Home Page American Government Reference Desk Shopping Special Collections About Us Contribute



Escort, Inc.





GM Icons
By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

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


Trucking American Government Topics:  Ford F-650, Ford F-750

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

Claude H. Harris
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
January 25, 2013 

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5560-5561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0110; Notice 1]


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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company \1\ (Ford) has determined that certain 
model year 2009-2012 Ford F-650 and F-750 trucks manufactured between 
June 26, 2008 and May 8, 2012, do not fully comply with paragraph 
S5.3.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, 
Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems. Ford has filed an appropriate 
report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports (dated July 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ford Motor Company is a manufacturer of motor vehicles and 
is registered under the laws of the State of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
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.
    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 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 19,756 model year 
2009-2012 Ford F-650 and F-750 trucks that were manufactured between 
June 26, 2008 and May 8, 2012.
    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, these provisions 
only apply to the 19,756 \2\ model year 2009-2012 Ford F-650 and F-750 
passenger vehicles that Ford no longer controlled at the time it 
determined that the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ford's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556, 
requests an agency decision to exempt Ford as a vehicle manufacturer 
from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 
for 19,756 of the affected vehicles. However, a decision on this 
petition cannot relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the 
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery 
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant 
vehicles under their control after Ford notified them that the 
subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Rule Text

    Paragraph S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105 requires:

    S5.3.2(a) 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.

Summary of Ford's Analysis and Arguments

    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.
    (2) Unlike most other telltales, the park 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 
the subject vehicles.
    (5) The physical position of the parking brake handle provides a 
readily apparent indication when the parking brake is applied. Partial 
park brake applications are not a concern because

[[Page 5561]]

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 subject 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) Ford is unaware of any field or owner complaints or injuries 
regarding the subject noncompliance.
    In summation, Ford believes that the described noncompliance of its 
vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its 
petition, to exempt it 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.
    Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to 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 Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: By logging onto the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed 
to 1-202-493-2251.
    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 your comments were received, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

DATES: Comment closing date: February 25, 2013.

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

Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-01578 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P




The Crittenden Automotive Library