[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73973-73974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25096]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of a petition for a defect investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a
petition (Defect Petition DP06-005) submitted by Public Citizen to
NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30162, requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine
the existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety with regard
to engine stalling in Model Year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Taurus/Mercury
Sable Flex Fuel Vehicles that operate using E85, an alternative fuel.
After reviewing all available information, NHTSA has concluded that
further expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the
issue raised by the petition is not warranted. The agency accordingly
has denied the petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ajit Alkondon, Safety Defects
Engineer, Defects Assessment Division, Office of Defects Investigation,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590. Telephone 202-
366-3565.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 11, 2006, Public Citizen sent a
letter to NHTSA regarding MY 2003-2005 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable
Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV). The Ford Motor Company (Ford) produced
228,000 of these vehicles in those model years. In the letter, Public
Citizen petitioned NHTSA to investigate and determine whether the
alleged stalling of these vehicles while operating on E85 constitutes a
safety defect under the vehicle safety laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301).
E85, an ``alternative fuel'' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(1)(D), is an alcohol/fuel mixture consisting of 85% denatured
ethanol and 15% gasoline or diesel fuel. Flex fuel vehicles (FFVs, also
known as ``dual fueled automobiles'') are vehicles ``capable of
operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel fuel.'' 49
U.S.C. 32901(a)(8)(A). An FFV is identical to its non-FFV counterpart,
except that, because of the corrosive nature of the alternative fuel
(in this case, the ethyl alcohol in E85), exposed metallic and rubber
surfaces within the FFV fuel system have been replaced with materials
more capable of resisting the corrosive effects of the alternative fuel
to prevent excessive wear of these surfaces from exposure to E85.
Public Citizen's Petition
In addition to seeking a defect investigation, the petition also
asks NHTSA to reclaim credits claimed by Ford for these vehicles due to
their dual fuel status under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
program. See 49 U.S.C. 32905-32906. Although that issue is not
addressed in this notice, the petition focuses primarily on this CAFE
credit issue and the availability of E85. The great majority of the
allegations in the petition concern difficulty in starting the vehicles
and make no reference to safety issues. The petition mentions one
instance in which, after the owner experienced difficulty starting the
vehicle and drove the car out of his garage, the vehicle ``began to
stall.'' The petition does not allege any crashes, injuries, or (with
the possible exception of the one alleged stalling incident), any
unsafe events involving these vehicles.
NHTSA's Review of the Allegations Made in the Petition
With little to go on based on the petition itself, ODI looked at
various sources of information to determine whether or not there was
any basis for a safety investigation of these vehicles with regard to
alleged engine stalling. ODI reviewed complaints submitted by owners of
these vehicles to NHTSA and to Ford (including a complaint concerning
the one instance of possible stalling cited in the petition), the
experience of state-owned fleets of these vehicles, Early Warning
Reporting (EWR) data, actions taken by Ford, and certain information
submitted by Ford.
In any investigation involving allegations of stalling, ODI
examines a number of factors, including: The rate at which stalling
occurs in the whole population of subject vehicles (often expressed as
the number of vehicles that have experienced the phenomenon per hundred
thousand), the speeds at which stalling occurs, the type of operation
during which stalling occurs (e.g., when starting, accelerating,
decelerating, or cruising), whether the vehicle can quickly be
restarted after stalling, whether the stalling affects steering
functions, whether the stalling affects braking functions, and any
crashes or other unsafe events that may have resulted from the
stalling. In deciding whether or not alleged stalling merits a full
investigation, ODI also considers those criteria.
Ford's Actions Concerning These Vehicles
In response to customer complaints about the operation of these
vehicles, Ford released two Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs): TSB 05-
11-13 and TSB 06-05-05. TSB 05-11-13, issued on June 13, 2005, pertains
to both FFV and non-FFV Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable vehicles for MY 2004
and 2005. The TSB addresses the following issues: lack of power at
highway speeds, RPM dip after cold start, malfunction indicator lamp
(MIL) on with diagnostic trouble code (DTC) P0316, intermediate clutch
failure due to low transmission oil pressure, misfire at low load/low
RPM, or load surge at low speeds, hard start and rough idle, and
inaccurate display of fuel economy in message center. Ford explained
that TSB 05-11-13 was created to address specific drivability symptoms
associated with the 3.0L engine in MY 2004 through 2005 model Taurus/
Sable vehicles, independent of the type of fuel used. The repair
procedure for this TSB includes reprogramming the Powertrain Control
Module (PCM) with updated software.
TSB 06-05-05, published on March, 20, 2006, pertains to Ford
Taurus/Mercury Sable FFVs for MY 2004-2006. This TSB addresses a long
crank/hard start condition when the vehicles operate on E85 fuel.
Similar to TSB 05-11-13, the repair procedure for this TSB requires
reprogramming the PCM with an updated software release.
While the letter from Public Citizen concerns subject vehicles in
MY 2003 through 2005, the two TSBs issued by Ford cover MY 2004 through
2005 and 2004 through 2006, respectively. Ford explained that the model
years 2001 through 2003 Taurus/Sable vehicles have a different PCM than
the MY 2004 through 2006 Taurus/Sable vehicles. Further, the issues
brought up in the Public Citizen letter--long crank/hard start and low
speed stalls--are predominantly confined to the 2004 to 2006 model year
vehicles.
