[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21798-21799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10647]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7818; Notice 2]


Evenflo Company, Inc., Grant of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Evenflo Company, Inc., of Vandalia, Ohio, has determined that 
999,515 child restraint systems that it manufactured fail to comply 
with S5.4.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' which incorporates S5.1(d) of FMVSS 
No. 209, ``Seat Belt Assemblies,'' and has filed an appropriate report 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance reports.'' 
Evenflo 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.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published on August 29, 
2000, in the Federal Register (65 FR 52471), with a 30-day comment 
period. NHTSA received no comments.
    FMVSS No. 213, S5.4.1(a) ``Performance Requirements,'' requires 
that:

    The webbing of belts provided with a child restraint system and 
used to attach the system to the vehicle or to restrain the child 
within the system shall, after being subjected to abrasion as 
specified in S5.1(d) or S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209, have a breaking 
strength of not less than 75 percent of the strength of the 
unabraded webbing when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) of FMVSS 
No. 209.

    Evenflo has determined that certain child restraints it 
manufactured may have tether straps which fail the webbing strength 
requirements of FMVSS No. 213, S5.4.1(a). The child restraints 
containing the noncompliance are Ultara (model numbers 234, 235, 236, 
237, 238, and 239), Secure Comfort (model number 247), Champion (model 
number 249), Medallion (model numbers 251, 254 and 259), Horizon (model 
numbers 420, 421, 425, and 426), Conquest (model numbers 428, and 429) 
and Tether Kits (model number 628). These child restraints and tether 
kits were manufactured between January 1, 1998 and May 30, 2000. A 
total of 959,514 convertible child seats and 40,001 tether kits are in 
noncompliance with this requirement.
    Evenflo supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following:

    ``In March 2000, Evenflo received a PE [Preliminary Evaluation] 
from NHTSA relating to a potential noncompliance of tether webbing 
after being subject to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 
209 (referenced in S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213). According to NHTSA, 
based upon testing conducted by NHTSA at SGS U.S. Testing, the 
Elizabeth Mills black tether webbing (vendor style #7635) retained 
only 67.1 percent of its unabraded strength. Section S5.4.1(a) of 
FMVSS No. 213 requires webbing used to attach a child restraint to a 
vehicle to have a breaking strength after abrasion of not less than 
75 percent of the unabraded webbing strength.
    In April 2000, Evenflo reviewed testing results from ongoing 
testing at Elizabeth Webbing Mills that showed all 82 test results 
acceptable on tests conducted from January 28, 1998 to March 13, 
2000. The control chart showed the process to be in statistical 
control.
    Evenflo visited SGS U.S. Testing in Fairfield, New Jersey to 
review the testing process and obtain samples of the potential 
nonconforming tether webbing material tested. SGS U.S. Testing did 
not keep the test samples and had not finished its test report.
    Evenflo then tried to obtain samples from our finished good 
warehouse close to the date code tested by SGS U.S. testing. Exact 
matches of the date code could not be found. Samples of a close date 
code were then tested at the following independent test labs: 
Indiana Mills (IMMI), Magill, ACW, and Elizabeth Webbing Mills. The 
test results yielded a variety of results from 56 to 88 percent of 
unabraded strength. A follow up of the test results revealed 
differences in test set-ups and test equipment.
    Concurrently, Evenflo conducted sled testing of abraded and 
unabraded tethers at Veridian to determine if [there] was a safety 
concern with the tethers in use in the field. All test results 
shared the same basic performance for abraded and unabraded tethers. 
The testing demonstrated at least a 90 percent margin on tensile 
strength after abrasion (mean tensile strength after abrasion is 
3,101 pounds and the maximum tensile load in sled testing was 1,616 
pounds). According to Evenflo, the sled test results clearly 
demonstrate that there were no potential safety issues associated 
with abraded or unabraded tethers on the child restraint systems, 
and that there is more than an adequate margin of safety to protect 
against failures during reasonably expected usage.

