[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 155 (Friday, August 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41150-41151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19898]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 93-48; Notice 4]
Cosco, Inc.; Grant of Appeal of Denial of Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance
On April 30, 1993, Cosco, Inc. (Cosco), of Columbus, Indiana,
determined that some of its child safety seats failed to comply with
flammability requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' and filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.'' On May 28, 1993, Cosco petitioned to be exempted from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (formerly
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) on the basis that
the noncompliance was inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published in the Federal
Register on July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36510). On March 22, 1994, NHTSA denied
Cosco'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 (59 FR 14443, March 28, 1994). Cosco appealed that
denial. On June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30831), NHTSA published a notice
providing an opportunity for public comment on that appeal. No comments
were received. This notice grants Cosco's appeal.
Paragraph S5.7 of Standard 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 Standard 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.''
Fabric used in the shoulder straps of certain models of Cosco's
child restraints exceeded this limit by an average of .3 inches per
minute when tested by NHTSA contractors in early 1993. Apparently, the
noncompliance was due to the manner in which the fabric was treated
during the process in which the straps were molded into a urethane
shield. The company that performed this process for Cosco is the same
company that performed the identical process for Fisher-Price, Inc.,
another manufacturer of child restraints whose request for an
inconsequentiality exemption from the recall requirements of the
statute is granted elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
In its 1993 noncompliance notice, Cosco stated that it had produced
133,897 add-on (as opposed to built-in) child restraints whose shoulder
straps did not comply with Standard No. 213. On appeal of the
inconsequentiality denial, it stated that only 23,449 restraints seats
should have been covered by the notice, the remainder having been
shipped to its Canadian subsidiary.
On March 22, 1994, NHTSA denied Cosco's inconsequentiality petition
(59 FR 14443, March 28, 1994). That notice contains a full discussion
of the noncompliance, the company's petition, and the agency's
rationale for its denial of the petition.
On June 15, 1994, NHTSA published in the Federal Register Cosco's
appeal of the agency's denial pursuant to 49 CFR 556.7. In the appeal,
Cosco contended that it is extremely unlikely that straps of its child
restraints would ignite independently of an interior fire that was
already in progress from another source. It argued that NHTSA based its
denial of the petition on hypothetical situations rather than confirmed
reports of child restraint fires.
NHTSA has evaluated Cosco's arguments as well as the new materials
submitted by Fisher-Price in support of its appeal. For the reasons set
out in the notice granting Fisher-Price's appeal, which is published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register (Docket No. 93-79; Notice 5), the
agency has determined that Cosco has met its burden of persuasion that
the noncompliance at issue here is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Cosco is hereby exempted from the notification
[[Page 41151]]
and remedy provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30119 and 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h); delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: August 8, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-19898 Filed 8-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