As stated above, Ford issued TSB 06-05-05 to address the long
crank/hard start problems associated with MY 2004 through 2006 Ford
Taurus/Mercury Sable vehicles. Ford also initiated Extended Coverage
Program (ECP) 06N07 to address this condition. Ford did not extend ECP
06N07 to MY 2003 vehicles since these vehicles have a
[[Page 73974]]
different PCM and are covered under a separate ECP.
A search of Ford's Analytical Warranty System database revealed
that of the 649 vehicles receiving the TSB 06-05-05 repair, only 12, or
1.8%, of the vehicles required service for similar issues after the
repair. Of these 12, only one vehicle complained of a stall while
driving. (As explained below, this stall was apparently not related to
use of E85.) This suggests a high TSB effectiveness.
The Complaint Cited in the Petition
ODI interviewed the complainant named in the Public Citizen letter
and inquired concerning his experiences with the subject vehicle and
its performance when operated on either gasoline or E85. The consumer
stated that he had purchased a new 2005 Ford Taurus FFV and that, when
operating the vehicle on gasoline alone, he had experienced no driving
problems. However, when the consumer operated the vehicle on E85, he
experienced hard starting and low speed stalls while the engine was
cold. The consumer had the adjustments called for by TSB 05-11-13
performed on his vehicle three times, but the problems persisted. He
then sold the vehicle back to the Ford dealership after driving only
980 miles. TSB 06-05-05 was never performed on the vehicle.
Other Complaints
In addition to the vehicle owned by the complainant discussed
above, ODI confirmed only three other vehicles that had experienced
instances of stalling from a population of 228,000 vehicles. One, a
2004 Ford Taurus FFV, was the subject of a Vehicle Owner Questionnaire
(VOQ) submitted to NHTSA. ODI contacted this consumer and learned that
the consumer's main concern was difficulty starting the vehicle. The
consumer stated that he brought the vehicle into a repair shop for
service and had TSB 06-05-05 performed on his vehicle. Eventually, the
work Ford did on the car reduced the hard starting problem and
apparently eliminated the stalling problem.
The second vehicle that experienced stalling, a 2005 Ford Taurus
FFV, was the subject of a complaint received by Ford and recorded in
its complaint database. ODI has contacted this consumer and learned
that the consumer experienced both engine stalling and hard starting
problems. The consumer did not have TSB06-05-05 performed on his
vehicle, and sold the vehicle shortly after his vehicle exhibited these
symptoms.
The third vehicle that experienced stalling, a 2004 Ford Taurus
FFV, was the vehicle returned for repair after application of TSB 06-
05-05, mentioned above. This particular complaint suggested a single
stalling event while driving, after which the vehicle restarted with no
additional problems. Ultimately, this vehicle was repaired by
performing technical service unrelated to the repair methods for engine
stalling due to E85 usage. Therefore, the stalling problem was
apparently unrelated to E-85 usage, and this vehicle is not considered
as one that experienced E85-related stalling.
In total, ODI was able to confirm that just three FFV vehicles (one
2004 Taurus and two 2005 Tauruses) experienced stalls related to E85
operation. ODI was not able to confirm any stalls in the population of
2003 Ford Taurus/Mercury vehicles.
Fleet Experience
To assess E85 performance in vehicles most likely to use it
frequently, ODI obtained a list of fleets operating the subject
vehicles. ODI contacted six of the fleets-the State of Minnesota; the
Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation;
and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. In total, these
fleets operate approximately 500 of the subject vehicles. Five out of
the six fleets reported incidents of long crank/hard start in the
subject vehicles. However, none of the six fleets reported stalling
issues. Fleet customers report that they have taken advantage of the
TSBs issued by Ford that address this long crank/hard start issue, and
that there have been significant improvements in the subject vehicle
performance while using E85 subsequent to the repairs.
Conclusions
Nearly all of the allegations concerning the operation of these
vehicles involve long crank/hard starting, not stalling. Based on ODI's
inquiry, only three of the subject vehicles (out of a population of
228,000 vehicles) have experienced engine stalling in connection with
their operation using E85. This indicates a very low rate of stalling
that is nearly identical to the rate of stalling in non-FFV Taurus and
Sable vehicles and very low when compared to the rates experienced by
non-FFV that ODI has reviewed. The stalling that has occurred has
apparently not resulted in any crashes, loss of steering or braking
control, or high risk events. The stalling seems to occur either at
start-up or at low speeds. Moreover, at least with regard to the one
vehicle that experienced stalling apparently related to E85 use and
later received the repair procedure called for by Ford's TSB 06-05-05,
this procedure seemed to cure the problem.
Due to the very low incidence of vehicle stalling resulting from
the use of E85 within the subject vehicles and the extremely low
likelihood of an unsafe occurrence arising from the type of stalls that
have occurred, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the
notification and remedy of a safety defect in this matter. NHTSA notes
that the issues consumers primarily complain of--namely long crank/hard
start and stall while driving--are adequately addressed by the TSBs
issued by Ford in response to consumer complaints. Because we believe
the petition does not provide a technical basis on which to proceed,
and in view of the need to allocate NHTSA's limited resources so as to
accomplish the agency's safety priorities, the petition is denied. This
action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related
defect does not exist. The agency will take further action if warranted
by future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegation of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: December 13, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-25096 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P