[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30100-30101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14213]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[DP99-003]


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162, requesting that the 
agency commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect 
related to motor vehicle safety. The petition is hereinafter identified 
as DP99-003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Chiang, Office of Defects 
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5206.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dr. Mary Halas of Alexandria, Virginia, 
submitted a petition to NHTSA by letter dated April 15, 1999, 
requesting that an investigation be initiated to determine whether to 
issue an order concerning the notification and remedy of a defect in 
model year 1992 Acura Legend vehicles (subject vehicles) manufactured 
by Honda Motor Company (Honda) because of concerns related to their 
brake deficiency. The Petitioner alleges that the brake pedal on her 
vehicle stuck while driving, resulting in a crash. The Petitioner 
further alleges that she had no warning of any brake problem prior to 
the crash. In addition, the Petitioner alleges that there have been a 
number of complaints and service bulletins in NHTSA's database 
concerning the braking system on the subject vehicles. The Petitioner, 
however, did not identify a specific vehicle subsystem or component 
that might have been involved in or caused the brake failure.
    During our review, we discovered that Honda had issued Technical 
Service Bulletin (TSB) 91-031 on August 18, 1992, for the model year 
1991-1992 Acura Legend to correct a condition identified as ``ABS 
Problem Code 1-8.'' The TSB states that when the ABS indicator light 
activates and the system is checked, problem code 1-8 appears. The 
light is activated inappropriately due to an overly sensitive sensor. 
To eliminate this inappropriate warning light, Honda implemented the 
TSB directing technicians to install a new pressure switch which 
ensures that the ABS light only comes on when appropriate. Thus, the 
issue addressed by this TSB has no effect on the vehicle's braking 
performance, and it is not related to the complaint filed by Dr. Halas.
    A review of agency data files, including information reported to 
the Auto Safety Hotline by consumers, indicates that there are six 
complaints about the brake system on the subject vehicles. Five of the 
six complaints were received prior to May 1996. The most recent 
complaint, received in March 1999, concerns illumination of the anti-
lock brake warning light which is discussed in the TSB referenced in 
the above paragraph. None of these six complaints indicated that the 
complainants experienced difficulty in depressing the brake pedal. In 
addition, the number of complaints compared to the vehicle population 
(complaint rate) is lower for the model year 1992 Acura Legend than for 
five peer vehicles. Furthermore, there have been no safety recalls 
concerning the braking systems on the Acura Legend vehicles, regardless 
of the model year. On April 29, 1999, an ODI staff engineer inspected 
the Petitioner's vehicle at a local body shop. The staff was unable to 
test the operation of the vehicle's braking system vacuum booster 
because the crash rendered the engine inoperable. Visual inspection 
showed that the vacuum hose remains connected to the vacuum booster and 
to the engine, and that the brake pedal linkages appear to be free of 
obstruction or binding.
    In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an 
order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect in the 
subject vehicles at the conclusion of the investigation requested in 
the petition. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize 
NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety 
mission, the petition is denied.


[[Page 30101]]


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: June 1, 1999.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 99-14213 Filed 6-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P