Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: Kolcraft Enterprises,

[Federal Register: May 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 85)]

[Notices]

[Page 24585-24587]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr04my98-132]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3052; Notice 2]

Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.; Grant of Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Kolcraft Enterprises of Chicago, Illinois, has determined that approximately 107,000 child restraint systems fail to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' and has filedan appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defects and Noncompliance Reports.'' Kolcraft 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.

Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day comment period, on November 25, 1997, in the

[[Page 24586]]

Federal Register (62 FR 59755). NHTSA received no comments.

FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S5.7, requires that each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to S4 of FMVSS No. 302, ``Flammability of Interior Materials.'' This specifies that any material that does not adhere to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the burn rate requirements of S4.3 when tested separately. Materials are to be tested as a composite only if the material adheres to other material(s) at every point of contact.

The Kolcraft child restraints affected and the dates of production are as follows: Plus 4, Infant Rider (Models 36822-HY and 13x22-HY; 1/ 96 to 4/97); Plus 4, Infant Rider (Models 36820-LM and 13822-LM; 2/96 to 4/97); Plus 4, Travel-About, Infant Rider (Models 36820-RF and 138x2-RF; 3/96 to 4/97); Plus 4, Plus 5, Infant Rider, Travel-About (Models 368xx-SE and 13xx2-SE; 2/96 to 12/96); Rock n' Ride (Model 13100-PJ; 1/96 to 5/97; no longer in production); and Performa (Model 23305-TU; 3/96 to 10/96). The seat covers are constructed either of fabric, fiberfill and backing (scrim) or of vinyl, foam, and vinyl backing. In each of the affected models, one or more of the filling, face, or backing materials exceeded the 4 inches per minute burn rate when tested in accordance with S5 of FMVSS No. 302. Kolcraft estimates that about 107,000 child restraints potentially contain the non- compliant materials.

Kolcraft supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance with the following:

Kolcraft tested all potentially affected child restraint seat covers in the composite state and disaggregated state, and confirmed that all seat covers comply with the flammability standards of FMVSS No. 302 when tested in the composite state (as incorporated into FMVSS No. 213). Kolcraft also found that all potentially affected child restraint seat covers passed the cigarette burn test contained in California Technical Bulletin 116 when tested in the composite state.

Kolcraft maintains that the construction of the potentially affected seat covers makes it very unlikely that the various layers of its child restraint seat covers would ever be exposed to fire separately. The layers of fabric are securely bonded or sewn together around the entire perimeter of the seat cover and other areas. Kolcraft contends that it is unlikely that a large section of the fabric would be torn away, and extremely remote that that particular portion would be exposed to a potential ignition source. The most common source of ignition, and the source that FMVSS No. 302 is primarily designed to protect against, is a lighted cigarette. As stated above, all of Kolcraft's child restraints passed the cigarette burn test contained in California Technical Bulletin 116.

Kolcraft also contends that the frequency of incidents involving nonconforming materials or equipment should be a factor in determining whether noncompliance has an impact on safety. Kolcraft notes that, to its knowledge, there has not been one incident of a child injured by a fire that originated in a child restraint in the last 19 years.

Based on the above factors, Kolcraft contends that its child restraint seat pads, by virtue of complying with the flammability requirements of FMVSS No. 302 when tested in the composite state and by passing the cigarette burn test contained in California Technical Bulletin 116, comply with the purpose and intent of FMVSS Nos. 213 and 302, and therefore, the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

The agency has reviewed Kolcraft's application and has determined that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA agrees with Kolcraft that the noncompliant seat covers are unlikely to pose a flammability risk when they are securely sewn to the seat, which is the normal condition for these seats.

Kolcraft supported this point by performing flammability testing under two conditions: first on the seat and cover as a composite, i.e., as it exists on a child seat with the items sewn together; and second, by performing the cigarette burn test contained in California Technical Bulletin 116 on the seat covers in the composite state. In both cases, the seat cover burned at a rate below the four inches per minute maximum set out in FMVSS No. 302.

The agency granted an application for inconsequential noncompliance submitted by Century Products Co. (60 FR 41148) in which the circumstances were identical to those in this application. The granting of Century's application was based, in part, on the agency's decision to grant a petition for inconsequential noncompliance submitted by PACCAR (57 FR 45868) in which the circumstances were similar to those presented in the Century, and now, Kolcraft application. PACCAR manufactures mattresses for the sleeper areas of certain truck tractors. A small portion of the material used in the construction of the mattresses, and subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, failed the burn rate test. The agency determined that ignition of the noncompliant material was unlikely and, due to the small volume of the material, would not pose the threat of a serious fire if ignited. As a result of this analysis, the PACCAR petition was granted.

The circumstances here are similar to those in which the agency granted a petition for inconsequentiality by General Motors in connection with a noncompliance of the upper beam indicator, 56 FR 33323 (1991). The indicator was noncompliant only when the cigarette lighter was operating. The agency determined that the possibility of the upper beams being operated simultaneously with the cigarette lighter posed a very limited safety hazard. Similarly, it is unlikely that the various layers of the child restraint seat covers large enough to cause serious burn injuries would be separated from the remainder of the seat cover. Further, even if a large section of the seat cover was torn away, NHTSA considers the possibility that this material would be exposed to a potential ignition source to be extremely remote.

Although it is possible that fuel-fed fires from vehicle crashes could consume a vehicle's interior, the flammability of the seat cover materials would be irrelevant to the severity of such a fire and to the potential injuries incurred by a child.

NHTSA's evaluation of the consequentiality of this noncompliance should not be interpreted as a diminution of the agency's concern for child safety. Rather, it represents NHTSA's assessment of the gravity of the noncompliance based upon the likely consequences. Ultimately, the issue is whether this particular noncompliance is likely to increase the risk to safety. Although empirical results are not determinative, the absence of any reports of fires originating in these child restraints supports the agency's decision that the noncompliance does not have a consequential effect on safety.

For the above reasons, the agency has determined that Kolcraft has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance at issue here is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and its application is granted. Accordingly, Kolcraft is hereby exempted from the notification and remedy provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h) delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

[[Page 24587]]

Issued on: April 27, 1998. L. Robert Shelton, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98-11783Filed5-1-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P