Notice2023-26960
Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 8, 2023
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85723-85725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 8, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.