[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 69727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


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 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162 by Mr. Richard H. 
McSwain of McSwain Engineering Inc. to NHTSA's Office of Defects 
Investigation (ODI), received June 29, 2007, requesting that the agency 
commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to 
motor vehicle safety with respect to the manual seatback recliner 
mechanism in model year 1989-1992 Ford Probe vehicles (subject 
vehicles). After a review of the petition and other information, NHTSA 
has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative 
resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appear to be 
warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition. The petition 
is hereinafter identified as DP07-001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steve Chan, Safety Defects 
Engineer, Defects Assessment Division, Office of Defects Investigation, 
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 
(202) 366-8537.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 29, 2007, NHTSA received a petition 
from Mr. Richard H. McSwain of McSwain Engineering Inc., requesting 
that the agency investigate the failure of the seatback recliner 
mechanisms in the subject vehicles. The petition is based on an 
examination of a passenger side front seat recliner mechanism from a 
subject vehicle involved in a multi-vehicle collision, of an exemplar 
seat, as well as mechanical testing of a seat from a subject vehicle. 
The petitioner identified a failure mode involving bypass of the 
seatback stop pin (inside the recliner mechanism) during forward 
movement of the seatback, such as when entering and exiting the rear 
seat. The petition stated that stop pin bypass allows the recliner 
mechanism sector gear to over-travel with respect to the pawl. Return 
of the seatback to the upright position may then bend the first tooth 
of the pawl, resulting in a false or partial engagement of the sector 
and pawl teeth. This false engagement condition is transmitted to the 
opposing recliner mechanism via a mechanical communication cable. 
According to the petition, the ultimate result is the inability of the 
recliner mechanism to support the seatback during a collision event. 
The petitioner concluded that the stop pin bypass that initiated the 
failure mode is a result of inadequate height of the pin and the 
resulting inadequate contact between the pin and seatback stop.
    The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207 ``Seating 
Systems,'' specifies that seats in passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet certain static force 
test requirements. However, for seats that hinge on folding seatbacks, 
the restraining device, once engaged, shall not release when a force 
equal to twenty times the weight of the seatback is applied through the 
center of gravity for the seat in the direction the seat is facing. It 
is not uncommon to see the seatbacks of new vehicles moved from their 
initial positions after a FMVSS simulated vehicular collision.
    The identified failure mode may be the result of progressive wear 
and tear of the seatback stop pin, the seatback stop, and other seat 
components in vehicles that are, on average, 17 years old. Available 
data do not suggest that this has occurred with a notable frequency. 
ODI reviewed its consumer complaint data received over the last 
nineteen years and found no complaints of seatback collapse (with or 
without a vehicle collision) in the subject vehicles.
    In view of the foregoing, and considering the advanced age of the 
subject vehicles, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for 
the notification and remedy of the alleged defect as defined by the 
petitioner at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the 
petition. The statutory requirement that the manufacturer provide a 
free remedy does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first 
purchaser more than 10 calendar years before an order is issued. 
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.

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

    Issued on: December 4, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-23853 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P