Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 1976-1979 [2024-00392]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 8 (Thursday, January 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1976-1979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00392]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0099; Notice 1]


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

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford), has determined that certain model 
year (MY) 2018-2020 Ford F-150 motor vehicles do not fully comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Ford filed a 
noncompliance report dated July 22, 2022, and subsequently petitioned 
NHTSA on August 12, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliance 
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document 
announces receipt of Ford's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before February 12, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, General Engineer, 
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-5304.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Ford determined that certain MY 2018-2020 Ford F-150 motor vehicles 
equipped with combination lamps do not fully comply with paragraph 
S7.6.13 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment (49 CFR 571.108).
    Ford filed an original noncompliance report dated July 22, 2022, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. Ford petitioned NHTSA on August 12, 2022, for an exemption 
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates 
to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) 
and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Ford's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 1,271,854 MY 2018-2020 Ford F-150 motor vehicles, 
manufactured between January 10, 2017, and October 22, 2020, are 
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Ford explains that the rear combination lamps installed on the 
subject vehicles may exceed the maximum backup lamp photometry 
requirements as required by paragraph S7.6.13 and Table XII of FMVSS 
No. 108. Specifically, when the subject rear combination lamps were 
tested in accordance with S7.6.13, 7 of the 8 samples exceeded the 
maximum candela (cd) rating of 300 at the H-V test point, and 1 of the 
8 samples also exceeded the maximum at the H-10L test point.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S7.6.13 and Table XII of FMVSS No. 108 include the 
requirements relevant to this petition. S7.6.13 provides that each 
backup lamp

[[Page 1977]]

must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table 
XII, when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.1, as specified by 
this section. Table XII provides the minimum and maximum candela values 
for photometric intensity. Specifically at the H-10L test point, any 
single lamp in a multiple lamp system must have a minimum photometric 
intensity of 15 cd and a maximum photometric intensity of 300 cd; at 
the H-V test point, any single lamp in a multiple lamp system must have 
a minimum photometric intensity of 15 cd and a maximum photometric 
intensity of 300 cd.

V. Background Information

    Ford received an information request from NHTSA on May 13, 2022, 
Ford says NHTSA reported a preliminary test failure was observed in the 
backup lamp function in the rear combination lamps of a 2018 F-150 base 
series motor vehicle.
    Ford says that NHTSA provided a FMVSS No. 108 test report dated May 
9, 2022, in which Calcoast tested lighting functions of the rear 
combination lamps on behalf of NHTSA. Ford states that according to the 
test report, Calcoast tested 8 samples at each of the 15 test points, 
all of which exceeded the maximum candela rating of 300 that is 
required at the H-V test point, and one of the samples also exceeded 
the maximum candela rating at the H-10L test point. Based on the test 
results of the 7 backup lamps that only exceeded the requirement at the 
H-V test point, Ford believes that the sample that also exceeded the 
maximum requirement at the H-10L test point was influenced by the H-V 
test point ``and is not indicative of an additional root cause.''
    Ford states that it reviewed the supplier's lamp certification data 
as well as their historical and ongoing product audit testing records 
and found that the lamps tested at values that were ``consistently 
below the 300-cd maximum requirement for backup lamps.'' Upon further 
review, Ford discovered that ``the initial certification test data 
provided to Ford by the supplier pertained to a test that was conducted 
with a bulb socket that did not represent the final design.'' According 
to Ford, they were informed by the supplier that they retested the lamp 
with the correct focal length socket and certified the measurement for 
the backup lamp at H-V as 253.4 cd, which was below the required 300 cd 
limit. Ford later discovered that the supplier's ongoing audit testing 
was being conducted using a ``production'' bulb, rather than the 
``rated'' bulb that is required for certification. The supplier 
conducted additional testing using 30 sample assemblies each for the 
left-hand and right-designs. The additional testing showed values 
exceeding 300 cd at test point H-V. Ford states that on July 15, 2022, 
its Field Review Committee reviewed the concern and determined that the 
subject rear combination lamps were not compliant with the backup lamp 
illumination requirements provided in FMVSS No. 108. Based on its 
analysis of existing and new test data, Ford believes that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Design of the Lamp

    Ford details the design of the subject backup lamps and states that 
the subject vehicles are equipped with the ``low series'' variation of 
the rear combination lamp. MY 2018 Ford-F-150 vehicles were available 
in two variations of taillamps: (1) the ``BLIS series'' lamp that 
incorporates Blind Spot Information System (BLIS) sensors, and (2) the 
``low series'' lamp that does not incorporate BLIS sensors.

