[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26910-26911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of a Petition for a Defect Investigation and for 
Rulemaking, DP00-005

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation and for 
rulemaking.

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

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 investigate an alleged safety-related defect in certain Ford 
pickup trucks and to begin a rulemaking proceeding. The petition is 
hereinafter identified as DP00-005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For defects issues, Peter C. Ong, 
Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0583. For rulemaking issues, 
Michael Huntley, Office of Safety Performance Standards, Telephone: 
(202) 366-0029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dr. Carl E. Nash (petitioner) submitted a 
petition to NHTSA by letter dated September 1, 2000, requesting, among 
other things, that a safety-related defect investigation be initiated 
with respect to the interaction of a vehicle seat belt in the model 
year (MY) 1997 Ford Ranger pickup truck and certain child safety seats 
(CSS). Specifically, the petitioner alleges that the 2-point, manually-
adjusting lap belt design located in the center seating position of the 
MY 1997 Ford Ranger is defective because it does not securely hold 
certain forward-facing CSSs, such as the 1997 Cosco Touriva. Since both 
the MY 1996 and 1997 Ford Rangers have the same lap belt design in the 
center seating position, they will be the subject vehicles in this 
phase of the analysis. Additionally, the petitioner requests that a 
rulemaking be considered to prohibit this type of lap belt assembly 
from being used in any passenger vehicles in the future.
    A review of the agency's data files, including information reported 
to the DOT Auto Safety Hotline, does not indicate any complaints about 
the lap belt for the center seat on the subject vehicles, including 
when that belt is used with a CSS. Also, a review of the data for 
complaints about the Cosco Touriva CSSs showed no complaints referring 
to CSS attachment or installation problems when used in the subject 
vehicles, or in any other vehicles.
    The subject vehicles have a 3-point combination lap and shoulder 
belt assembly and an air bags at the driver and outboard passenger 
seating positions, and a manually-adjusting lap belt assembly at the 
center seating position. The outboard passenger seat belt assembly has 
a dual locking mode belt retractor to help maintain belt tension for 
both the occupants and a CSS. The lap belt assembly for the center 
seating position has a built-in friction locking bar inside the latch 
plate assembly to keep the belt tight, but no retractor.
    Instructions are given in the subject vehicles' owner's guides,\1\ 
describing how to install a CSS in a seating position with a 
combination lap and shoulder belt, which is the outboard seating 
position. According to those instructions, the seat belt assembly is to 
be engaged in the automatic locking mode to ensure that the seat belt 
remains tight when used to restrain a CSS. The instructions also 
recommend the use of a top tether strap with forward-facing CSSs. The 
guide also states that when using a rear-facing infant CSS, the 
passenger air bag must be turned off. No instructions are given for the 
installation of a CSS in the center seating position, although there is 
no specific direction not to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ E.g., MY 1997 Ford Ranger Owner's Guide, First Printing, 
Pages 101-145 and MY 1996 Ford Ranger Owner's Guide, First Printing, 
Pages 9-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI personnel easily installed and secured a Cosco Touriva CSS in 
the outboard passenger seating position of a subject vehicle following 
the instructions provided in the vehicle's owner's guide. It was 
difficult to install the Touriva CSS in the center seating position 
because the base of the CSS was wider than the distance between the 
seat belt latch plate assembly exit point and the buckle assembly exit 
point in the bench seat. ODI also observed that when the latch plate 
end was inserted into the buckle, the buckle portion of the lap belt 
assembly protruded 5-6 inches out from the seat and was about the same 
height as the height of the slot in the CSS for the seat belt to pass 
through.
    ODI personnel then checked the CSS for tightness as prescribed in 
the Touriva instruction manual: \2\ ``Tilt and push the child restraint 
forward and to both sides.'' The CSS moved and loosened from the lap 
belt when it was tilted in the side to side direction. It appeared that 
the belt webbing could form a 90 deg. angle to the latch plate assembly 
and prevent the engagement of the friction locking bar in the belt 
assembly of the vehicle. This inability of the Touriva CSS to remain 
tightly secured on the center seat was evident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Cosco Touriva One-Guard models 02-014/02-015, Instruction 
Manual for a MY 1997 CSS, Page 7, Sections ``Do You Have a Manual 
Belt?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI personnel also installed another forward-facing CSS, the Gerry 
One-Click Model 691, in a subject vehicle. Again, ODI personnel easily 
installed and secured the One-Click CSS in the outboard passenger 
seating position. Due to its narrower base, it was also easier to 
install and secure in the center seating position than the Cosco 
Touriva CSS. In the final check for proper fit/tightness, the One-Click 
was ``rocked from side to side'' as instructed in the One-Click 
instruction manual,\3\ and it remained tight and secured to the center 
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Evenflo/Gerry One-Click Model 691 CSS Owner's Manual, Page 
11, Section ``Manually Adjusted Belt and Locking Latch Plates.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It was noted that even if the Cosco Touriva CSS could have been 
securely attached at the center seating position, its left side 
intruded into the driver's seating area, and therefore could interfere 
with the driver's ability to operate the vehicle. In addition, the 
driver would not be able to readily operate the floor-mounted shift 
lever because it would be blocked by the left-front corner of the CSS 
(approximately 60% of the subject vehicles were sold with a floor-
mounted shift lever).
    Proper interaction and fit between a vehicle and a CSS are very 
important. NHTSA's child passenger safety brochures advise parents and 
caregivers that ``Not all child seats can be installed in all vehicles 
and all seating positions. With numerous models of child seats, almost 
300 models of passenger vehicles, and the wide range of belt systems 
available today, correctly installing a child seat can be 
challenging.'' These brochures also caution owners that ``Vehicle seats 
and seat belts are built for the comfort of adults, not to secure a 
child car seat correctly. Some child car seats cannot be used safely in 
certain seating positions.'' \4\ It is, therefore, imperative that 
consumers check their vehicle owner's manual and child restraint

