excessive
shaking, loss of power steering). I took my
vehicle back to the dealership in January
2015. According to the technician, my torque
sensor failed and they needed to replace my
entire steering column. Specifically, the
technician pulled fault code B2277 at this
time.
Pet. at 3 (emphasis in original).
The Petitioner’s description of the
post-remedy problem includes evidence
of the torque sensor fault addressed by
the subject recall (e.g., excessive shaking
of the steering wheel and a technician’s
reference to a torque sensor failure).
However, it also includes evidence
indicating that a different or additional
fault occurred. The Petitioner states,
with emphasis, that ‘‘the technician
pulled fault code B2277 at this time’’
and references B2277 four more times in
the petition. As shown in Table 1,
B2277 is the fault code for a power
steering motor failure. The
recommended repair cited by the
Petitioner, steering column replacement,
also suggests that the failure in the
Petitioner’s vehicle may not have been
related, or limited, to the defect
underlying the recall, which is
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
28908
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices
ordinarily repaired by torque sensor
replacement.19
NHTSA identified 632 complaints
alleging post-remedy EPAS system
problems in the subject vehicles and
received by the Agency from August
2014 through the end of 2017. In
general, the complaints lack sufficient
detail to determine the root cause,
failure mode, or operating state for each
of the reported incidents. The
complaints include multiple fault
conditions (e.g., torque sensor, PSCM,
motor), failure modes (loss of power
steering, temporary reduction of power
steering assist, steering dither and EPAS
warning message or wrench lamp
illumination 20); and operating states
(incidents occurring while driving, at
start-up or during parking maneuvers).
NHTSA’s analysis of post-remedy EPAS
complaints in the subject vehicle
focused on two separate issues: (1)
Evidence of any other EPAS component
defects that were not addressed by the
recall remedy; and (2) the effectiveness
of the software update in mitigating the
risk of loss of power steering while
driving from torque sensor faults.
3.1 Analysis: EPAS Fault Field
Experience by Causal Component
NHTSA’s analysis of recall repair
data, part sales, and owner complaints
all indicate that the torque sensor
continues to be the primary cause of
EPAS system malfunctions in the
subject vehicles after completion of the
recall remedy. Through August 2017,
Ford had completed the recall remedy
in approximately 79 percent of affected
vehicles, with approximately 2.8
percent of the repairs requiring
replacement of the torque sensor or
steering column due to faults detected
in the torque sensor, PSCM, or power
steering motor at the time the recall
remedy was performed. The torque
sensor kit accounted for almost twothirds (64%) of such repairs. Similarly,
analysis of part sales data determined
that torque sensor kit sales make up 63
percent of EPAS part sales over the last
12 months.21 Although most of the
complaints reviewed by ODI lacked
sufficient detail to determine the causal
component or driving state, the torque
sensor was identified in approximately
73 percent of the complaints that did
provide enough detail to identify the
faulty component.22 The data do not
identify a significant rate or trend for
any other EPAS component or
condition.
3.2 Analysis: Post-Remedy Torque
Sensor Failures
NHTSA’s analysis of complaints
alleging post-remedy EPAS
malfunctions diagnosed as torque sensor
faults indicates that the faults are
usually being detected before a loss of
assist occurs (e.g., by a warning message
or from symptoms related to dithering
condition) and/or result in loss of assist
at vehicle start-up, when the safety risk
has been minimized. The Petitioner
takes issue with Ford’s characterization
of these events as being ‘‘unlikely’’ and
NHTSA agrees that the rate of torque
sensor failures is higher than it would
have been if the signal degradation issue
identified by Ford did not exist.
However, based on the information
available to NHTSA, the likelihood of
failure is low in comparison to other
defect conditions related to loss of
power steering assist that have been
addressed by recalls by Ford and other
manufacturers, as evidenced by analysis
of total part sales through the end of
2017, when the subject vehicles range in
age from 6 to 11 years in service. This
analysis indicates fewer than 10 percent
of all 2008 through 2011 Escape and
Mariner vehicles have required a
steering column or torque sensor
replacement that could be related to a
torque sensor fault.23 Furthermore,
Ford’s remedy removes the safety
hazard, i.e., sudden loss of power
steering assist while driving, resulting
from such failures.
As noted in the petition, a key metric
of remedy effectiveness is its effect on
crash and injury trends related to EPAS
issues in the subject vehicles.24 NHTSA
has reviewed all crash and injury
allegations related to the EPAS system
in the subject vehicles by recall remedy
completion status (see Table 2).
Through the end of 2017, NHTSA had
received 22 complaints alleging crashes
resulting from loss of power steering
while driving, including 10 alleging
injuries. Many of these incidents were
very minor. For example, NHTSA was
able to verify evidence of collision
damage repairs for just 9 of the 22
vehicles identified in the crash
allegations, including 8 of the 10
alleging injuries.
TABLE 2—CRASH ALLEGATIONS BEFORE AND AFTER RECALL REMEDY COMPLETION
Evidence of collision repair .............................
No evidence of collision repair .......................
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Total .........................................................
19 Steering column replacement is the repair
required for power steering motor failure and other
EPAS faults not related to the torque sensor (e.g.,
PSCM failure).
20 Vehicles with the lowest level cluster option
provide a wrench light instead of a warning
message when the EPAS system detects a torque
sensor fault after the PSCM has received the recall
remedy update.
21 Since June 2014, approximately 27 percent of
torque sensor kit sales and 22 percent of steering
column sales have been associated with repairs
performed under the subject recall.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Jun 20, 2018
14V284 Recall remedy status
Injury
allegations
Crash severity
Jkt 244001
Not completed
Completed
Total
All crashes ......................................................
Injury crashes .................................................
Injuries ............................................................
All crashes ......................................................
Injury crashes .................................................
Injuries ............................................................
8
8
8
7
2
2
1
0
0
6
0
0
9
8
8
13
2
2
All crashes ......................................................
Injury crashes .................................................
Injuries ............................................................
15
10
10
7
0
0
22
10
10
22 One-hundred ninety-five (195) complaints
identified the torque sensor (143), PSCM (46), or
motor (6) as the component diagnosed by the
servicing facility as the faulty part.
