Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP15-003 |
|---|
Topics: Chrysler Crossfire
|
Frank S. Borris, II
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 19, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50379-50381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20380]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP15-003
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice states the reasons for denying a petition (DP 15-
003) submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162, 49 CFR part 522,
requesting that the agency open an investigation into delamination or
separation of the back glass from the convertible top material on model
year 2005 Chrysler Crossfire vehicles.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Abbott, Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5221. Email: John.Abbott@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency
initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or item
of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor
vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a) (2): 49 CFR 522.1. Upon receipt of a
properly filed petition, the agency conducts a technical review of the
petition, material submitted with the petition, and any additional
information. 49 U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 CFR 552.6. After considering the
technical review and taking into account appropriate factors, which may
include, among others, allocation of agency resources, agency
[[Page 50380]]
priorities, and the likelihood of success in litigation that might
arise from a determination of noncompliance or a defect related to
motor vehicle safety, the agency will grant or deny the petition. 49
U.S.C. 30162(d): 49 CFR 552.8.
II. Petition Background Information
In a letter dated June 14, 2014, Mr. Wayne DeVries petitioned NHTSA
to, ``. . . hold a hearing on whether this manufacturer [Chrysler] has
reasonably met its obligation to notify and/or remedy a safety defect
or noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.'' The
petition request was in reference to model year (MY) 2005 Chrysler
Crossfire Roadster vehicles in which the convertible top back glass can
delaminate or separate from its adhesive bond to the convertible top
material.
Part 557 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
establishes the procedures for conducting a hearing to determine
whether a manufacturer has reasonably met its obligation to notify
owners of a safety related defect and provide a remedy for that defect.
Before the agency can hold such a hearing, a determination that a
defect exists must be made either by the manufacturer or the agency.
Because a safety related defect has not been determined by either
Chrysler, or the agency, regarding the convertible top back glass in MY
2005 Crossfire Roadster vehicles, ODI interpreted Mr. DeVries letter as
a request for a Defect Petition. In accordance with Title 49 CFR part
522, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defects, and Noncompliance Orders, NHTSA
conducted a review of the petition and other information to decide
whether to open a formal investigation to determine if a safety related
defect exists in MY 2005 Crossfire Roadsters.
III. ODI Analysis of the Defect Petition Request
To assess the petitioner's request and his complaint as to whether
separation of the convertible top back glass in MY 2005 Crossfire
Roadster vehicles demonstrates or presents an unreasonable risk to
motor vehicle safety, ODI reviewed and analyzed the following
information and conducted telephone interviews with complainants:
A review of all of the petitioner's letters and VOQ's;
A review of the petitioner's vehicle experience;
A review of a Chrysler warranty policy extension;
A review of all potentially related VOQs for all model
year Crossfire Roadsters;
Telephone interviews with complainants;
A review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS); and,
A review and analysis of complaint, claim, field report,
and warranty information from Chrysler LLC. (Chrysler), and Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles US, LLC. (FCA) provided in response to an ODI
information request.
Petitioner's Complaint
Between May 2013 and August 2014, the petitioner sent five letters
to NHTSA, and filed an additional five Vehicle Owner Questionnaires
(VOQ), concerning the convertible top back glass in MY 2005 Crossfire
Roadster vehicles. The petitioner's concern is that the adhesive that
bonds the back glass to the inside of the convertible top fails. When
the adhesive fails, the glass falls inside the vehicle and, if it
separates completely from the top, will no longer be attached to any
structure that controls movement. His correspondence offers many varied
and different scenarios of possible consequences from delamination or
separation of the glass from the convertible top. The petitioner
believes that the design, construction, and attachment of any window is
critical to the safe operation of the vehicle as intended, under any
conditions such as inclement weather, highway speeds, etc., and that
the separation of the rear glass in the subject vehicles poses an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. Finally, the petitioner
suggests that Chrysler's limited extended warranty policy covering the
glass is ``unreasonable'' because it is limited to vehicles that were
originally sold in certain states.
Petitioner's Vehicle Experience
The petitioner owns a MY 2005 Crossfire Roadster and resides in
California. His vehicle was not included in Chrysler's extended
warranty as his vehicle was originally sold in California. According to
the petitioner, he noted the convertible top back glass was starting to
delaminate/separate from the convertible top at the driver's side lower
corner. As a precaution, and to prevent it from separating completely,
the glass was propped-up from the inside of the vehicle and taped to
the convertible top material on the outside of the vehicle. The
petitioner's attempts to have the vehicle's convertible top replaced at
Chrysler's expense were unsuccessful. According to the petitioner,
replacement of the entire convertible top is the only viable remedy
offered by Chrysler once the rear glass separates from the top.
Ultimately, the petitioner paid to have the top replaced.
Summary of Chryslers Extended Warranty
In September 2011 Chrysler notified its dealer network via
``Warranty Bulletin'' that it would extend the warranty for convertible
top back glass adhesion in MY 2005 Crossfire Roadsters. The warranty
extension covers these vehicles for 10 years or 100,000 miles,
whichever occurs first, for vehicles shipped to dealers in the states
of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. No other Crossfire Roadsters were
included in the extended warranty. For vehicles subject to this
extended warranty, Chrysler will replace the entire convertible top if
the rear glass separates from the top within 10 years or 100,000 miles.
