[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55836-55838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27679]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 96-110; Notice 1]
Cosco, Inc.; Receipt of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Cosco, Inc. (Cosco), of Columbus, Indiana, has manufactured and
distributed add-on child restraint systems that fail to conform to the
requirements of 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, ``Defect 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(d) and does not represent any agency decision or other
exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the application.
In FMVSS No. 213, Paragraph 5.2.3.2 states that ``each system
surface, * * * which is contactable by the dummy head when the system
is tested in accordance with Section 6.1, shall be covered with slow
recovery, energy absorbing material with the following characteristics:
``(a) A 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of not less
than 0.5 and not more than 10 pounds per square inch when tested in
accordance with S6.3
``(b) A thickness of not less than 1/2 inch for materials having a
25 percent compression-deflection resistance of not less than 1.8 and
not more than 10 pounds per square inch when tested in accordance with
S6.3. Materials having a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance
of less than 1.8 pounds per square inch shall have a thickness of not
less than 3/4 inch.''
Cosco's description of the noncompliance follows: Cosco has
determined that a limited number of Grand Explorer booster seats, Cosco
model 02-424 GDM and 02-424-OXF manufactured during certain weeks of
May/June, 1996, contain foam in the barrier pad that does not meet the
requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
The barrier pad on a production unit of the Grand Explorer did not
meet Paragraph 5.2.3.2 in that it appeared to be less dense and have
less compression-deflection resistance than required by the Standard.
Cosco has determined that 7,004 noncomplying units were shipped to
retailers of vehicles, 2,711 units were returned. The balance of 4,293
units that have not been returned are presumed to have been sold to
consumers.
Cosco stated that, in anticipation of amendments to FMVSS No. 213
adding new test dummies and different dynamic test parameters, it
[Cosco] developed a new booster child restraint system known as the
Grand Explorer. This model has a removable shield of slightly different
design than the original Explorer. When the shield is removed, the
Grand Explorer serves as a belt positioning booster seat. Production of
the Grand Explorer began in January 1996.
When the Grand Explorer with the shield was dynamically tested
using the three year old test dummy, the head of the dummy contacted
the shield's surface. Cosco then specified that the foam in the pad for
the Grand Explorer comply with FMVSS 213 S. 5.2.3.2 (b), that is foam
having a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of between 0.5
and 1.8 pounds per square inch with a thickness of not less than 3/4
inch. Cosco specified that the foam for
[[Page 55837]]
the seat pad of the Grand Explorer, which is not required to comply
with this standard, be of a less dense material. The dimensions of the
seat pad foam are very close to the dimensions of the barrier pad foam.
On June 6, 1996, Cosco Product Development employees, while
evaluating the barrier pad on a production unit of the Grand Explorer,
discovered that the foam did not meet paragraph 5.2.3.2, in that it
appeared to be less dense and have less compression-deflection
resistance than required by that paragraph. All shipments of the Grand
Explorer were immediately suspended and all production red-tagged to
identify potentially noncomplying units. On June 7, 1996, it was
confirmed that some barrier pads for two SKU's of the Grand Explorer
that were supplied by one vendor did not comply with this section of
FMVSS 213 and that some of the Grand Explorers had been shipped to
certain retailers.
Cosco promptly notified all retailers which had received the
potentially noncomplying product and arrangements were made for their
return. All returned units were inspected and noncomplying units were
counted and segregated for rework. All affected units in Cosco's
inventory were red-tagged, and inspected and those units with the
noncomplying pads were reworked. All barrier pads in inventory were
red-tagged, inspected and reworked as necessary. The return and rework
program was completed on July 27, 1996. On July 31, 1996, Cosco
submitted its final Defect Information Report relative to this matter
which identified two SKU's of the Grand Explorer which were involved.
Cosco supported its application for inconsequentiality of the
noncompliance with the following:
``1. Dynamic test results measuring Head Injury Criteria (HIC) are
equal for Grand Explorer units tested with noncomplying and complying
barrier foam.
