[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42215-42217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20174]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition from Victor A. Fleming
This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition
submitted to the NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2) (formerly section
124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as
amended).
[[Page 42216]]
In March 1995, Mr. Victor A. Fleming, an attorney associated with
the Gill Law Firm of Little Rock, Arkansas, petitioned the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to order a safety recall
of certain motor vehicles produced by the Chrysler Corporation
(Chrysler) for remedy of an alleged defect in the park lock system of
the automatic transmissions installed in those vehicles. Specifically,
Mr. Fleming requested that Chrysler be ordered to conduct a safety
recall of its 1984 through 1991 model year vehicles equipped with
console-mounted transmission shift lever assemblies, in order to
adequately notify owner/operators that the shift lever can be moved out
of the ``Park'' position after the ignition key has been removed. The
petitioner proposed that, as a remedy for the alleged defect, a readily
visible warning should be installed in the subject vehicles.
The safety defect alleged in this matter does not refer to the
failure or malfunction of any component or operating system of the
vehicle. Rather, the petition requests that the manufacturer be ordered
to undertake a safety recall ``* * * for the purpose of adequately
notifying * * *'' owners of the subject vehicles of certain design and
operating features of the automatic transmission park lock system. The
petitioner argues that such notification is necessary to provide a
proper warning that the transmission park lock system permits removal
of the engine ignition key when the transmission is not in the ``Park''
position. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Fleming's petition is
denied.
The petitioner presented as a documentary account of this design
characteristic, the experience of a client severely injured when struck
by her 1990 Dodge LeBaron convertible equipped with a console mounted
gear shift lever. According to the petition, the vehicle had been
parked on a slight incline with the engine ignition turned off and the
ignition key removed, when it began an unpowered rollaway and struck
the driver while she was walking away from the vehicle. The petitioner
also stated that the driver believed that the transmission had been
shifted into, or toward, the ``Park'' position, as was the driver's
stated habit to do so. The petition is silent as to whether the parking
brake was applied or failed to function properly. The petitioner's
client filed suit against Chrysler in January 1994, and a jury
subsequently ruled for Chrysler. Reportedly, a motion for a new trial
is pending.
This petitioner's allegations are limited to 1984 through 1991
Chrysler vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions and a center
floor console shifter. Petitioner argues that the design of the
transmission park lock system is defective in that even though the
system performs as it was intended, the design itself represents a
safety defect. The petitioner presents a detailed discussion of the
relevant technical issues, reflecting extensive research in support of
the litigation against Chrysler on behalf of his client. Included as an
attachment to the petition is a copy of the NHTSA closing report for
Engineering Analysis, EA91-010, which concerned the park lock system
installed in 1981-1990 Chrysler Corporation vehicles with steering
column-mounted gear selector levers.
In EA91-010, the issue of concern was defined broadly as failure of
the transmission to properly engage or lock in the ``Park'' position
when properly shifted to that position by the vehicle operator. It was
established through engineering tests and design analyses that when
properly shifted to the ``gated Park'' position, the transmission would
effectively prevent self mobility or unpowered vehicle rollaway
incidents, and that the design of the shift mechanism disclosed no
mechanical or hydraulic defect that would cause the subject
transmissions to shift from ``Park'' to ``Reverse'' without external
input.
The vehicle operated by the petitioner's client was a Chrysler
LeBaron convertible equipped with Chrysler's type A-413 or A-460
automatic transmission. These two transmission models were the subject
of EA91-010. In the Le Baron convertible model, the shift lever was
center console mounted, as opposed to being mounted on the steering
column in the sedan. The petition argues that the characteristics of
the design of the floor mounted shift linkage present a safety defect
in that the key can be removed from the vehicle without the shift lever
being placed in the ``Park'' position. This, according to petitioner,
increases the likelihood of injury from an unintended rollaway in that
the operator may leave the vehicle without placing the transmission in
``Park'' or applying the parking brake.
It should be noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 114, ``Theft Protection,'' sets minimum performance
requirements for the transmission park lock system of vehicles with a
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. At the time the subject vehicles were
manufactured, the purpose of FMVSS No. 114 was ``theft protection to
reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized use.'' In
1990 FMVSS No. 114 was amended (effective September 1, 1992) to specify
``requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from
rollaway of parked vehicles.'' For vehicles manufactured prior to
September 1, 1992, FMVSS No. 114 required that vehicles must have a key
locking system that prevents vehicle steering or self-mobility, or
both, when the key is removed. The public docket detailing promulgation
of FMVSS No. 114 is complete in its presentation and analyses of
relevant technical issues.
To meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 114 as they existed prior to
September 1, 1992, manufacturers typically installed a steering column
lock to prevent steering with the ignition key removed. Alternatively,
the requirement to prevent vehicle self-mobility with the key removed
was usually addressed by installation of a transmission shift lever
lock. The designs of such shift lever locks required that an automatic
transmission be shifted into the ``Park'' position in order to enable
removal of the ignition key, and after the key was removed, shifting
the transmission from the ``Park'' position to any other gear was
prevented. Many vehicle manufacturers installed both types of locks
even though not required to do so by FMVSS No. 114. Chrysler chose to
use only the steering column lock to prevent steering of the subject
vehicles.
