97-33032. Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 66401-66403]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-33032]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
    
    
    Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition
    
    AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
    Department of Transportation.
    
    ACTION: Denial of motor vehicle defect petition.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a June 
    19, 1997 petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162 by Donald 
    Friedman, requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine 
    the existence of defects related to motor vehicle safety in the air bag 
    systems and the two-point automatic seat belt systems in all vehicles 
    manufactured since 1987. After reviewing the petition and other 
    information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the 
    agency's investigative resources on the allegations in the petition 
    does not appear to be warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the 
    petition.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. Thomas Cooper, Chief, Vehicle Integrity Branch, Office of Defects 
    Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
    20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5218.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 19, 1997, Mr. Donald Friedman 
    submitted a petition requesting the agency to investigate ``the safety 
    performance of certain motor vehicles built in compliance with the 
    automatic crash protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
    Standards (FMVSS) No. 208; `Occupant crash protection.' '' The petition 
    concerns vehicles with ``driver air bags built from 1987 to the 
    present.'' It also ``concerns some automobiles with two-point automatic 
    belts.''
        The petition alleges two distinct defects in the subject vehicles. 
    One alleged defect involves the safety of those individuals who are of 
    a ``short stature (around 5 feet tall)'' who position the seat so that 
    they can both reach the pedals and see ``safely'' through the 
    windshield. By positioning themselves in such a manner, they may be 
    very close to the air bag. The petitioner alleges that this 
    positioning, when combined with air bags which deploy at a delta V 
    1 of 12 miles per hour (mph) and less and which deploy with 
    aggressive force, can cause serious and fatal injuries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Delta V is the rapid change of a vehicle's speed due to a 
    crash. A 12 mph delta V is the equivalent of a vehicle traveling at 
    12 mph crashing into an immovable solid object such as a heavy 
    concrete wall.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The petition alleges a second defect in vehicles with automatic 
    seat belts that restrain only the torso portion of the body. It alleges 
    that if shorter people ``ride without the lap belt and with their seat 
    in a rearward position'' they are ``likely to submarine'' in a crash, 
    and that [``w]hen this happens, the two-point belt can catch the 
    occupant's chin and cause serious neck injuries including paraplegia or 
    quadriplegia.''
        NHTSA is denying the petition for the following reasons:
    
    I. Alleged ``Aggressive Air Bags''
    
        The petition covers all vehicles with driver side air bags built 
    since 1987. Essentially, this includes all vehicles sold with air bags 
    in the United States. Previously, NHTSA studied this class of vehicles 
    and found that the performance
    
    [[Page 66402]]
    
    of the air bag systems in crashes resulted in a significant reduction 
    in fatalities and serious injuries. The agency's findings from this 
    study of the ``real-world'' performance of air bag systems are 
    contained in its third Report to Congress, ``Effectiveness of Occupant 
    Protection Systems and Their Use,'' December 1996. More recently, the 
    agency has estimated that as of November 1, 1997, approximately 2620 
    lives have been saved by air bags.
        ODI recently conducted a review of air bag fatalities and the 
    ``real-world'' crash performance of air bags in evaluating a petition 
    from the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) requesting the agency to conduct 
    a defect investigation of certain specified vehicles. CAS alleged that 
    these vehicles were over-represented in driver-side air bag fatalities, 
    and identified low speed deployment (less than 12 mph delta V) and 
    aggressive deployment as prime contributing factors. In its review of 
    ``real-world'' crash data, the agency compared the performance of the 
    vehicles identified in the CAS petition to the performance of other 
    vehicles with driver-side air bags and found that some risk of a 
    serious or fatal injury to an out-of-position occupant is present in 
    any air bag-equipped vehicle. Data from the agency's National Accident 
    Sampling System (NASS) indicated that the air bags in many vehicles 
    deploy during impacts of less than 10 mph change of speed. Data 
    provided by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) showed 
    that the vehicles that were the subject of the CAS petition had a rate 
    of air bag deployments per 100 crashes that was similar to that of many 
    other vehicles. The agency found that the subject vehicles did not show 
    a tendency toward excessive air bag deployments. NHTSA concluded that 
    further investigation of these vehicles was unlikely to result in a 
    determination that the air bag systems in the vehicles identified in 
    the petition contain safety-related defects as alleged by the 
    petitioner, and that a further commitment of agency resources in this 
    effort was not warranted. The denial decision is published at 62 FR 
    41477 (July 28, 1997).
        Mr. Friedman has not provided in his petition any new evidence to 
    suggest the existence of a vehicle design defect that creates an 
    unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. His petition is similar to 
    the CAS petition in that he also has identified low speed deployment 
    and aggressive deployment of air bags as alleged defects. However, Mr. 
    Friedman's petition is far broader in scope than CAS', in that it 
    covers virtually all vehicles equipped with air bags. Because NHTSA has 
    already concluded that it could not identify a defect trend in the 
    smaller set of specific vehicle models identified in the CAS petition, 
    it follows that it is even less likely that an agency investigation 
    would identify a defect trend in the larger group of vehicles 
    identified by Mr. Friedman.
        The agency has taken or proposed a number of actions to reduce the 
    risk of driver injury from air bags. NHTSA presently permits 
    individuals with valid reasons (such as a medical reason) to request 
    the agency's Chief Counsel to exercise prosecutorial discretion and 
    allow a dealer or repair shop to deactivate their vehicles' air bag[s]. 
    Also, the agency has issued a final rule (62 FR 62405 (November 21, 
    1997)) that will exempt dealers and repair businesses from the 
    statutory prohibition against making federally-required safety 
    equipment inoperative so that, beginning January 19, 1998, they may 
    install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags in vehicles owned 
    by or used by persons in specified risk groups whose requests for 
    switches have been approved by the agency.
        Both NHTSA and the motor vehicle industry are presently providing 
    vast amounts of information about the safe use of vehicles with air 
    bags to the general public, through the print media, radio and 
    television. Also, all vehicle manufacturers either have sent or are in 
    the process of sending letters to owners of vehicles with air bags to 
    supplement information that already is provided in warnings on the sun 
    visor and in the owner's manual. The messages alert owners to the 
    dangers of air bags and inform them of the proper procedures for 
    occupying a seating position that is protected by an air bag.
    
