[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2327-2329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1229]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition From Douglas Bell

    This notice sets forth the reasons for denial of a petition 
submitted to the NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2) (formerly section 
124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as 
amended).
    In August 1995, Mr. Philip G. Vermont, an attorney in Pleasonton, 
California, submitted a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of petitioner Mr. Douglas Bell, and 
others. The petitioner requested that NHTSA order the recall of certain 
motor vehicles produced by the Nissan Motor Company, Limited (Nissan) 
for remedy of an alleged safety-related defect regarding the 
crashworthiness of those 

[[Page 2328]]
vehicles. Specifically, Mr. Bell alleged that the floor pans of the 
occupant compartments in 1983 through 1986 model Nissan Pulsar vehicles 
are defective in that they provide inadequate resistance to crush and 
deformation during a frontal crash. To remedy this alleged defect, the 
petitioner requested that NHTSA issue an order requiring Nissan to:

    a. repurchase, repair, recall or strengthen the floor pans of 
all Pulsar model vehicles currently in use in the United States;
    b. reimburse the owners of the subject Pulsar vehicles for all 
damages sustained by their vehicles and other property as a result 
of the alleged defect; and
    c. notify all owners of the subject Pulsar models of the 
existence of the alleged defect.

    The petitioner furnished materials to establish the existence of 
the alleged defect and its potential safety related consequences, 
including the following:

    <bullet> A copy of a decision issued by the Court of Appeals, 
4th Circuit, State of Louisiana, in the matter of Page v. Gilbert, 
(1992). The documentation describes an incident that occurred in 
January 1983 when a vehicle crashed head-on into a 1983 Pulsar NX. 
The record supports the conclusion that both vehicles were traveling 
between 35 and 45 miles per hour (mph). A jury found for the 
plaintiff and attributed 70 percent of the plaintiff's injuries to 
the alleged design defect in the floor pan of the Pulsar vehicle. 
The court stated that the Pulsar was defective because ``. . . . the 
longitudinal member (beam) under the driver's seat and in the 
instant crash buckled up under the driver's seat thrusting the 
driver forward and up into the dash.''
    <bullet> The testimony of Dr. Ronald Houston, a mechanical 
engineer, who stated in the Page case that the force of the accident 
caused compression of the occupant area, impacting the plaintiff's 
knees and pelvic area and causing serious injuries.
    <bullet> A description of a collision that occurred in July 
1987, involving a 1983 Pulsar being driven by Mr. Max Brown, which 
crashed head-on into a 1979 Lincoln vehicle. Occupants of the Pulsar 
sustained serious injuries. This incident was also evaluated by Dr. 
Ronald Houston, who concluded that the Pulsar had experienced a 
barrier equivalent velocity change of approximately 25 mph.
    <bullet> A discussion involving a third frontal collision, in 
this instance a 1985 Pulsar operated by Shelley Metcalf. The 
petitioner alleges that this incident resulted in the same type of 
passenger compartment deformation and collapse as had occurred in 
the Page and Brown cases.
    <bullet> An allegation involving the use of defective cold 
rolled steel in the manufacture of the Pulsar floor pan. The 
petitioner alleges that the design of the floor pan exposes the 
front passenger to a greater risk of injury than the driver in the 
event of a frontal collision. The petitioner also alleges that a 
frontal vehicle structure used by Cornell Aeronautical Laboratories 
in a 1972 crash test of an Experimental Safety Vehicle (ESV) for 
NHTSA was a prototype for the structure subsequently used in the 
Pulsar production, and that the structure and floorpan had performed 
poorly in those crash tests.

    By letter dated October 24, 1995, Nissan submitted to this agency 
an unsolicited response to the subject petition. Nissan's submittal 
provided certain details regarding the design and structure of the 
Pulsar, as well as extensive analysis of the comparative crash test 
performance of the Pulsar with that of several other vehicles in a 
variety of size, weight and use categories. In addition, these other 
significant issues were raised by Nissan:

    <bullet> Except for those cited in the subject petition, no 
other accidents, injuries, and/or lawsuits are known to Nissan in 
which the Pulsar floor pan was alleged to have been defective.
    <bullet> Estimates of crash severity in the lawsuits cited were 
issues of disagreement. It appears, however, that the Pulsar's 
velocity change (delta v) in the Page case may have been as high as 
40 mph, and on the order of 35 mph in the Brown case. In the Metcalf 
case, the Pulsar's speed was unknown when it crashed into a second 
vehicle reportedly traveling at 40-45 mph.
    <bullet> The frontal vehicle structure used in ESV tests in 1972 
was not a prototype structure for the Pulsar production models.