23 NHTSA defect investigations that have
influenced recalls related to loss of power steering
while driving have identified specific fault
conditions affecting a defined population of
vehicles that have resulted in warranty claim rates
well over 1% of vehicles sold after about 3 yearsin-service (YIS) and 10 YIS failure rates estimated
by statistical modeling that range from 16 to 68%
of vehicles sold. See files for investigation ID
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
numbers PE10–005, PE10–021, EA11–005, EA11–
014, PE12–017 and PE14–030 at www.nhtsa.gov
(https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls).
24 A petition footnote cites concerns that an
ineffective remedy would result in continued
incidents resulting in injuries, ‘‘As of August 20,
2013, Ford was aware of five accident allegations
and six injury allegations potentially pertaining to
this subject. More recent data on injuries potentially
pertaining to this subject were not available, but
Petitioner assumes this number has increased since
that time, and will continue to increase until Ford
actually repairs the recall on affected vehicles.’’
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
None of the injury allegations and
only one of the incidents severe enough
to require collision repairs involved a
vehicle that had been remedied under
the recall and that crash was reported as
a minor parking lot collision resulting in
$1,100 of front end damage. NHTSA’s
analysis of crash and injury allegations
indicates that Ford’s recall remedy
appears to have been effective in
mitigating the safety hazards associated
with loss of power steering assist while
driving in the subject vehicles.
3.3 Analysis: Summary
The Petitioner references the similar
experience of others as identified in
complaints to NHTSA and through
various websites and online forums in
support of the position that Ford’s
remedy was not adequate. The
Petitioner’s claim is serious and the
frustration Petitioner experienced is
understood by NHTSA. However, the
defect identified by Ford was ‘‘[l]oss of
power steering assist while driving’’
caused by a particular defect in the
torque sensor and not, as Petitioner
understands it, by any EPAS
malfunction requiring replacement of
the steering column or torque sensor,
under any operating condition,
regardless of cause. NHTSA’s research
and knowledge on this subject supports
Ford’s conclusion that the safety risk is
limited to the loss of power steering
assist while driving.
In contrast, a driver who does not
have power steering assist when starting
the vehicle will know that immediately,
as it will be difficult to turn the steering
wheel at low speeds, and will be
prepared to compensate for it while
driving (or may choose not to drive).
Ford’s software update remedy, as
explained in Ford’s DIRs, ‘‘changes the
torque sensor fault strategy and will no
longer remove power steering assist
during an ignition cycle for a single
torque sensor fault. Additionally, the
software update will provide audible
and visual warnings to the driver in the
unlikely event that a torque sensor fault
is detected.’’
Because Ford’s change in fault logic
prevents the loss of power steering
assist while the vehicle is in operation
(if there is only one fault), the safety
risk, i.e. the loss of power steering assist
while driving, is addressed. Instead, the
vehicle will turn off the power steering
assist when the vehicle is turned off (or,
as Ford puts it, after that ‘‘ignition
cycle’’). Thus, the safety risk of losing
power steering assist while driving has
been resolved. Further, the addition of
visual and audio warnings to the driver
in the event a torque sensor fault is
detected alerts the driver to the need for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Jun 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
service to the EPAS system prior to a
loss of power steering assist and to the
need for additional effort required to
maneuver the vehicle if power steering
assist is removed by the system before
service repairs are performed. Thus,
Ford’s software update remedy does
address the safety risk identified, which
is the loss of power steering assist while
driving, and without warning.
This is not to say that the Petitioner
may not have good reason to be
displeased with the result.
Approximately two months after
receiving Ford’s recall repair,
Petitioner’s vehicle suffered the problem
that two months earlier would have
entitled her to a remedy that instead
would cost her approximately $1,000 to
obtain. This is certainly cause for
frustration. However, NHTSA’s
authority over vehicle manufacturers is
limited to issues related to safety. In this
instance, Ford’s software update remedy
removed the safety risk of a driver
losing power steering assist, without
warning, while operating the vehicle.
Because the nature of the complaint
does not allow NHTSA to grant the
petition, we will only briefly address
the other factors set out in the
regulations. On those points the agency
notes that while the alleged breach of
the obligation to remedy is serious,
there is no factual breach in this
instance and that NHTSA does not have
any ability to resolve the problem
because the problem is outside the
agency’s authority to enforce automotive
safety. Further, the existence of similar
complaints, both in online forums (as
noted by the Petitioner) and in NHTSA’s
databases searched in reference to this
petition, does not support granting this
petition because, again, there is no
factual breach. Additionally, given the
circumstances here, a hearing is not
necessary to evaluate the alleged
problem. Therefore, NHTSA has
decided a hearing should not be held.
4.0
Conclusion
The Petitioner alleges facts that
understandably have caused frustration
surrounding the repair and operation of
her vehicle covered by NHTSA Recall
No. 14V–284. However, the issues
raised in the petition do not warrant a
public hearing because the remedy Ford
provided addresses the safety risk posed
by loss of power steering assist. That
safety risk arises from the unexpected
change in steering effort the driver may
experience while driving. Since Ford’s
remedy resolves the safety risk over
which NHTSA has legal authority,
NHTSA has decided not to hold a
hearing on whether Ford has reasonably
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28909
met the remedy requirements of the
Safety Act.
For the reasons set forth above,
NHTSA hereby denies Defect Petition
DP15–001.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR part
557; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018–13307 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND
SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION
Notice of Open Public Meetings
U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission.
ACTION: Notice of open public meetings.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given of
meetings of the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission to
review and edit drafts of the 2018
Annual Report to Congress. The
Commission is mandated by Congress to
investigate, assess, and report to
Congress annually on the ‘‘the national
security implications of the economic
relationship between the United States
and the People’s Republic of China.’’
Pursuant to this mandate, the
Commission will hold public meetings
to review and edit drafts of the 2018
Annual Report to Congress.
DATES: The meetings are scheduled for
Thursday, July 12, 2018, from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.; Friday, July 13, 2018, from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, August
2, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
Friday, August 3, 2018, from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 6,
2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
Friday, September 7, 2018, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, October 4,
2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and
Friday, October 5, 2018, from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: 444 North Capitol Street
NW, Room 231, Washington, DC 20001.