Regulatory Framework

    Ford states the purpose of FMVSS No. 108, and the definition of 
backup lamps provided in paragraphs S2 and S4 of the standard. 
According to Ford, in order to determine whether the subject 
noncompliance impacts motor vehicle safety, it should be evaluated from 
the perspective of a pedestrian or other drivers. Ford says it has used 
this perspective in its analysis.
    Ford explains that the backup lamps at issue are required to have a 
luminosity greater than 15 and less than 300 cd, according to Table XII 
of FMVSS No. 108. Ford says that the following requirements are 
important when considering the subject noncompliance: (1) testing is 
conducted at a series of 22 points 100 feet away from the test 
apparatus, and (2) bulb certification testing is to be conducted with a 
``rated'' bulb.

VI. Summary of Ford's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``VI. 
Summary of Ford's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by 
Ford. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the 
views of the Agency. Ford describes the subject noncompliance and 
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to 
motor vehicle safety.
    Ford believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety because the backup lamp only illuminates while the 
vehicle is backing up or is beginning to back up, therefore, normal 
operation on roads and highways would be unaffected and the 
noncompliance does not impact the conspicuity of motor vehicles on 
public roads, so that their presence is perceived, and their signals 
are understood during the day and at night or in low visibility 
conditions.
    Ford claims that the applicable testing procedures do not correlate 
``to what another driver or pedestrian would experience if they were 
viewing one of the subject vehicles.'' Ford states that (1) vehicles in 
the field would be equipped with production bulbs, not rated bulbs, and 
(2) ``the voltage used on the NHTSA test report is higher than what 
could be on the vehicle.''
    Ford states that ``[f]or the subject vehicles, the theoretical 
maximum voltage that could be applied to the backup lamps is 13.3 v,'' 
and Ford designed the lamp to operate at 12.8v. Based on Ford's design, 
the supplier predicted that the left-hand backup lamps would test at 
236 Cd at the H-V test point, and the right-hand back up lamp would 
test at 234 Cd at the same test point which is about 22 percent less 
than the 300 Cd limit that is required. However, Ford says it decided 
to verify the design assumptions because ``[t]he voltage for the 
compliance test sometimes does not match the voltage supplied by the 
vehicles, and a change in voltage results in a change in brightness.'' 
\1\ Ford found that of 14 vehicles, the maximum output was 12.85 volts, 
which it says is more aligned with the design. Ford found that with the 
12.85 volts, ``a statistical worst case of 327 candelas at the HV point 
(9% exceedance) is predicted.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., Grant of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; Hella, Inc.; 55 FR 37601. September 
12, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon review of NHTSA's test report that showed the subject 
noncompliance, Ford says it tested 30 lamps, comparing the use of 
production bulbs at 12.9 volts and the theoretical maximum at 13.3 
volts. Ford found that at 12.9 volts, the H-V test point values 
``ranged from 197.8 cd to 306 cd (the latter representing 2 [percent] 
exceedance).'' At 13.3 volts, Ford recorded values for the H-V test 
point that ``ranged from 221.32 cd to 337.41 cd (the latter 
representing 12.5 [percent] exceedance).'' Ford adds that, in order to 
``achieve a value of 460 Lm for the rated bulb, those tests were run at 
a voltage of 14.25 volts and amperage of 1.961 amps.''

[[Page 1978]]

    Ford notes that it is not aware of any reports, complaints, 
accidents, or injuries related the subject noncompliance. Ford says it 
``recognizes that this fact is not dispositive'' but believes that it 
is ``illustrative of the field performance.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See North American Subaru, Inc., Denial of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 46764 (August 10, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, Ford relies on studies done by the University of 
Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), its own additional 
testing, including a ``jury evaluation,'' and NHTSA precedent to 
support its claims.

UMTRI Reports

    Ford states that past NHTSA decisions for inconsequential 
noncompliance referred to UMTRI's, 1994 report titled, ``Driver 
Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp 
Intensities'' \3\ and its 1997 report that extended the study to low 
beam automotive headlamps.\4\ Ford argues that NHTSA has granted past 
petitions in cases where luminosity exceeds the requirement based on 
the reports finding that ``the human eye is unable to detect a 25 
[percent] change in illumination.'' Ford says the 1994 study indicated 
that the results were relevant for evaluating inconsequential 
noncompliance petitions pertaining to vehicle lamp intensities that 
exceed the performance requirements given in FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See DOT report, Driver Perception of Just Noticeable 
Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities, DOT HS 808 209, 
September 1994. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB95206306.xhtml.
    \4\ See Just Noticeable Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp 
Intensities (Sayer, Flannagan, Sivak, Kojima, and Flannagan), Report 
No. UMTRI-97-4, February 1997. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB97147300.xhtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For vehicles in the field, Ford's prediction is that the maximum 
candela value will be 327 cd, or a 9 percent exceedance, at point H-V 
due to the maximum voltage in the subject vehicle. Ford believes that 
the extent of the subject noncompliance ``is such that the human eye is 
unable to distinguish the worst- case rear backup lamp from a compliant 
rear backup lamp.''
    Ford says it then conducted a jury evaluation to confirm the 
results of the UMTRI studies in relation to the subject noncompliance 
and its impact on drivers of trailing vehicles and pedestrians.