    II. Alleged ``Submarining'' in Vehicles With Two Point Automatic Seat 
    Belt Systems
    
        FMVSS No. 208 has required passive restraints in at least a 
    percentage of passenger motor vehicles manufactured since September 1, 
    1986. Starting with MY 1987, manufacturers were required to phase in 
    automatic occupant restraints to meet specified injury criteria. 
    Although most manufacturers installed automatic seat belts in the early 
    years of the passive restraint requirement, in more recent years air 
    bags have become the more popular form of passive restraint. Beginning 
    with MY 1990, all vehicles were required to meet the automatic 
    restraint injury criteria and manufacturers began to make significant 
    numbers of vehicles with driver air bags. Then in 1991, the Intermodal 
    Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA'') directed NHTSA to 
    amend FMVSS 208 to require air bags as the form of automatic crash 
    protection in light vehicles. As amended, Standard No. 208 requires the 
    installation of air bags in all passenger cars manufactured on or after 
    September 1, 1997, and all light trucks manufactured on or after 
    September 1, 1998.
        Mr. Friedman's petition is premised on the assumption that the 
    covered vehicles were ``built in compliance with the automatic crash 
    protection requirements of [FMVSS No. 208].'' Until FMVSS No. 208 was 
    amended pursuant to ISTEA, the standard gave manufacturers the option 
    of providing ``two-point'automatic seat belt systems that included a 
    combination of an automatic shoulder harness and a manual lap belt. 
    Because manufacturers were legally authorized to meet the standard with 
    this combination of equipment, NHTSA cannot conclude that two-point 
    automatic belt systems that meet the performance requirements of the 
    standard when operated as specified are ``defective'' if they are not 
    operated as specified.
        Furthermore, alleged ``submarining'' by short individuals who 
    ``ride without the lap belt and with their seat in a rearward 
    position'' normally will not occur if those individuals use the manual 
    lap belts in their vehicles, in accordance with instructions. 
    Individuals who find that they either cannot see properly or cannot 
    reach the foot controls due to their height and/or the design of the 
    vehicle seating system may avail themselves of certain vehicle 
    modifications to correct the problem. Very short individuals may 
    consider sitting on a booster pad to raise their seating position and/
    or contacting a dealer to have the vehicle fitted with a device to 
    extend the foot pedals. Sitting on a booster pad does not reduce the 
    protection that the vehicle's restraint system (the air bag and the 
    safety belt) provides.
        All manufacturers presently provide warnings to owners about the 
    need to fasten manual safety belts despite the presence of an automatic 
    restraint system. Warnings are located on the vehicle sun visor and in 
    the owner's manual. Furthermore, NHTSA is conducting an extensive 
    public education campaign to encourage the use of manual seat belts, 
    and also is encouraging ``primary'' enforcement of state mandatory seat 
    belt use laws. The agency anticipates that these measures will increase 
    the use of manual lap belts in vehicles that are equipped with ``two-
    point'' automatic seat belts.
    
    [[Page 66403]]
    
        For the foregoing reasons, further expenditure of the agency's 
    investigative resources on the allegations in the petition does not 
    appear to be warranted. Therefore, the petition is denied.
    
        Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162 (d); delegations of authority at CFR 
    1.50 and 501.8.
    
        Issued on: December 9, 1997.
    Kenneth N. Weinstein,
    Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
    [FR Doc. 97-33032 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
12/18/1997
Department:
Transportation Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Denial of motor vehicle defect petition.
Document Number:
97-33032
Pages:
66401-66403 (3 pages)
PDF File:
97-33032.pdf