[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19277]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 8, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 93-34; Notice 4]
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; Grant of Appeal of Denial of
Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) of Torrance, California
appealed a decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) that denied its petition that a noncompliance
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 be deemed
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the original petition was published in the
Federal Register on May 21, 1993 (Notice 1, 58 FR 29689), the notice of
denial on January 6, 1994 (Notice 2, 59 FR 795), and notice of appeal
of the denial on April 1, 1994 (Notice 3, 59 FR 15496). The reader is
referred to the notices for further information. No comments were
received in response to Notice 3.
Honda determined that some seat belt assemblies installed in
certain 1990-93 Accords failed to comply with Standard No. 209, ``Seat
Belt Assemblies,'' and filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573. Honda then 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
was inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
The noncompliance is with paragraph S4.3(j)(3) of Standard No. 209
which 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 to 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. The petition was denied for the reasons stated in Notice 2.
In its appeal, Honda stated that it had failed to provide the
agency with information which it believed 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 located on the downhill side complies
with the requirement, but the retractor on the uphill side locks up at
angles between seven and 11 degrees, a noncompliance with the
requirement.
The agency's denial of Honda's petition was based on several
considerations. The first was that the number of complaints received by
Honda indicated that the noncompliance was not an isolated occurrence,
and was sufficient to cause Honda to initiate a Product Improvement
Campaign on the Accord sedan and coupe. A second basis was that the
noncompliance could discourage seat belt use. Finally, in NHTSA's view,
the noncompliance could present problems to parents attempting to
install a child safety seat.
Honda presented new arguments concerning the effect of the
noncompliance in an attempt to persuade the agency that field
experience with the cars had not demonstrated the existence of real
world problems. Honda learns of consumer concerns through complaints
and warranty claims. In its investigation of the relevant universe of
complaints, it found only one concerning the rear belt, a problem that
the dealer had corrected during other service on the vehicle. With
respect to warranty claims, Honda compared the complaint rates of the
noncompliant Accord sedan and coupe models with those of complying
Honda Civic and (Honda) Acura Legend four door sedan models, and found
that there was no significant statistical difference. Warranty claims
were received for 0.03 to 0.05 percent of both the noncompliant and
compliant vehicles.
After considering these arguments, NHTSA felt assured that the
effect of the noncompliance in actual vehicle use seems to be small
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.
Honda also sought to persuade NHTSA that the noncompliance would
not discourage seat belt use. In addition to the few real-world
problems that have been uncovered, the actual parking situations in
which the noncompliance occurs at steep angles are rare. They occur
only when the vehicle is facing uphill at angles of between 11 and 16
degrees, and when the vehicle is parked so that the uphill side is
substantially higher than the downhill side, the uphill retractor
locking at angles between 7 and ll degrees.
These conditions of inoperability are substantially narrower than
those which Honda described in its initial petition, and because of the
relative infrequency in which they will be encountered, NHTSA's
concerns that the noncompliance might reduce seat belt use have been
satisfactorily addressed.
There remained NHTSA's concern about problems in installing child
safety seats. Honda believes that, on an uphill incline or when the
vehicle is parked with one side substantially higher than the other, it
would be difficult for a parent to lean downward into the car to
install a child seat. Further, even where the lateral attitude affects
the retractor, 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. 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 has recommended the rear center position
for infant and toddler child seating in its owner's manuals, starting
with the 1992 models, which reduces the likelihood that the seat would
be installed in a rear seat position that might, under the conditions
described, be noncompliant.
Given the physical constraints on placing child safety seats in
vehicles when they are not on level ground, NHTSA's earlier concerns
about child safety have been met by petitioner's argument.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that Honda
has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance herein
described is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and
its appeal to reverse the denial of its petition is granted. NHTSA
notes that Honda is continuing its product campaign in vehicles that
may contain the noncompliant retractors.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
49 CFR 501.8)
Issued on: August 2, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-19277 Filed 8-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P