P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 153 ) IV-C-12

0 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:59AM Sheet 153 of 232tr . Sarry Felric e Associat e Administrato r for Rulemakin g(WR*-0l ) nationa l Highwa y

Traffi c Safet y

Administratio n 40 0 Sevent hStreet , S.W . Washington, D

C 20S9 0

Dea r tr . Felrice :

*•*

. Than kyoufo

r sendingu s a cop y o f the draf t fina l repor t fo r the »WTS \ sponsore dcontract , "Stud y o f Koto r - Vehicl e fires " an

dprovidingn s a nopportunit y

for review

an 4 comrneat . T t i s obviou s fro- * the dept han dscop e of the analyst s ,tbe j a grea t dea l of effor t wen t int o preparingthi s a t finalised , thi s stud y wil l greatl y

enhanc e th e * informatio navailabl e t o th e oubll c regarding»ot- . fires , W

e hav e •!read

y oasse* 4 alonga fe w prellmina r o nt*» * reoor t t o *r, 7.7 . Li ua t our Kare nIt, 198 t \ipromise da

t tha t meetingthi s lette r contain s oo r comment s vhich*ave beenorganise dint c tv o broadcategories . ""h e firs t set of conuren t S (Enclosur e 1 ) ?eal s mainl y vit hthe tes t portionof th e repor t in-* the concision s draw nfro m the -•at* . "he secon

dse t fSn-^osur e 2 ) contain s ou r mor e detaile d comment s o

nth e text discussion s an ddat a tables . *• • hop e thes e comment s ar e helpful , * e understandvo u K av e follow-onworknlanne* , s o ve woul dappreciat e the opportunit y

t o revie

w the reoor t agai nonc e it M s bee n revised . Pleas e cul l me a t ?T S ?" T4—Q40 9 i f youhav e an y question s regardingou r comments. . S i nctr-r? v

vouri , tr,"-

**\9n*\ \ "•.»*»j'*-i;- !f. ( 15o r nr oi e c t - 1 nage 1

. " . , - , l - . - , , - - -P. 3P. 4

Enclosur e 1 EP AComment s o nth e Tex t Portio no f th e Draf t Fina l Report , "Stud yo f Moto r Vehicl e Fires " 1 . Th e repor t assume s it s audienc e i s ver yfamilia r wit hth e NAS S an

d FAR S dat a base s an d othe r NTHS Acompute r files . I f thi s documen t i s intende d fo r publi c release , i t woul d b e helpfu l t o provid e informatio no nthes e dat a base s including bu t no t limite d to : a brie f discussio no f th e sampl e guality , change s tha t migh t hav e occurre d t o th e dat a acquisitio nproces s ove r th e year s an d thei r potentia l effect s o nobserve d dat a trends , nationa l projectio ntechnique s fromlimite d sampling , th e basi s an d validit yo f redistribute d unknowns , an d th e accuracy , completeness , an

d degre e o f coverag e o f th e origina l police/fir e reports . 2 . Pag e 4 contain s some interesting statistic s o nth e severit yo f moto r vehicl e fire s (majo r vs . minor) , an d whethe r th e fir e wa s externa l o r internal . Pleas e discus s th e relationshi p betwee nmajo r interna l fire s an d th e fue l system . I s th e dat a specifi c enought o identif yth e poin t o f impac t o r othe r simila r informatio nt o allo wan assessmen t o f whethe r th e fue l tank o r fillnec k wa s involved ? 3 . Afewclarification s nee d t o b e mad e regarding th e rol e o f fue l volatilit yi nmoto r vehicl e (MV ) fires . First , i t i s importan t t o understand th e differenc e betwee na fuel' s Rei d Vapo r Pressur e (RVP ) an d it s tru e vapo r pressure . RVP (ofte n use d synonymousl ywit hvolatility ) i s simpl ya measur e o f a fuel' s evaporativ e characteristic s a t a singl e temperatur e conditio n(100°F) . RVP ca nb e use d t o distinguis hth e evaporativ e characteristic s o f tw o differen t fuel s a t th e same temperatur e conditions . However , i t i s no t possibl e t o evaluat e th e rol e o f RV P whe nfuel s o f varying volatilit yar e compare d a t differen t temperatures . Th e tru e vapo r pressur e o f a fue l depend s no t onl yo n th e characteristic s o f th e fue l bu t o n temperatur e condition s an d othe r factors . I t i s th e tru e vapo r pressur e tha t correspond s t o th e actua l leve l o f evaporatio nexperience d b yth e fuel . Consequently , the discussio no npag e 7 o f th e repor t whic h refer s t o Table s 1 3 an d 1 4 (the table s tha t resolv e fir e rate s b

