[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3997-3998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-4603, Notice 1]


Ford Motor Company; Receipt of Application for Determination of 
Inconsequential Non-Compliance

    Ford Motor Company, of Dearborn, Michigan, has applied to the 
Administrator, for exemption from the notice and remedy requirements of 
this application concerning certain 1998 model year Ford F150, F250, 
Expedition vehicles, and Lincoln Navigator vehicles, which have sun 
visor air bag warning labels that do not fully meet the location 
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 
``Occupant Crash Protection.'' Pursuant to Part 573 of Title 49 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, Ford 
Motor Company submits the following information concerning a safety-
compliance action that it is initiating.
    This notice of receipt of an application is published under 49 
U.S.C. Sec. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision 
or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the application.
    Paragraph S4.5.1.(b)(3) of FMVSS 208 specifies ``Except for the 
information on an air bag maintenance label placed on the sun visor 
pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, no other information will 
appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the sun visor warning 
label is affixed.'' Ford manufactured approximately 91,600 vehicles in 
total (certain F150, F250, and Expedition 4X4 models, and certain 
Lincoln Navigator 4X4 and 4X2 models) from February 13, 1998 through 
May 21, 1998, that did not comply with this requirement. The affected 
4X4 models were built with driver sun visors with air bag warning 
labels and 49 CFR 575.105 (c)(1) utility vehicle labels both affixed to 
the same sun visor side. The affected Lincoln Navigators equipped with 
moonroofs (both the 4X4 and 4X2 models) were built with a temporary 
paper label for the garage door opener transmitter also located on this 
same side of the visor.
    The noncompliance was created when Ford implemented a sun visor 
label running change on February 13, 1998, for the affected vehicles. 
Prior to the change, the air bag alert label specified in FMVSS 208 
S4.5.1(c), along with the 575.105(c)(1) utility vehicle label on the 
4X4 models, and the garage door opener transmitter label on the 
moonroof equipped Navigator 4X4 and 4X2 models, were affixed to the 
driver sun visor on the side visible with the visor in the stowed 
position. The air bag warning label on these vehicles was affixed to 
the opposite side of the visor with no other labels located on this 
opposite side. The label running change eliminated the air bag alert 
label, and the air bag warning label was located in its place on the 
side of the visor visible when stowed. However, the utility vehicle 
label already located on that side of the visor on the 4X4 models, and 
the garage door transmitter label located on the side directly below 
the transmitter controls on the moonroof equipped Navigator visors, 
were not relocated.
    Ford argued that, based on rulemaking history, the intent of the 
FMVSS 208 air bag warning label location requirement is to ensure that 
customers have access to important air

[[Page 3998]]

bag safety information, and to avoid ``information overload'' that 
could blunt the impact of this air bag information. The basic question 
with regard to these non-compliant vehicles is, therefore, does the 
presence of the utility vehicle label on the transmitter label on the 
same side of the visor as the air bag warning label actually detract 
from motor vehicle safety, and further, would the removal of the 
utility vehicle label and the garage door opener transmitter label from 
these vehicles enhance motor vehicle safety? Removal of the utility 
vehicle label is a possible field fix since the affected vehicles all 
have wheelbases that exceed 110 inches. Even though the utility vehicle 
label is required only on these types of vehicles with wheelbases of 
110 inches or less, Ford nevertheless believes the information on the 
label may also be beneficial in utility vehicles with over 110 inch 
wheelbase, and affixes the labels to these vehicles also. The 
transmitter label is a temporary paper stick-on label intended to be 
removed by the customer, and in all likelihood is removed early in the 
life of the vehicle. It is provided merely as a customer convenience 
and directs the customer to operational instructions provided in the 
Owner Guide. Ford believes this is beneficial to the vehicle operator.

