Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP14-001, 26517-26519 [2020-09429]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Notices
any time or visit Docket Operations,
Room W12–140 on the ground level of
the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 366–9317 or (202) 366–
9826 before visiting Docket Operations.
Privacy Act: DOT posts public
comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
Ms.
Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; (202) 366–4325; MCPSD@
dot.gov. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, contact Docket Operations, (202)
366–9826.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
On April
10, 2020 (85 FR 20334), FMCSA
published a notice announcing that
SBTC seeks reconsideration of an
August 14, 2013, application by the
AIPBA for an exemption from the
$75,000 bond requirement for all
property brokers and freight forwarders.
The notice referenced in error
‘‘FMCSA–2020–0239’’ as the docket
number for the submission of public
comments. The correct docket number
for this notice is ‘‘FMCSA–2020–0130.’’
All interested parties that would like
to see the SBTC’s request, read the
public comments concerning this
matter, or submit comments should use
‘‘FMCSA–2020–0130’’ when visiting
https://www.regulations.gov. Any
comments concerning SBTC’s request,
and submitted to docket number
FMCSA–2020–0239 prior to the
publication of this notice will be
transferred to docket number FMCSA–
2020–0130.
In addition to correcting the docket
number, FMCSA extends the comment
period to ensure that interested parties
have sufficient time to review the SBTC
request filed under the proper docket,
and submit comments to that docket.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020–09467 Filed 5–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0108]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
DP14–001
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect
investigation.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
reasons for the denial of a petition
submitted on November 14, 2013, by
Mr. Donald Friedman to NHTSA’s
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI).
The petition requests that the agency
commence a proceeding to determine
the existence of a defect related to motor
vehicle safety with respect to the air bag
system’s logic and algorithm. The
Petitioner alleges that a defect in the
Occupant Classification System (OCS)
in various model year (MY) 2004–2010
General Motors (GM) vehicles causes an
unintended suppression of the front
passenger air bag moments prior to a
frontal impact/crash. After examination
of the petition and available data
relating to the subject vehicles’ OCS and
the specific crash incident where the
OCS allegedly failed to operate
properly, NHTSA has concluded that
further expenditure of the agency’s
investigative resources on the issues
raised by the petition is not warranted.
The agency accordingly has denied the
petition. The agency will continue to
monitor OCS performance in subject
vehicles and may take further action as
appropriate. The petition is hereinafter
identified as DP14–001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Scott Yon, Vehicle Defects Division B,
Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington,
DC 20590, desk phone 202–366–0139.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter
dated November 14, 2013, Mr. Donald
Friedman of Santa Barbara, CA,
submitted a petition requesting that the
agency investigate the passenger air bag
OCS in MY 2004–2010 GM models. The
petition was based on an April 2011
crash occurring in Texas, involving a
MY 2008 Chevrolet Impala which was
occupied by an elderly couple with a
108- pound female spouse driving the
vehicle and a 170-pound male sitting in
the passenger seat; both occupants were
belted. The Impala veered off the left
inner lane and across the left shoulder
lane and impacted the median Jersey
barrier multiple times. The vehicle
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26517
impacted the barrier with a force
sufficient to cause the vehicle to run up/
climb the barrier and to deploy the front
driver air bag; the passenger air bag was
not deployed due to OCS suppression.
Both occupants were injured, and the
male passenger developed additional
medical complications post-crash. The
petitioner alleges that the weight-based
OCS algorithm used in the MY 2008
Chevrolet Impala is defective based on
his assessment that, in this crash, it
inaccurately changed the occupant
classification and suppressed the
passenger air bag moments prior to the
frontal impact. In addition, the
petitioner alleges that GM used this type
of OCS in other GM models since 2003,
and therefore all MY 2004–2010 GM
models may be similarly defective. The
petitioner cites an Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS) report and
FARS data to further support his
allegation.