ymont han

d state ) require s modification . Thes e tw o table s d o no t showth e effec t o f fue l volatility , bu t may(i f combine d wit hth e appropriat e volatilit yan d temperatur e data ) revea l something abou t th e rol e o f tru e vapo r pressure . Thi s distinctio ni s subtl e bu t no t insignificant . Further , sinc e fue l volatilit yha s steadil yincrease d during th e pas t 1 0 years , i t mayb eP. 5 possibl e t o evaluat e th e rol e o f volatilit yi nM V fire s i f th e dat a i nTabl e 1 3 wer e furthe r resolve d according t o calenda r year . Thus , i t migh t b e possibl e t o identif yfo r eac hmont hwhethe r th e us e o f highe r volatilit yfuel s i n recen t year s correlate s wit hmor e fires . Asimila r analysi s coul d b e performe d wit hth e dat a i nTable s 3 3 an d 34 . However , th e contributio no f othe r change s woul d hav e t o als o b e evaluate d an d factore d i nbefor e an yclea r finding s ca nb e made . I naddition , o npag e 13 , i t shoul d b e mad e clea r tha t EP A ha s no t ye t mandate d fue l volatilit ychanges . Therefore , an ychange s i n fir e rate s linke d t o in-us e volatilit yhav e no t bee nrelate d t o EPAactions . Volatilit ychange s tha t hav e occurre d i nth e pas t wer e drive nb ymarke t forces . Finally , th e thesi s discusse d o nth e to p o f pag e 1 4 may o r ma yno t b e valid . Amor e detaile d analysi s (sucha s th e on e jus t described ) i s require d befor e suc ha thesi s ca n b e supported . M V componen t failure s ar e discusse d o npag e 8 , howeve r i t i s no t clea r wha t constitute s a failure . Th e discussio n need s t o clarif ywhethe r a failur e i s a nowne r complaint , a servic e bulletin , a recall , a combinatio no f th e three , o r some othe r factor . I t i s als o importan t t o provid e definition s fo r al l ke ysystemcategorie s suc ha s fue l emissio ncontro l systems . Finally , pleas e explai nwha t basi s i s use d t o determin e wher e (whic hcategory ) a failur e get s filed . Pag e 9 o f th e repor t compare s th e rat e o f fir e occurrenc e i nacciden t involve d vehicle s wit hth e rat e o f fir e occurrenc e i nmoto r vehicl e componen t failures . Whe n compare d o n thi s basis , componen t failur e fire s appea r t o occur abou t 1 0 time s mor e frequentl ytha n acciden t fires . However , thi s compariso ni s deceptiv e a t best , becaus e th e denominator s o f th e two rate s ar e no t comparable . Fo r example , jus t a s i t i s no t vali d t o compar e rainfal l rate s o f th e entir e Unite d State s wit ha singl e typicall yrain y cit yi n Canad a t o determin e whic hcountryreceive s mor e rainfall , i t i s no t possibl e t o drawan yconclusion s from a compariso no f acciden t fir e rate s t o componen t failur e fir e rates . Amuc hbette r compariso nwoul d b e betwee n tota l count s o f annua l acciden t fire s an d annua l componen t failure s wit hfire , o r wit heac hexpresse d a s a rat e using a commo ndenominato r (e.g . registere d vehicles ) Pag e 1 0 mention s fir e occurrence s tha t ar e no t reporte d i n polic e acciden t record s suc ha s ca r fire s i nservic e station s o r privat e roadways . W e sugges t tha t th e Nationa l Fir e Inciden t Reporting System(NFIRS ) b e examine d t o bette r characteriz e th e exten t o f thes e type s o f fires . Thi s dat a bas e contain s a grea t dea l o f usefu lP. 6 information , an

d w e believ e yo u shoul d conside r investigating it . Also , o nPag e 10 , th e fir e rat e fo r reporte d accident s i s use d i nconjunctio nwit hanannua l estimat e o f al l acciden t involve d vehicle s t o establis han "uppe r bound " o f annua l ca r fires . Thi s uppe r bound i s unrealisticall y highbecaus e non-reporte d accident s ar e likel yt o b e muc h lowe r i nseverit ya s compare d t o polic e reporte d accidents , an