Public seating is limited and will be
available on a ‘‘first-come, first-served’’
basis. Reservations are not required to
attend the meetings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any
member of the public seeking further
information concerning these meetings
should contact Kerry Sutherland, 444
North Capitol Street NW, Suite 602,
Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202–
624–1454, or via email at ksutherland@
uscc.gov. Reservations are not required
to attend the meetings.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28903-28909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13307]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0058]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of a petition for a hearing on remedy of defect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrations (NHTSA) decision and reasons for denying a petition,
(DP15-001) submitted to NHTSA requesting that the agency conduct a
hearing to examine the remedy for Ford recall 14S05 (NHTSA recall 14V-
284) and to require Ford to provide an adequate remedy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Lash, Vehicle Defects
Division A, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-2370. Email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
After a vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment has been
determined to contain a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety,
any interested person may petition the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) requesting that the agency hold a hearing to
determine if a manufacturer has met the defect notification and
remediation requirements imposed by the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (``the Safety Act''), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 49
U.S.C. 30120(a)(2), 49 CFR 557. Upon receipt of a properly filed
petition, the agency conducts a review of the petition, any material
submitted with the petition, and any additional relevant information.
See 49 U.S.C. 30120(c); 49 CFR 557.4. The review may consist solely of
a review of information already in the possession of the agency, or it
may include the collection of information from the motor vehicle
manufacturer and/or other sources. After considering the available
information and taking into account appropriate factors, including the
nature of the complaint, seriousness of the alleged breach of the
manufacturer's obligation to remedy, existence of similar complaints,
ability of NHTSA to resolve the problem without a hearing, and
assessing whether the remedy provided resolves the safety risk
presented by the defect, the agency will grant or deny the petition for
a hearing. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.6.
Petition Background Information
In a submission dated February 3, 2015, Ms. Abigail Dayton (the
Petitioner) filed a petition (DP15-001) requesting that NHTSA conduct a
hearing to examine the remedy for Ford recall 14S05 (NHTSA Recall No.
14V-284) and require Ford to provide an adequate remedy. The Petitioner
alleges that, after a dealer performed the recall remedy on her vehicle
by performing a software update, she experienced a failure in the Ford
Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system that required
replacement of the steering column at her own expense. She further
alleges that the EPAS failure necessitating the replacement of her
steering column was ``the precise issue for which Ford issued recall
14S05 in the first place.'' The petition also presented accounts of
similar post-remedy failures reported by other consumers on ``various
forums and websites.''
NHTSA has reviewed the material cited by the Petitioner. The
results of this review and our evaluation of the petition are set forth
in the DP15-001 Petition Analysis Report, published in its entirety
below.
The facts Petitioner alleges are cause for concern regarding the
approach adopted by Ford and are a source of significant frustration
for Petitioner and others similarly situated who simply want their
vehicle to run the way it was designed to, particularly after being
repaired by the vehicle manufacturer. However, in light of NHTSA's
statutory authority, after thorough assessment of the material
submitted by the Petitioner and the factors NHTSA is required to
consider in determining the proper resolution of a petition for a
hearing on whether a manufacturer has reasonably met its obligation to
remedy, NHTSA has decided not to grant the petition to hold a hearing.
Accordingly, and for the reasons more fully explained in the below
Petition Analysis Report for DP15-001, the petition is denied.
Petition Analysis Report--DP15-001
1.0 Introduction
In a letter dated May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted
a Defect Information Report (DIR) to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) describing an Electric Power Assisted
Steering (EPAS) system defect in certain model year 2008 through 2011
Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles (NHTSA Recall 14V-284, Ford
14S05) (the
[[Page 28904]]
recall).\1\ The DIR described a defect in the EPAS torque sensor that
could result in a loss of power steering assist while driving. The DIR
did not identify any other defects in the EPAS system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Documents related to the recall are available at
www.nhtsa.gov under recall ID number 14V-284 https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford's remedy involved updating the system's software to mitigate
the occurrence of loss of power steering assist while driving due to
the torque sensor defect. Vehicles diagnosed with a torque sensor fault
code at the time of the recall repair would have the torque sensor
replaced, while vehicles diagnosed with fault codes related to other
EPAS components would have the steering column replaced.\2\ Ford has
not initiated any separate field actions to extend the warranty
coverage for repairs of torque sensor failures, or any other EPAS
component faults, occurring after the recall repairs were completed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Replacement of the torque sensor with the redesigned service
part or the steering column assembly, which includes the torque
sensor, would serve the dual purpose of repairing the diagnosed
fault condition and removing the defect identified in Ford's DIR.
\3\ Warranty extension programs, also known as special policy
adjustments, are field actions that are separate and distinct from
safety recalls. Safety recalls require the manufacturer to identify
the defect, develop a remedy, and apply the remedy to all of the
affected vehicles to prevent a specific safety hazard from
occurring. Warranty extensions adjust the vehicle age and mileage
for which the manufacturer will cover the cost of repairing specific
components after they have failed or display certain symptoms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a petition dated February 3, 2015, and received by NHTSA on
February 5, 2015, (DP15-001) Ms. Abigail Dayton (the Petitioner)
requested that the agency conduct a hearing to examine the remedy for
the recall and require Ford to provide an adequate remedy. On November
1, 2014, a dealer performed the recall remedy on the Petitioner's 2008
Ford Escape vehicle by performing the software update. On January 5,
2015, 65 days after the recall remedy was completed on her vehicle, the
Petitioner's vehicle experienced a failure in the EPAS system requiring
her to pay for replacement of the steering column. Replacement of the
steering column was an alternative remedy in the recall depending on
what fault codes were present at the time the repair was made by a Ford
dealer. The Petitioner alleged that the post-remedy steering column
EPAS failure was ``the precise issue for which Ford issued recall 14S05
in the first place.'' The Petitioner also alleged that a pattern of
similar post-remedy failures reported by other consumers on ``various
forums and websites'', along with several additional allegations,
support her request that the agency hold a hearing and order Ford to
provide a different remedy for the defect.
