[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