    The subject Pulsar vehicle is a subcompact, front-wheel drive 
vehicle, and was first sold in the United States in the 1983 model 
year. It has a published curb weight of 1850 to 2050 pounds, and was 
produced as a two-door coupe, a three-door hatchback, and a five-door 
hatchback. Approximately 200,000 of these vehicles were sold during the 
model years in question.
    The Pulsar's body structure is of contemporary monocoque, or 
unibody, design. Consistent with the basic design philosophy applied 
throughout the motor vehicle industry, the Pulsar body structure is 
designed to deform and crush to absorb the energy of a collision and to 
protect its occupants against the transfer of crash forces that would 
otherwise result in more severe injuries. In a frontal crash, impact 
forces are absorbed by several components of the body structure, 
including the frame, roof pillars, the body and roof sills, structural 
cross members, and the floor pan. In addition, the hood, and front and 
side body panels are all designed to crush to absorb impact energy, 
while maintaining to the extent possible, the integrity and volume of 
the occupant compartment. The degree to which the crash energy can be 
effectively managed depends upon the severity of the impact.
    Nissan challenged the petitioner's statement regarding the use of 
cold rolled steel for fabrication of Pulsar floor pans, and stated that 
it is common industry practice to do so. On the matter of deformation 
and crush of the vehicle structure during impact, Nissan pointed out 
that the use of a body structure that is so rigid that it does not 
crush could actually pose a greater risk to the safety of vehicle 
occupants during a collision. By absorbing less of the crash energy, a 
more rigid body structure would subject the vehicle occupants to 
greater risk of injury during the higher decelerations.
    Nissan argued that the floor pan of the vehicle represents one 
component of a complete structure and that to consider deformation of 
the floor pan alone during impact is meaningless. NHTSA agrees with 
that assessment. Information and data to conduct such an evaluation are 
available through crash test results from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSS) compliance tests, the New Car Assessment Program 
(NCAP) tests, and accident data files maintained by the National Center 
for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA).
    In the Page case, the court noted that there was no dispute that 
the Pulsar had passed the FMVSS's in effect at the time of its 
production. Nissan reviewed this issue further and presented data that 
compared the FMVSS No. 204 (Steering Control Rearward Displacement) 
compliance test results of the 1983 Pulsar with those of nineteen other 
vehicles of various size and weight categories. These 30 mph frontal, 
fixed-barrier tests, which included measurement of front-end crush and 
maximum longitudinal decelerations (g's) at two points on the vehicle 
floor, disclosed no indication of unusually poor performance of the 
Pulsar as compared to that of the other vehicles. As such, these test 
results do not suggest that the Pulsar's unibody structure, including 
the floor pan, deform in such a way so as to pose an unusual risk of 
injury to its occupants.
    The Nissan Pulsar of the model years under consideration has also 
been subjected to NCAP tests which involved frontal, fixed-barrier 
crashes at 35 mph while carrying instrumented anthropomorphic dummies. 
NCAP tests are significantly more severe than the barrier tests 
performed to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant Crash 
Protection).
    The NCAP test requires absorption of 36 percent more crash energy 
than the 30 mph compliance test, and produces an average total 
instantaneous change in velocity of the vehicle (delta v) of 
approximately 40 mph (including vehicle rebound from the barrier). NCAP 
test results for a 1983 Nissan Pulsar were compared to similar results 
from the tests of a 1984 Toyota Corolla, a 

[[Page 2329]]
1984 Honda Civic, and a 1984 Toyota Tercel. These vehicles are 
considered peers since they are of comparable size, weight, and 
utility. In reviewing the NCAP results, which provide measurements of 
Head Injury Criteria (HIC), chest g's, and femur loads for both driver 
and front passenger dummies, there is no indication that the Pulsar's 
performance presents a greater risk of injury or fatality to its 
occupants than that of any of the peer vehicles.
    The validity of NCAP test data in assessing real-world 
crashworthiness of motor vehicles is well established. NHTSA's December 
1993 report to the Congress on this matter presents the results of 
detailed analyses that show high correlations between NCAP test results 
and real world accident data contained in the NCSA's individual state 
accident investigation files, the National Accident Sampling System 
(NASS) data files, and the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) 
files.
    FARS data accumulated from 1983 through 1994 for the 1983-1986 
Pulsar were reviewed and compared with similar data for the Honda 
Civic/CRX and Toyota Corolla of the same model years. During that 
period, occupants of 1983-1986 model year Pulsars sustained a total of 
219 fatal injuries in head-on crashes for the cumulative population of 
196,600 vehicles. Of these, 72 percent (157 fatalities) were sustained 
by the driver, and the remaining 28 percent (62 fatalities) were 
sustained by passengers, in most cases seated in the right front 
position. These data do not support the petitioner's claim that the 
design of the Pulsar floor pan exposes the front passenger to a greater 
fatality risk than the driver.
    Fatality rates for the Pulsar, Corolla, and Civic/CRX models were 
normalized for the cumulative numbers of these vehicles in service, and 
then compared. This revealed that 544 fatalities were sustained by 
occupants of the population of 621,800 Corolla models, and for the 
total population of 743,400 Honda Civic/CRX, 759 fatalities were 
sustained. These data were analyzed by comparing the respective numbers 
of fatalities per 100,000 vehicles in service for each model, for each 
year of exposure. Although the Pulsar demonstrated a slightly higher 
average rate (10.86) for the twelve exposure years than the Civic/CRX 
(9.49) or the Corolla (8.53), there was no pattern of a consistently 
higher annual rate for any of the three models. These data do not show 
that occupants of Pulsar vehicles have been exposed to a greater 
historical risk of fatality than occupants of these peer vehicle 
models.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has concluded that there 
is no reasonable possibility that an order for the notification and 
remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued at the conclusion of 
an investigation into the performance of the floor pan installed in the 
subject vehicles. Based on its analysis of pertinent data, NHTSA could 
find no support for the petition's contention that a safety-related 
defect exists by virtue of the design or performance of this component. 
Further commitment of agency resources to examine this issue does not 
appear to be warranted. The petition is therefore denied.

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

    Issued on: January 22, 1996.
Michael B. Brownlee,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 96-1229 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P