Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28903 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

described by the applicant the intended 

service of the vessel MAYAN SOL is: 

—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 

http://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. 

(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 

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 chris.lash@dot.gov. 

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 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28904 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

1 Documents related to the recall are available at 

www.nhtsa.gov under recall ID number 14V–284 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls). 

2Replacement 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. 

3Warranty 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. 

4Power Steering Control Module (PSCM). 

5Excerpt from page 9 of the petition. 

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 

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, 

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: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28905 

6Ford’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. 

7 Jeffrey Quandt, letter to Todd Fronckowiak, May 

15, 2015 (https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2015/ 

INIM-DP15001-62000.pdf). 

8Wayne Bahr, letter to Frank Borris, June 26, 

2015 (https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2015/INRLDP15001-62304P.pdf). 

9There 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. 

10For purposes of this discussion, speeds less 

than 20 km/h (13 mph) are considered low speed. 

11Sharp, 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. 

12Harbluk, 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. 

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: 

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

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 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28906 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

13The study classified turns as safe if the driver 

completed the maneuver without stopping or 

departing the intended lane of travel to any degree. 14See 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 

and the harshness of the steering feedback, if any, 

in the transient state. 

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 code Fault name Failsafe mode Conditions to restore EPAS 

C195C ............ Low voltage (<11V) ................................. Reduced performance state following 

voltage capability of the vehicle.

Voltage returns to value within specified 

tolerance within same ignition cycle. 

B1317 ............ High voltage (>16V) ................................ Ramp out to zero assist. 

B1318 ............ High voltage (>18V) or Low voltage (<9 

V).

Remove assist. 

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 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28907 

16 ‘‘Dither’’ is a term used by Ford and other 

automotive companies to describe a low-amplitude 

oscillation of the steering wheel. 

17Torque sensor signal dropouts generally occur 

near the center or zero-degree steering position. 

18The 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. 

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 

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 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28908 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

19Steering 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. 

21Since 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. 

22One-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. 

23NHTSA 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 

numbers PE10–005, PE10–021, EA11–005, EA11– 

014, PE12–017 and PE14–030 at www.nhtsa.gov 

(https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls). 

24A 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.’’ 

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

Crash severity Injury 

allegations 

14V284 Recall remedy status 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 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 

U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND 

SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Notice of Open Public Meetings 

AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and 

Security Review Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of open public meetings. 

SUMMARY: 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: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1