ODI contacted the Petitioner for
clarification, and in support of these
claims the Petitioner provided
additional information on February 14,
2014, and again on May 8, 2014. In the
initial phase, ODI reviewed the
submitted petition and subsequent
information, which includes the
following documents and data related to
the Impala crash: an air bag control
module event data record/output, an
OCS data record/output, the police
accident report, vehicle photos, accident
scene photos, and medical records for
the occupants. ODI also reviewed the
IIHS Status Report and the Fatal
Accident Reporting System (FARS) data
analysis the petitioner provided. In
addition, ODI conducted an initial
review of other internally available
databases for information that may
indicate a defect condition or trend with
the subject vehicles’ OCS. This
includes: consumer VOQ reports on MY
2004–2014 Impala injury crashes that
alleged an abnormal air bag deployment
or a non-deployment of the passenger
side air bag in the frontal crash event,
a search of the NHTSA’s National
Automotive Sampling System, a search
of the NHTSA Special Crash
Investigations (SCI) reports and cases
indicating split deployments (where the
driver’s frontal air bag deployed but the
occupied passenger’s air bag did not)
and GM’s Early Warning Reporting data
on death and injury for Impala vehicles.
The results of these initial reviews did
not identify an OCS-related defect trend
in the MY 2004–2014 Impala. However,
out of an abundance of caution, NHTSA
undertook a more detailed review of the
subject Impala’s OCS, which included a
request to GM for GM data on the MY
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
26518
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Notices
2006 to 2008 Impala as it related to the
alleged OCS issue.
On July 22, 2014, ODI opened a Defect
Petition (DP14–001) to further review
the crash event, perform a more
comprehensive FARS search and
analysis, and collect the manufacturer’s
reports on the alleged OCS issue on the
subject Impala vehicles and other GM
and non-GM peer vehicles. The specific
OCS used in the Impala is widely used
in other GM products as well as non-GM
peer vehicles. From the period of MY
2006–2008, over 850,000 Impala
vehicles were equipped with this OCS.
1 million (M) GM peer vehicles and
another 2.1 M non-GM peer vehicles
sold in the US also used a substantially
similar OCS. With such widespread
usage, any defect concern in this OCS
should be readily detectable in the
Impala and in other peer vehicles using
the same OCS design.
The following is a summary of the
reviews and analysis conducted during
DP14–001:
• Description of the Passenger
Occupant Detection System: Per FMVSS
208, all light duty passenger vehicles
were required to have a passenger
occupant detection system, capable of
detecting an adult, infant/child or an
empty seat, by the start of vehicle
production for MY 2006. When the
passenger seat is empty, or occupied by
an infant/child or person weighing less
than specified threshold amounts, the
passenger frontal air bag is suppressed
and will not deploy in the event of a
frontal crash that would otherwise
require the frontal air bag to deploy. The
OCS used in the subject Chevrolet
Impala, commonly known as the PODS–
B (Passive Occupant Detection SystemB) design, is a widely-used system that
detects the weight of the passenger via
a pressure sensing fluid-filled bladder
mat integrated into the seat base
cushion. When the occupant/load is
removed from the seat, the system resets
and readies for any new occupant types
within seconds of load removal.
Additional features are incorporated
into the OCS design to reduce the
likelihood that the system will change
classification state due to normal
vehicle road dynamics/bumps and
certain types of occupant movements
within the seat. The system can also
lock the classification state just prior to
an impact to prevent classification
change during a crash event.
• Review of the Petitioner’s Cited
April 2011 Crash Event: To better
understand this multi-impact crash
condition, ODI requested NHTSA’s
Special Crash Investigation Office (SCI)
assist in the review of the crash event,
crash scene and the available crash
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
data/records. The following is ODI’s
summary of the crash event and details
provided in the SCI report under
reference number CR14068.
Supplemental GM assessment is also
added and noted. The status of the
passenger OCS is shown in ‘‘[ ]’’ where
appropriate:
Æ On the day of the event, no prior air
bag issues or faults were noted as
recorded in the EDR data (i.e. the OCS
was operational prior to the crash
event).