Jury Evaluation

    Ford's jury evaluation \5\ involved six participants observing 
``the lamps with voltage modulated to represent the candela values 
measured in the Agency's testing, under a variety of conditions (light, 
dark, tail lamps illuminated, brake lamps illuminated).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ More details of Ford's jury evaluation can be found in their 
petition available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The observers were unable to consistently distinguish the 
differences between the light outputs when given seven seconds. When 
given approximately 5 minutes to evaluate the light outputs, all of the 
observers could identify which lamps were at 240 cd which were at 350 
cd. However, after 5 minutes, none of the observers could distinguish 
between lamps that were set at 300 cd and lamps set at 350 cd. 
Additionally, the observers did not identify any conditions that caused 
``unusual brightness or glare that could potentially affect operators 
of a trailing vehicle or a pedestrian.'' Ford first asked the observers 
to evaluate the light output with just the backup lamps illuminated in 
the taillamp, then asked the observers to evaluate the light output 
with the backup lamps at 350 cd, and the taillamp brake lamps 
illuminated. Ford says the observers found that the ``illumination of 
the stop lamps took the focus away from the backup lamps,'' because of 
the color difference and the similarities in brightness between the 
lighting functions. Ford says that the backup lamps being illuminated 
with the brake lamps also being illuminated is very unlikely because a 
driver would typically depress the brake pedal when shifting to reverse 
the vehicle and while backing up. Ford contends that these results 
validated the UMTRI reports.

NHTSA Precedent

    Ford states that, historically, NHTSA has granted petitions 
involving noncompliances similar to the subject noncompliance. Ford 
cites the following NHTSA decisions:
    1. Chrysler Corp.; Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 52 FR 17499 (May 8, 1987). This petition 
concerned backup lamps installed on vehicles that were 68 candela below 
the required minimum at test point H-V, and therefore, did not meet the 
photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Ford says, ``NHTSA concluded 
that the 20 [percent] reduction on 800 vehicles would be statistically 
unlikely to produce even one injury.''
    2. Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 
Hella Inc., 55 FR 37601 (September 12, 1990). Ford says Hella's 
petition for inconsequential noncompliance involved taillamps that 
exceeded the requirement by 20 percent in the worst case. Ford states 
that Hella's petition included the argument that the human eye cannot 
identify a change in luminescence unless increases or decreases by more 
than a 25 percent. Hella added that the lamps were designed to conform 
to FMVSS No. 108, and the voltage of production lamps would be less 
than the voltage tested in the laboratory. In granting Hella's 
petition, Ford says, ``NHTSA agreed with Hella's statements and 
referenced other instances where NHTSA granted petitions for 
inconsequentiality regarding the light output requirements of FMVSS No. 
108.''
    3. Subaru of America; Grant of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 56 FR 59971, November 26, 1991. In this 
case, Ford says the noncompliance at issue concerned ``failures of 
luminous intensity on the side reflex reflector'' where the lamps 
tested at 20 percent less than what is required by FMVSS No. 108. 
Additionally, Ford says Subaru's petition included details of a ``study 
where observers could not differentiate between the reflected light of 
complying and noncomplying reflectors at distances of 30 m, 60 m, and 
100 m.'' Ford states that NHTSA granted Subaru's petition based on the 
same reasoning used in Hella's petition.
    4. Toyota Motor North America, Inc, Grant of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 85 FR 39679 (July 1, 2020). Ford 
describes a petition submitted by Toyota in which the noncompliance 
involved vehicles that were equipped with reflex reflectors that had a 
luminous intensity that were 18 percent less than the required minimum. 
Ford says NHTSA agreed with Toyota ``that a change of luminous 
intensity of 18 percent is imperceptible to the human eye'' and based 
its decision in this case on an evaluation provided by NHTSA and the 
prior Hella and Subaru decisions.
    5. North America Subaru, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 48764, August 10, 2022. The 
noncompliance in this petition involved front combination lamp side 
reflex reflectors with a luminous intensity that measured below the 
minimum requirement by more than 25 percent. While NHTSA denied 
Subaru's petition for inconsequential noncompliance in that case, Ford 
believes that its current petition differs from Subaru's because Ford 
conducted a jury evaluation and

[[Page 1979]]

relied on camera measurements to support its petition. Second, Ford 
quotes NHTSA's decision as stating, ``the performance requirements for 
reflex reflectors are measured in (cd/incident ft-c) or (mcd/lux), 
whereas the performance requirements for signal lighting assessed in 
the [UMTRI] study are measured in candela (cd).''
    Ford concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance 
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its 
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Ford no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle 
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford 
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-00392 Filed 1-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P