[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