[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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