1.1 Petition Allegations
The Petitioner claims that the recall remedy conducted on her
vehicle did not resolve the safety defect. Further, the Petitioner
explains that she received a recall notice in July 2014 for NHTSA
Recall No. 14V-284 and she obtained a repair from an authorized dealer
in November 2014. However, Petitioner asserts that the remedy, in fact,
did not repair the vehicle, as evidenced by the fact that the power
steering assist failed ``soon thereafter.'' When Petitioner returned to
the dealership in January 2015, the vehicle returned fault code B2277,
which would authorize her for a different remedy under the recall had
her vehicle not previously been repaired in November 2014. Petitioner
goes on to surmise based on the alternative remedies available based on
different fault codes, and the way that fault codes are pulled from the
vehicles, that:
Ford either knew the PSCM \4\ would fail intermittently and
would not always provide a fault codes (sic), knowing that requiring
the dealership to pull a specific `fault code' before replacing
affected components may potentially not repair the defect or,
alternatively, Ford's software update caused or accelerated issues
with affected vehicles' PSCMs requiring eventual replacement of the
affected components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Power Steering Control Module (PSCM).
Pet. at 9.\5\ Petitioner also notes that her own ``investigation
quickly revealed'' at least 20 other individuals reported the same
issue on various websites and online forums. Pet. at 4. Ultimately,
through a series of related statements the Petitioner alleges that
``the software update does not mitigate the risk associated with the
recall,'' ``the software update did not . . . `repair' the defect
associated with Recall 14S05'' and Ford's ``[f]ailure to repair the
affected vehicles which experienced PCSM (sic) loss and/or torque
sensor issues after receiving the software update does not address the
concern and underlying reason for the recall: To prevent affected
vehicles for (sic) safety related failures and resulting accidents and
injuries.'' Pet. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Excerpt from page 9 of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0 Background
2.1 Legal Background
The Safety Act requires vehicle manufacturers to remedy safety-
related defects in their vehicles by repairing the vehicle; replacing
the vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle; or
refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for
depreciation. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). The statute allows a manufacturer to
choose its own remedy and NHTSA does not approve manufacturers'
remedies. See id. If a manufacturer elects to repair a safety-related
defect, the repair must be done adequately within a reasonable time. 49
U.S.C. 30120(c). If the repair is not done adequately within a
reasonable time, the manufacturer must replace the vehicle with an
identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refund the purchase
price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. Id.
2.2 Sequence of Events in NHTSA Recall No. 14V-284
As noted above, Ford initiated the recall by filing the DIR on May
27, 2014. The DIR described the defect as ``a poor signal to noise
ratio in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Steering (EPS)
that does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering
input.'' As noted above, the safety consequence was stated to be loss
of power assist while driving. The DIR described the remedy as follows:
Dealers will update the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) and
instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software
changes the torque sensor fault strategy and will no longer remove
power steering assist during an ignition cycle for a single torque
sensor fault. Additionally, the software update will provide audible
and visual warnings to the driver in the unlikely event that a
torque sensor fault is detected.
Two days later, on May 29, 2014, Ford issued a bulletin to Ford
dealers advising them of the recall. This bulletin described the defect
as a fault in the torque sensor and stated that a complete Dealer
Bulletin relating to the issue would be provided when software to
perform the repair became available.
On May 30, 2014, Jennifer Timian, Chief of NHTSA's Recall
Management Division, responded to the Ford DIR in an acknowledgement
letter confirming receipt of the defect notice. Among other things, the
letter described the remedy for the defect as follows:
Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software
for the power steering control module and the instrument cluster
module, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin by July 25,
2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673.
Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.
Ford filed an amended DIR on June 2, 2014. According to Ford's
cover letter, this amended DIR provided additional detail pertaining to
the remedy program. Thus, while Ford's description of the defect
(encompassing only the torque sensor) remained unchanged, the amended
remedy description stated:
[[Page 28905]]
Dealers will check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for
Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTC):
If no loss of steering assist DTCs are present, dealers
will update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The
updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy and
will no longer remove power steering assist during an ignition cycle
for a single torque sensor fault. Additionally, the software update
will provide audible and visual warnings to the driver in the
unlikely event that a torque sensor fault is detected.
If upon initial inspection certain loss of steering
assist DTCs are present, the dealer will either replace the torque
sensor or the PSCM, depending on the DTC present.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ford's amended report should have indicated replacement of
the steering column assembly rather than the PSCM. Steering column
replacement is required to repair faults in the PSCM or motor,
neither of which can be serviced separately. This error was
corrected in subsequent dealer instructions sent by Ford on July 1,
2014.
NHTSA acknowledged receipt of the June 2, 2014 amended DIR by a
letter dated June 4, 2014. This June 4, 2014 letter described the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
remedy as follows:
Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software
for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument
cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a
loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM
when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected
components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall is expected
to begin by July 25, 2014.
On July 1, 2014 Ford sent instructions to its dealers providing
information about how to complete the recall. This notice advised
dealers that the software needed to perform the recall repair was still
not available and would be released on July 9, 2014. The July 1 dealer
notice described the repair procedure for the defect:
Dealers are to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM)
for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs).
If DTC B1342, B2277, or B2278 are NOT present,
reprogram the PSCM and the Instrument Cluster (IC) module.
If only DTC B2278 is present, replace the torque
sensor.
If DTC B1342 or B2277 is present, replace the steering
column assembly.
The July 1, 2014 dealer notice further stated that the software
update remedy option would not be available until July 9, and that
until that date vehicles should only be repaired if a ``vehicle arrives
at your dealership with a customer complaint of loss of steering assist
accompanied by one of the DTCs'' identified in that bulletin (i.e.,
those requiring replacement of the torque sensor or steering column
assembly). The ``Dealer Q&A'' portion of the bulletin also directed
dealers to inform owners of vehicles that received the software update
that any post-remedy replacement of the torque sensor or steering
column would not be covered by Ford's recall because ``the modules were
reprogrammed to prevent sudden loss of steering assist while driving.''
In its May 15, 2015 information request letter (IR letter) to Ford,
NHTSA requested information to assist in the evaluation of DP15-001.\7\
The IR letter asked Ford to explain why the remedy procedure for the
recall provides for free replacement of the torque sensor or steering
column for fault codes associated with the torque sensor, PSCM or EPAS
motor or at the time the remedy is performed, but not after the remedy
is performed. Ford's June 26, 2015 response to NHTSA's IR letter
included the following explanation: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Jeffrey Quandt, letter to Todd Fronckowiak, May 15, 2015
(https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2015/INIM-DP15001-62000.pdf).
\8\ Wayne Bahr, letter to Frank Borris, June 26, 2015 (https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2015/INRL-DP15001-62304P.pdf).
