Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 17605 

[FR Doc. E7–6523 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

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 petition for a defect 

investigation. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

reasons for the denial of a petition 

(DP06–004) submitted by Mr. Eric 

Moening. In his petition, dated August 

23, 2006, the petitioner requests the 

agency to remedy a failure of his model 

year (MY) 1999 Ford Contour to 

‘‘comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard 208 Occupant Crash 

Protection.’’ He describes the failure on 

his vehicle as instrument panel 

warping, and he believes that the 

warping may adversely affect 

performance of the air bag system or 

create loose instrument panel 

components (such as the defrost bezel) 

that could ‘‘become projectiles during 

air bag deployments.’’ After a review of 

the petition and other information, 

including the results of NHTSA’s own 

testing, NHTSA has concluded that 

further expenditure of the agency’s 

resources on the issue raised by the 

petition is not warranted. The agency 

accordingly denies the petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cynthia Glass, Vehicle Integrity 

Division, Office of Defects Investigation, 

NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(202) 366–2920. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

23, 2006, NHTSA’s Office of Defects 

Investigation (ODI) received a petition 

submitted by Mr. Eric Moening 

(hereinafter identified as the petitioner), 

requesting that NHTSA ‘‘remedy a 

failure’’ of the instrument panel of his 

MY 1999 Ford Contour so that it 

complies with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208. The 

petitioner alleges that his instrument 

panel has warped and the defrost bezel 

rattles. He contends that ‘‘improperly 

retained instrument panel components 

can be detrimental to the desired 

performance of front air bag 

deployments as well as become 

projectiles during air bag deployments.’’

Federal law prohibits manufacturers 

from selling motor vehicles and 

equipment that do not comply with all 

applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS). 49 U.S.C. 

30112(a)(1). However, this prohibition 

does not apply after the first purchase 

of the vehicle or equipment. 49 U.S.C. 

30112(b)(1). The petitioner alleges that 

the problem with his vehicle first began 

to develop at least three years after its 

first purchase. Accordingly, the alleged 

facts provide no basis for a compliance 

investigation. NHTSA has no authority 

to intervene in disputes between an 

individual and a manufacturer with 

regard to repairs unrelated to safety 

recalls. However, because the petitioner 

has characterized his letter as a 

‘‘petition’’, we are construing his letter 

as a request for a defect investigation 

into warping of the leading edge of the 

dashboard in MY 1999–2000 Ford 

Contour and Mercury Mystique vehicles 

under 49 U.S.C. 30162. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30166, NHTSA has 

the authority to conduct an 

investigation to consider whether a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment contains a safety-related 

defect. In addition, any interested 

person may file a petition under 49 

U.S.C. 30162 requesting that NHTSA 

begin a proceeding to decide whether to 

issue an order under § 30118. NHTSA is 

authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) to 

make a determination that a motor 

vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 

contains a defect related to motor 

vehicle safety. If NHTSA makes such a 

determination, NHTSA issues an order 

directing the manufacturer of the 

vehicle or equipment to notify the 

owners, purchasers and dealers of the 

defect and to remedy the defect under 

§ 30120. 

As a practical matter, NHTSA’s grant 

of a petition under § 30162 begins an 

investigation that may or may not result 

in a recall. In determining whether to 

grant or deny a petition under § 30162, 

NHTSA conducts a technical review of 

the petition. 49 CFR 552.6. This review 

may consist of an analysis of the 

material submitted, together with the 

information already in possession of the 

agency or acquired in the course of the 

review. NHTSA has discretion to decide 

which matters are worthy of 

investigation and a possible recall order. 

In addition to the technical merits of the 

petition, NHTSA may consider 

additional factors, such as the allocation 

of agency resources, agency priorities, 

and the likelihood of success of 

litigation that might arise from the order 

sought by the petitioner. 49 CFR 552.8. 

As noted above, if NHTSA grants the 

petition, an investigation is commenced 

to determine the existence of the defect. 

