[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54727-54729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26151]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-6271; Notice 1]


Safeline Corporation; Receipt of Applications for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Safeline Corporation, of Denver, Colorado, has determined that a 
number of child restraint systems fail to comply with sections of 49 
CFR 571.213, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, 
``Child Restraint Systems,'' and has filed appropriate reports pursuant 
to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defects and Noncompliance Reports.'' Safeline 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 noncompliances are inconsequential to safety.
    Safeline has identified two noncompliant conditions, and has filed 
separate applications for each of these conditions. This notice 
addresses each of these applications. This notice is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and

[[Page 54728]]

30120, and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of 
judgement concerning the merits of the application.
    Omission of Air Bag Warning Label. FMVSS No. 213 has required rear-
facing child restraints to be labeled with an air bag warning since 
August 1994 (59 FR 7643). Beginning on August 15, 1994, S5.5.2(k) of 
FMVSS No. 213 required all rear-facing child restraint systems to have 
a label warning the consumer not to place the rear-facing child 
restraint system in the front seat of a vehicle that has a passenger 
side air bag, and a statement describing the consequences of not 
following the warning. These statements were required to be on a red, 
orange, or yellow contrasting background, and placed on the side of the 
restraint designed to be adjacent to the front passenger door of a 
vehicle, visible to a person installing the rear-facing child restraint 
system in the front passenger seat.
    This labeling requirement was revised in 1996 (61 FR 60206) to 
require an enhanced and much more prominent warning on a distinct 
label. In the case of each child restraint system that can be used in a 
rear-facing position and is manufactured on or after May 27, 1997, 
S5.5.2(k)(4) of FMVSS No. 213 requires this label to be permanently 
affixed to the outer surface of the cushion or padding in or adjacent 
to the area where a child's head would rest, so that the label is 
plainly visible and readable. The text portion of this label consists 
of a heading reading ``WARNING'', with the following messages under 
that heading:
    DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on front seat with air bag.
    DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY can occur.
    The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under.
    Opposite the text, the warning label has a pictogram showing an 
inflating air bag striking a rear-facing child seat, surrounded by a 
red circle with a slash across it. The label must also conform to size 
and color requirements specified in S5.5.2(k)(4)(i) through 
S5.5.2(k)(4)(iii).
    Safeline has notified us that between June 14, 1997 and September 
15, 1997, it sold between 750 and 900 Sit'n'Stroll Child Restraints, 
Model 3240, that do not have the revised air bag warning label required 
by S5.5.2(k)(4) of FMVSS No. 213. The noncompliance occurred because 
the seat cover assemblies for the affected units were manufactured 
prior to May 27, 1997, consistent with Safeline's normal production 
cycle and prior to the effective date of the new requirement. These 
work in progress seat cover assemblies were then used in final assembly 
subsequent to May 27, 1997.
    Safeline supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following:

    Because of the significant lapse in time since the 
noncompliance, the products are no longer being used in the rear 
facing seating configuration. The purpose of the air bag warning 
statement is to prevent children from being placed rear facing in 
the front seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger side air bag. 
Since it is recommended children remain rear facing for at least 12 
months, and it has been 24 months since the products have been sold, 
it is likely these units are no longer being used in the rear facing 
position.
    Seat cover subassemblies were manufactured prior to May 27, 
1997.
    Quantity of units not complying with amended rule is small. 
Between 750 and 900 units were sold that do not comply with the 
requirements.
    Because existing warning statements are found on the labels of 
the product and in the instruction manual. While Safeline 
Corporation strongly concurs the new air bag warning statement is an 
effective enhancement in the proper usage of child restraint 
systems, the previously existing warnings clearly state the hazards 
of placing a rear facing child restraint in a seating position with 
an air bag. Additionally, the exposure provided by the widespread 
national media campaign has been effective in educating parents of 
the dangers regarding the placement of rear facing child restraint 
systems in vehicles with air bags.
    The probability of a second hand owner receiving information 
through a recall notification is unlikely. Thus, the likelihood is 
small that a second hand owner, using the product in the rear facing 
position, would actually receive the recall notification.

    Certification of Child Restraint to 25 Pounds in Rear-Facing 
Position. S7.1(c) of FMVSS No. 213 states that:

    A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in 
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass 
range that includes any children having a mass greater than 10 kg 
(20 lbs) but not greater than 18 kg (40 lbs), or by children in a 
specified height range that includes any children whose height is 
greater than 850 mm but not greater than 1100 mm, is tested with a 
9-month-old test dummy conforming to part 572 subpart J, and a 3-
year-old test dummy conforming to part 572 subpart C and S7.2, 
provided, however, that the 9-month-old test dummy is not used to 
test a booster seat.

    In October 1998, we requested that Safeline identify the dummy that 
was utilized to evaluate the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint, and provide 
a copy of each test report and any engineering analysis that formed the 
basis of Safeline's certification of the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint 
system to the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 for recommended 
usage greater than 22 pounds in the rear-facing seating configuration. 
In response, Safeline submitted test data from Calspan Corporation and 
the University of Michigan which reflected failures of seat back angle 
requirements and/or structural integrity requirements with a 3-year-old 
dummy positioned in the rear-facing position. However, passing test 
results were achieved for these requirements with a 20-pound TNO dummy 
weighted to 25 pounds and positioned in the rear-facing position. 
Safeline concluded that the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint model ``could 
safely be used in the rear-facing position at a weight not to exceed 25 
pounds.''
    In June 1999, we notified Safeline that the Sit'n'Stroll child 
restraint does not appear to meet the applicable requirements of FMVSS 
No. 213 with the 3-year-old dummy in the rear-facing position. 
Safeline's determination that the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint model 
complies with FMVSS No. 213 based on test results with the 20-pound TNO 
dummy weighted to 25 pounds in the rear-facing position is invalid 
because this dummy is not specified by FMVSS No. 213. All Sit'n'Stroll 
child restraints, model 3240, manufactured by Safeline between November 
1996 and June 1999 have been recommended for use for up to 25 pounds in 
the rear-facing position. A total of 21,759 units are affected by this 
noncompliance.
    Safeline supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following:

    The Sit'n'Stroll meets all rear facing testing criteria using a 
20-pound TNO dummy weighted to 25 pounds. Our testing has shown that 
an infant dummy weighted to 25 pounds had minimal additional affects 
on the seat back rotation angle results relative to the dummy 
specified in FMVSS No. 213. The maximum seat back rotation angle we 
have experienced in dynamic testing is significantly less than the 
allowable 70-degree maximum. These results provided the confidence 
to previously recommend the usage of the Sit'n'Stroll for children 
weighing no more than 25 pounds in the rear facing seating position.
    Safeline Corporation is aware of no incidents, claims, reports, 
injuries, fatalities or warranty issues of children 22 to 25 pounds 
being injured or harmed in any way by the extended use of the 
Sit'n'Stroll.
    The large surface area of the base of the Sit'n'Stroll reduces 
the protrusion of the child restraint into the automobile's seat. 
The Sit'n'Stroll's unique design--the wide, uninterrupted base 
surface area--relative to other convertible child restraints, 
produces seat back rotation angle results well below the maximum 
allowable criteria by more effectively distributing the dynamic 
forces.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the applications of

[[Page 54729]]

Safeline 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: November 8, 1999.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8)

    Issued on: October 4, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-26151 Filed 10-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P