The purpose of the remedy procedure is to mitigate the
occurrence of the loss of power steering assist while driving due to
the torque sensor, and to provide audible and visual warnings to the
driver if a torque sensor fault is detected by updating the PSCM
software. Additionally, if DTC's related to the PSCM (B2277 and
B1342) or Torque Sensor (B2278) are present at the time of service,
additional parts were replaced to better manage customer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
expectations.
Ford's strategy appears to have been effective in managing customer
expectations when dealers performed the recall repairs on the subject
vehicles, as there have been very few complaints related to that
service. However, the strategy appears to have produced additional
customer expectations regarding how Ford would manage post-remedy EPAS
repairs to the torque sensor and other EPAS components covered by Ford
as part of the recall repair procedure (i.e., PSCM or motor faults
requiring steering column replacement). Most of the post-remedy
complaints received by NHTSA through the end of 2017 include references
to unhappiness with Ford's policy for handling repair costs associated
with torque sensor repairs and a variety of other EPAS conditions after
performing recall repairs.
2.3 NHTSA's Analysis of Safety Hazards Associated With Loss of Power
Steering
Prior investigations and recalls associated with defect conditions
that may result in loss of power steering assist have established that
such failures may result in an increased risk of crashes during low-
speed vehicle maneuvers when they occur while driving and without
warning. Testing conducted as part of several defect investigations by
NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio,
and others have found that the increases in driver hand-wheel efforts
that result from loss of power steering assist are greater at parking
lot speeds. The greatest efforts are required when the vehicle is
stationary and the steering torque must overcome the static frictional
forces from the tire contact patch with the road surface. Front-axle
weight, tire size and tire inflation pressure are the primary factors
affecting tire-road frictional forces when stopped and in low-speed
parking and turning maneuvers.9 10 Additional increases in
steering torque in low-speed maneuvers are primarily influenced by
steering angle.\11\ Changes in steering torque in higher speed
maneuvers are primarily influenced by the lateral acceleration of the
vehicle. Steering torque requirements decrease with increasing speed,
as the safe and normal ranges of steering angles and lateral
accelerations become smaller and smaller. At all speeds, while more
difficult, drivers are able to maintain vehicle control after losing
power steering assist because the mechanical linkage between the
steering wheel and the road is maintained at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ There are multiple other factors affecting steering torque,
including rack friction, steering and suspension ball joint
friction, and scrub radius. Additional factors affecting manual
steering effort include steering ratio and steering wheel diameter.
These effects are normally minor in comparison with front axle
weight.
\10\ For purposes of this discussion, speeds less than 20 km/h
(13 mph) are considered low speed.
\11\ Sharp, R.S., Granger, R. (2003). On Car Steering Torques at
Parking Speeds, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Exhibition Road, London
SW7 2BT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are very few published studies related to the effects of loss
of power steering assist on vehicle directional control and crash risk.
A study conducted by Transport Canada focused on the effects in low-
speed turns, evaluating driver response to unexpected loss of assist in
right-hand turns at a simulated traffic light at approximately 10 km/h
(6 mph).\12\ The study included vehicles ranging in size from compact
passenger cars to a large sport utility vehicle and a mixed demographic
group of drivers. The study found that, for each of the
[[Page 28906]]
vehicles evaluated, at least 40 percent of drivers were not able to
safely complete the turning maneuvers after an unexpected loss of
steering assist.\13\ The same study found that, when aware of the loss
of power steering assist, drivers were able to negotiate the course
without any unsafe turns at the same speeds as recorded with full power
steering assist. Similar results have been noted in human factors
testing conducted by VRTC in support of NHTSA loss of power steering
investigations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Harbluk, J.L., Burns, P.C., Malone, D., Hamilton, J.
(2014). Power Steering Assist Failures: Driver Behavior, Safety
Impacts, and Implications for Automated Vehicles, Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting, 2073-2077.
\13\ The study classified turns as safe if the driver completed
the maneuver without stopping or departing the intended lane of
travel to any degree.
\14\ See document files for investigation ID's RQ10-004 and
PE10-038 at www.nhtsa.gov (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA considers the facts and evidence for each issue independently
when deciding when to investigate allegations of loss of power steering
assist. Based in part on vehicle testing and analysis of field data
from prior investigations, NHTSA considers multiple factors, including:
Operating mode, warning, vehicle factors, system factors and failure
rate.\15\ Conditions that result in loss of assist at start-up or after
prior visual, audible and/or tactile warning do not present a
significant risk of crash or injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Vehicle factors include size/mass (i.e., steer axle weight)
and steering design factors that influence the magnitude and
proportion of the change in steering effort when transitioning to
manual mode; system factors include the likelihood of the fault
occurring in a critical operating state and the harshness of the
steering feedback, if any, in the transient state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3.1 Ford EPAS: System Design
In the Ford EPAS system, a column-mounted electric motor drives the
steering gear to provide steering assist to the driver using battery
power. The system senses the speed, direction, and amount of effort, or
torque, applied to the steering wheel by means of a torque sensor
located in the steering column assembly. The signal from the torque
sensor is relayed to an electronic control unit (the PSCM). A PSCM
control algorithm generates a signal to drive the motor to provide
steering assistance in proportion to the driver's steering effort and
vehicle speed. The system reduces the amount of assist supplied to the
driver as vehicle speed increases to provide the desired road feel at
the steering wheel.
The Ford EPAS system continuously performs diagnostics to identify
faults that could potentially result in safety hazards (e.g.,
unintended steering torques) or damage to the system. The system
responds to fault detection by transitioning to appropriate failsafe
operating modes, including removing assist and transitioning to manual
steering mode. Table 1 shows the primary fault conditions and failsafe
modes associated with the subject EPAS system prior to the software
update associated with the subject recall.
Table 1--Fault Conditions and Failsafe Modes Related to Reduced or Removed Assist for Subject Vehicles Before
the Recall Software Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditions to restore
Fault code Fault name Failsafe mode EPAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C195C................................ Low voltage (<11V)..... Reduced performance Voltage returns to
state following value within specified
voltage capability of tolerance within same
the vehicle. ignition cycle.
B1317................................ High voltage (>16V).... Ramp out to zero
assist.
B1318................................ High voltage (>18V) or Remove assist.
