Ford Motor Company; Grant of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Barry Felrice Date: 8 August 1994 Subject: American Government • Safety Topic: Ford Motor Company

[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19278]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 8, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 94-2; Notice 2]

 

Ford Motor Company; Grant of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Ford Motor Company (Ford) of Dearborn, Michigan determined that 
some of its vehicles failed to comply with the labeling requirements of 
49 CFR 571.101, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, ``Controls and 
Displays,'' and 49 CFR 571.105, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, 
``Hydraulic Brake Systems,'' and filed an appropriate report pursuant 
to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Ford also 
petitioned to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et 
seq.) (now 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120) on the basis that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published on January 13, 
1994, and an opportunity afforded for comment (59 FR 1988).
    Paragraph S5.2 and Table 2 of Standard No. 101 specify that the 
brake system display telltale shall be identified with the word 
``brake'' and provide that additional words or symbols may be used at 
the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. In addition, 
paragraph S5.3.5(c)(1) of Standard No. 105 specifies that brake system 
indicator lamps shall display the word ``brake.''
    From July 19, 1993 to August 19, 1993, Ford manufactured 
approximately 40,300 Ranger and Explorer vehicles up to 49 of which, 
instead of having the brake system telltale identified by the word 
``brake,'' have it identified by the International Standards 
Organization (ISO) symbol. These vehicles were manufactured with 
instrument panel clusters built by Ford's supplier mistakenly using 
tachometer assemblies intended for use only on vehicles to be exported 
to Europe where the ISO symbol is the required telltale identifier. 
Ford submitted diagrams of the U.S. and European tachometer assemblies 
which are contained in its petition on file in NHTSA's Docket Section.
    Ford supported its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following:

    In Ford's judgement, the condition is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety. The affected Ranger and Explorer brake display 
telltales illuminate red as required, and except for the missing 
identifier word ``Brake,'' the vehicles comply with all other 
applicable FMVSS requirements. Even though ``Brake'' is not used, 
Ford believes that the likelihood is remote that a driver of one of 
the affected vehicles would not recognize illumination of the red-
colored brake telltales as an indication of a possible brake system 
malfunction, principally for three reasons:
    (1) * * * [T]he brake system ISO symbol and the parking brake 
ISO symbol are part of the same brake warning jewel; both are 
simultaneously illuminated by the same light source. Both 
identifications illuminate simultaneously every time the parking 
brake is applied, during the cluster warning lamp function check, 
and if a brake system malfunction occurs. Because this telltale is 
illuminated during parking brake engagement and during lamp function 
checks, an operator is conditioned to associate these two 
identifiers with ``brakes,'' and therefore their illumination would 
alert that operator to a possible brake system malfunction (or that 
the parking brake is applied).
    (2) Ford believes that the brake ISO symbol is more widely 
recognized at present than in the past; use of this symbol in 
combination with the word ``Brake'' is common in the majority of 
vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company, and also in many 
vehicles of other manufacturers, so that the telltale design will 
satisfy both U.S. and Canadian standards. (Corresponding Canadian 
standards require the symbol rather than the word ``Brake,'' but 
also permit both the symbol and word identification.)
    (3) The function of the brake warning jewel is fully explained 
as ``a warning light for brakes'' in the Owner Guide furnished with 
each vehicle.
    In summary, while the absence of the brake system telltale 
``Brake'' identification on the affected vehicles is a ``technical'' 
noncompliance, [Ford believes] that the condition is not a risk to 
motor vehicle safety because even without the identifier word 
``Brake,'' an operator would recognize the illumination of the red 
brake jewel to be a warning of possible brake system problems. [Ford 
is] aware of no complaints, accidents, or injuries related to this 
condition.

    One comment was received on the petition, from Volkswagen of 
America (VW), which supported it. According to VW, many vehicles in the 
United States market use both the word ``brake'' and the ISO symbol. In 
addition, the telltale is red, and VW argued that this is generally 
accepted as warning of an unsafe condition.
    In reviewing Ford's petition, NHTSA has realized that Notice 1 
mistakenly gave the impression that all 40,300 vehicles produced 
between July 19 and August 19, 1993 were noncompliant. In fact, the 
noncompliance affects a minimal number of trucks, at the most only 
slightly more than 1 in 1,000. Ford ``has accounted for all but 49 
tachometer assemblies intended for export vehicles'', and, on this 
basis, concluded that ``[a]ny number, from zero to 49, may have been 
installed in vehicles intended for sale in the U.S.'' Although NHTSA 
rarely considers the number of affected units as of primary relevance 
in its inconsequentiality determinations, the small number of vehicles 
involved in this petition, from as many as 49 to as few as none, 
ensures that there is little chance that a safety problem will arise if 
the petition is granted. The brake warning is of critical importance if 
an actual brake system malfunction occurs. NHTSA believes that such a 
malfunction is unlikely to occur during the early life of a vehicle 
when a driver is becoming familiar with the brake warning light system. 
The failure to use the word ``brake'' might be more important several 
years hence when one of these 1993-manufactured trucks is older and in 
the hands of a subsequent owner who may not be as familiar with the 
vehicle's systems as its previous owner(s). At that point in the 
future, Ford's argument that the brake ISO symbol is more widely 
recognized than in the past is likely to have greater validity than at 
present when use of the ISO symbol is not so widespread.
    Accordingly, it is hereby found that the petitioner has met its 
burden of persuasion that the noncompliance herein described is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and its petition 
is granted.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued on August 1, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-19278 Filed 8-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P