[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