Low voltage (<9 V).
B1342................................ Micro test failure..... Remove assist.......... Reevaluate at next
ignition cycle if
condition still
exists.
B2277................................ Motor failure.......... Remove assist.
B2278................................ Torque sensor failure.. Remove assist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, prior to the remedy software update, the EPAS
system responded to certain faults detected in the torque sensor, PSCM
or motor by removing assist and transitioning to manual steering. The
system remains in the failsafe mode until the conditions are met for
clearing the fault and restoring normal EPAS. For faults detected in
the torque sensor, PSCM, or motor, the vehicle remains in failsafe mode
for the remainder of the ignition cycle in which the fault is
detected--meaning that the vehicle must be turned off and restarted to
clear the fault code and re-establish power steering. The system
restores steering assist if the fault condition is no longer present on
a subsequent ignition cycle.
Each of the fault codes associated with the subject EPAS system,
including those shown in Table 1, are stored for 64 ignition cycles
before the system clears them from memory.
2.3.2 Ford EPAS: Temporary Reduced Assist
In its June 26, 2015 response to NHTSA's IR letter, Ford identified
several factors that may result in temporary ``reduced assist'' in the
subject EPAS system and which may be reported by some owners as a loss
of power steering assist. For example, Ford provided the following
description of how the system may temporarily reduce assist during
periods of low battery voltage:
Some of the reports pertain to reduced assist resulting from low
battery voltage, such as when the vehicle is exposed to low ambient
conditions, and operated at near idle engine speed, and with heavy
electrical load. When the electric power assist system detects low
system voltage, it will reduce the amount of assist it provides.
Reduced assist is a protective response from the EPAS system to
prevent engine stalling due to the low system voltage. It is not a
defect of the EPAS system but instead a symptom of a potentially
failing battery or other electrical system concern. Service bulletin
SSM 20895 and the workshop manual direct the technician to inspect
the vehicle electrical system for the root cause of the low system
voltage. This condition of reduced assist could mistakenly be
reported as a loss of assist.
In addition to low battery voltage, Ford indicated that the EPAS
may also temporarily reduce assist when the steering is fully turned to
one side or the other (i.e., the steering is turned near the physical
rack stops) or during extreme usage conditions that result in PSCM
overheating due to heavy sustained use by the driver. Reductions in
steering assist that result from these factors are most likely to be
experienced in low-speed parking maneuvers with significant steering
inputs, such as parallel parking.
2.3.3 Ford EPAS: Torque Sensor Failures
The EPAS system at issue uses a contact-type torque sensor to
measure driver steering input. Over time, the
[[Page 28907]]
subject torque sensors may develop a poor signal-to-noise ratio (noisy
signal) due to degradation of the sensor conductive surfaces. This may
result in distortion, interruption or dropout of the signals, resulting
in a Steering Shaft Torque Sensor Malfunction fault (DTC B2278). Early
in MY 2011 production, Ford began using an improved torque sensor with
lubricant added to the conductive surfaces to reduce long-term
degradation. Vehicles built on or after September 11, 2010 were
equipped with steering column assemblies containing the improved design
and thus, were not included in the recall.
Ford's analysis found that the conductive surface degradation
occurs at or near the on-center position where the steering wheel is
held for the majority of road travel time and miles. This can result in
noisy signals from the torque sensor, which may initially cause a
perceptible steering wheel dither condition for some period prior to a
loss of power steering.\16\ Complaints describe the dither condition as
a shimmy, vibration, pulsing, or shaking of the steering wheel. The
condition is most evident when the vehicle is stopped and idling and
the steering wheel is in a position that aligns with the degraded
contact surfaces.\17\ Prior to being remedied, noisy signals from the
torque sensor may result in detection of a Steering Shaft Torque Sensor
Malfunction (DTC B2278) fault, which would immediately remove the power
assist with no audible or visual warning provided to the driver. Ford
provided the following description of the dither condition in its IR
response letter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Dither'' is a term used by Ford and other automotive
companies to describe a low-amplitude oscillation of the steering
wheel.
\17\ Torque sensor signal dropouts generally occur near the
center or zero-degree steering position.
Steering wheel dithering prior to a loss of assist has been
noted in a number of reports, providing tactile feedback that the
system is not functioning normally. As previously noted, the
degradation of the conductive surface of the torque sensor may
result in increased levels of signal noise to the PSCM. This
increased signal noise may result in the steering wheel dither
experienced by the driver. The amount of input supplied by the EPAS
system to the steering column during this dithering is limited to
approximately 2 Nm maximum and, while readily noticeable, can be
easily managed by the driver. The updated PSCM software provided
with the recall remedy is more tolerant of the signal noise.
However, if the signal noise increases beyond this level, a
diagnostic trouble code (DTC B2278) for the torque sensor will be
stored in the system and a visual and audible warning will be given
to the driver. Should the signal noise persist and/or increase, the
PSCM may eventually remove power steering assist, but only at the
beginning of the next key cycle (with the accompanying visual and
audible warnings). The repair for this condition, as defined in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
workshop manual, is torque sensor replacement.
Prior to February 2014, the torque sensor was not available as a
separate replacement part and repairing failed torque sensors required
replacement of the entire steering column assembly. This changed in
February 2014 when Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin TSB 14-0016
and began providing torque sensor kits as service parts for faulty
torque sensors, thereby reducing the repair cost for torque sensor
failure by over 50 percent.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The torque sensor kit included a redesigned torque sensor
service part (Part Number CL8Z-3F818-A) and instructions for
replacing the torque sensor. The repair costs for replacing the
torque sensor using the kit may range from $500 to $700, while costs
for steering column replacement may range from $1,200 to $1,500 on
average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2014, Ford submitted the DIR to NHTSA for the subject
recall. As previously noted, the recall remedy involved updating the
PSCM software to change the conditions under which the EPAS removes
power assist following detection of torque sensor faults related to the
noisy signal condition. Once the EPAS software update is completed, the
system alerts the driver with an audible chime and warning lamp when
EPAS detects the torque sensor fault; however, the system maintains
full power steering assist through that ignition cycle and the fault
does not result in a sudden loss of assist while driving. If the torque
sensor fault persists or worsens, the system may remove power steering
assist when the driver starts the vehicle at the beginning of the next
ignition cycle. Owner notification for the recall started in July 2014.