On April 5, 1988, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to address the problems of inadvertent steering column lock-up
and inadvertent shifting of the transmission. Following the normal
procedures associated with the issuance of a rulemaking action, NHTSA
issued on May 22, 1990, an amendment to FMVSS No. 114 which required
that each vehicle be equipped with a key locking system that, whenever
the key is removed:
a. Prevents normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and
b. Prevents either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle
or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a
Park position, the key locking system must prevent removal of the key
unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in
``Park,'' or becomes locked in Park as a result of removing the key.
The purpose of the amendment, applicable to certain vehicles
manufactured after September 1, 1992, was to preclude operation of the
shift lever by children, thus preventing child injuries associated with
vehicle rollaway incidents.
[[Page 42217]]
The petitioner notes that many manufacturers had installed such
key-locking systems in vehicles with automatic transmissions prior to
the September 1, 1992, effective date of the amendment. The petitioner
argued that for reasons of cost and possibly other considerations,
Chrysler elected to limit the installation of such key locking systems
to vehicles in which the transmission shift lever was mounted on the
steering column. Chrysler-manufactured vehicles with the gear selector
lever installed in a center-floor console were not equipped with such a
key lock system prior to model year 1993.
The petitioner contends that Chrysler failed to adequately warn
owners of the subject vehicles with floor-mounted transmission shift
levers that removal of the ignition key from the ignition switch did
not indicate that the transmission had been locked in the ``Park''
position. Because of this alleged failure to provide ``adequate
warning'' of this design characteristic, the petitioner claims that
operators of the subject vehicles were led to believe in error that
self-mobility of the vehicle was impossible once the key had been
removed from the ignition switch. The petitioner also alleges that
incidents of unpowered vehicle rollaway had resulted in accidents and
injuries.
While the petitioner presented examples of incidents where
unintended rollaways had occurred in 1984-1991 Chrysler vehicles
equipped with automatic transmissions and floor mounted shifters, the
petition does not set forth any facts establishing that Chrysler
vehicles differed either in design or performance from other vehicles
that allowed removal of the ignition key without placing the
transmission in the ``Park'' position. Also, as noted above, the
petition does not allege that the involved vehicles presented a safety
hazard stemming from a component or system failure.
The petitioner asks that Chrysler be ordered, under the
notification and remedy provisions of the Act, to provide notification
together with a readily visible warning that the subject vehicles can,
in fact, roll away when unattended if the transmission is not properly
shifted into the ``Park'' position, even though the ignition key has
been removed.
The petitioner recognized that such an advisory appears in the
LeBaron owner's manual:
Note: A console mounted shift lever can be moved out of PARK
after the ignition key has been removed. Therefore, it is very
important that children left in the vehicle be cautioned against
touching the shift lever. Also, the parking brake should be fully
applied before leaving the vehicle, especially when parked on an
incline.
A principal point of the petitioner's request is that the ``Note''
as stated above, does not provide ``adequate warning.'' The petitioner
cited testimony during the trial in which a human factors expert stated
that the ``Note'' does not constitute a warning, and that it makes no
mention of the fact that the key can be removed from the ignition even
if the transmission is not in the ``Park'' position. The petition also
cites the presence of a larger number of warnings contained in the
owner's manual for 1990 Ford Mustang vehicle equipped with a floor
mounted shifter allowing removal of the key without the transmission
placed in ``Park.'' Petitioner alleges that these warnings are more
effective in that they provide more specific advice about the
characteristics of the shift lock and the potential for unintended
rollaway. Petitioner does not, however, present any data suggesting
that these warnings are more effective than those contained in the
Chrysler owner's manual.
The petitioner has submitted a detailed presentation of his
request, as well as the reasons therefor. Notwithstanding this
presentation, however, NHTSA does not believe that it would be
appropriate to grant the petition. The park lock system found on the
Chrysler vehicles that are the subject of this petition was not unique.
Manufacturers other than Chrysler also produced vehicles during this
time period in which the key could be removed without locking the
transmission in ``Park.'' Petitioner has not produced any evidence or
information suggesting that the Chrysler vehicles created a higher risk
to safety than these similar vehicles. While it is the agency's
position that existing Federal motor vehicle safety standards are
minimum performance benchmarks and that compliance with these standards
does not preclude the agency from deciding that a safety-related defect
exists, the vehicles in question complied with the requirements of
FMVSS No. 114 as they existed at the time they were manufactured. The
later promulgation of an amendment to this Standard to address the
hazard of unintended rollaways caused by failure to place the
transmission in ``Park'' or movement of the shift lever in an
unattended parked vehicle does not establish that earlier designs were
defective, but reflects the conclusion that existing designs can be
improved. The evidence presented by the petitioner does not indicate
that the design presents a safety-related defect under the Act. Thus,
after considering all of the issues raised by this petition; and
recognizing the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited
resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the agency
has decided to deny the petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(a); delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: August 3, 1995.
Michael B. Brownlee,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 95-20174 Filed 8-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
