[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32303-32304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15251]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5800; Notice 1]
Cosco, Inc.; Receipt of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Cosco, Incorporated, of Columbus, Indiana, has determined that a
number of child restraint systems fail to comply with 49 CFR 571.213,
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child
Restraint Systems,'' and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49
CFR Part 573, ``Defects and Noncompliance Reports.'' Cosco has also
applied to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of an application is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgement concerning the merits of the application.
FMVSS No. 213, S5.5.2.(k), requires that each add-on child
restraint system designed to be used rear facing must have a label that
warns the consumer not to place the rear-facing child restraint system
in the front seat of a vehicle that has a passenger side air bag, and a
statement that describes the consequences of not following the warning.
These statements must be on a red, orange, or yellow contrasting
background, and placed on the restraint so that it is on the side of
the restraint designed to be adjacent to the front passenger door of a
vehicle and is visible to a person installing the rear-facing child
restraint system in the front passenger seat.
Cosco has notified the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that between March 31, 1999 and April 7, 1999, it
manufactured 815 Arrive Infant Child Restraints, Model 02-729-TED, that
do not have the air bag warning label required in S5.5.2(k) of FMVSS
213. During this time period, one of the production lines used by Cosco
to produce the Arriva model used pads for the Canadian version of this
child restraint which do not incorporate the air bag warning label
required by FMVSS 213.
Cosco supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance
with the following:
Cosco contends this noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. A notice and remedy campaign
(``recall'') would not serve any safety related purpose and would in
fact, cast doubt in the minds of the consumer as to the
effectiveness of child restraints. We believe the low number of
units involved (815) combined with the enormous publicity given to
the warning label issue, rear-facing seats in air bag locations, and
given the fact the instructions and unit labels do warn to the
consumer about this misuse do not warrant a recall.
To reiterate, Cosco does not believe this noncompliance warrants
a recall. The Agency, child restraint manufacturers and child
passenger safety advocates are all aware of the negative impacts of
recalls resulting from technical noncompliance. The two primary
negative effects are, the public, because of the number and
frequency of such recalls, pays no attention to recalls that in fact
do in a practical way affect child passenger safety. In addition,
the public upon seeing the number of recalls, concludes child
restraints currently available are unsafe and therefore declines to
use them. The Agency is aware and , in fact, has publicly advised
consumers to use child restraints which have defects or
noncompliances that have resulted in recalls until such child
restraints can be corrected. This is in recognition of the fact that
technical noncompliance does not compromise the overall
effectiveness of child restraints. In the event a recall is ordered
for the noncompliance which has been identified, both of the effects
described will impact consumers negatively.
In conclusion, Cosco submits reasonable evaluation of the facts
surrounding this technical noncompliance will result in the decision
that no practical safety issue exists.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on the application of Cosco described above. Comments should
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: U.S. Department of
Transportation Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. It is requested, but not required, that two
copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated below will be considered. The application 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
application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: July 16, 1999.
(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
[[Page 32304]]
Issued on: June 10, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-15251 Filed 6-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