2.3.4 Ford EPAS: Recall 14V-284 Defect Description
Ford's Part 573 letter for the subject recall described the defect
condition as follows:
In some of the affected vehicles, a poor signal to noise ratio
in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Steering (EPS) system
does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input.
Once this condition is detected, the system removes power steering
assist, and defaults to manual steering mode. In the event of a loss
of power steering assist, the mechanical linkage between the
steering wheel and the road is maintained at all times. Loss of
power steering assist while driving would require higher steering
effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased
risk of a crash.
As defined by Ford and confirmed by NHTSA's examination of
available data, the defect here consists of a torque sensor design that
is prone to contaminant accumulation leading to incomprehensible, noisy
or intermittent signals being sent to the PSCM (which results in loss
of power steering assist while the vehicle is being driven).
Accordingly, Ford's defect report described the safety risk as a loss
of power steering assist while driving. The defect identified does not
include other torque sensor failure conditions, failures in other EPAS
components such as the PSCM or PSM, EPAS faults at vehicle start-up
(i.e., not while driving), and faults that are not associated with the
EPAS system.
3.0 Analysis of the Petition
Per the regulatory requirements, NHTSA's analysis of the petition
includes the following factors: The nature of the complaint; the
seriousness of the alleged breach of the vehicle manufacturer's
obligation to remedy defects; the existence of similar complaints;
NHTSA's ability to resolve the problem without holding a hearing; and
other pertinent matters.
The nature of the Petitioner's complaint is that the remedy
provided by ``Ford has failed to adequately remedy'' the safety defect.
As evidence for this, the Petitioner points to her own experience with
loss of power steering assist after receiving the remedy:
Soon thereafter, I started experiencing issues with my power
steering (i.e., excessive shaking, loss of power steering). I took
my vehicle back to the dealership in January 2015. According to the
technician, my torque sensor failed and they needed to replace my
entire steering column. Specifically, the technician pulled fault
code B2277 at this time.
Pet. at 3 (emphasis in original).
The Petitioner's description of the post-remedy problem includes
evidence of the torque sensor fault addressed by the subject recall
(e.g., excessive shaking of the steering wheel and a technician's
reference to a torque sensor failure). However, it also includes
evidence indicating that a different or additional fault occurred. The
Petitioner states, with emphasis, that ``the technician pulled fault
code B2277 at this time'' and references B2277 four more times in the
petition. As shown in Table 1, B2277 is the fault code for a power
steering motor failure. The recommended repair cited by the Petitioner,
steering column replacement, also suggests that the failure in the
Petitioner's vehicle may not have been related, or limited, to the
defect underlying the recall, which is
[[Page 28908]]
ordinarily repaired by torque sensor replacement.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Steering column replacement is the repair required for
power steering motor failure and other EPAS faults not related to
the torque sensor (e.g., PSCM failure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA identified 632 complaints alleging post-remedy EPAS system
problems in the subject vehicles and received by the Agency from August
2014 through the end of 2017. In general, the complaints lack
sufficient detail to determine the root cause, failure mode, or
operating state for each of the reported incidents. The complaints
include multiple fault conditions (e.g., torque sensor, PSCM, motor),
failure modes (loss of power steering, temporary reduction of power
steering assist, steering dither and EPAS warning message or wrench
lamp illumination \20\); and operating states (incidents occurring
while driving, at start-up or during parking maneuvers). NHTSA's
analysis of post-remedy EPAS complaints in the subject vehicle focused
on two separate issues: (1) Evidence of any other EPAS component
defects that were not addressed by the recall remedy; and (2) the
effectiveness of the software update in mitigating the risk of loss of
power steering while driving from torque sensor faults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Vehicles with the lowest level cluster option provide a
wrench light instead of a warning message when the EPAS system
detects a torque sensor fault after the PSCM has received the recall
remedy update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 Analysis: EPAS Fault Field Experience by Causal Component
NHTSA's analysis of recall repair data, part sales, and owner
complaints all indicate that the torque sensor continues to be the
primary cause of EPAS system malfunctions in the subject vehicles after
completion of the recall remedy. Through August 2017, Ford had
completed the recall remedy in approximately 79 percent of affected
vehicles, with approximately 2.8 percent of the repairs requiring
replacement of the torque sensor or steering column due to faults
detected in the torque sensor, PSCM, or power steering motor at the
time the recall remedy was performed. The torque sensor kit accounted
for almost two-thirds (64%) of such repairs. Similarly, analysis of
part sales data determined that torque sensor kit sales make up 63
percent of EPAS part sales over the last 12 months.\21\ Although most
of the complaints reviewed by ODI lacked sufficient detail to determine
the causal component or driving state, the torque sensor was identified
in approximately 73 percent of the complaints that did provide enough
detail to identify the faulty component.\22\ The data do not identify a
significant rate or trend for any other EPAS component or condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Since June 2014, approximately 27 percent of torque sensor
kit sales and 22 percent of steering column sales have been
associated with repairs performed under the subject recall.
\22\ One-hundred ninety-five (195) complaints identified the
torque sensor (143), PSCM (46), or motor (6) as the component
diagnosed by the servicing facility as the faulty part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2 Analysis: Post-Remedy Torque Sensor Failures
NHTSA's analysis of complaints alleging post-remedy EPAS
malfunctions diagnosed as torque sensor faults indicates that the
faults are usually being detected before a loss of assist occurs (e.g.,
by a warning message or from symptoms related to dithering condition)
and/or result in loss of assist at vehicle start-up, when the safety
risk has been minimized. The Petitioner takes issue with Ford's
characterization of these events as being ``unlikely'' and NHTSA agrees
that the rate of torque sensor failures is higher than it would have
been if the signal degradation issue identified by Ford did not exist.