49 CFR 552.9. 

In August 2001, the petitioner 

received a letter from Ford Motor 

Company describing Ford’s Customer 

Satisfaction Program Number 01B78 

(01B78). Ford initiated this program in 

August 2001, and it was in effect 

through August 31, 2002. Ford offered 

free repair of any 1999 and 2000 Ford 

Contour and Mercury Mystique vehicle 

experiencing panel warping at the front 

edge of the instrument panel cover near 

the windshield. Initially, Ford offered 

customers a dealer inspection of the 

instrument panel and a free repair as 

required. Ford instructed dealers to 

repair all vehicles with a panel repair 

kit unless the warping was greater than 

2 inches at the defroster grill opening. 

For vehicles with greater than 2 inches 

warping, Ford instructed dealers to 

replace the instrument panel. 

Ford issued to Ford and Lincoln 

Mercury dealers two supplements to the 

original 01B78 program that superseded 

each preceding program. In December 

2001, Ford issued Supplement #1 

(01B78S1), which provided a revision of 

the original repair procedure to 

‘‘address some dealer-identified issues.’’

01B78S1 did not affect Ford’s policy of 

replacing the instrument panel only 

when the panel warping is greater than 

2 inches and repairing other vehicles 

with a panel repair kit. In May 2002, 

Ford issued Supplement #2 (01B78S2), 

which provided a revised repair 

procedure that ‘‘requires the use of a 

new repair kit that includes a new 

defroster grille cover that is placed on 

top of the defroster grille.’’ 01B78S2 also 

provided that ‘‘[i]nstrument panel 

replacement is no longer covered under 

this program.’’ And, 01B78S2 states 

that, ‘‘All vehicles that have not had 

01B78 or 01B78S1 completed, 

regardless of whether the warpage is 

visible or not, should be serviced as 

soon as possible before expiration of 

this program.’’ Neither 01B78S1 nor 

01B78S2 changed the program’s August 

31, 2002, expiration date. 

In February 2003, after Customer 

Satisfaction Program Number 01B78 

expired, Ford issued technical service 

bulletin ‘‘TSB 03–4–6, Trim—

Instrument Panel Warpage Repair.’’ This 

TSB described Ford’s most current 

repair procedure for a warped 

instrument panel, which was identical 

to the procedure provided in 01B78S2. 

The TSB did not extend the expiration 

date of the offer for free repair that had 

now expired. 

The petitioner indicates that when he 

took his car into his Lincoln-Mercury 

dealership in 2001 in response to 

01B78, the dealership advised him that 

his vehicle ‘‘was not in need of repair.’’

He reports that, by late 2002, his vehicle 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17606 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 

began to show signs of the instrument 

panel warping and that by spring 2006, 

‘‘the defrost bezel began to rattle.’’ In 

July 2006, he contacted the same 

dealership and ‘‘was told that this $400 

repair would not be covered [under the 

TSB]’’ because his vehicle was past 

warranty coverage (36,000 miles/3 

years). 

Determining an appropriate response 

to Mr. Moening’s petition requires 

assessment of the potential safety 

consequences of the alleged defect. A 

review of NHTSA’s consumer complaint 

database for the MY 1999 and 2000 Ford 

Contour and Mercury Mystique vehicles 

in February 2007 revealed 302 

complaints regarding instrument panel 

warping. Most of the complaints report 

that the warping of the instrument panel 

reduces forward visibility or degrades 

the performance of the defroster. Other 

complaints indicate that the repair 

performed by the dealer was only a 

temporary fix and the problem returned. 

A considerable number of complaints 

express concern that the instrument 

panel warping may affect the 

performance of the air bag system, either 

by causing the air bag to deploy 

prematurely or by hindering proper 

inflation of the air bag. However, as of 

November 2006 there were no reports of 

actual improper deployments, nor were 

there reports of injuries, crashes or loss 

of control because of instrument panel 

warping while driving the subject 

vehicle. 

