American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; Appeal of Denial of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
---|
Topics: Honda
|
Barry Felrice
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
April 1, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-7776] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: April 1, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. 93-34; Notice 3] American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; Appeal of Denial of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) of Torrance, California has appealed a decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that denied Honda's petition that its noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209 be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice of receipt of Honda's appeal is published under 49 CFR 556.7 and 556.8 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the appeal. Honda determined that some of its seat belt assemblies installed in its vehicles failed to comply with 49 CFR 571.209, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, ``Seat Belt Assemblies,'' and filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573. Honda petitioned to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. More specifically, Paragraph S4.3(j)(3) of Standard No. 209 requires that ``an emergency locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly * * * shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15 degrees or less from its orientation in the vehicle * * *'' In its original petition, Honda stated that the retractors on some of its assemblies lock up when they are rotated to an angle of approximately ten degrees or more. The affected assemblies involve the rear outside seating positions on approximately 1.2 million model year 1990, 1991, and 1992, and early 1993 two-door and four-door Accords. When the vehicle in which the noncomplying belt is installed is in certain parking positions such as on a steep uphill grade, the rear seat occupants are sometimes unable to pull the belt out of the retractor, and thus cannot fasten their belts. The vehicle must be moved to a more level position for the rear seat occupant to be able to put on the seat belt. Notice of receipt of the petition was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 1993 (58 FR 29689). The reader is referred to that notice for further information. On January 6, 1994, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register (59 FR 795), denying Honda's petition, stating that the petitioner had not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The reader is referred to that notice for a further discussion of the agency's rationale in denying Honda's petition. On February 23, 1994, Honda submitted a request that the agency reconsider its decision to deny Honda's petition. Honda stated that it had failed to provide the agency with information which it believes will justify reconsideration of its petition. In its request Honda better defined what occurs in particular vehicle orientations. When a noncompliant vehicle is parked pointing downhill, the retractors fully comply with the standard. When a vehicle is parked pointing uphill, the retractors lock up at angles between 11 and 16 degrees, and thus do not comply with the requirement. When the vehicle is parked such that one side is substantially higher than the other, the retractor on the uphill side locks up at angles between seven and 11 degrees, a noncompliance with the requirement. Response to NHTSA Points The agency denied the Honda petition based on the following four reasons. Each is followed by Honda's response. 1. Complaints NHTSA: The number of complaints received by Honda indicated that the noncompliance is not isolated or inconsequential. Honda: Honda discussed two ways that it learns of customer concerns. The first is customer complaints. In its investigation of these complaints, one complaint was found. Furthermore, when this customer initially contacted Honda, it was about a different, unrelated problem. Only during the follow-up of the primary concern did the customer mention the dealer's satisfactory handling of the rear seat belt problem. The second is to analyze the complaint rates derived from warranty data. Honda compared the complaint rates of the two noncompliant vehicle models with those of Honda Civic and Acura Legend 4 door sedan models which are fully compliant with FMVSS No. 209. In this comparison, Honda found that there was no significant statistical difference between the claim rates. Warranty claims were received for 0.03 to 0.05 percent of both the noncompliant and compliant vehicles. 2. Product Improvement Campaign NHTSA: The number of complaints was sufficient to cause Honda to initiate a Product Improvement Campaign on the Accord sedan and coupe. Honda: Product Improvement Campaigns are intended to maintain customer satisfaction. Because Honda recalled the Accord station wagon to correct this noncompliance with Standard No. 209, it initiated this Product Improvement Campaign ``* * * to clarify the situation and prevent unnecessary concern--not because there were numerous complaints.'' 3. Discouragement of Seat Belt Use NHTSA: The noncompliance could discourage seat belt use. Honda: Honda stated that because customer complaints are nearly nonexistent and the warranty rate for rear seat belts installed in the noncompliant vehicles is essentially the same as the rate for other comparable complying models, ``* * * combined with the rarity of actual parking situations in which a consumer would experience the steep angles required for lock-up, indicates that actual failures are insignificant.'' In addition, because Honda provides a lifetime warranty on its seat belts, it believes this would also reduce the possibility that an individual would discontinue seat belt use due to a failure. Finally, Honda has made recent improvements to its seats belts such as reducing belt tension for comfort, making the outer edges of the belt webbing softer, and treating the webbing with anti-static treatment to reduce dirt and dust attraction. It believes this will also help to increase belt use. 4. Problems Associated With Installing Child Safety Seats NHTSA: The noncompliance could present problems to parents attempting to install a child safety seat. Honda: Honda states that because the lock-up ``* * * is not common in an uphill or downhill attitude, the noncompliance issue is centered on the lateral attitude--when the vehicle is parked with one side of the vehicle substantially higher than the other.'' Further, ``[e]ven in this case, the retractor on the lower, downhill side will always operate properly.'' Honda believes that the noncompliance occurring on the uphill side should pose no problem in installing a child safety seat in the rear seat. It states that when the noncompliant vehicle is parked on a lateral incline, there are two compliant rear seating positions to install the seat: The center and lower outboard position, both of which can be accessed from the lower, downhill side. Because the downhill side is nearest the curb, out of traffic, and therefore safer than the higher, uphill side, it is the most convenient and the most likely to be used by the parent. Honda also believes on a steep incline it would be more difficult for a parent to lean downward into the car to install a child seat. Honda has recommended the rear center position for infant and toddler child seating in its owner's manuals, starting with the 1992 models. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on the appeal of Honda, described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required that six copies be submitted. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be considered. The appeal and supporting materials, and all comments received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the appeal is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment closing date: May 2, 1994. (15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8) Issued on: March 28, 1994. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 94-7776 Filed 3-31-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-M