Document ID: NHTSA-2022-0100-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Ford Motor Co.
Posted Date: 2023-12-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85723-85725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0100; 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 September 8, 2022, and subsequently 
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on September 30, 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 January 8, 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 do not fully comply with paragraph S14.2.1.6 of FMVSS 
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, And Associated Equipment (49 CFR 
571.108).
    Ford filed a noncompliance report dated September 8, 2022, pursuant 
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and 
Reports. Ford petitioned NHTSA on September 30, 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

[[Page 85724]]

any agency decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the 
merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 1,439,524 MY 2018-2020 Ford F-
150 motor vehicles, manufactured between January 10, 2017, and October 
22, 2020, were reported by the manufacturer.
    III. Noncompliance: Ford explains that the subject vehicles are 
equipped with amber side marker lamps that do not comply with the 
photometry reqiurements of S14.2.1.6 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, 
they failed to meet the minimum photometric requirement of 0.62 candela 
at test point 10.0D and 32.0L. Specifically, the amber side marker 
lamps had a luminous intensity that was lower than the 0.62 candela 
minimum requirement.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S7.4.13.1, S7.4.13.2, and Table X 
of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. 
Each side marker lamp must be designed to conform to the photometry 
requirements of Table X, when tested according to the procedure of 
S14.2.1 for the lamp color as specified by this section; and for each 
motor vehicle less than 30 feet in overall length, the minimum 
photometric intensity requirements for a side marker lamp may be met 
for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle 
and on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 
of the vehicle and located midway between the front and rear side 
marker lamps.
    V. Background Information: On June 17, 2022, Ford received a letter 
from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance stating that Calcoast-
ITL, a test lab contracted by NHTSA to conduct FMVSS No. 108 testing on 
service lamps, found that 3 of 4 front left hand (LH) MY 2018 Ford F-
150 head lamps did not meet the FMVSS No. 108 minimum photometry 
requirement for amber side markers at one test point out of nine. 
Calcoast-ITL found that all four of the front right hand (RH) MY 2018 
Ford F-150 head lamps met the regulatory requirements in FMVSS No. 108. 
Ford reports that after reviewing the supplier's lamp assembly 
certification data and production audit testing records, it was 
determined that the candela values consistently exceeded the minimum 
requirement. After further review, Ford discovered that the supplier 
produced lamps on a semi-automated ``main line'' and a non-automated 
``secondary'' line. According to Ford's review, the semi-automated main 
line appeared to be compliant. However, Ford found that the non-
automated secondary line was ``susceptible to process variation.'' 
Furthermore, lamps from the main line were subjected to an end-of-line 
screening process that included regulatory compliance verification. 
This screening check was not included in the secondary line. 
Approximately 96 percent of the lamps were produced on the main line. 
Ford says that after October 7, 2020, all service parts were produced 
on the secondary line, as production of the main line ceased when 
vehicle production ended.
    Ford says that further testing of the service parts produced on the 
secondary line indicated that 72 of 252 LH parts and 47 of 219 RH parts 
had test point values below the minimum requirement of 0.62 candela 
when using a rated bulb. Ford claims that all nonconforming data 
pertains to the parts that were produced on the supplier's secondary 
line. Ford estimates that approximately 25 percent of the lamps from 
the secondary line fell below the 0.62 candela minimum requirement, 
which corresponds to less than one percent of the total vehicle 
population, approximately 14,935 vehicles.
    Ford says that the subject noncompliance may be due to process 
variation causing tolerance stack-up issues on the lamp supplier's 
secondary line, resulting in the side marker bulbs being produced with 
an inner bezel distortion and/or an out-of-position bezel. Ford 
explains that, given the lack of screening procedures on the secondary 
line, these defects were not found during manufacturing.
    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 says that when a side marker lamp is tested for compliance 
with FMVSS No. 108 requirements, only the side marker lamp in the 
combination headlamp is illuminated and measured. However, Ford 
explains that the side marker lamp does not automatically illuminate 
alone during normal vehicle operation. The parking lamp and the side 
marker lamp are both illuminated with the same amber color when the 
headlamps are activated. Further, the parking lamp is positioned such 
that it illuminates the same visual field as the side marker lamp.
    To evaluate the effect of the addition of the parking lamp on the 
illumination of the side marker lamps, Ford measured the illumination 
of the subject lamps with only the side marker lamp illuminated and 
then with both lamps illuminated as they would be during regular 
vehicle operation. Ford determined that the side marker lamp 
illumination measured at greater values at several FMVSS No. 108 test 
points that complied with regulatory specifications. Ford says that, 
according to this data, the parking lamp increased the candela value at 
each test point by an average of 0.110 to 0.932.
    In this evaluation, Ford considered only the lowest measured values 
for the increased parking lamp illumination at the various test points. 
The parking lamp's illumination produced an additional 0.125 candela at 
the test point 10D-32L. When the parking lamp was added to the side 
marker lamp, all measured values exceeded the 0.62 candela minimum 
requirement.
    Ford conducted a statistical analysis to assess the potential 
values in a larger vehicle population in order to further evaluate the 
effects of increased illumination from the parking lamp. For this 
analysis, Ford used the candela values for 282 LH service lamps with 
only the side marker illuminated then applied the additional parking 
lamp illumination values previously described. Ford found that ``the 
vast majority of vehicles would measure above the 0.62 candela 
regulatory standard.'' The lowest value Ford anticipates in a vehicle 
would be 0.55 candela (0.44 + 0.110) which represents the lowest 
candela value at test point LH 10D-32L, plus the minimum amount of 
additional illumination that could be measured with the parking lamp 
illuminated. Ford notes that this value, 0.55 candela, is lower than 
the required minimum of 0.62 candela by less than 25 percent.
    Ford argues that there are two reports that are relevant to this 
petition. Ford says that these reports indicate that up to a 25 percent 
difference in a lamp's photometric output is imperceptible to the human 
eye. The first report, Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences 
of Automotive Signal Lamps,\1\ was published in September 1994. The 
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) 
conducted an additional study in February 1997 extending the 1994 study 
to low beam automotive headlamps.\2\ Ford says that the studies found 
that the majority of drivers were