NHTSA evaluated forward visibility 

from the driver’s seating position in a 

subject vehicle, a 1999 Ford Contour, 

with a warped instrument panel (more 

than 3 inches of vertical warping at the 

centerline of the vehicle) and compared 

this to the forward visibility in the 

vehicle with the warped portion of the 

instrument panel held down in its 

proper position. Also, NHTSA used for 

comparison two other vehicles: a 2000 

Ford Contour with an unwarped 

instrument panel and a peer vehicle, a 

2005 Saturn Ion with an unwarped 

instrument panel. NHTSA evaluated the 

visibility using both a 12-inch and a 28- 

inch tall traffic cone placed at various 

positions in front of the subject and peer 

vehicles. NHTSA selected three subject 

drivers; two were short females (4′9′′ 

and 5′3′′ tall) and the other a tall male 

(6′1′′). NHTSA recorded the minimum 

distance from the front of the vehicle to 

the cone that allowed the driver to see 

the top of the cone. 

When conducting the test using the 

28-inch cone, there were negligible 

visibility differences between the 

subject and peer vehicles for all three 

drivers. Similarly, when conducting the 

test using the 12-inch cone, there were 

negligible visibility differences when 

each driver viewed the cone through the 

portion of the windshield directly in 

front of the driver. However, in order for 

each short female to see the top of the 

12-inch cone through the right side of 

the windshield of the 1999 Contour 

with the warped instrument panel, the 

cone needed to be moved two feet 

further from the vehicle than was 

necessary for the same driver to see the 

same cone through the same portion of 

the windshield for either the 1999 

Contour with the instrument panel held 

down or the 2000 Contour with the 

unwarped instrument panel. The 

practical effect of this difference is 

minimal: the smallest drivers still have 

a clear view as they approach such a 

small object (12 inches or less), but 

could lose sight of such an object if it 

is off to the right of their forward field 

of vision just two feet sooner than a 

taller driver would. We believe that the 

observed slight reduction in one portion 

of the field of view that might be 

experienced by the smallest of drivers 

fails to demonstrate any material effect 

on safety. This conclusion is supported 

by the absence of any report in the 

agency’s complaint database of alleged 

loss of control or crash attributed to this 

problem for these vehicles, which have 

now acquired nearly 8 years of field 

experience. 

NHTSA also evaluated the ability of 

the defroster in a 1999 Ford Contour 

with a warped instrument panel to clear 

the windshield of heavy early morning 

frost. NHTSA compared these results 

with the performance of the defrosters 

in three other vehicles with unwarped 

instrument panels: a 2000 Ford Contour, 

a 2005 Saturn Ion and a 1999 Volvo S80. 

The comparison demonstrated that the 

defroster in the subject vehicle with the 

warped instrument panel, though 

functional, required approximately 

three to four minutes longer to clear 

most of the frost from the windshield 

compared with the other vehicles. 

However we do not find this reduction 

in the speed of the defroster’s 

performance to be a likely safety hazard. 

The defroster is still capable of 

performing its intended function. 

The principal concern expressed by 

the petitioner was the potential for 

warping of the instrument panel to 

degrade the performance of the air bag 

system. As of November 2006, NHTSA’s 

consumer complaint database contained 

no allegations that instrument panel 

warping affected the actual deployment 

of the passenger air bag, nor are there 

reports of instrument panel components 

becoming projectiles during air bag 

deployments. Through examination of 

the construction of the instrument panel 

on a subject vehicle, NHTSA 

determined that warping of the 

instrument panel is confined to the 

surface materials of the instrument 

panel, and does not extend to the 

supporting structure of the air bag 

system. Based on a review of the 

agency’s complaint database and 

examination of subject vehicles, we find 

no evidence that the warping of the 

instrument panel could cause either 

inappropriate deployment of the 

passenger air bag, impede proper 

deployment of the passenger air bag, or 

block the air bag deployment path. 

Based on a review of the petitioner’s 

request and the information provided 

above, it is unlikely that NHTSA would 

issue an order for the notification and 

remedy of a safety-related defect at the 

conclusion of an investigation. 

Therefore, in view of the need to 

allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited 

resources to best accomplish the 

agency’s safety mission, 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); delegations 

of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–6545 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji 

Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc. 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.’s 

(FUSA) petition for exemption of the 

Subaru Impreza vehicle line in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 543, 

Exemption from the Theft Prevention 

Standard. This petition is granted 

because the agency has determined that 

the antitheft device to be placed on the 

line as standard equipment is likely to 

be as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 

541). FUSA requested confidential 

treatment for the information and 

attachments it submitted in support of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES