[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60070-60073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30056]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies petitions for rulemaking submitted by the
Automobile Safety Foundation (ASF). ASF believes that steering locks
installed on some vehicles to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, are ineffective in preventing theft
and also dangerous because they lock up while the vehicle is in motion.
Among other things, the petitions requested that NHTSA either revise
the standard to prohibit any form of steering locks and allow for
alternative designs, or require another design. They also asked that
NHTSA require manufacturers to affix warning stickers about the
steering locks on new vehicles or send warning stickers to all
registered owners of previously sold vehicles. NHTSA denies these
petitions because: Available crash data do not demonstrate a safety
problem with the steering lock; steering locks continue to serve an
anti-theft purpose; and vehicles with automatic transmissions, which
account for about 80 percent of vehicles sold, are required to have a
transmission lock and to be designed so that the ignition key cannot be
removed unless the transmission is in the ``park'' position.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Atelsek, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr.
Atelsek's telephone number is (202) 366-2992. His facsimile number is
(202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Existing Requirements
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection,
requires that new trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and
passenger cars have a key locking system. S4.2 of the standard states
that ``[e]ach vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever
the key is removed, prevents: (a) The normal activation of the
vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) Either steering or forward self-
mobility of the vehicle or both.'' Vehicle manufacturers could comply
by installing either a steering lock or transmission lock. Most vehicle
manufacturers have chosen to install a ``steering lock,'' a device that
locks the steering column when the key has been removed.
Although not required by the Standard, the key-locking systems of
many vehicles are designed to prevent or reduce the likelihood of
unintentional activation of the steering lock while the vehicle is in
motion (for the sake of convenience, NHTSA refers below to this
situation as ``inadvertent lockup''). This is accomplished by the
incorporation of a button, lever, or other mechanism that must be
activated before the key can be removed. Some of these mechanisms
require two hands (one to operate the mechanism and one to turn the
key), while others are operable with one hand (i.e., the hand turning
the key). Some vehicles may not be equipped with such mechanisms.
Unless those vehicles are equipped with some other device to prevent
inadvertent lockup, it would be possible to remove the key from the
lock and activate the steering lock while the vehicles are in motion.
NHTSA briefly adopted a requirement that key-locking systems
provide protection against inadvertent lockup
[[Page 60071]]
(45 FR 85450, December 29, 1980). However, in response to petitions for
reconsideration, NHTSA reexamined the data and determined that, while
there was a safety problem with vehicles that allowed the key to be
removed by the action of one hand, the magnitude of the safety problem
was insufficient to justify requiring this protection (See 46 FR 32252-
53, June 22, 1981).
In 1990, NHTSA amended Standard No 114 to mandate transmission
locks on all vehicles with automatic transmissions (55 FR 21868, May
30, 1990). Transmission locks prevent the removal of the key unless the
vehicle is in the ``Park'' position. Since the vehicle must be stopped
in order to put the transmission in ``Park,'' transmission locks also
prevent activation of the steering lock while the vehicle is in motion.
Therefore, inadvertent lockup remains a concern only for manual
transmission vehicles which are not equipped with a transmission lock.
As discussed later in this document, the majority of new manual
transmission vehicles appear to include some type of device to prevent
inadvertent lockup.
The Petitions for Rulemaking
In its first petition, ASF requested that NHTSA either revise the
standard to prohibit any form of steering locks and allow for
alternative designs, or require another design. It gave two main
reasons for this request. The first reason was that the steering lock
is innately unsafe. As evidence of this, ASF cited NHTSA's statement in
an earlier Federal Register notice that it continued to receive reports
of ``property damage, serious injuries, and fatalities'' from
inadvertent lockup. It also cited the warning notice about inadvertent
lockup in the Driver Handbook issued by California's Department of
Motor Vehicles, ``voluminous'' consumer reports of accidents, and
locksmith reports of the jammed locks.
