Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices 39359

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–4078]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision that Nonconforming 1996–

1999 Magni Australia, Magni Sfida, and

Moto Guzzi Daytona RS Motorcycles

Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1996–1999

Magni Australia, Magni Sfida, and Moto

Guzzi Daytona RS motorcycles are

eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This document announces

receipt by the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a

petition for a decision that 1996–1999

Magni Australia, Magni Sfida, and Moto

Guzzi Daytona RS motorcycles that were

not originally manufactured to comply

with all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards are eligible for

importation into the United States

because (1) they are substantially

similar to vehicles that were originally

manufactured for importation into and

sale in the United States and that were

certified by their manufacturer as

complying with the safety standards,

and (2) they are capable of being readily

altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is August 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL –401, 400

Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. [Docket hours are from 10 am to

5 pm]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(A), a

motor vehicle that was not originally

manufactured to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards shall be refused admission

into the United States unless NHTSA

has decided that the motor vehicle is

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the United States,

certified under 49 U.S.C. § 30115, and of

the same model year as the model of the

motor vehicle to be compared, and is

capable of being readily altered to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

J.K. Motors of Kingsville, Maryland

(‘‘J.K.’’) (Registered Importer 90–006)

has petitioned NHTSA to decide

whether non-U.S. certified 1996–1999

Magni Australia, Magni Sfida, and Moto

Guzzi Daytona RS motorcycles are

eligible for importation into the United

States. The vehicles which J.K. believes

are substantially similar are 1996–1999

Moto Guzzi Daytona RS motorcycles

that were manufactured for importation

into, and sale in, the United States and

certified by their manufacturer as

conforming to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared non-U.S. certified 1996–1999

Magni Australia, Magni Sfida, and Moto

Guzzi Daytona RS motorcycles to U.S.

certified 1996–1999 Moto Guzzi

Daytona RS motorcycles, and found the

vehicles to be substantially similar with

respect to compliance with most Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

J.K. submitted information with its

petition intended to demonstrate that

non-U.S. certified 1996–1999 Magni

Australia, Magni Sfida, and Moto Guzzi

Daytona RS motorcycles, as originally

manufactured, conform to many Federal

motor vehicle safety standards in the

same manner as U.S. certified 1996–

1999 Moto Guzzi Daytona RS

motorcycles, or are capable of being

readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

non-U.S. certified 1996–1999 Magni

Australia, Magni Sfida, and Moto Guzzi

Daytona RS motorcycles are identical to

U.S. certified 1996–1999 Moto Guzzi

Daytona RS motorcycles with respect to

compliance with Standard Nos. 106

Brake Hoses, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 116

Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires

for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars,

120 Tire Selection and Rims for

Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars,

122 Motorcycle Brake Systems, 123

Motorcycle Controls and Displays, and

205 Glazing Materials.

The petitioner also states that nonU.S. certified 1996–1999 Magni

Australia, Magni Sfida, and Moto Guzzi

Daytona RS motorcycles are equipped

with vehicle identification number

plates meeting the requirements of 49

CFR Part 565.

Petitioner additionally contends that

the vehicles are capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standard,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)

installation of U.S.-model headlamp

assemblies; (b) installation of U.S.

model taillamp assemblies which

incorporate rear sidemarker lamps and

side reflectors.

Comments should refer to the docket

number and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated above will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the

docket at the above address both before

and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: July 16, 1998.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 98–19482 Filed 7–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–4033; Notice 1]

Cosco, Inc.; Receipt of Application for

Decision of Inconsequential

Noncompliance

Cosco, Incorporated, of Columbus,

Indiana, has determined that a number

of 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.’’ Cosco has

also applied to be exempted from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle
39360 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices

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 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgement concerning the

merits of the application.

FMVSS No. 213, S5.4.3.5(b), requires

that after the dynamic buckle release

test prescribed in S6.2 of the standard,

any buckle in a child restraint system

belt assembly designed to restrain a

child using the system shall release

when a force of not more than 71

Newtons (N) (16 pounds) is applied,

provided that the conformance of any

child restraint to this requirement is

determined using the largest of the test

dummies specified in S7 for use in

testing that restraint when the restraint

is facing forward, rearward, and/or

laterally. Additionally, S5.4.3.5(d)

requires that the buckle latch of a child

restraint system shall not fail, nor gall

or wear to an extent that normal

latching and unlatching is impaired

when tested in accordance with the

buckle latch test requirements in S5.2(g)

of FMVSS No. 209, ‘‘Seat Belt

Assemblies.’’