Æ The incident occurred on a 6-lane
divided highway (3 lanes for each
direction plus ‘‘pull over lane,’’
separated by a concrete Jersey barrier).
Æ The subject MY 2008 Impala was in
the left-most lane going approximately
65mph.
Æ The subject vehicle (SV) was driven
by an 86-year old restrained female
driver [the passenger air bag was
enabled/ON while occupied by the male
spouse].
Æ 1st Event—An unknown sport
utility vehicle in front of the SV moved
over from the middle lane into the SV’s
left lane, impacting the SV’s right front
(the unknown SUV left the scene
without stopping) [the passenger air bag
was enabled/ON at this initial nondeployment impact event].
Æ 2nd Event—Upon impact, the SV
steered towards the left [the OCS sensed
a ‘‘release of occupant load’’ at this
time] and into the concrete barrier with
the left front of the SV impacting (11
o’clock position) the Jersey barrier,
causing the frontal driver air bag to
deploy [passenger air bag was in the
suppressed/OFF state at this 2nd Event
impact].
D The SCI report concluded that the
OCS ‘‘switching’’ to the suppressed state
was likely due to ‘‘. . .the passenger
reached for an object (steering wheel)
within the vehicle or repositioned
himself on the seat cushion, thus
causing the OCS to reclassify his
status.’’
D ODI notes GM’s identification of
blood stains on the driver air bag
cushion surface and GM’s observation
that the passenger (only) had a hand/
finger injury which resulted in blood
loss, while the driver did not have
injuries that produced blood loss.
Æ 3rd Event—The SV continued to
rotate counter clockwise (270 degrees)
and then impacted the barrier for a
second time in the rear of the vehicle (at
the 7 o’clock position) and slid to its
final rest point.
Æ According to the medical records,
the 89-year-old male passenger was
hospitalized for 27 days, mainly due to
complications from other pre-existing
medical conditions, and then was
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
admitted to a rehabilitation center/long
term nursing facility. The male
passenger died 9 months after the date
of crash.
Æ The driver was hospitalized for 7
days after the crash and was then
released.
Æ GM provided an assessment
suggesting that as the vehicle veered left
towards the Jersey barrier (after event
#1), the passenger reached for the
steering wheel in an attempt to steer the
vehicle away from the barrier. The
assessment suggested that in doing so
the passenger moved from his seating
position, thus changing the OCS state
and suppressing the passenger air bag
approximately 1.2 sec prior to the
impact/deployment event. GM opined
that blood evidence on the driver air bag
is indicative of the passenger’s hand
position at or during the impact into the
barrier.
Æ ODI’s review of the available EDR
and PODS data is consistent with that
described in the SCI crash analysis.
Æ ODI concludes that, based on the
available EDR and PODS data, the OCS
system operated as designed and
suppressed the passenger air bag (based
on inputs to the system) prior to the
Event #2 impact which resulted in the
non-deployment of the passenger air
bag.
• Summary of ODI’s analysis of Fatal
Accident Report System (FARS) data: If
a defect existed in the subject OCS, it is
reasonable to conclude that this would
be identifiable in FARS data via the
following method: 1) crashes that
resulted in frontal air bag deployments
involving (at least) the driver side air
bag, 2) where the passenger seat was
occupied by an adult statured person,
and 3) the passenger side air bag did not
deploy, resulting in an injury or fatality
of the passenger. ODI requested the
assistance of NHTSA’s National Center
for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) to
provide FARS reports on the subject
Impala, the GM peer vehicles (Chevrolet
Cobalt, Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS
and XLR) and the non-GM peer vehicles
(Ford Fusion, Toyota Camry & Nissan
Altima) that used the PODS–B OCS
system. The request included vehicles
across the MY 2006–2008 production
period. Over 21 M vehicle registration
years were identified for the PODS–B
equipped vehicles under evaluation.
