[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 115 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14676]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 16, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 93-79; Notice 3]
Fisher-Price, Inc.; Notice of Appeal of Denial of Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Fisher-Price, Inc. (Fisher-Price), of East Aurora, New York, has
appealed a decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) that denied Fisher-Price's petition that its
noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' be deemed inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety (Docket No. 93-79; Notice 2, 59 FR
23253; May 5, 1994).
This notice of receipt of Fisher-Price's appeal is published in
accordance with NHTSA regulations (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.
Paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213 states that ``[e]ach material used
in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of
FMVSS No. 302 (`Flammability of Interior Materials') (571.302).''
Paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 302 states that ``[w]hen tested in
accordance with S5, material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn,
nor transmit a flame front across its, surface, at a rate of more than
4 inches per minute.''
As noted in Notice 1 (58 FR 59511; November 9, 1993) of Docket No.
93-79, Fisher-Price determined that some of its child safety seats
failed to comply with FMVSS No. 213, and filed an appropriate report
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.''
Fisher-Price petitioned to be exempted from the notification and remedy
requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Act)
(15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) on the basis that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
On May 5, 1994, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register
denying Fisher-Price'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 noncompliance and the agency's
rationale in denying the petition.
On May 6, 1994, Fisher-Price submitted an appeal of the agency's
decision to deny its petition. The appeal contains an analysis of the
agency's decision, a summary of the supplemental information Fisher-
Price submitted (which is described below), and the affidavit of Gail
E. McCarthy, Ph.D, P.E., of Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA).
Supplementary Information: Notice 1 to this docket established a 30-day
public comment period, which expired on December 9, 1993. Nevertheless,
Fisher-Price submitted additional information related to its petition
on three occasions: February 25, 1994, March 17, 1994, and March 24,
1994. Fisher-Price also submitted additional information with its May
6, 1994, appeal. These materials are available for public review in the
NHTSA docket.
The March 17, 1994, document contained research conducted by FaAA
for Fisher-Price, including burn tests and a search of the literature
and accident data regarding child seat fires. The submission also
included a calculation of an alleged incremental risk associated with a
recall of the noncompliant seats.
The March 24, 1994, document, entitled ``Supporting Documentation
for Evaluation of the Fire Safety of Fisher-Price, Inc. Child Restraint
Shoulder Harness Webbing,'' contains the detailed data and test results
on which the material in the March 17, 1994, document was based.
Fisher-Price's May 6, 1994, appeal raised the following points: (1)
In the notice of denial, NHTSA stated that Fisher-Price ``determined''
that some of its child restraints failed to comply with FMVSS No. 213;
Fisher-Price states that it has yet to make this determination. (2) In
the notice of denial, NHTSA stated that it believes flammability
requirements for child restraints should be strictly adhered to;
Fisher-Price believes that NHTSA should not hold child restraints to
what it perceives to be a stricter standard than is stated in the Act.
(3) Fisher-Price cites the grant by NHTSA of a petition for
inconsequentiality filed by PACCAR, Inc. in which tape edging on a
mattress had failed FMVSS No. 302 requirements (57 FR 45868; October 5,
1992). The petition was granted by NHTSA based in part on the fact that
the tape edging was a very small portion of the mattress. It also cites
an appeal to a petition filed by the American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
(Honda) (49 FR 15046; April 16, 1984) which was granted. The agency's
rationale for granting the appeal was based in part on the fact that
Honda had not received any complaints regarding the noncompliance. (4)
Fisher-Price claims that the data it submitted in support of its
contention that children's clothing poses a much greater risk to safety
than the noncompliant webbing were not adequately refuted.
In the affidavit submitted with the appeal, Dr. McCarthy argues
that: (1) The shoulder belt webbing should properly be viewed as
meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 302; (2) any noncompliance that
might be deemed to exist has no impact on motor vehicle safety; and (3)
possible remedial measures would create substantially greater risk of
injury to children than that presented by the webbing.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on the appeal of Fisher-Price, described above. Comments
should refer to the docket and notice 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. All comments received after
the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the
extent feasible. When the appeal is granted or denied, notice will be
published in the Federal Register.
Comment closing date: July 18, 1994.
(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)
Issued on: June 10, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-14676 Filed 6-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