Four Cosco Touriva T-shields, Model

02–096, were tested as part of the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration’s (NHTSA) fiscal year

(FY) 1996 child restraint testing

program. When tested with the 3-yearold dummy in the upright position, the

plunger pin of the buckle assembly was

sheared, and the buckle released during

the dynamic test. In a retest conducted

using the same configuration, the posttest buckle release force exceeded 71 N

(77.8 N, or 17.5 lb). Units tested with

the infant dummy and with the 3-yearold dummy in the reclined position

were in compliance. NHTSA notified

Cosco of the test failures noted above, as

documented in Calspan Report Number

213–CAL–96–013. In its own

investigation, Cosco was able to obtain

results in isolated tests similar to those

in the FY96 NHTSA tests. Accordingly,

Cosco has confirmed that it has

manufactured and distributed a limited

number of Touriva convertible child

restraint systems that may not comply

with the above requirements. The units

potentially exhibiting noncompliance

are those Touriva T-shield models

manufactured from May 1, 1996,

through November 26, 1997, as follows:

Touriva Convertible Safe T-Shield, Full

Wrap Fabric Cover (Model 02–084, 5/96

to 11/97, quantity: 11,018); Touriva

Convertible Safe T-Shield, Partial Wrap

Fabric Cover (Model 02–094, 5/96 to 11/

97, quantity: 7,202); Touriva Convertible

Safe T-Shield, Full Wrap Fabric Cover

with Pillow (Model 02–096, 5/96 to 10/

97, quantity: 1,411); Touriva Convertible

Safe T-Shield, Partial Wrap Vinyl Cover

(Model 02–404, 5/96 to 5/97, quantity:

682); Touriva Convertible Safe T-Shield,

Partial Wrap Fabric Cover (Model 02–

821, 5/96 to 11/97, quantity: 186,040).

Cosco supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

Cosco was able to obtain units

manufactured both on and near the dates in

question as well as subsequent production

units. After extensive in-house dynamic

testing and analysis, units were sent to

Calspan for testing. Cosco made repeated

trips to Calspan in an attempt to understand

and resolve this potential noncompliance.

Cosco was able to obtain results in isolated

tests similar to that of the FY96 NHTSA tests.

Cosco was not able to attribute the potential

noncompliance to the design or manufacture

of any particular component. We ran dozens

of in-house tests and spent hundreds of hours

in an effort to determine the reason isolated

units manufactured on or after 5/10/96 were

inconsistently exhibiting high post-test

buckle release pressure and shearing of the

plunger pin. The results have been

inconsistent. The T-shield units involved in

NHTSA’s FY97 test program tested

successfully, but were of identical

construction and design to those which failed

the FY96 testing.

Since the Touriva T-shield models were

first introduced in 1994, Cosco has required

the vendor who is molding the housing and

plunger pin and assembling the buckle

assembly housing, spring and plunger pin to

perform a pretest buckle release pressure on

each assembly. No buckle assembly

exhibiting a pretest buckle release pressure of

over 13 lb nor under 10 lb has ever been used

in the production of any Touriva convertible

child restraint, including the T-shield units

in question. In searching for possible

explanations for the isolated deficiencies,

Cosco made a material change to the housing

of the buckle assembly and the material of

the plunger pin. This material change has

resulted in eliminating any potential

noncompliance related to both the high posttest buckle release pressure and the shearing

of the plunger pin, although the minimal

differences in properties between the

materials does not adequately or conclusively

explain the test results. All T-shield units

manufactured after November 27, 1997 have

a housing manufactured using 30% glass

filled nylon instead of ABS and a plunger pin

using Delrin 100P versus Delrin 500. The Tshield units supplied for NHTSA FY98

testing had the new materials incorporated

into the buckle assembly.

In its Part 573 Report to the agency,

Cosco stated that it:

. . . does not believe that any defect or

repeatedly discernable noncompliance exists

with the subject child restraint * * * While

a small percentage of the Calspan tests

performed on the subject units did exhibit

noncompliance results, a vast majority of

identical child restraints manufactured

during the same period produced complying

test results. Cosco concludes from this testing

and our exhaustive analysis of the subject

child restraints and testing procedures that

the noncompliance test results are not the

result of the design, materials, or

manufacturing processes involved in the

production of the subject child restraints, but

rather test variables and anomalies that are

inherent in the 213 test procedures.

In the summary of its application for

inconsequential noncompliance, Cosco

stated that it ‘‘does not believe the

inconsistent deficiency exhibited by a

few of the tested units warrants a

recall.’’ Cosco concluded that

‘‘reasonable evaluation of the facts

surrounding this technical

noncompliance will result in the

decision that no practical safety issue

exists.’’

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: 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: August 21,

1998.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: July 16, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–19427 Filed 7–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–98–4029; Notice 1]

Pipeline Safety: Implementation of

One-Call Systems Study

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA); Office of

Pipeline Safety (OPS).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.