d lowe r severit yaccident s ar e likel yt o hav e lowe r fir e rate s (Tabl e 24) . Therefore , th e estimate d 105,00 0 ca r fire s i s no t reasonable , eve na s an uppe r bound . W e hav e a fewcomment s regarding you r statement s concerning evaporativ e emissio ncontro l system s o npage s 15-16 . T o begi nwith , i t shoul d b e clarifie d tha t EPA evaporativ e requirement s too k effec t beginning wit hmode l yea r 1971 . Second , an d mos t important , you r casua l connectio nbetwee nevaporativ e control s an d th e ris e i n fir e rate s betwee nM Y6 6 an d 7 5 i s essentiall y unsubstantiate d an d i s somewha t contraryt o actua l trend s i nth e data . Fo r example , whe nth e standar d error s ar e factore d int o th e fir e rate s i nTabl e 16 , ther e i s n o rea l statistica l differenc e betwee nMY67-7 0 (pre-evap ) an d MY' s 71-74 . I naddition , Table s 2 7 an d 3 5 sho wn o differenc e betwee nfir e rate s fo r MY' s 7 0 an d 71 . A s a matte r o f fact , Tabl e 2 7 an d 3 5 sho wtha t post-evap fir e rate s (MY' s 71-74 ) wer e lowe r tha npre-evap mode l year s o f 6 8 an d 69 . Whe ncomparing fir e rate s o f differen t mode l yea r vehicles , i t i s importan t t o kee p mind tha t a variet yo f factor s ca nb e responsibl e fo r difference s foun d i n th e data . I t i s no t a simpl e exercis e t o singl e ou t th e effect s o f a lone facto r suc ha s evaporativ e contro l system s whe nothe r significan t change s ca n occu r simultaneousl ysuc ha s aging , driving patter n change s (e.g . a s a resul t o f fue l shortages) , weather , spee d limi t changes , etc . Taking al l thi s int o account , i t i s our vie wtha t th e dat a i nth e repor t d o no t suppor t (eve n weakly ) a suggestio ntha t evaporativ e system s led t o increase d fires . Finally , i f yo u ar e going t o tryt o identif ytrend s tha t migh t b e associate d wit hsignifican t fue l systemdesignchanges , yo u maywan t t o conside r examining fue l injectio ni nadditio nt o evaporativ e control s an

d FMVS S 301 .P. 7

9 . O npag e 17 , th e repor t draw s th e conclusio ntha t ca r ag e ha s a verystrong influenc e o nfir e rates . However , thi s conclusio n i s no t supporte d b yal l o f th e dat a an d require s furthe r analysis . Fo r example , whil e i t i s tru e tha t the summaryfigure s a t th e bottomo f Table s 28b , 36 , an d4 0 showa genera l increas e i n fir e rate s a s th e vehicle s age , i t i s no t vali d t o us e thes e figure s fo r compariso nsinc e al l o f th e dat a fo r M Y66-7 2 vehicle s wer e obtaine d whe nthes e vehicle s wer e mor e tha nsi xyear s old . Thus , w e hav e n o wayo f knowing whethe r th e high fir e rate s associate d wit hMY66-7 2 vehicle s i s a resul t o f ag e o r merel ycharacteristi c o f thos e vehicle s a t an y age . Th e relationshi p betwee nca r ag e an d vehicl e fire s shoul d b e examine d o na mode l yea r bymode l yea r basis , an d onl yfo r thos e mode l year s wher e dat a i s availabl e fo r al l thre e ag e classe s (< 4 years , < 6 years , an d al l vehicles. ) A t th e presen t time , thi s dat a onl yavailabl e fo r a fewselec t mode l year s (75-78) . Whe nth e dat a fo r thes e mode l year s ar e examined , Table s 28 ban d 4 0 show virtuall yn o relationshi p betwee nvehicl e ag e an d fir e rates , whil e Tabl e 3 6 doe s sho wa fairl ystrong relationship . Mor e definitiv e informatio n an d furthe r analysi s need s t o b e conducted ' befor e an yvali d conclusion s ca n b e made . 10 . A t th e bottomo f pag e 18 , th e repor t state s tha t th e fue l systemi s on e o f mos t frequentl yassociate d wit hdefect s o r failure . W e think thi s shoul d b e modifie d t o stat e tha t th e fue l systemi s on e o f th e mos t frequentl y associate d wit hreport s o f defect s o r failures . Jus t a s failure s associate d wit hfir e ar e likel yt o b e ove r reporte d relativ e t o othe r failures , w e think fue l system failure s ar e mor e likel yt o b e reporte d relativ e t o othe r type s o f failure s sinc e th e fue l systemdirectl yaffect s vehicl e operation . Also , fue l systems , unlik e man y vehicl e components , ar e mor e likel yt o generat e owne r complaint s i nth e even t o f a failur e becaus e thes e system s ar e expecte d t o las t fo r th e usefu l lif e o f th e vehicl e withou t nee d o f maintenanc e o r repair . 11 . You r conclusio no npag e 2 0 regarding th e limite d feasibilit yo f anin-dept hfailur e mode s analysi s o f fue l emissio n contro l component s du e t o sampl e siz e limitation s i s no t supported . Base d o nlimite d report s o f evaporativ e systemcomponents , yo u hav e draw nth e conclusio ntha t no t enoughdat a exist s t o characteriz e th e failur e rate s o f thes e components . Base d o nthi s information , i t als o seem s vali d t o conclud e tha t evaporativ e component s hav e bee nveryreliable , an d tha t i s wh

