51500 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33388]

CSX Corporation and CSX

Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern

Corporation and Norfolk Southern

Railway Company—Control and

Operating Leases/Agreements—

Conrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rail

Corporation

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of final scope of

environmental impact statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: On June 23, 1997, CSX

Corporation and CSX Transportation,

Inc. (CSX), Norfolk Southern

Corporation, and Norfolk Southern