The second reason advanced by ASF in its first petition was that
steering locks are a failure as theft protection. As evidence of this,
ASF stated that the number of vehicle thefts increased from one half
million to two million vehicles in the nearly 20 years since steering
locks were added in 1969. As additional reasons not to allow steering
locks, it also asserted that there are safe and more effective anti-
theft devices available (citing the Rolls Royce and Saab transmission
locks), that a few organizations have stated that new theft standards
are needed, and that the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act
requires NHTSA to prohibit steering locks in future auto production.
The second petition from ASF requested that NHTSA require
manufacturers to affix warning stickers about the steering locks on new
vehicles or send warning stickers to all registered owners of
previously sold vehicles. As evidence of the need for the stickers, the
petition stated that unspecified ``ASF research'' showed that most
drivers do not understand steering lock operation.
The third petition requested that NHTSA both abolish Standard No.
114 as being unconstitutional (``since they are spring loaded, and do
not allow freedom of choice to lock, or not to lock) and require that
all Americans lock their vehicles. The third petition provided no
supporting data.
Agency Analysis
As the following discussion shows, NHTSA believes that it cannot
justify adoption of the petitioner's requests.
A. Size of the Safety Problem
NHTSA investigated the petitioner's claims that the steering lock
is unsafe and ``kills daily.'' There are two sources available for data
on this issue. The first is NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation
consumer complaint files. These are searchable files that contain
summaries of the complaints that people report to the consumer hotline.
The second source of data is NHTSA's National Accident Sampling System
(NASS) database, which contains more detailed investigations of a
sample of towaway crashes.
In the consumer complaint files, NHTSA searched a combined total of
220,000 complaints lodged from 1987 to 1996. It looked for complaints
containing the words ``steering wheel'' or ``steering column'' and some
indication of steering wheel/column lockup. The agency excluded
complaints alleging more ambiguous steering problems such as an
inability to steer or the failure of steering. The results of this
search are shown in the table below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Number of
Transmission type crashes injuries fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic........................ 36 38 1
Manual........................... 11 15 1
Unknown.......................... 32 21 2
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 79 74 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown, NHTSA identified a total of 79 crashes, accounting for 4
fatalities and 74 injuries. The complaints are widely distributed over
vehicle makes and models. No crash was found in which the steering
column of a manual-transmission vehicle was reported to have locked up
as the result of a vehicle occupant removing the ignition key from the
ignition.
Similarly, the NASS data for the period 1988-1995 did not show a
significant number of incidents. NHTSA identified 455 cases with the
variable ``critical precrash event'' coded as ``other cause of control
loss'' (which might include steering lockups). NHTSA conducted a
laborious hand-search of all 384 cases that were available for
inspection at the NASS hard-copy storage facility. This search revealed
only one case of inadvertent lockup caused by someone removing the key
from the ignition.
The number of vehicles conceivably susceptible to inadvertent
lockup has declined in recent years to a small fraction of the fleet of
new passenger cars and light trucks (those under 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight rating). The biggest reason for this is the adoption of
transmission locks on vehicles with automatic transmissions, required
by NHTSA since 1990. Because the transmission lock prevents removal of
the key except when the vehicle is in ``park'' (i.e., stopped),
inadvertent steering lockup is no longer a danger for vehicles with
automatic transmissions. Those vehicles accounted for 81.6 percent of
all new 1995 cars and light trucks. This means that if inadvertent
lockup is still a problem, it is limited to the approximately 18.4
percent of vehicles that have manual transmissions.
It appears the inadvertent lockup is also not possible on most
manual transmission vehicles. The Petitioner stated that all domestic
manufacturers employ either transmission locks or other safety devices
that prevent inadvertent lockup on their vehicles. NHTSA has confirmed
that the
[[Page 60072]]
Petitioners's statement about domestic vehicles is correct, with the
exception of some Jeep vehicles. This includes vehicles with manual
transmissions as well as those with automatic transmissions. Of the
18.4 percent of new vehicles that have manual transmissions, 47 percent
of them are foreign. Thus, only 8.7 percent of all new vehicles (1.3
million vehicles annually) fall into the group of foreign vehicles with
manual transmissions.