``2. The total of 4,293 noncomplying Grand Explorer booster seats
in the hands of consumers are insignificant when compared to the total
number of all models of Explorers sold since 1990. A notification and
remedy program involving such a proportionately small number of units
will cast doubt on the performance and effectiveness of millions of
proven child restraints that have been used successfully for many
years, potentially resulting in significant nonuse of an effective
child restraint.''
A detailed discussion of Cosco's arguments in support of this
petition follows:
``In testing initial production units of the Grand Explorer with
the three year old dummy in the shield configuration with barrier pad
foam in compliance with S5.2.3.2 (b), Cosco obtained acceptable HIC
results.
``When evaluating the effect of the subject noncompliance on motor
vehicle safety, engineers at Cosco were interested in determining what
difference, if any, in HIC results would be obtained with the
noncomplying foam in the barrier pad. A series of sled tests were
performed at Calspan on August 16, 1996, as requested by Cosco.
``Four sled tests were performed. For test 11675, two units were
run during the same test, one unit with a complying barrier foam pad
and one unit with a noncomplying barrier foam pad. For test 11676, two
units, one complying and one noncomplying were again run, with the
location of the units switched to compare any difference with the
location of the child restraint on the seat bench. Tests 11677 and
11678 were each run with one unit with a noncomplying barrier pad in
the center of the test bench. The test results are summarized on the
following page:
August 9, 1996, Test Plan--Calspan Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test
Test No. dummy Test description Velocity Pulse HIC CR
(years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1167-5...... 1N 3........ With Shield, Lap Belt 28.2 Std. 213......... 673 39.7
Only 1.8 Density
Foam Padding.
1167-5...... 1S 3........ With Shield, Lap Belt 28.2 Std. 213......... 569 35.8
Only 1.2 Density
Foam Padding.
1167-6...... 2N 3........ With Shield, Lap Belt 28.4 Std. 213......... 717 42.7
Only 1.2 Density
Foam Padding.
1167-6...... 2S 3........ With Shield, Lap Belt 28.4 Std. 213......... 549 38.8
Only 1.8 Density
Foam Padding.
1167-7...... 3 3........ With Shield, Lap Belt 28.3 Std. 213......... 856 42.5
Only 1.2 Density
Foam Padding.
1167-8...... 4 3........ With Shield, Lap Belt 28.4 Std. 213......... 828 43.1
Only 1.2 Density
Foam Padding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``When evaluating the results of tests 11675 and 11676, there is no
statistical difference between the complying versus noncomplying units
when run on the same position on the test bench in the two tests. The
complying unit in the southern position had a HIC result of 549, while
the noncomplying unit in the same position had a HIC result of 569. The
noncomplying unit in the north position had a HIC result of 717 while
the complying unit in the same position had a HIC result of 673.
``In tests 11677 and 11678, the HIC results of 856 and 828,
respectively, are consistent with and not statistically different than
the HIC results of Calspan tests 11276 and 11277, which were 836 and
856, respectively. These tests conclusively establish that the
difference between the noncomplying and complying foam in the barrier
pads of the Grand Explorer has no statistically significant effect on
the key dynamic measurement of head injury potential for child
restraints, and is thus inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
``The number of units of the noncomplying grand explorer sold to
consumers is insignificant when all circumstances are considered. Since
1990, Cosco has sold 3,051,003 units of the original Explorer. Since
beginning production in January 1996, Cosco has shipped 144,453 units
of the Grand Explorer. The maximum number of Grand Explorers with the
noncomplying barrier pad foam that could have been sold to consumers is
4,293 units.''
In conclusion, Cosco submits that a reasonable evaluation of all of
the facts surrounding this noncompliance results in the conclusion that
no practical safety issue exists and that the limited number of
noncomplying child restraints in the hands of consumers poses
absolutely no safety risks to the public. The fact that no actual
safety risks to the public exists as a result of this technical
noncompliance establishes conclusively this noncompliance is
inconsequential.
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: Docket Section,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, D.C., 20590. It is requested
[[Page 55838]]
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. 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: November 29, 1996.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: October 23, 1996.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-27679 Filed 10-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P