NCSA identified a total of 625 FARS
reports in which any of the above
vehicles were involved in a fatal crash
between 2005 to 2012 (which
represented the latest available crash
data at the time of the analysis).
Æ 313 of the above 625 fatal crashes
involved a fatality in a subject or peer
PODS–B equipped vehicle.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Notices
Æ 201 of the above 313 involved a
deployment of the subject or peer driver
air bag.
Æ 17 of the above 201 involved a nondeployment of the passenger air bag and
a passenger fatality (and an adult-sized
passenger).
Æ Three of the 17 involved the MY
2006–2008 Impala, resulting in a rate of
0.63 incidents per million registered
vehicle years, which is slightly lower
than the peer group average of 0.73
incidents per million registered vehicle
years.
D Two of the above three fatalities
involved unbelted passenger occupants.
D The one remaining fatality involved
an older occupant (≤ 75 years old)
where the seat belt status could not be
established.
ODI concluded that the FARS analysis
showed the overall occurrence of
passenger fatality due to OCS air bag
suppression is low (less than 1 per
million registered vehicle years) and
that the Impala is not an outlier in terms
of passenger side fatalities (due to the
passenger air bag being suppressed and/
or not deploying) when compared to
other GM peer and non-GM peer
vehicles.
• Summary of GM’s Reports: As part
of its analysis, ODI requested
information from GM on the MY 2006–
2008 Impala and other GM peer vehicles
that use the same PODS–B OCS system.
Based on GM’s response that identified
10 alleged complaints on approximately
851,000 vehicles produced, the Impala
vehicles had an exposure adjusted
complaint rate of approximately 0.16
incidents per 100,000 vehicles per year.
By comparison, the peer vehicles had
eight alleged complaints from 617,000
vehicles produced and thus had an
exposure adjusted complaint rate of 0.17
incidents per 100,000 vehicles per year.
These rates are comparable and do not
support the existence of a defect trend
in the Impala OCS compared to the
other GM vehicles.
• GM Assessment: As stated in their
response to ODI’s information request,
GM’s assessment of the alleged defect is
as follows:
Æ The SVs do not contain a defect.
Æ The SVs meet or exceed all Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS).
Æ The SVs pose no additional risk
when meeting 3- and 6-year-old
occupant FMVSS requirements.
Æ The OCS is proven through testing
and peer comparison to work in ‘‘real
world’’ situations.
D The OCS ‘‘Adult lock’’ feature
occurs after 60 seconds (and continues
to be locked down to a level of 41 lbs.
creating sufficient hysteresis).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
D The OCs has a built in natural
latency of 1.5 seconds, to prevent
reclassifications during momentary
movements.
D The OCS has been tested in panic
stops, hard acceleration, hard turns,
ditches/rough roads, and with various
size adults seated in expected ‘‘comfort’’
positions.
D The OCS locks the passenger
classification prior to an impact when a
vehicle deceleration greater than > 1.5
G’s is detected (for > 2 ms).
Æ The OCS functioned properly in the
subject vehicle crash.
D No air bag system issues were
detected prior to the event.
D Review of the EDR or PODS data
showed no issues, and that the
passenger air bag was suppressed prior
to Event #2.
D GM believes the passenger reached
for the steering wheel after event #1 and
moved out of position (which changed/
suppressed the passenger air bag in the
last few seconds prior to Event #2) and
cites blood evidence on the driver bag
from the passenger thumb injury in
support of its assessment.
Conclusion
The subject PODS–B OCS was widely
used by GM and other OEMs across the
time frame of interest. Based on the
information provided and reviewed
during the DP14–001 investigation, the
passenger air bag OCS used in the MY
2006–2008 Impala and other vehicles
does not appear to contain a safetyrelated defect. NHTSA did not identify
an issue with the subject MY 2008
Impala involved in the subject crash,
nor has it identified a safety-related
defect trend existing in the OCS used in
the MY 2006–2008 Impala vehicles, in
GM peer vehicles, or in other non-GM
peer vehicles. Therefore, the petition is
denied. However, the agency will
continue to monitor this issue and take
further action if warranted by changing
future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020–09429 Filed 5–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26519
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0009]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
DP16–002
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect
investigation.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
reasons for the denial of a petition
submitted on September 28, 2015, by
Mr. Matthew Oliver, Executive Director,
North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc.