[[Page 85725]]

unable to differentiate the light output between different sources when 
the difference in illumination was less than 25 percent. Ford contends 
that the 1994 study indicated that the findings were appropriate for 
consideration of inconsequentiality petitions involving a noncompliance 
with the photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of 
Automotive Signal Lamps, was published by Huey, Deker, and Lyons in 
September 1994 (DOT HS 808 209, September 1994).
    \2\ (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford notes that it is not aware of any reports related to the 
subject noncompliance. Ford recognizes that a lack of reports is not 
dispositive but believes that it is illustrative of the field 
performance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See North America Subaru, Inc., Denial of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 48764, August 10, 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford says that NHTSA has granted prior petitions concerning similar 
noncompliances. Ford believes that NHTSA's rationale for those 
decisions support the granting of its current petition.
    Ford says that NHTSA granted a petition submitted by Nissan North 
America, Inc. (Nissan)\4\ that involved vehicles with side marker lamps 
in combination head lamps that did not meet the photometric intensity 
requirements as required by paragraph S7.4.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108. Ford 
explains that Nissan's petition presented two main arguments: (1) NHTSA 
should consider the parking lamp photometry along with the side marker 
lamp because both lamps are always illuminated, and (2) the condition 
that caused the noncompliance could not be seen by the human eye. In 
this case, Ford says that NHTSA agreed with Nissan's second argument 
but rejected the first. Ford says that NHTSA disagreed with Nissan's 
first argument because Nissan's parking lamp illumination was white and 
the side marker lamp was amber which would cause a passing motorist to 
have difficulty determining what part of the vehicle is approaching. 
Ford contends that this reasoning does not apply to the subject 
noncompliance because both Ford's parking lamp and side marker lamp are 
amber. Thus, according to Ford, a passing motorist would not encounter 
the same difficulty in determining which part of the vehicle is 
approaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for 
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 85 FR 39678 (July 1, 
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford says it also reviewed petitions involving a noncompliance with 
the side reflex reflector and not the side marker lamp. While the 
petitions do not concern the side marker lamp, Ford believes that 
NHTSA's rationale in those decisions can be informative. Ford explains 
that the side reflex reflectors reflect other light and do not 
illuminate. Ford says that NHTSA has consistently found that a 25 
percent change in luminosity is imperceptible to the human eye. 
Specifically, Ford refers to NHTSA's decision on a petition submitted 
by Subaru of America (Subaru) \5\ that involved failures of luminous 
intensity on the side reflex reflector and a Hella petition. In that 
case, Ford explains that the noncompliant lamps were all less than 20 
percent of the minimum values. NHTSA granted Subaru's petition and 
applied the reasoning that the human eye cannot detect a 25 percent 
change in luminosity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Subaru of America, Grant of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 56 FR 59971, (November 26, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford also cites NHTSA's decision on a petition from Toyota Motor 
North America (Toyota) \6\ in which vehicles were equipped with rear 
reflex reflectors that did not meet the minimum requirements specified 
in FMVSS No. 108. Ford says Toyota believed that noncompliance was 
inconsequential because a change of luminous intensity of 18 percent is 
imperceptible to the human eye. NHTSA concurred, relying on its own 
assessment and past precedent stated in the 1991 Hella and Subaru 
grants of inconsequentiality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 85 FR 39679 (July 1, 
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, Ford says that NHTSA's rationale in denying a petition 
submitted by FCA US LLC (FCA) \7\ supports its belief that the subject 
noncompliance should be deemed inconsequential. Ford explains that 
FCA's petition concerned side reflex reflectors that did not meet the 
minimum photometry requirements at the observation angle of 0.2 
degrees. In that petition, FCA's reflex reflectors were 68.6 percent 
below the required value. Ford says that the subject side marker lamps 
``maintained much closer margins to the standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FCA US, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 57649 (September 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Ford refers to a Subaru petition that NHTSA denied in 2022 
that involved side reflex reflectors that did not comply with FMVSS No. 
108 photometry requirements.\8\ In that case, Ford says NHTSA stated 
that its thinking on the deviation threshold of 25 percent evolved, and 
that it no longer believes that threshold applies to side reflex 
reflectors because the photometry criteria for side reflex reflectors 
are measured in mcd/lux, whereas other lamps are measured in candela. 
Ford contends that this new thinking should not apply to the subject 
noncompliance because side marker lamps produce their own illumination 
and are therefore measured in candela.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ford did not provide the Federal Register citation but it 
appears that this refers to North America Subaru, Inc., Denial of 
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 48764 
(August 10, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 vehicles 
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. 2023-26960 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P