[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31189]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 20, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 94-80; Notice 2]

 

Ford Motor Company; Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Ford Motor Company (Ford) of Dearborn, Michigan decided that some 
of its windows failed to comply with the labeling requirements of 49 
CFR 571.205, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, 
``Glazing Materials,'' and filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 
CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Ford also applied 
to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published on October 3, 
1994, and an opportunity afforded for comment (59 FR 50329). This 
notice exempts Ford from the notification and remedy requirements of 
the statute.
    Standard No. 205, which incorporates, by reference, the American 
National Standards Institute's ``Safety Code for Safety Glazing 
Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways'' Z-
26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 
(ANS Z26.1), specifies that typical automotive tempered glass with a 
luminous transmittance of less than 70 percent shall be labeled 
``AS3.''
    Ford manufactured approximately 1,820,000 quarter windows with a 
luminous transmittance of less than 70 percent for use in 1986 through 
1994 model year Ranger Supercab and Mazda B-series Cab Plus vehicles. 
These windows were labeled ``AS2'' instead of ``AS3.'' Approximately 
7,900 were located and scrapped. The remaining windows were used in 
vehicle production or provided to aftermarket distributors for service 
replacement.
    Ford supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following:

    [Ford believes that t]he incorrect marking presents no risk of 
accident or injury. The windows can be installed only as rear 
quarter windows in Ranger Supercab trucks; AS2 and AS3 glazing are 
both appropriate for these applications in accordance with Standard 
205. In Ford's judgement, the mismarking is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. The stated purposes of FMVSS No. 
205 are to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing 
surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor 
vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the 
possibility of occupants being thrown through vehicle windows in 
collisions. As previously noted the affected quarter windows fully 
comply with the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205. Because 
all performance requirements are met, the incorrect marking of the 
quarter windows has no effect upon the ability of the glazing to 
perform in the manner intended by the standard. Ford is not aware of 
any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to this condition.
    The mismarking should not cause confusion in glass replacement 
in vehicles in service. Aftermarket distributors do not use the 
marking to determine which glazing is used for replacement. Rather, 
replacement parts are determined by service part numbers which are 
obtained from cataloged listings. Further, we are not aware of any 
confusion in aftermarket servicing of vehicles as a result of this 
mismarking.

    No comments were received on the petition.
    NHTSA has considered these arguments and has found them persuasive. 
Because FMVSS No. 205 permits either AS2 or AS3 glazing to be used in 
the rear quarter location, the use of mislabeled glazing in those areas 
will have no safety impact. The fact that the windows can be used only 
in that location and not in other locations where use of AS3 glazing 
would be inappropriate confirms this conclusion.
    Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, the applicant has met 
its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance herein described is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and Ford Motor Company is 
hereby exempted from providing notification and remedy with respect 
thereto.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 
NHTSA Order 800-2)

    Issued on: December 14, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-31189 Filed 12-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P