(NCCC), to NHTSA’s Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI). The petition
requests that the agency commence a
proceeding to evaluate the scope and
effectiveness of two recalls for brake
master cylinder leakage issued by
Nissan for model year (MY) 2007 and
2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The
petitioner submitted a narrative
indicating master cylinder failure for
one MY 2008 Nissan (VOQ 1010805749)
along with four (4) other owner
complaints found in NHTSA’s
complaint database. The Petitioner
alleges that these five complaints
indicate insufficiency of effectiveness
and scope for the recall actions. For the
reasons set forth below, NHTSA
disagrees. NHTSA will continue to
monitor the situation, but has
concluded that further expenditure of
the agency’s investigative resources on
the issues raised by the petition does
not appeared to be warranted. The
agency accordingly has denied the
petition. The petition is hereinafter
identified as DP16–002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Brian E. Smith, Vehicle Defects
Division—B, Office of Defects
Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366–6975.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter
received on September 28, 2015, Mr.
Matthew Oliver of Raleigh, NC,
submitted a petition requesting that the
agency investigate the scope and
effectiveness of two recalls for brake
master cylinder leakage issued by
Nissan for model year (MY) 2007 and
2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The
petition was based on one incident of a
MY 2008 Nissan Sentra master cylinder
developing a slow leak for several years
prior to the submission of the petition.
According to the petition, the failed
vehicle was inspected by a repair
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26517-26519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09429]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0108]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP14-001
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 on November 14, 2013, by Mr. Donald Friedman to
NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests
that the agency commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a
defect related to motor vehicle safety with respect to the air bag
system's logic and algorithm. The Petitioner alleges that a defect in
the Occupant Classification System (OCS) in various model year (MY)
2004-2010 General Motors (GM) vehicles causes an unintended suppression
of the front passenger air bag moments prior to a frontal impact/crash.
After examination of the petition and available data relating to the
subject vehicles' OCS and the specific crash incident where the OCS
allegedly failed to operate properly, NHTSA has concluded that further
expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the issues
raised by the petition is not warranted. The agency accordingly has
denied the petition. The agency will continue to monitor OCS
performance in subject vehicles and may take further action as
appropriate. The petition is hereinafter identified as DP14-001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Scott Yon, Vehicle Defects
Division B, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, desk phone 202-366-0139.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated November 14, 2013, Mr.
Donald Friedman of Santa Barbara, CA, submitted a petition requesting
that the agency investigate the passenger air bag OCS in MY 2004-2010
GM models. The petition was based on an April 2011 crash occurring in
Texas, involving a MY 2008 Chevrolet Impala which was occupied by an
elderly couple with a 108- pound female spouse driving the vehicle and
a 170-pound male sitting in the passenger seat; both occupants were
belted. The Impala veered off the left inner lane and across the left
shoulder lane and impacted the median Jersey barrier multiple times.
The vehicle impacted the barrier with a force sufficient to cause the
vehicle to run up/climb the barrier and to deploy the front driver air
bag; the passenger air bag was not deployed due to OCS suppression.
Both occupants were injured, and the male passenger developed
additional medical complications post-crash. The petitioner alleges
that the weight-based OCS algorithm used in the MY 2008 Chevrolet
Impala is defective based on his assessment that, in this crash, it
inaccurately changed the occupant classification and suppressed the
passenger air bag moments prior to the frontal impact. In addition, the
petitioner alleges that GM used this type of OCS in other GM models
since 2003, and therefore all MY 2004-2010 GM models may be similarly
defective. The petitioner cites an Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) report and FARS data to further support his allegation.