Summary of Related VOQ Reports
ODI reviewed all VOQ reports in its database relating to
convertible top back glass separation in all MY Crossfire Roadsters.
The review encompassed VOQ reports received from June 23, 2008 through
July 8, 2015. As noted in Table 1, ODI analyzed 273 VOQ reports
alleging some degree of rear glass separation. None of the VOQs alleged
that rear glass separation was related to crashes, injuries, or
fatalities. Out of the 273 VOQ's ODI reviewed, four alleged that the
back glass separated from the vehicle onto the roadway.\1\ Table 1
provides a summary count of the VOQ reports by model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ODI spoke with 47 of the complainants including three that
alleged a roadway incident. Two of the roadway complainants had
experienced previous glass bonding issues prior to separation. There
is no factual evidence (police accident reports, photos, repair
invoices, etc.) for the roadway reports that confirms these
allegations.
[[Page 50381]]
Table 1--Crossfire VOQ Reports by Model Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Reports Crashes Injuries Fatalities Roadway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005............................ 211 0 0 0 3
2006............................ 44 0 0 0 1
2007............................ 9 0 0 0 0
2008............................ 9 0 0 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 273 0 0 0 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 212; Windshield Mounting
This standard establishes the retention requirements for
windshields in motor vehicle crashes. The purpose of the standard is to
reduce injuries and fatalities in crashes by providing retention of a
vehicles windshield during a crash by utilizing the penetration-
resistance and injury-avoidance properties of the windshield glazing
material and preventing occupant ejection from the vehicle. This
standard does not apply to the back glass at issue in this petition. No
other FMVSS establishes a minimum level of performance for back glass
retention in either convertible or hard top vehicles.
IV. ODI's Assessment
The adhesive bond of the convertible top back glass to the top
material can lose its bonding properties over time. From complainant
descriptions, it appears that separation of the glass generally starts
in a small area, possibly at a lower corner. Over time, the separation
can progress around the glass to a point at which the glass is visibly
and physically loose from the top material and in some cases can
separate completely from the top. Because of the angle at which the
glass is installed in the top it will tend to fall inside of the
vehicle onto the tonneau cover, behind the only two available seats for
the vehicle occupants. In addition, the glass panel in question is
larger than the rear window opening in the convertible top. Therefore,
the glass would have to rotate and move in several planes of motion to
pass through the rear window opening after detaching from the top.
ODI has also previously examined rear window separation in the
subject vehicles. Based on 11 VOQs reporting some degree of rear glass
separation, ODI first examined rear glass separation in MY 2005
Chrysler Crossfire Roadsters in late 2009. Soon thereafter, ODI
contacted Chrysler seeking complaint information concerning the issue.
Chrysler provided a confidential response to ODI on January 29, 2010.
Chrysler's response did not contain any information indicating that the
separation of the rear glass in the subject vehicles posed an
unreasonable risk to safety. However, Chrysler subsequently provided a
limited extended warranty to some owners.
As part of this petition analysis, ODI sent an information request
\2\ to FCA requesting information for any reports that resulted in any
injury or fatality to any person either in the vehicle or outside of
the vehicle; a vehicle crash or loss of control incident; or a back
glass leaving the confines of the vehicle top. FCA's response to this
request provided one report in which it was alleged that the back glass
went off the back of the vehicle while being driven. FCA's response
letter \3\ explains that the Company believes that the back glass did
not separate and fall off the back of the vehicle as alleged by the
individual submitting the complaint to FCA. ODI also notes that FCA's
May 19, 2015 response letter answering our information request for this
petition erroneously concludes that ODI previously found that no safety
defect existed when we reviewed information submitted by Chrysler on
January 29, 2010. ODI's decision not to take further action at that
time is not, as Chrysler suggests, a finding that no safety defect
existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Please see ODI's April 27, 2015 letter to FCA in file DP15-
003.
\3\ See FCA DP15-003 response letter of May 19, 2015 in file
DP15-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODI's analysis, our second examination of Crossfire Roadster rear
window separations, indicates that there are not any crashes, deaths or
injuries related to this issue. The configuration of the window opening
and the size of the window glass itself indicate that it is unlikely
that the glass would pass through the window opening once the rear
glass has completely separated from the convertible top. Further,
although the petitioner states that Chrysler's extended warranty policy
for these vehicles is unreasonable, the question that ODI must answer
is whether the separation of the rear glass from the convertible top
results in an unreasonable risk to safety. The evidence revealed by our
analysis does not presently support such a finding.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons presented in the petition analysis, and after
thorough assessment of the potential risks to safety, it is unlikely
that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-
related defect would be issued as a result of granting Mr. Devries
petition. After full consideration of the potential for finding a
safety related defect in these vehicles and in view of the need to
allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish
the agency's mission, the petition is respectfully denied.
This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-
related defect does not exist. The Agency will take further action if
warranted by future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Frank S. Borris, II,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-20380 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P