Supporting Arguments

    For the following reasons, in Ford's view, the presence on the 
driver visor of the utility vehicle label or the transmitter label does 
not significantly detract from the air bag warning, and has no 
consequential effect on motor vehicle safety. First, the warning label 
is prominently displayed on both the driver and passenger visor, on the 
side visible when the visor is stowed. The label is thus visible the 
majority of the time. Second, the revisions to the air bag label 
requirements published on November 27, 1996--the addition of a 
pictogram, specified minimum area for message text, colors for a 
pictogram, text, and background--have effectively increased the air bag 
label's prominence and readability such that the presence of this 
utility vehicle label or the transmitter label, both of which are 
uniquely different in appearance from the air bag warning label, is 
unlikely to detract from the much more prominent air bag label. 
Finally, the affected vehicles do not require and are not equipped with 
the air bag maintenance label specified in S4.5.1(a) and, consequently, 
the air bag warning label need not compete with this maintenance label, 
thus reducing that potential for ``information overload.'' In addition, 
the fact that S4.5.1(a) allows the air bag maintenance label to be 
placed on the same side of the visor with the air bag warning label 
provides explicit recognition by the agency that the risk of 
``information overload'' from other labels on the visor is manageable. 
Based on these facts, Ford believes that the effectiveness of the air 
bag warning label is not significantly diluted by the presence of the 
utility vehicle label. They believe the same is true with regard to the 
temporary presence of the transmitter label.
    Ford offers the following concerning the question of whether 
removal of the utility vehicle label or the transmitter label from the 
affected vehicle enhances motor vehicle safety. With regard to the 
utility vehicle label, the industry and the agency have and are 
considering, whether the presence of this label along with the air bag 
warning label, do in fact reduce the effectiveness of the air bag 
label. There is not complete agreement on this subject as evidenced by 
rulemaking including a January 13, 1997 AAMA Request for Technical 
Amendment or Petition for Reconsideration, to allow both labels on the 
same side of the visor--this request/petition was denied by the agency 
on June 24, 1998 (49 CFR 575.208). Citation for utility vehicles NPRM 
63 FR 17974 April 13, 1998, Docket No. NHTSA 98-3381, Notice 1.
    The transmitter label on the Navigators' vehicles on the other 
hand, a paper stick-on label which directs the customer to the Owner 
Guide for instructions on the operation of the transmitter controls on 
the visor, is not intended to be permanent, but is designed as a 
temporary label with the expectation that it will be removed early in 
the life of the vehicle. Because its early removal is intended, Ford 
does not argue that a field action to remove this label would be 
detrimental to safety, however, because Ford believes it will be 
removed by the customer, or by the dealer after review with the 
customer during delivery of the vehicle, Ford suggests there is no need 
for such a field action.
    As a final point, the subject utility vehicle and transmitter 
labels, rather than being affixed, as they are, on the driver visors no 
closer that 2 inches from the air bag warning label, which does not 
satisfy Standard 208, alternatively could have been affixed to the 
vehicle headliner immediately above and approximately 2 inches away 
from the visor air bag label. This alternative would have been 
completely compliant with Standard 208, even though the proximity of 
these labels to the air bag warning label would have been essentially 
the same as with the non-compliant location on the visor. If, in this 
alternate compliant location, the air bag warning label is not diluted 
by the presence of the utility vehicle or transmitter label on the 
headliner, perhaps 2 inches away, Ford suggests that the air bag 
warning label is not diluted by the technically non-compliant presence 
on the visor of these labels which also are approximately 2 inches away 
from the air bag label.
    In summary, Ford believes that the presence of the utility vehicle 
label or the garage door opener transmitter located two inches or more 
from the air bag warning label, does not constitute ``information 
overload,'' nor does it present any risk to motor vehicle safety. Ford 
requests that the agency find this condition to be inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety, and accordingly that Ford be exempted from the 
notice and remedy requirements of the Code. Ford has attached to this 
petition their June 23, 1998 letter to the agency advising of this 
condition, and of Ford's intent to petition for a determination of 
inconsequential noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and 
arguments on the application of Ford, described above. Comments should 
refer to the Docket Number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room 
PL 401 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but 
not required that two 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 
application is granted or denied, the Notice will be published in the 
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: February 25, 1999. (49 U.S.C. 30118,30120; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: January 19, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-1744 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P