ODI contacted the Petitioner for clarification, and in support of
these claims the Petitioner provided additional information on February
14, 2014, and again on May 8, 2014. In the initial phase, ODI reviewed
the submitted petition and subsequent information, which includes the
following documents and data related to the Impala crash: an air bag
control module event data record/output, an OCS data record/output, the
police accident report, vehicle photos, accident scene photos, and
medical records for the occupants. ODI also reviewed the IIHS Status
Report and the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data analysis the
petitioner provided. In addition, ODI conducted an initial review of
other internally available databases for information that may indicate
a defect condition or trend with the subject vehicles' OCS. This
includes: consumer VOQ reports on MY 2004-2014 Impala injury crashes
that alleged an abnormal air bag deployment or a non-deployment of the
passenger side air bag in the frontal crash event, a search of the
NHTSA's National Automotive Sampling System, a search of the NHTSA
Special Crash Investigations (SCI) reports and cases indicating split
deployments (where the driver's frontal air bag deployed but the
occupied passenger's air bag did not) and GM's Early Warning Reporting
data on death and injury for Impala vehicles.
The results of these initial reviews did not identify an OCS-
related defect trend in the MY 2004-2014 Impala. However, out of an
abundance of caution, NHTSA undertook a more detailed review of the
subject Impala's OCS, which included a request to GM for GM data on the
MY
[[Page 26518]]
2006 to 2008 Impala as it related to the alleged OCS issue.
On July 22, 2014, ODI opened a Defect Petition (DP14-001) to
further review the crash event, perform a more comprehensive FARS
search and analysis, and collect the manufacturer's reports on the
alleged OCS issue on the subject Impala vehicles and other GM and non-
GM peer vehicles. The specific OCS used in the Impala is widely used in
other GM products as well as non-GM peer vehicles. From the period of
MY 2006-2008, over 850,000 Impala vehicles were equipped with this OCS.
1 million (M) GM peer vehicles and another 2.1 M non-GM peer vehicles
sold in the US also used a substantially similar OCS. With such
widespread usage, any defect concern in this OCS should be readily
detectable in the Impala and in other peer vehicles using the same OCS
design.
The following is a summary of the reviews and analysis conducted
during DP14-001:
Description of the Passenger Occupant Detection System:
Per FMVSS 208, all light duty passenger vehicles were required to have
a passenger occupant detection system, capable of detecting an adult,
infant/child or an empty seat, by the start of vehicle production for
MY 2006. When the passenger seat is empty, or occupied by an infant/
child or person weighing less than specified threshold amounts, the
passenger frontal air bag is suppressed and will not deploy in the
event of a frontal crash that would otherwise require the frontal air
bag to deploy. The OCS used in the subject Chevrolet Impala, commonly
known as the PODS-B (Passive Occupant Detection System-B) design, is a
widely-used system that detects the weight of the passenger via a
pressure sensing fluid-filled bladder mat integrated into the seat base
cushion. When the occupant/load is removed from the seat, the system
resets and readies for any new occupant types within seconds of load
removal. Additional features are incorporated into the OCS design to
reduce the likelihood that the system will change classification state
due to normal vehicle road dynamics/bumps and certain types of occupant
movements within the seat. The system can also lock the classification
state just prior to an impact to prevent classification change during a
crash event.
Review of the Petitioner's Cited April 2011 Crash Event:
To better understand this multi-impact crash condition, ODI requested
NHTSA's Special Crash Investigation Office (SCI) assist in the review
of the crash event, crash scene and the available crash data/records.
The following is ODI's summary of the crash event and details provided
in the SCI report under reference number CR14068. Supplemental GM
assessment is also added and noted. The status of the passenger OCS is
shown in ``[ ]'' where appropriate:
[cir] On the day of the event, no prior air bag issues or faults
were noted as recorded in the EDR data (i.e. the OCS was operational
prior to the crash event).