[[Page 21799]]

    Elizabeth Webbing Mills discovered an error in the manufacture 
of its test equipment. An angle specified for 85 degrees on the 
equipment was actually built to 90 degrees. Testing with the correct 
angle revealed a significant effect on the webbing Evenflo used but 
not on the webbing used by Evenflo's competitors.
    To verify and understand this effect, Evenflo performed a multi-
factor factorial design of experiment. The design of experiment 
confirmed the effect of Evenflo's webbing material relative to other 
tether material and the percent unabraded test, but also identified 
a test set-up within FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No. 209 that would 
yield potentially passing results. A question of what was the proper 
test weight, 1.5 or 2.33 Kg. to use in the testing process was 
identified.
    Evenflo then requested an official interpretation from NHTSA as 
to the correct test weight to be used. A verification test was 
conducted to confirm the test set-up identified by the multi-factor 
factorial design of experiment. On June 19, 2000, the testing did 
not reveal an acceptable pass rate and as a result Evenflo has 
stopped manufacture and shipment of child restraint systems using 
this Elizabeth Webbing Mills style of webbing and is filing this 
section 573, non-compliance information report.''

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), NHTSA may exempt 
manufacturers from the Act's notification and remedy requirements when 
it determines that a noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety. Evenflo states that it believes that the noncompliance here 
should be found to be inconsequential because the products meet the 
intent of the FMVSS No. 209 and FMVSS No. 213 performance requirements. 
Evenflo also stated that its testing has established that even in the 
severely abraded condition, child restraints with this tether webbing, 
which was manufactured by Elizabeth Webbing Mills (EWM), pass dynamic 
sled testing with over a 90 percent strength safety margin. Finally, 
Evenflo asserts that the EWM webbing tethers are stronger before 
abrasion than the tethers of other major U.S. child restraint 
manufacturers. Only when the EWM webbing tethers are severely abraded 
is their strength reduced to that of the competitors' tethers. This 
accounts for the EWM webbing tethers' noncompliance with the 75 percent 
strength retention requirement, but, according to Evenflo, it has no 
effect on the safety of the EWM webbing tethers in real world use.
    The agency has reviewed Evenflo's application, analyzed Office of 
Vehicle Safety Compliance's (OVSC) data, and other data pertaining to 
breaking strength and abrasion of webbing used in child restraint 
systems and adult seat belt assemblies. The agency also evaluated child 
restraint data obtained in the 2001 New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), 
and Transport Canada's dynamic and static load distributions data on 
tether anchorages and hooks.\1\ Results of this analysis show that the 
Evenflo dynamic tests at Veridian produced tether loading consistent 
with measured tether loads in agency testing. Based on its analysis, 
the agency has determined that the webbing used in Evenflo's child 
restraints achieved the performance previously specified in FMVSS No. 
209 and FMVSS No. 213 during 1971-1979 for webbing in the unabraded 
condition and after abrasion conditioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6160-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the agency notes that from 1971 to 1979, FMVSS No. 213 
was ``Child Seating Systems,'' and Type 3 seat belt assembly minimum 
breaking strength requirements were used to determine compliance for 
resistance to abrasion. During that period, the minimum breaking 
strength for a Type 3 belt for webbing connecting pelvic and upper 
torso restraints to attachment hardware when the assembly had a single 
webbing connection was 17,793 N. The minimum value after abrasion was 
75% of this value, or 13,345 N. Evenflo's EWM unabraded tether webbing 
strength of 20,426 N, and the EWM abraded strength of 13,706 N, both 
surpass the previous requirements for Type 3 webbing.
    For these reasons, the agency has decided that Evenflo has met its 
burden of persuasion that the noncompliance at issue is inconsequential 
to safety and its application is granted. Accordingly, Evenflo is 
hereby exempted from the notification and remedy provisions of 49 
U.S.C. sections 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA believes that the absence of minimum breaking strength 
requirements for unabraded webbing in child restraint systems in the 
current version of FMVSS No. 213 is inappropriate. We plan to initiate 
rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 213 to require a minimum breaking 
strength for webbing used in child restraint systems. The breaking 
strength requirements are needed to ensure that all child restraints 
being introduced into the market have adequate webbing strength to 
provide child safety protection over their lifetime.

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

    Issued on April 25, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-10647 Filed 4-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P