There is also reason to believe that some, perhaps many imported
foreign vehicles with manual transmissions are designed to prevent
inadvertent lockup. Vehicles sold in most of Europe must comply with
ECE Regulation No. 18, Uniform provisions concerning the approval of
power-driven vehicles with regard to their protection against
unauthorized use, Rev.1/Add.17/Rev.1, GE.80-25060, 8 December, 1980,
promulgated by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
Section 5.9 of that regulation deals with the possibility of
inadvertent activation of the steering lock by stating ``[p]rotective
devices [including steering locks] shall be such as to exclude any
risk, while the vehicle is in motion, of accidental [locking] likely to
compromise safety in particular.'' Therefore, vehicles produced for the
European market, even those with manual transmissions, must have some
kind of safety device that precludes inadvertent lockup. Nearly all
European countries have adopted ECE 18.
NHTSA has observed three types of protective devices for manual
transmission vehicles: (1) Ignition locks that require the key to be
pushed in to enable rotation from the ``off'' position to the steering
lock position, (2) ignition locks with a release lever or button which
must be actuated to enable key rotation to the steering lock position,
and (3) devices which prevent steering locking unless the transmission
is in reverse.
NHTSA believes that ECE 18 has influenced the design of many
foreign vehicles with manual transmissions. Based on the examination of
owners manuals and some vehicles, NHTSA has determined that high-volume
vehicles such as Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans, Mitsubishis, and Mazdas
currently have protective devices, usually of the first type listed
above. At least some Audis, Volkswagens, BMWs, Volvos, and Isuzus with
manual transmissions appear to lack the protective devices. Assuming
that all manual transmission vehicles from these manufacturers lack
protective devices, they comprise only about 120,000 vehicles,
representing less than one percent of the annual vehicle sales in the
U.S.
This leaves only a small percentage of new vehicles without the
likelihood of being equipped with safety devices preventing inadvertent
lockup. Even for these vehicles, the safety concern is minimal, since
it pertains only to the unusual act of an occupant withdrawing the
ignition key while the vehicle is in motion. This may account for the
low level of steering lockup crashes reflected in the data.
B. Theft Prevention
The petitioner has repeatedly alleged that the steering lock is a
failure for anti-theft purposes. However, it did not provide any
support for this view, other than to say that the numbers of vehicles
stolen were rising. The petitioner stated that in 1969, when steering
locks were introduced, approximately one half million vehicles were
stolen annually. The petitioner alleged that about two million vehicles
were stolen annually in the 1990's.
The increase or decrease of the total number of vehicles stolen
annually since the implementation of the standard is not the benchmark
against which the value of the standard should be measured. The total
number of vehicles has increased dramatically in the last 25 years, as
has the national crime rate. No anti-theft device is absolutely
effective. Therefore, the number of vehicles stolen should be expected
to rise.
A better benchmark would be the theft rate. When NHTSA investigated
theft rates, it found no increase. The Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) of the U.S. Department of Justice data shows no rate increase
over the past 20 years. The theft rate per 100,000 vehicles for 1973 is
about the same as the rate for 1992. The rate is highly variable, with
a spike in the mid-1980's (BJS). However, over the most recent three
years of data, the rate has been declining (BJS, Highway Loss Data
Institute).
Assessing the effectiveness of the steering lock as a theft
countermeasure necessitates determining whether fewer vehicles are
stolen because the steering lock is present than would be otherwise.
Unfortunately, ``hard'' data relevant to making that determination are
not available. Ideally, the agency should compare theft data for
vehicle models that have steering locks, against similar vehicle models
that do not. Even after a diligent search, NHTSA knows of no database
or study that could be used to assess the effectiveness of the steering
lock. The U.S. Department of Justice, insurance companies, and other
sources that NHTSA contacted have no data on the issue. Therefore,
there are no data indicating that steering locks are not effective.