[cir] The incident occurred on a 6-lane divided highway (3 lanes
for each direction plus ``pull over lane,'' separated by a concrete
Jersey barrier).
[cir] The subject MY 2008 Impala was in the left-most lane going
approximately 65mph.
[cir] The subject vehicle (SV) was driven by an 86-year old
restrained female driver [the passenger air bag was enabled/ON while
occupied by the male spouse].
[cir] 1st Event--An unknown sport utility vehicle in front of the
SV moved over from the middle lane into the SV's left lane, impacting
the SV's right front (the unknown SUV left the scene without stopping)
[the passenger air bag was enabled/ON at this initial non-deployment
impact event].
[cir] 2nd Event--Upon impact, the SV steered towards the left [the
OCS sensed a ``release of occupant load'' at this time] and into the
concrete barrier with the left front of the SV impacting (11 o'clock
position) the Jersey barrier, causing the frontal driver air bag to
deploy [passenger air bag was in the suppressed/OFF state at this 2nd
Event impact].
[ssquf] The SCI report concluded that the OCS ``switching'' to the
suppressed state was likely due to ``. . .the passenger reached for an
object (steering wheel) within the vehicle or repositioned himself on
the seat cushion, thus causing the OCS to reclassify his status.''
[ssquf] ODI notes GM's identification of blood stains on the driver
air bag cushion surface and GM's observation that the passenger (only)
had a hand/finger injury which resulted in blood loss, while the driver
did not have injuries that produced blood loss.
[cir] 3rd Event--The SV continued to rotate counter clockwise (270
degrees) and then impacted the barrier for a second time in the rear of
the vehicle (at the 7 o'clock position) and slid to its final rest
point.
[cir] According to the medical records, the 89-year-old male
passenger was hospitalized for 27 days, mainly due to complications
from other pre-existing medical conditions, and then was admitted to a
rehabilitation center/long term nursing facility. The male passenger
died 9 months after the date of crash.
[cir] The driver was hospitalized for 7 days after the crash and
was then released.
[cir] GM provided an assessment suggesting that as the vehicle
veered left towards the Jersey barrier (after event #1), the passenger
reached for the steering wheel in an attempt to steer the vehicle away
from the barrier. The assessment suggested that in doing so the
passenger moved from his seating position, thus changing the OCS state
and suppressing the passenger air bag approximately 1.2 sec prior to
the impact/deployment event. GM opined that blood evidence on the
driver air bag is indicative of the passenger's hand position at or
during the impact into the barrier.
[cir] ODI's review of the available EDR and PODS data is consistent
with that described in the SCI crash analysis.
[cir] ODI concludes that, based on the available EDR and PODS data,
the OCS system operated as designed and suppressed the passenger air
bag (based on inputs to the system) prior to the Event #2 impact which
resulted in the non-deployment of the passenger air bag.
Summary of ODI's analysis of Fatal Accident Report System
(FARS) data: If a defect existed in the subject OCS, it is reasonable
to conclude that this would be identifiable in FARS data via the
following method: 1) crashes that resulted in frontal air bag
deployments involving (at least) the driver side air bag, 2) where the
passenger seat was occupied by an adult statured person, and 3) the
passenger side air bag did not deploy, resulting in an injury or
fatality of the passenger. ODI requested the assistance of NHTSA's
National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) to provide FARS
reports on the subject Impala, the GM peer vehicles (Chevrolet Cobalt,
Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS and XLR) and the non-GM peer vehicles (Ford
Fusion, Toyota Camry & Nissan Altima) that used the PODS-B OCS system.
The request included vehicles across the MY 2006-2008 production
period. Over 21 M vehicle registration years were identified for the
PODS-B equipped vehicles under evaluation. NCSA identified a total of
625 FARS reports in which any of the above vehicles were involved in a
fatal crash between 2005 to 2012 (which represented the latest
available crash data at the time of the analysis).
