American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Denial of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
---|
Topics: NHTSA
|
Barry Felrice (Federal Register)
January 6, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-240] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: January 6, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. 93-34; Notice 2] American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Denial of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) of Torrance, California determined that certain passenger cars failed to comply with 49 CFR 571.208, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' and filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573. Honda also 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. Notice of receipt of the petition was published on May 21, 1993 (58 FR 29689). This notice denies that petition. Paragraph S4.1.4.2 of Standard No. 208 requires that motor vehicles be equipped with seat belt assemblies that comply with Standard No. 209, ``Seat Belt Assemblies.'' 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 * * * Honda determined that the seat belt assemblies for the rear outside seating positions of approximately 1.2 million model year 1990, 1991, 1992, and early 1993 two-door and four-door Accords do not comply with S4.3(j)(3), the emergency locking retractor requirements of Standard No. 209. 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. Honda supported its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with the following arguments: In the petitioner's opinion, the noncompliance does not affect the occupant protection performance of the subject seat belt assemblies. To verify this, Honda tested the belts to determine whether they meet the locking requirements of Standard No. 209. All the belts complied with these requirements. Further, Honda performed dynamic sled test comparisons of the noncompliant belts to complaint belts at a test speed of 30 miles per hour. Honda found that the performance of the noncompliant belts was almost the same as that of the compliant belts. Honda stated that the primary effect of the noncompliant seat belts is inconvenience due to the rear seat occupant's inability to pull the belt out from the retractor under certain parking conditions, as when the vehicle is in a significant uphill parking position in excess of 11 degrees, or when the vehicle has been parked such that one side of the vehicle is substantially higher than the other (at least nine degrees). Honda argued that the opportunities for parking an affected vehicle in this type of situation are very uncommon and would present a high level of discomfort to rear seat occupants from sitting at this angle. Honda has found that when the vehicle is parked on ground at lesser angles than previously noted, the noncompliant belts work completely normally. Honda reviewed its consumer records for complaints relating to the noncompliance. It found that consumers had registered a total of 173 complaints regarding the 4-door sedan and 34 complaints regarding the 2-door coupe. These complaints are known to be related to the subject noncompliance, as the problem is clearly described in the complaint. In addition, Honda received 168 complaints regarding the 4-door sedan and 46 complaints regarding the 2-door coupe which were not clearly defined and may not be related to the subject noncompliance. The consumer complaint ratios, taking into account only the known related complaints, are 0.026 percent for the 4-door sedan and 0.014 percent for the 2-door coupe. Since Honda offers a lifetime warranty for seat belts, it will replace, free of charge, any unit that has a functional problem at any time during the life of the vehicle. In this instance, Honda will notify owners of the subject vehicles that it will replace the sensor in the noncompliant seat belt retractors if the customer experiences the locking problem. Honda concluded by stating that, although the noncomplying retractors may, in certain situations, result in the belt not being able to be pulled out of the retractor, this is a temporary condition which is remedied if the vehicle is moved from an uphill position of greater than 11 degrees or a lateral angle of greater than nine degrees. There is no risk to safety once the belt has been successfully fastened, since the performance of the belts is equal to those which are in total compliance with Standard No. 209. Because the seat belts have a lifetime warranty, any complaint concerning the ability to activate the belts will result in Honda replacing the belt with no cost to the consumer. No comments were received on the petition. Occupant protection has been a primary safety goal of the agency since its inception. Therefore, noncompliances with occupant protection requirements are treated with particular concern. The noncompliance described in the petition is one that occurs only under specific circumstances of vehicle attitude. That these circumstances are not isolated and occur with a degree of frequency is borne out by the number of complaints that Honda has received. Generally, a petitioner for a determination of inconsequentiality supports its arguments with the statement that no complaints have been received. In this instance, there have been sufficiently numerous expressions of concern to cause Honda to formulate a ``Product Improvement Campaign''. Honda has submitted to NHTSA a draft of its proposed letter to owners. The letter does not address the safety issue to NHTSA's satisfaction. The agency is concerned that the average recipient will not understand the safety- relatedness of the problem described in the letter. As a result, the recipient would be less likely to respond to it than to a letter meeting the requirements of Part 577. NHTSA has concluded that the noncompliance is one that will have the immediate effect of creating frustration when the rear seat passenger is unable to pull the belt out of its retractor. This can deter the passenger from further efforts to wear the belt until the vehicle is once more at an attitude at which the belt may be fastened, or even create the impression that the belt is broken and that further attempts to dislodge it will be useless. Another possibility is that a parent may be unable initially to secure a child safety seat, then neglect to get out of the car to secure it when the vehicle is moved. Alternatively, the parent may respond by moving the child seat from the rear seat position to the front. This would be contrary to the agency's policy of encouraging parents to install child safety seats in the rear in view of the greater safety of that location. In NHTSA's view, any noncompliance that has the potential to decrease the chances of use of a seat belt is not one that is inconsequential. Therefore, both the notification letter and the remedy must be in accordance with Federal requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that the petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance herein described is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and its petition is denied. (15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8) Issued on: January 3, 1994. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 94-240 Filed 1-5-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-M