Document ID: NHTSA-2012-0110-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance; Approvals: Ford Motor Company
Posted Date: 2014-04-17T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21836-21838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0110; Notice 2]

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

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

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford) has determined that certain model 
year 2009-2012 Ford F-650 and F-750 trucks manufactured from April 14, 
2008, through May 1, 2012 do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.2(a) 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic and

[[Page 21837]]

Electric Brake Systems. Ford has filed an appropriate report dated July 
2, 2012 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Stuart 
Seigel, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5287, 
facsimile (202) 366-7002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Ford's Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule 
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Ford has petitioned 
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    On February 21, 2014 Ford supplemented its original petition of 
July 23, 2012, by updating the number of affected vehicles and their 
dates of manufacture, and including additional justification for a 
decision of inconsequential noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of the July 23, 2012 petition was published, with 
a 30-day public comment period, on January 25, 2013 in the Federal 
Register (78 FR 5560). No comments were received. To view the petition 
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the 
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0110.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 7,393 model year 2009-2012 Ford F-650 
and F-750 trucks that were manufactured from April 14, 2008, through 
May 1, 2012.

III. Noncompliance

    Ford explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles 
do not illuminate the parking brake telltale lamp when the ignition 
switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' positions as required by FMVSS No. 
105.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105 requires: Except as provided 
in paragraph (b) of this section, all indicator lamps shall be 
activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) 
switch is turned to the ``on'' (run) position when the engine is not 
running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between 
``on'' (run) and ``start'' that is designated by the manufacturer as a 
check position.

V. Summary of Ford's Analyses

    Ford stated its belief that although the affected vehicles do not 
illuminate the parking brake telltale lamp when the ignition start 
switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' positions that the condition is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. The parking brake telltale lamp functions as intended--only the 
telltale bulb check at start-up is not illuminated--unless the parking 
brake is applied.
    2. Unlike most other telltales, the parking brake telltale will 
simultaneously illuminate when the customer applies the handbrake--
essentially functioning as a bulb check. And, if the lamp does not 
illuminate when the handbrake is applied, the customer is able to 
identify the condition.
    3. If customers inadvertently operate the vehicle with the parking 
brake applied, the service brakes will not be affected because the 
design of the subject vehicles utilizes a separate, dedicated parking 
brake mounted on the driveshaft. Additionally, inadvertent application 
of the parking brake will result in poor vehicle acceleration and 
``drag'' providing further indications that the parking brake is 
engaged.
    4. Instrument panel telltale bulbs are highly reliable. Engineering 
has reported no parking telltale bulb warranty claims for any of the 
affected F-650 & F-750 vehicles, from 2009 through 2012.
    5. The physical position of the parking brake handle (on the 
tunnel) provides a readily apparent indication when the parking brake 
is applied. Partial parking brake applications are not a concern 
because the handle mechanism utilizes an over-cam locking design, which 
assures the parking brake is either fully applied or fully released. 
This design precludes a parking brake from being partially applied.
    6. The 2011-2012 model year vehicles incorporate a warning chime 
which activates (in addition to the parking brake telltale) when the 
parking brake is applied and the vehicle is driven over 4 miles-per-
hour.
    7. The operators of these vehicles are typically professional 
drivers, requiring additional licensing and are familiar with the 
operation of these types of over-cam, driveshaft-mounted parking 
brakes.
    Ford is also unaware of any field reports, accidents or injuries 
attributed to this condition.
    Ford additionally indicated that changes were made in production on 
May 1, 2012, and that they had taken multiple steps to help ensure that 
the parking brake telltale ``check of lamp function'' issue that 
resulted in the non-compliance does not occur in the future, including 
Ford validation of the design with no planned cluster/parking brake 
revisions until new model updates.
    In summation, Ford believes that the described noncompliance of the 
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that 
its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

VI. NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA has reviewed Fords analyses that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically, the parking 
brake telltale is not activated as a check of lamp function either when 
the ignition (start) switch is turned to the ``on'' (run) position when 
the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a 
position between ``on'' (run) and ``start'' as required by Paragraph 
S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105.
    If the parking brake telltale lamp bulb fails, the vehicle operator 
would not be alerted by illumination of the parking brake telltale that 
the vehicle's parking brake is applied. However, as the vehicle in this 
condition is driven, a number of indicators would provide feedback to 
the vehicle operator that the parking brake is applied. First, the 
vehicle drivability would be affected with poor acceleration and 
``drag.'' A warning chime for the 2011-2012 model year vehicles would 
be activated when the vehicle is driven over 4 miles per hour. Lastly, 
the physical position of the parking brake handle located on the 
tunnel, would provide a visual indication that the parking brake is 
applied. The parking brake has an over-cam locking design that assures 
that the brake is not partially applied. The combination of the 
aforementioned operator feedback indicators is sufficient that in the 
event of a non-operative parking brake telltale light, an operator 
would have sufficient warning and information to take corrective 
action. In addition, the parking brake is mounted on the drive shaft 
and, therefore, separate from the service brake system. Thus, in the 
unlikely event that the vehicle was driven with an applied parking 
brake the service brake system would not be

[[Page 21838]]

compromised thereby reducing the severity of the noncompliance.
    We also note that this telltale is specific only to the application 
of the parking brake, and is not a combined indicator for multiple 
brake malfunctions. As a separate indicator, the severity of the 
noncompliance is further reduced as it indicates only one versus 
multiple brake system malfunctions.
    Furthermore, each application of the parking brake activates the 
dedicated parking brake indicator telltale. This effectively functions 
as a secondary de-facto bulb check. Drivers that routinely use the 
parking brake in the subject vehicles will become accustomed to seeing 
a telltale with the word ``Park'' activated when setting the parking 
brake and are consequently likely to recognize a malfunction if this 
expected telltale does not illuminate.
    The affected vehicles, the F-650 and F-750 trucks, are medium duty 
work trucks typically operated by professional drivers that are 
experienced with and knowledgeable of their work equipment including 
the operation of the over-cam, driveshaft-mounted parking brake 
systems. It is highly likely that even without a visual indicator, 
these individuals will readily determine when the parking brake is set 
simply by the altered feel of vehicle drivability.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Ford has 
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 105 noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Ford's petition 
is hereby granted and Ford is exempted from the obligation of providing 
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 
30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision 
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that Ford no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle 
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford 
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeff Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-08713 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P