[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 795-796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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