1976 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2024 / Notices 

Privacy Act 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

MARAD solicits comments from owners 

and operators of coastwise-qualified 

launch barges to compile a list of vessels 

that could potentially be available to 

transport, and if necessary, launch or 

install platform jackets. All timely 

comments will be considered; however, 

to facilitate comment tracking, 

commenters should provide their name 

or the name of their organization. If 

comments contain proprietary or 

confidential information, commenters 

may contact the Agency for alternate 

submission instructions. The electronic 

form of all comments received into 

MARAD dockets may be searched by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). For 

information on DOT’s compliance with 

the Privacy Act, please visit https://

www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

(Authority: 46 U.S.C. 55108, 49 CFR 1.93(a), 

46 CFR 389.) 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00443 Filed 1–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2024 / Notices 1977 

1See, e.g., Grant of Petition for Determination of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance; Hella, Inc.; 55 FR 

37601. September 12, 1990. 

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.’’ 

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.’’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1978 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2024 / Notices 

2See North American Subaru, Inc., Denial of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance; 87 FR 46764 (August 10, 2022). 

3See 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. 

4See 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. 

5More details of Ford’s jury evaluation can be 

found in their petition available on the docket. 

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

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. 

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).’’ 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2024 / Notices 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1