62798 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Notices

(3) the extent to which such country

has assured the United States it will

provide equitable and reasonable access

to the markets and basic commodity

resources of such country;

(4) the degree to which such country

follows the accepted rules of

international trade provided for under

the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade, as well as applicable trade

agreements approved under section 2(a)

of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979;

(5) the degree to which such country

uses export subsidies or imposes export

performance requirements or local

content requirements which distort

international trade;

(6) the degree to which the trade

policies of such country as they relate

to other beneficiary countries are

contributing to the revitalization of the

region;

(7) the degree to which such country

is undertaking self-help measures to

provide its own economic development;

(8) whether or not such country has

taken or is taking steps to afford to

workers in that country (including any

designated zone in that country)

internationally recognized worker

rights.

(9) the extent to which such country

provides under its law adequate and

effective means for foreign nationals to

secure, exercise, and enforce exclusive

rights in intellectual property, including

patent, trademark, and copyright rights;

(10) the extent to which such country

prohibits its nationals from engaging in

the broadcast of copyrighted material,

including films or television material,

belonging to United States copyright

owners without their express consent;

and

(11) the extent to which such country

is prepared to cooperate with the United

States in the administration of the

provisions of this title.

Interested parties are invited to

submit comments on the application to

Anguilla of some or all of these criteria

for designation.

Public Comments

Interested parties must provide twelve

copies of any comments, which must be

in English and which must be received

at USTR no later than 5 p.m., Friday,

January 2, 1998. If the comments

contain business confidential

information, ten copies of a nonconfidential version must also be

submitted. A justification as to why the

information contained in the comments

should be treated confidentially must be

included in the comments. In addition,

comments containing confidential

information should be clearly marked

‘‘confidential’’ at the top of each page.

The version that does not contain

confidential information should be

clearly marked ‘‘public version’’ or

‘‘non-confidential’’ at the top of each

page.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice, except for information

granted ‘‘business confidential’’ status

pursuant to 15 CFR 2007.7, will be

available for public inspection shortly

after the filing deadline, by appointment

with the staff of the USTR Public

Reading Room (202 395–6186).

Frederick L. Montgomery,

Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.

[FR Doc. 97–30954 Filed 11–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3129; Notice 1]

Ford Motor Company; Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Ford Motor Company, Dearborn,

Michigan, has estimated that

approximately 853,000 of the 1995–

1997 Ford Explorer and 1997 Mercury

Mountaineer vehicles with console

armrests fail to comply with 49 CFR

571.302, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 302,

‘‘Flammability of Interior Materials,’’

and has filed an appropriate report

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defects

and Noncompliance Reports.’’ Ford has

also petitioned 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 as it

relates to motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of a petition is

published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and

30120 and does not represent any

agency decision or other exercise of

judgment concerning the merits of the

petition.

FMVSS No. 302, Paragraphs S4.2 and

S4.3 specify that any portion of a single

or composite material which is within

1⁄2 inch of the occupant compartment air

space, when tested in accordance with

paragraph S5, shall not burn, nor

transmit a flame across its surface at a

rate of more than 4 inches per minute.

Composite is defined as a material that

adheres to other material(s) at every

point of contact. FMVSS No. 302’s burn

rate testing requires a 4-inch wide by

14-inch long sample, wherever possible

(S5.2).

The Ford armrest has multi-layer

cover materials: a 1.5mm thick exterior

cover, a 2mm thick second layer

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate/Polyethylene

(EVA/PE), referred to in the petition as

‘‘plus pad,’’ a 13mm thick third layer

foam bun pad, and a 3mm

polycarbonate substratum. The subject

flammable interior material of Ford’s

petition for determination of

inconsequential noncompliance is the

2mm thick ‘‘plus pad’’ layer.