The agency believes that it is a matter of common sense that
steering locks help discourage theft. Police recommend a layered anti-
theft system, because each layer or device takes some time to defeat.
Therefore, even on a vehicle with an automatic transmission, the
steering lock adds to the deterrent effect of the transmission lock or
any other anti-theft device. Even if steering locks are generally easy
for experienced thieves to defeat, steering locks must thwart some
attempted thefts by others, e.g., inexperienced thieves and joyriders.
They must also deter thefts before they even start in an unknown number
of other cases.
NHTSA believes the petitioner is correct in stating that there are
more effective, and safer (on manual transmission vehicles),
alternatives to the steering lock, but this does not mean that NHTSA
should require such devices. Steering locks are relatively cheap, and
therefore widely used. The more effective anti-theft devices that the
petitioner urges (``modern technology also has new devices that cut
electrical systems and such'') are far more expensive and would not be
cost-beneficial to require.
Conclusions
The consumer complaint data do not demonstrate a significant safety
problem. The agency cannot determine the extent to which steering
wheel/column lockup actually occurred in the cases identified. To the
extent that it did occur, the cause may have been a part or system
failure instead of any design defect. For example, the steering could
have locked as the result of power steering failure, linkage failure,
or as a result of damage during the reported collision or previous
crashes. Similarly, the NASS data did not reveal a significant safety
problem. These data refute the general assertion that steering lockup
is a significant safety problem for manual or automatic transmission
vehicles. They also refute the specific assertion that steering lockup
resulting from removal of the ignition key from the ignition in moving
vehicles with manual transmissions is a significant safety concern.
The provisions of the theft standard were not intended to eliminate
all thefts. Indeed, no single measure or combination of measures can
eliminate theft. However, thefts become less likely to occur as the
time required to steal the vehicle increases. Steering column locks
require time to circumvent; thus, they are a deterrent to thieves and
help to
[[Page 60073]]
reduce motor vehicle thefts. Therefore, NHTSA believes that the
steering lock has value as a theft deterrent and preventative measure.
The miscellaneous requests in the petitioner's second and third
petitions are denied. Because there is no significant safety problem,
NHTSA denies the petitioner's request that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to
require manufacturers to affix warning stickers near the ignition
switches of new vehicles and send warning stickers to owners of used
vehicles. No education is needed because the data indicate that nearly
all Americans are aware of the consequences of removing the key from
the vehicle ignition while the vehicle is moving. The agency does not
see any reason that Standard No. 114 would be considered
unconstitutional. There is no judicially-recognized constitutional
right of choice on whether to lock the steering. As to requiring all
Americans to lock their vehicles, that action is clearly beyond NHTSA's
statutory authority.
In addition to examining the merits, the agency takes into account
other factors when deciding whether to grant or deny a petition, such
as the relationship of the request to agency priorities and the
allocation of resources. Even in the absence of such additional
considerations, the agency would deny the petitions from ASF. However,
the agency notes that it has experienced personnel reductions and is
facing more budgetary and personnel reductions in the future.
Therefore, NHTSA must conserve its rulemaking resources for
accomplishing its mission and established priorities, as outlined in
its Strategic Execution Plan. Petitions for rulemaking, such as this
one, that do not align with these priorities face a significant
challenge in having agency resources allotted to them. In NHTSA's
judgement, a rulemaking pursuant to this petition would consume
significant agency resources that could be better spent on other
actions.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petition. The agency has concluded both that there is no
reasonable possibility that the actions requested by the petitioner
would be taken at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding and that
the problem alleged by ASF does not warrant the expenditure of agency
resources to conduct a rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, it denies
ASF's petitions.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: November 18, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-30056 Filed 11-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P