[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25971]
[[Page 51500]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 96-113; Notice 2]
Ford Motor Company; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
This notice denies the application by Ford Motor Company (Ford) for
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 for a noncompliance with the requirements of 49 CFR
571.118 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 ``Power-Operated
Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems.'' Ford applied for the
exemption on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the application was published on October 28,
1996, and an opportunity afforded for comment (61 FR 55686).
Paragraph S4(e) of Standard No. 118 requires that ``power operated
windows may be closed only'' during the interval between the time the
locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is
turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or,
in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of
either of its front doors.
From September 18, 1995, through July 31, 1996, Ford manufactured
approximately 57,400 Mercury Villager and 46,500 Nissan Quest vehicles
that do not comply with Paragraph S4(e) because their power-operated
windows can be closed after the ignition key is turned to the ``off''
position and the right front (passenger) door is opened.
Ford supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance
with the following arguments:
In the affected Villager and Quest vehicles, it is likely that
as long as the driver's door has not been opened, an adult (the
driver) would remain present in the vehicle to supervise any
children because a driver would exit the vehicle through the
driver's door under all but the most extraordinary circumstances. As
previously noted, the power window operation is canceled when the
driver door is opened--the door through which the operator would be
expected to exit the vehicle--thus eliminating any potential risk
associated with operation of the power windows by unsupervised
children remaining in the vehicle. In addition, the design of the
front door power window control switches located on the door arm
rests is such that closing these windows requires the switch to be
pulled up and held. Further the switches are recessed in a cavity
below the switch assembly surface. The intent of these design
features is to minimize the chance of unintentional activation of
power window closing that could, with other switch design
configurations, result from a child leaning or resting a foot on the
switch. An additional feature that minimizes the potential risk of
injury to unsupervised children in the affected vehicles is that no
power window switch controls are located in the rear seat positions,
and the control switches for the third row seat optional power
quarter windows are located in an overhead console in the front
passenger compartment, relatively out of sight. In addition to the
items cited above to mitigate the risk of injury, the Villager and
Quest owner guides warn against leaving children unattended in the
vehicle, specifically warn of the potential danger of children
playing with the vehicle's power windows, and identify the fact that
the accessory delay feature allows the power windows to be operated
for a fifteen minute period after the ignition is turned off or
until the driver door is opened.
Neither Ford nor Nissan is aware of any field or owner reports
or allegations of injuries related to this condition. We [Ford]
believe the likelihood of unsupervised children left in one of the
affected vehicles being exposed to injury during the fifteen minute
period after the ignition key has been turned off and a driver has
exited the vehicle through other than the driver's door is very
remote, and therefore the noncompliance presents no reasonably
anticipated risk to motor vehicle safety. We [Ford] request that the
agency find this condition to be inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and accordingly that Ford and Nissan be exempted from the
notice and remedy requirements of the Code. The agency recently
granted a petition from Volkswagen of America, Inc., as documented
in Federal Register, Volume 60, page 48197, (September 18, 1995),
for vehicles with power windows operating in a manner similar to the
affected Villagers and Quests.
No comments were received in response to the public notice.
Ford is correct that the Volkswagen noncompliance is similar. The
power windows in the noncompliant Volkswagen GTIs and Jetta IIIs could
be operated when the ignition key was in the ``off'' position and the
passenger side front door has been opened. And as in the Mercury and
Nissan vehicles, if the operator exits by the driver's door, the system
is disabled. In granting Volkswagen's application, the agency concluded
that it was ``not likely that an operator would exit by means of the
passenger door since that would entail passing over the cumbersome
console between the two seats. Thus, the purpose of the requirement in
this situation is still highly likely to be met.'' (61 FR at 48198).
The agency examined the front seating area in the noncompliant
Mercury and Nissan vehicles and found no console or other impediment
such as a transmission tunnel that would hinder a driver from exiting
on the passenger side. Indeed, a prudent driver might well choose to
exit by the front passenger door when parked on a busy city street.
Thus, the configuration of the vehicles that the agency exempted from
notification and remedy is clearly distinguishable from that of the
Mercury/Nissan vehicles for which exemption is sought. Further, there
is a greater floor pan to ceiling height resulting in the seating in
the Quests and Villagers being more upright, making it easier for the
driver to move across the front seats and out the passenger side.
The purpose of requiring inoperative power windows is to reduce the
possibility of unsupervised children operating them. The agency is
sensitive to the fact that a greater number of children are likely to
be at risk from Ford's noncompliance. Although children can be carried
in the approximately 20,000 GTIs and Jetta IIIs that were excused from
notification and remedy, these passenger cars are not advertised and
promoted for family use in the same manner that minivans are marketed,
including the approximately 103,900 noncomplying Villagers and Quests.
For the reasons expressed above, it is hereby found that the
applicant has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
herein described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and the
application is denied.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on September 24, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-25971 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P