[cir] 313 of the above 625 fatal crashes involved a fatality in a
subject or peer PODS-B equipped vehicle.
[[Page 26519]]
[cir] 201 of the above 313 involved a deployment of the subject or
peer driver air bag.
[cir] 17 of the above 201 involved a non-deployment of the
passenger air bag and a passenger fatality (and an adult-sized
passenger).
[cir] Three of the 17 involved the MY 2006-2008 Impala, resulting
in a rate of 0.63 incidents per million registered vehicle years, which
is slightly lower than the peer group average of 0.73 incidents per
million registered vehicle years.
[ssquf] Two of the above three fatalities involved unbelted
passenger occupants.
[ssquf] The one remaining fatality involved an older occupant (> 75
years old) where the seat belt status could not be established.
ODI concluded that the FARS analysis showed the overall occurrence
of passenger fatality due to OCS air bag suppression is low (less than
1 per million registered vehicle years) and that the Impala is not an
outlier in terms of passenger side fatalities (due to the passenger air
bag being suppressed and/or not deploying) when compared to other GM
peer and non-GM peer vehicles.
Summary of GM's Reports: As part of its analysis, ODI
requested information from GM on the MY 2006-2008 Impala and other GM
peer vehicles that use the same PODS-B OCS system. Based on GM's
response that identified 10 alleged complaints on approximately 851,000
vehicles produced, the Impala vehicles had an exposure adjusted
complaint rate of approximately 0.16 incidents per 100,000 vehicles per
year. By comparison, the peer vehicles had eight alleged complaints
from 617,000 vehicles produced and thus had an exposure adjusted
complaint rate of 0.17 incidents per 100,000 vehicles per year. These
rates are comparable and do not support the existence of a defect trend
in the Impala OCS compared to the other GM vehicles.
GM Assessment: As stated in their response to ODI's
information request, GM's assessment of the alleged defect is as
follows:
[cir] The SVs do not contain a defect.
[cir] The SVs meet or exceed all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS).
[cir] The SVs pose no additional risk when meeting 3- and 6-year-
old occupant FMVSS requirements.
[cir] The OCS is proven through testing and peer comparison to work
in ``real world'' situations.
[ssquf] The OCS ``Adult lock'' feature occurs after 60 seconds (and
continues to be locked down to a level of 41 lbs. creating sufficient
hysteresis).
[ssquf] The OCs has a built in natural latency of 1.5 seconds, to
prevent reclassifications during momentary movements.
[ssquf] The OCS has been tested in panic stops, hard acceleration,
hard turns, ditches/rough roads, and with various size adults seated in
expected ``comfort'' positions.
[ssquf] The OCS locks the passenger classification prior to an
impact when a vehicle deceleration greater than 1.5 G's is
detected (for 2 ms).
[cir] The OCS functioned properly in the subject vehicle crash.
[ssquf] No air bag system issues were detected prior to the event.
[ssquf] Review of the EDR or PODS data showed no issues, and that
the passenger air bag was suppressed prior to Event #2.
[ssquf] GM believes the passenger reached for the steering wheel
after event #1 and moved out of position (which changed/suppressed the
passenger air bag in the last few seconds prior to Event #2) and cites
blood evidence on the driver bag from the passenger thumb injury in
support of its assessment.
Conclusion
The subject PODS-B OCS was widely used by GM and other OEMs across
the time frame of interest. Based on the information provided and
reviewed during the DP14-001 investigation, the passenger air bag OCS
used in the MY 2006-2008 Impala and other vehicles does not appear to
contain a safety-related defect. NHTSA did not identify an issue with
the subject MY 2008 Impala involved in the subject crash, nor has it
identified a safety-related defect trend existing in the OCS used in
the MY 2006-2008 Impala vehicles, in GM peer vehicles, or in other non-
GM peer vehicles. Therefore, the petition is denied. However, the
agency will continue to monitor this issue and take further action if
warranted by changing future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-09429 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P