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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. 94-002; Notice 1]

Ford Motor Company; Receipt of Petition for Determination of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Ford Motor Company (Ford) of Dearborn, Michigan has determined that

some of its vehicles fail 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 has filed an appropriate report

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Ford

has 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.) on the basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of a petition is published under section 157

of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417)

and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of

judgement concerning the merits of the petition.

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.''

During the period of July 19, 1993 to August 19, 1993, Ford

manufactured approximately 40,300 Ranger and Explorer vehicles which,

instead of having the brake system telltale identified by the word

``brake,'' it is 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 supports 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.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments on the petition of Ford, described above. Comments should

refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required that

six copies be submitted.

All comments received before the close of business on the closing

date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting

materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also

be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the

petition is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the

Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: February 14, 1994.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR

1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

Issued on January 6, 1994.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 94-807 Filed 1-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M