However, based on the information available to NHTSA, the likelihood of
failure is low in comparison to other defect conditions related to loss
of power steering assist that have been addressed by recalls by Ford
and other manufacturers, as evidenced by analysis of total part sales
through the end of 2017, when the subject vehicles range in age from 6
to 11 years in service. This analysis indicates fewer than 10 percent
of all 2008 through 2011 Escape and Mariner vehicles have required a
steering column or torque sensor replacement that could be related to a
torque sensor fault.\23\ Furthermore, Ford's remedy removes the safety
hazard, i.e., sudden loss of power steering assist while driving,
resulting from such failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NHTSA defect investigations that have influenced recalls
related to loss of power steering while driving have identified
specific fault conditions affecting a defined population of vehicles
that have resulted in warranty claim rates well over 1% of vehicles
sold after about 3 years-in-service (YIS) and 10 YIS failure rates
estimated by statistical modeling that range from 16 to 68% of
vehicles sold. See files for investigation ID numbers PE10-005,
PE10-021, EA11-005, EA11-014, PE12-017 and PE14-030 at www.nhtsa.gov
(https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the petition, a key metric of remedy effectiveness is
its effect on crash and injury trends related to EPAS issues in the
subject vehicles.\24\ NHTSA has reviewed all crash and injury
allegations related to the EPAS system in the subject vehicles by
recall remedy completion status (see Table 2). Through the end of 2017,
NHTSA had received 22 complaints alleging crashes resulting from loss
of power steering while driving, including 10 alleging injuries. Many
of these incidents were very minor. For example, NHTSA was able to
verify evidence of collision damage repairs for just 9 of the 22
vehicles identified in the crash allegations, including 8 of the 10
alleging injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ A petition footnote cites concerns that an ineffective
remedy would result in continued incidents resulting in injuries,
``As of August 20, 2013, Ford was aware of five accident allegations
and six injury allegations potentially pertaining to this subject.
More recent data on injuries potentially pertaining to this subject
were not available, but Petitioner assumes this number has increased
since that time, and will continue to increase until Ford actually
repairs the recall on affected vehicles.''
Table 2--Crash Allegations Before and After Recall Remedy Completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14V284 Recall remedy status
Crash severity Injury allegations -----------------------------------------------
Not completed Completed Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence of collision repair.......... All crashes............. 8 1 9
Injury crashes.......... 8 0 8
Injuries................ 8 0 8
No evidence of collision repair....... All crashes............. 7 6 13
Injury crashes.......... 2 0 2
Injuries................ 2 0 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. All crashes............. 15 7 22
Injury crashes.......... 10 0 10
Injuries................ 10 0 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28909]]
None of the injury allegations and only one of the incidents severe
enough to require collision repairs involved a vehicle that had been
remedied under the recall and that crash was reported as a minor
parking lot collision resulting in $1,100 of front end damage. NHTSA's
analysis of crash and injury allegations indicates that Ford's recall
remedy appears to have been effective in mitigating the safety hazards
associated with loss of power steering assist while driving in the
subject vehicles.
3.3 Analysis: Summary
The Petitioner references the similar experience of others as
identified in complaints to NHTSA and through various websites and
online forums in support of the position that Ford's remedy was not
adequate. The Petitioner's claim is serious and the frustration
Petitioner experienced is understood by NHTSA. However, the defect
identified by Ford was ``[l]oss of power steering assist while
driving'' caused by a particular defect in the torque sensor and not,
as Petitioner understands it, by any EPAS malfunction requiring
replacement of the steering column or torque sensor, under any
operating condition, regardless of cause. NHTSA's research and
knowledge on this subject supports Ford's conclusion that the safety
risk is limited to the loss of power steering assist while driving.
In contrast, a driver who does not have power steering assist when
starting the vehicle will know that immediately, as it will be
difficult to turn the steering wheel at low speeds, and will be
prepared to compensate for it while driving (or may choose not to
drive). Ford's software update remedy, as explained in Ford's DIRs,
``changes the torque sensor fault strategy and will no longer remove
power steering assist during an ignition cycle for a single torque
sensor fault. Additionally, the software update will provide audible
and visual warnings to the driver in the unlikely event that a torque
sensor fault is detected.''
Because Ford's change in fault logic prevents the loss of power
steering assist while the vehicle is in operation (if there is only one
fault), the safety risk, i.e. the loss of power steering assist while
driving, is addressed. Instead, the vehicle will turn off the power
steering assist when the vehicle is turned off (or, as Ford puts it,
after that ``ignition cycle''). Thus, the safety risk of losing power
steering assist while driving has been resolved. Further, the addition
of visual and audio warnings to the driver in the event a torque sensor
fault is detected alerts the driver to the need for service to the EPAS
system prior to a loss of power steering assist and to the need for
additional effort required to maneuver the vehicle if power steering
assist is removed by the system before service repairs are performed.
Thus, Ford's software update remedy does address the safety risk
identified, which is the loss of power steering assist while driving,
and without warning.
This is not to say that the Petitioner may not have good reason to
be displeased with the result. Approximately two months after receiving
Ford's recall repair, Petitioner's vehicle suffered the problem that
two months earlier would have entitled her to a remedy that instead
would cost her approximately $1,000 to obtain. This is certainly cause
for frustration. However, NHTSA's authority over vehicle manufacturers
is limited to issues related to safety. In this instance, Ford's
software update remedy removed the safety risk of a driver losing power
steering assist, without warning, while operating the vehicle.
Because the nature of the complaint does not allow NHTSA to grant
the petition, we will only briefly address the other factors set out in
the regulations. On those points the agency notes that while the
alleged breach of the obligation to remedy is serious, there is no
factual breach in this instance and that NHTSA does not have any
ability to resolve the problem because the problem is outside the
agency's authority to enforce automotive safety. Further, the existence
of similar complaints, both in online forums (as noted by the
Petitioner) and in NHTSA's databases searched in reference to this
petition, does not support granting this petition because, again, there
is no factual breach. Additionally, given the circumstances here, a
hearing is not necessary to evaluate the alleged problem. Therefore,
NHTSA has decided a hearing should not be held.
4.0 Conclusion
The Petitioner alleges facts that understandably have caused
frustration surrounding the repair and operation of her vehicle covered
by NHTSA Recall No. 14V-284. However, the issues raised in the petition
do not warrant a public hearing because the remedy Ford provided
addresses the safety risk posed by loss of power steering assist. That
safety risk arises from the unexpected change in steering effort the
driver may experience while driving. Since Ford's remedy resolves the
safety risk over which NHTSA has legal authority, NHTSA has decided not
to hold a hearing on whether Ford has reasonably met the remedy
requirements of the Safety Act.
For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA hereby denies Defect
Petition DP15-001.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR part 557; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-13307 Filed 6-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
