An investigation means NHTSA has decided a pattern is worth examining. A
preliminary evaluation is often closed with no action; an engineering
analysis is the stage that usually precedes a recall.
Electronic Parking Brake Water Ingress
PE22009
Closed preliminary evaluation · opened July 22, 2022 · closed October 29, 2023
the parking brake
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened investigation PE22-009 after having received 80 complaints on model years 2014-2020 Jeep Cherokees alleging the Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) inadvertently activated while the vehicle was in motion.During this investigation, the subject vehicles were updated to include only Model Years (MY) 2014-2016, while MY 2017-2020 were considered peers.Based on related repair invoices, ODI believed the EPB module was damaged by water leaking into the vehicle. When the EPB inadvertently activates, it can cause a stalling condition bringing the vehicle to a stop. ODI was aware of recall 15V-393 that addresses water ingress affecting the power liftgate module on nearly the same population of vehicles subject of this investigation. The liftgate module can potentially catch fire as a result of the water damage. Both the liftgate and EPB modules are located in a similar area of the vehicle. On May 11, 2016, the manufacturer released a Technical Service Bulleting (ODI #10191415, FCA #08-060-16) that instructs dealers on replacing the EPB module and inspecting the electrical connector for corrosion if a customer describes having the EPB not releasing. This Preliminary Evaluation was opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect. On September 8th, 2022, ODI sent an information request letter to Fiat Chrysler US LLC (FCA) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2014-2016 Jeep Cherokee and Peer 2017-2020 Jeep Cherokee vehicles. FCA Provided its full response on October 27th, 2022 after ODI granted a one-week extension. ODI has reviewed the information FCA provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA’s Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on a review of all available information, ODI has identified evidence supporting a total of 1,655 subject vehicles that likely experienced a failure of the subject EPB. Within the subject vehicle complaints, ODI identified the 2014 Model Year (MY) Jeep Cherokee as having the highest rate of failure, while also being the oldest group of vehicles in this investigation. The 2014 Jeep Cherokees that likely experienced a failure of the subject EPB represent an incident rate of approximately 0.58%. The average Time In Service (TIS) at failure was 2.6 years and the oldest failure occurred at 8.5 years in service. The 2014 population of vehicles is at 9 years in service. All other MY Jeep Cherokee vehicles (both subject and peer) within this investigation had significantly lower failure rates than the 2014 MY Jeep Cherokee. ODI has reviewed all the information available at this time, and identified four allegations of a crash, three allegations of injuries, and one allegation of a fire.Two of the crash allegations alleged injuries, and the alleged injuries were minor severity.All of the alleged injuries appeared to be consistent with hard braking and did not need medical attention. There was no supporting information that demonstrated a fire had occurred on the vehicle. In its response to ODI, FCA provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe the alleged defect poses an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. FCA states the majority of incidents involving the EPB inadvertently activating occurred while the vehicle was stationary and that a small number of incidents occurred while the vehicle was backing up or at low speeds. This is consistent with ODI’s observations. Based on the analysis conducted by ODI, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
EA21002
Still open engineering analysis · opened September 17, 2021
the air bags
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Software security vulnerability
RQ15004
Closed recall query · opened July 24, 2015 · closed January 5, 2016 · led to recall 15V508000
the electrical system
On July 23, 2015, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) launched Safety Recall 15V-461 to remedy security vulnerabilities in approximately 1.4 million model year (MY) 2013 through 2015 vehicles equipped with Uconnect head units (HU) 8.4A (RA3 radio) and 8.4AN (RA4 radio) manufactured by Harman International.On July 24, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Recall Query, RQ 15-004, to investigate HU security vulnerabilities and remedy effectiveness in the recalled population and to determine whether similar units have been supplied for use in other FCA vehicles.In an August 11, 2015 letter, FCA submitted a second Part 573 safety recall report expanding the scope of the Uconnect RA4 model radio to include additional 7,810 MY 2015 Jeep Renegade vehicles manufactured from September 18, 2014 through June 25, 2015 (Recall 15V-508).Scope analysis indicated that Uconnect radios installed in FCA vehicles not included in recalls 15V-461 or 15V-508 (subject recalls) are not equipped with built-in cellular access or short range wireless communication features and, thus, do not contain the security vulnerabilities addressed by the subject recalls. SUBJECT VEHICLES: MY2014 through 2015 Dodge Durango, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Cherokee sport utility vehicles; MY2013 through 2015 Ram 1500, 2500, 3500 and 4500/5500 pickup trucks; MY2013 through 2015 Dodge Viper vehicles; and MY2015 Chrysler 200, 300, Jeep Renegade, Dodge Charger and Challenger vehicles.According to FCA, long and short range wireless vulnerabilities identified in the recalled vehicles could allow unauthorized third-party access to, and manipulation of, networked vehicle control systems.Successful exploitation of the vulnerabilities, coupled with reverse engineering of networked microprocessor control modules, could result in unauthorized manipulation of vehicle control systems. This unauthorized manipulation of vehicle controls and systems could expose the driver, vehicle occupants or other highway users to an increased risk of injury.FCA and its network provider, Sprint, conducted a nationwide campaign to block access to a radio communications port that was unintentionally left open.On July 27, 2015, short range wireless vulnerabilities were also blocked.Finally, third party security evaluation and regression testing identified vulnerabilities that were either remedied by Sprint or through updates to the FCA Uconnect software.ODI identified a total of 30 complaints or field reports on unique vehicles submitted by FCA (29) or received by NHTSA (1) alleging incidents of theft from a vehicle or anomalous performance that the owner alleged were caused by, or may have been caused by, remote hacking.Twenty-six (87%) of these reports were submitted after a magazine article was published on July 21, 2015, describing the remote hacking of an FCA vehicle by researchers who were able to affect the operation of various vehicle control systems, including the service brakes, steering, throttle and ignition.Most of the complaints involved vehicle systems that were not safety critical (e.g., complaints related to radio, navigation system, or air-conditioning control) and did not affect vehicle control.Three complaints reported engine stalls.One owner reported sudden unintended acceleration allegedly related to hacking.None of the complaints or field reports reviewed involved the steering and braking vehicle control effects demonstrated by the research hackers prior to the recall.There were no confirmed incidents of hacking in any of the records reviewed by ODI.The remedies completed by Sprint and FCA appear to have eliminated vulnerabilities that mi