[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56375-56376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-24742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-03-14810; Notice 1]


Evenflo Company, Inc.; Receipt of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Evenflo Company, Inc. (``Evenflo'') of Vandalia, Ohio, has 
determined that as many as 742,736 child restraint systems and 633 
accessory tether kits may 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.'' 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.
    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, Paragraph S5.9(b) requires ``In the case of each 
child restraint system manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 and 
that has components for attaching the system to a tether anchorage, 
those components shall include a tether hook that conforms to the 
configuration and geometry specified in Figure 11 of this standard.'' 
Figure 11 specifies that the height of the tether hook shall not exceed 
a maximum of 20 millimeters.
    In its Part 573 Report filed with the agency on February 3, 2003, 
Evenflo stated that ``On the afternoon of January 28, 2003, a company 
seeking to supply Evenflo with tether hooks for child restraints 
advised Evenflo that it believed some of the tether hooks currently 
used by Evenflo, as well as other child restraint manufacturers, did 
not meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 S.5.9(b). Evenflo 
undertook an investigation, and on January 31, 2003 determined that 
some tether hooks supplied by SX Industries of Canton, Massachusetts 
did not meet Evenflo's engineering specifications and did not meet 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 S.5.9(b). A percentage of the 
hooks sampled by Evenflo measured between 20.11 and 20.39 
millimeters.'' Evenflo estimates that, based on its sampling of 
products, between 70 percent and 80 percent of the 742,736 child 
restraints and 636 accessory tether kits manufactured between June 15, 
2002 and January 30, 2003 contain the subject noncompliance.
    Evenflo believes that the FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance described 
above is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Evenflo supports its 
application for inconsequential noncompliance with the following:

    Installation Testing Confirms Non-Conformance Will Not Adversely 
Affect Use of Tethers. In connection with this matter, Evenflo 
undertook installation testing on 207 different models (after 
eliminating duplicate tests on the same model performed by different 
test engineers \1\) of vehicles to ensure that the non-compliance 
would have no adverse affect on the ability of consumers to use 
their tethers. For this testing, Evenflo chose two of the tether 
hooks in its possession which exhibited the greatest non-conformance 
(those that were furthest from the requisite 20 millimeters 
specified in the Standard). These hooks measured 20.30 mm and 20.38 
mm. Although 207 different models of vehicles were examined, where 
applicable, all three tether attachment points \2\ in each vehicle 
were separately evaluated (resulting in 586 unique data points). In 
every one of the 586 unique installation points the non-conforming 
tethers properly attached to the vehicle's tether attachment point * 
* * Based upon this testing, it is clear that the non-compliance is 
transparent to consumers, and will in no way adversely affect the 
consumer's ability to use his/her tether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The testing, which was conducted by two different test 
engineers, resulted in 21 vehicles of the same model and model year 
being tested by each test engineer. The duplicates of these tests 
appear in the attached test reports, but were eliminated from the 
numbers provided herein (to prevent testing conducted on the same 
model vehicle from being counted twice).
    \2\ As can be seen from the attached test reports, some vehicles 
had less than three tether attachment points, and some vehicles had 
more than three attachment points. For each vehicle tested, the test 
engineers tested every tether attachment point in the vehicle which 
they could locate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dynamic Sled Testing Conclusively Demonstrates No Adverse 
Performance In Child Restraints. Although Evenflo cannot be certain 
of the number, we estimate that at least one hundred (100) dynamic 
sled tests were conducted (using the protocol set forth in FMVSS213) 
on restraints which likely would have been equipped with tether 
hooks that did not meet the dimensional requirements of S5.9(b) and 
Figure 11. In

[[Page 56376]]

none of these tests did the tether hook malfunction or improperly 
perform in any manner. Evenflo is confident that the non-compliance 
has no adverse impact of the dynamic performance of the child 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
restraints.

    Based on the above, Evenflo argued that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Evenflo requested 
that it be exempted from the notice and remedy procedures of the 
Vehicle Safety Act.
    You may submit comments on the application described above. Your 
comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments 
are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of 
this document in your comments. Please submit two copies of your 
comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be 
submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets 
Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & 
Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for filing the 
document electronically.
    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: October 30, 2003.

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

    Issued on: September 25, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-24742 Filed 9-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P