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
62800 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Notices

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.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: November 20, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–30905 Filed 11–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Exemption From the

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;

BMW

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the

petition of BMW of North America, Inc.,

(BMW) for an exemption of a high-theft

line, the Carline 3, from the partsmarking requirements of the vehicle

theft prevention standard. This petition

is granted because the agency has

determined that the antitheft device to

be placed on the line as standard

equipment is likely to be as effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with the

1999 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Sanjay Patel, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590. Mr. Patel’s telephone number is

(202) 366–0846. His fax number is (202)

493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

petition dated August 28, 1997, BMW of

North America, Inc. (BMW), requested

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements of the theft prevention

standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the

Carline 3, beginning with MY 1999. The

petition has been filed pursuant to 49

CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle

Theft Prevention Standard, based on the

installation of an antitheft device as

standard equipment for an entire

vehicle line.

BMW’s submittal is considered a

complete petition, as required by 49

CFR Part 543.7, in that it meets the

general requirements contained in

§ 543.5 and the specific content

requirements of § 543.6. In its petition,

BMW provided a detailed description

and diagram of the identity, design, and

location of the components of the

antitheft device for the new line. This

antitheft device includes an electronic

immobilizer system, consisting of a key

with a transponder (a transmitter/

receiver) that is a microchip that is

integrated into the key. This

transponder will allow the ignition to

operate and fuel supply to be released

when a correct signal has been received.

BMW states that its electronically-coded

vehicle immobilizer (EWS) will prevent

the vehicle from being driven away

under the power of its own engine by

manipulations on the ignition lock and

on the doors. The immobilizer device is

automatically activated when the engine

is shut off and the vehicle key is

removed from the ignition lock cylinder.

In addition to the key, the antitheft

device can be activated by use of its

radio frequency remote control. The

frequency codes of the remote control

are ever-changing which prevents an

unauthorized person from opening the

vehicle by intercepting the signals.

The vehicle is also equipped with a

central-locking system which locks all

doors, the hood, the trunk and fuel filler

lid. To prevent locking the keys in the

car upon exiting, the driver door can

only be locked with a key or by the

radio frequency remote control after it is

closed. This also locks the other doors,

and if they are open at the time of

locking, the doors are locked when they

are closed.

BMW mentioned the uniqueness of its

locks and its ignition key. BMW stated

that its vehicle’s locks are almost

impossible to pick, and its ignition key

cannot be duplicated on the open

market. BMW also stated that a special

key blank, key-cutting machine and

owner’s individual code are needed to

cut a new key and that its key blanks,

machines and codes will be closely

controlled and new keys will only be

issued to authorized persons.

Additionally, spare keys can only be

obtained through the BMW dealer

because they are not a copy of lost

originals, but new keys with their

original electronic identification. Every

key request is also documented so that

any inquiries by insurance companies

and investigative authorities can be

followed up on.

The battery for BMW’s Carline 3 will

be inaccessibly located and covered as

an additional security measure.

Therefore, even if a thief does manage

to penetrate and disconnect the battery,

it will not unlock the doors. However,

in the event of a crash, an inertia switch

will automatically unlock all the doors.

BMW also stated that its antitheft

device does not incorporate any audible

or visual alarms. However, based on the

declining theft rate experience of other

vehicles equipped with devices that do

not have an audio or visual alarm for

which NHTSA has already exempted

from the parts-marking requirements,

the agency has concluded that the data

indicate that lack of a visual or audio

alarm has not prevented these antitheft

devices from being effective protection

against theft.

BMW compared the device proposed

for its new line with devices which

NHTSA has previously determined to be

as effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as would

compliance with the parts-marking

requirements of Part 541, and has

concluded that the antitheft device

proposed for this new line is no less

effective than those devices in the lines

for which NHTSA has already granted

exemptions from the parts-marking

requirements. The antitheft system that

BMW intends to install on its Carline 3

for the MY 1999 is exactly the same

system that BMW installed on its

Carline 5 for MY 1997. The agency

granted BMW’s petition for exemption

of its Carline 5 in full beginning with

the 1997 model year (See 61 FR 6292,

February 16, 1996).

In order to ensure reliability and

durability of the device, BMW stated

that it conducted performance tests

under BMW Standard 600 13.0, Parts 1

and 2, e.g., climatic tests, high

temperature endurance run,

thermoshock test in water, chemical

resistance, vibrational load, electrical

ranges, mechanical shock tests, and

electromagnetic field compatibility.

Additionally, BMW stated that its

immobilizer system fulfills the

requirements of the European vehicle

insurance companies which became

standard as of January 1995. The

requirements prescribe that the vehicle

must be equipped with an electronic

vehicle immobilizing device which

works independently from the

mechanical locking system and prevents

the operation of the vehicle through the

use of coded intervention in the engine

management system. In addition, the

device must be self-arming (passive),