[[Page 26911]]

instruction manual to determine where to properly place and how to 
properly secure child safety seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NHTSA Publications DOT HS 809 011, ``Buying a Safer Car for 
Child Passengers 2000,'' and DOT HS 808 302, ``Are You Using It 
Right?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has published numerous other brochures on how to safely 
transport children. They describe other important vehicle-to-CSS 
interface issues and factors that need to be considered by parents and 
caregivers. The brochures are available on our NHTSA website \5\ or can 
be obtained by contacting the NHTSA Hotline.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NHTSA Website at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/.
    \6\ NHTSA Hotline at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA agrees that the design of the lap belt assembly for the 
center seating position in the subject vehicles may make it difficult 
for CSSs similar to the Cosco Touriva to be installed securely and that 
children riding in an inadequately-secured CSS might not be properly 
protected in the event of a crash. However, these CSSs can be installed 
securely in the outboard passenger seating position as described in the 
vehicle owner's manual. (We note that the subject vehicles, when 
equipped with the optional passenger air bag, are equipped with 
switches that allow the driver to temporarily disable the passenger air 
bag when a child is present to assure that a deploying air bag will not 
injure the child.) In addition, there have been no consumer complaints 
regarding this alleged problem in the subject vehicles. For these 
reasons, NHTSA has no basis on which to conclude that this condition 
constitutes a safety-related defect. It is unlikely that NHTSA would 
issue an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-
related defect at the conclusion of an investigation into this matter.
    With respect to the petitioner's request that a rulemaking be 
commenced to consider prohibiting this type of lap belt assembly from 
being used in any passenger motor vehicles in the future due to its 
inability to securely hold certain models/sizes of CSSs, NHTSA has 
recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 
and adopted a new FMVSS No. 225 to establish new anchorage and mounting 
requirements for vehicles and CSSs. FMVSS No. 225 was adopted in March 
1999 and, when fully effective, will require passenger cars, SUVs, 
light-duty trucks, buses, and vans to be equipped with easy-to-use 
anchorage systems consisting of an upper tether anchorage and two lower 
anchorages designed to be used exclusively for securing CSSs. By 
requiring an independent child restraint anchorage system, this 
standard will significantly improve the compatibility of vehicle seats 
and CSSs. As of September 1, 2000, 80% of new vehicles were required to 
be equipped with the user-friendly upper tether anchorages and by 
September 1, 2001, 80% of new vehicles will also be equipped with the 
lower restraint anchorages. All passenger cars manufactured after 
September 1, 2002, will be equipped with both the upper tether and 
lower restraint anchorages. All CSSs manufactured after September 1, 
2002 will be required to have hardware to attach to these standardized 
anchorages, and will also be required to be attachable to the vehicle 
via the vehicle's seat belt system, as is currently done, since the 
pre-existing fleet will not have the new anchorages. We note, however, 
that FMVSS No. 225 only requires the new, standardized anchorages at 
certain seating positions, which vary depending on the type of vehicle, 
so it is crucial that consumers consult their vehicle owner's manual 
and their child restraint instruction manual to determine where and how 
to properly install their CSS. In view of these recent amendments, the 
compatibility problems noted by the petitioner will not occur in future 
vehicles, so there is no need for further regulatory action.
    For the foregoing reasons, and in view of the need to allocate and 
prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's 
safety mission, the petition for a defect investigation and for 
rulemaking is denied.

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

    Issued on: May 8, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 01-12193 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P