yth e sampl e siz e i s s o limited .P. 8

12 . Finally , w e hav e a fewcomment s concerning th e compatibilit yo f you r stud ywit hour "Analysi s o f Moto r Vehicl e Fue l Tank-Relate d Fires. " First , w e believ e th e rawdat a i n our analysi s i s consisten t wit htha t containe d i nyou r report , an d tha t wher e th e analyse s d o overlap , th e finding s i nth e tw o report s ar e generall yconsistent . D o yo u agre e wit hour assessment ? Second , our analysi s mad e n o adjustment s t o accoun t fo r non-reporte d fires . However , a s alread ydiscussed , you r stud ydi d mak e an attemp t t o scal e up th e reporte d dat a t o accoun t fo r non-reporte d fires . Whil e w e believ e th e scaling wa s unrealisticall yhigh , w e woul d lik e t o kno wwhethe r yo u think our analysi s underestimate s th e fir e rat e sinc e i t use s n o scaling factor . I f so , ho wwoul d yo u sugges t tha t th e numbe r o f suc hfire s b e estimated ? Las t o f all , our analysi s assume d n o relationshi p betwee npos t cras h vehicl e fire s an

d age . Thi s led u s t o th e conclusio ntha t pre-FMVS S 30 1 vehicl e fir e rate s wer e highe r tha n post-standar d rates , an d futur e fir e rate s woul d consequentl yb e lowe r a s pre-standar d vehicle s leave th e fleet . You r repor t conclude d a strong relationshi p exist s betwee nvehicl e fire s an d age . Doe s thi s impl ytha t yo u believ e th e projecte d fir e rate s i nour analysi s ar e to o low ?P. 9

Enclosur e 2

EPA' s Detaile d Comment s o nth e Draf t Fina l Report , "Stud yo f Moto r Vehicl e Fires " 1 . Page s 1 an

d 2 o f th e repor t mentio ntha t dat a wer e examine d fro

meigh t selecte d state s i nadditio nt o NAS S an d FARS . However , th e repor t onl ycontain s dat a from Michigan , Maryland , Ohio , an d Pennsylvani a wit ha brie f mentio no f Washington . Wher e i s th e dat a from th e othe r thre e states ? Also , wh ywer e thes e state s selected ? 2 . O npag e 2 , th e repor t state s tha t th e NAS S record s i nth e year s 1979-198 5 wer e addressed . However , thi s i s inconsisten t wit hothe r place s i nth e repor t whic honl y conside r NAS S record s from1981-1985 . 3 . O npag e 4 , GA

D an d TA D shoul d b e clearl ydefined . 4 . I f possible , i t woul d b e helpfu l i f Table s 5- 8 wer e furthe r broke ndownaccording t o fir e locatio n (interio r vs . exterior ) an

d acciden t impac t site . 5 . NAS S take s int o accoun t varying accident , fire , an d injury severities . Wh o decide s thes e severit ylevels , and i s ther e a forma l se t o f definition s t o distinguis hbetwee n levels ? 6 . I nth e secon

d paragrapho f pag e 5 , i t woul d b e helpfu l i f yo u wer e t o includ e th e averag e numbe r o f annua l observation s o f bot hFir e an d N o Fir e cases . 7 . Th e discussio n o npag e 5 regarding Tabl e 9 i s no t clear . Th e counterintuitiv e resul t tha t i s discusse d concerning burn s wit hn o ca r fire s i s no t a t al l obvious . Anexampl e whic hdraw s actua l number s fromTabl e 9 migh t hel p t o clarif ythi s point . I naddition , Tabl e 9 i s very confusing an

d coul d us e some restructuring . Mor e discussio no f thi s tabl e woul d b e beneficia l especiall y wit hrespec t t o burn s a s a percen t o f al l lesions . 8 . Pag e 6 o f th e repor t shoul d stat e tha t FAR S cover s fata l accident s involving vehicle s o f al l fue l types . 9 . Wh ydoe s Tabl e 1 5 onl yinclud e FAR S dat a from197 8 t o 1986 ? Al l othe r FAR S dat a table s spa nfro m197 5 t o 1986 . 10 . O npag e 7 , yo u shoul d explai ntha t "non-crash " include s non-collisio nan

d parke d vehicles .P.1 0

11 . Fo r Table s 16-19 , yo u shoul d includ e a brie f explanatio n o f ho wth e standar d erro r wa s determine d an d wha t significanc e i t has . 12 . Wh ydon' t Table s 1 4 an d 16-1 9 contai na separat e colum n fo r non-cras hfata l acciden t fires ? 13 . Tabl e 2 1 shoul d includ e anexplanatio no f wha t i s mean t b y Bod yType s 3,4,5 , an

d 6 . 14 . Tabl e 2 5 shoul d defin e wha t i s mean t byK , A , an d B injury severities . 15 . Pleas e explai n th e significanc e o f (5 ) = (2 ) + (3)+(4 ) i n Tabl e 32 . 16 . Wh yd o Table s 4 2 an d 42 a onl ycove r 198 4 whe nTable s 42 b an d 42 c cove r 1978-198 4 an d 1979-1984 , respectively ? Also , Table s 4 2 an d 42 a ar e veryconfusing . Pleas e provid e a mor e detaile d explanatio no f thes e tables . 17 . Table s 5 1 an

d 5 2 requir e a footnot e explaining wha t i s mean t b yth e "% " column . 18 . Table s 5 6 an

d 6 1 showdat a fo r M Y60 . I s thi s a mistake ? 19 . Wh yar e ther e suc ha larg e numbe r o f unknown s i nTabl e 6 6 an d 68 ? 20 . Wh yi s Chrysle r liste d twic e o nTabl e 69 ? 21 . Table s 70-7 5 shoul d indicat e th e calenda r year s an d mode l year s tha t correspond t o th e dat a entere d i n thes e tables . 22 . Tabl e 4 3 show s a rang e o f 16,00 0 t o 28,00 0 annua l incidenc e o f ca r fire s i npolic e reporte d accident s nationwide , no t 16,00 0 t o 26,00 0 a s state d o npag e 10 . 23 . Wha t i s th e sourc e o f th e NAS S nationa l estimat e o f 12,000,00 0 acciden t involve d ca r occupant s (pag e 11) . Also , i s i t appropriat e t o us e Pennsylvani a dat a fo r nationa l projections ? I s Pennsylvani a representative ? Further , whic hdat a tabl e provide d yo u wit hth e informatio nneede d t o determin e tha t 0.085 % sustaine d burn s a s thei r mos t sever e injury ? Pleas e sho who wthi s wa s calculate d o r pulle d fro mth e availabl e data . 24 . Explai nyou r suspicio no npag e 1 3 tha t th e trend observe d i nth e Pennsylvani a dat a i s du e t o change s i nfir e reporting protocols . D o yo u kno wfo r certai ntha t change s occurred ? I f so , pleas e explai nwha t thes e change s wer e an d wh ytheyaffecte d th e dat a a s theydid .w — ——P.1 1 J,' 25 . O npag e 17 , th e repor t state s tha t neithe r FAR S no r NAS S

record s distinguis hbetwee npost-crash , pre-crash , an d non-cras hfires . However , Tabl e 1 5 show s FAR S dat a separate d according t o cras han d non-cras hevents . Pleas e explain . 26 . Shouldn' t paragraph3 o f pag e 2 0 referenc e entrie s 16-1 9 o f Tabl e 7 5 rathe r tha nentrie s 25-29 ? 27 . Finally , pag e 1 5 discusse s th e fac t tha t overal l count s o f sever e ca r cras hfire s ar e no t a s frequen t a s overal l count s o f lowe r severit yca r cras hfire s sinc e sever e ca r crashe s ar e mor e infrequen t tha nlowe r severit yca r crashes . However , thi s shoul d no t diminis hth e fac t tha t sever e ca r crashe s hav e a highe r rat e o f fir e occurrenc e tha nlowe r severit yca r crashes . Thi s i s show ni n Tabl e 24 . Tabl e 2 4 als o show s a step increas e i ncolum n(5 ) fir e rate s a s cras hseverit yincrease s froma TA D 4 t o a TA D 5 . Ca nTA

D level s b e cross-reference d t o impac t speeds ? wha t doe s thi s indicat e abou t th e limit s o f FMVS S 301 ? I f highe r speed s wer e require d i nFMVS S 301 , woul d thi s b e likel yt o forc e th e step increas e t o showup betwee nhighe r TA

D level s instead o f TA D 4 an d TA D 5 ?