Ford acknowledged that the ‘‘plus

pad’’ material is not adhered to its

1.5mm exterior cover material or the

13mm foam bun under it at every point

of contact. Therefore, as specified in

FMVSS No. 302, the ‘‘plus pad’’

material cannot be tested with other

materials as a composite material and

has to be tested separately. Ford

reported that when the ‘‘plus pad’’

material was tested separately, it

showed a burn rate range from 8 to 10

inches per minute—a noncompliance to

FMVSS No. 302. Ford stated that all

other affected materials in the armrest

satisfy the 4-inch per minute burn rate,

presumably they were tested according

to the standard’s requirements. Ford

explained that the supplier of the ‘‘plus

pad’’ material only ‘‘certified’’ the raw

material for FMVSS No. 302 by testing

11mm thick samples, not the designed

2mm thickness.

Ford supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

A. Ford stated that the FMVSS No.

302 burn rate testing requirement of

cutting a sample from the ‘‘normal

configuration and packaging in the

vehicle’’ is conservative in regard to the

actual fire spreading potential of the

tested material.

B. The 2mm ‘‘plus pad’’ failed the

FMVSS No. 302 test requirements when

tested as a single material. However, a

series of further testing demonstrates

that the noncompliance does not

adversely affect occupant safety because

it does not increase the burn rates of the

assembly or the adjacent materials in

the assembly to levels higher than

specified by FMVSS No. 302.

C. The ‘‘plus pad’’ counts less than 10

percent of the armrest material and is an

insignificant percentage of the vehicle’s

remaining materials. All other

flammable interior materials of the

subject vehicles complied with FMVSS

No. 302. Therefore, the noncompliance

of the ‘‘plus pad’’ offers an insignificant

portion of interior materials that could

potentially support an interior fire.

Ford attached the following summary

results of several alternative tests,

including a worse case scenario test:

1. FMVSS No. 302 type tests (cover,

plus pad, and foam)—treated the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Notices 62799

assembly materials as a composite

material.

2. FMVSS No. 302 type tests (cover,

plus pad, and foam) simulating cut or

torn materials:

a. Cut the cover layer longitudinally,

b. Cut a hole in the cover layer, and

c. Cut through the cover layer and the

‘‘plus pad’’ longitudinally.

3. FMVSS No. 302 type tests (plus pad

and foam)—with the cover layer

completely removed to simulate a worst

case scenario.

4. Cut a complete armrest assembly in

half along the lateral-vertical plane:

a. Exposed the opposite of the cut end

to the flame, and

b. Exposed the cut cross-section to the

flame.

All tested results satisfied the FMVSS

No. 302 burn rate requirements.

In conclusion, Ford requested NHTSA

to grant the inconsequentiality petition

since the ‘‘plus pad’’ complied with

FMVSS No. 302’s requirements in every

other test except that when tested by

itself. Ford’s request was based on the

facts that the ‘‘plus pad’’ represents an

insignificant adverse effect on interior

material burn rate and the potential for

occupant injury due to interior fire and

that the noncompliance presents no

reasonably anticipated risk to motor

vehicle safety.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of Ford

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested, but not required,

that two 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: December 26,

1997.

For further information contact the

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC, 20590. For non-legal issues: Dr.

William J.J. Liu, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone:

202–366–4923). For legal issues: Mr. Z.

Taylor Vinson, Office of the Chief

Counsel (Telephone: 202–366–5263).

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: November 19, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–30904 Filed 11–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3052; Notice 1]

Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.; Receipt 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 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, ‘‘Defects and Noncompliance

Reports.’’ Kolcraft has also petitioned 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 as it relates to motor

vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of a petition is

published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and

30120 and does not represent any

agency decision or other exercise of

judgement concerning the merits of the

petition.

FMVSS No. 213, Paragraph S5.7

requires that each material used in a

child restraint system shall conform to

the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No.

302, ‘‘Flammability of Interior

Materials.’’ This requires 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.

At issue in this petition are seat

covers on certain models of Kolcraft

child restraints that do not meet the

flammability requirements of FMVSS

Nos. 213 and 302. 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 their

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 their 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, their noncompliance is

inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle

safety.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of Kolcraft

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC