[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