[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61037-61038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-02-12087; Notice 2]


Century Products; Denial of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Century Products, a Division of Graco Children's Products, Inc. 
(Century Products and Graco), of Macedonia, Ohio, determined that as 
many as 185,175 child restraints fail to comply with 49 CFR 571.213, 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child 
restraint systems,'' and filed appropriate reports pursuant to 49 CFR 
Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.'' 
Century Products 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 safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day 
comment period, on May 17, 2002, in the Federal Register (67 FR 35188). 
NHTSA received one comment, from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 
(Advocates).
    FMVSS No. 213, Paragraph S5.1.1, states that when a child restraint 
system is tested in accordance with S6.1, it shall ``[e]xhibit no 
complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no 
partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 
\1/4\ inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than \3/8\ inch above 
the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any 
structural element of the system.''
    In its Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Information Report filed 
with the agency on December 11, 2001, Century Products stated that ``On 
December 5, 2001, Century Products * * * decided that a noncompliance 
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 exists in * * * 
certain * * * ``Celestia'' model infant car seats manufactured by 
Century Products. * * *'' The Celestia infant seat is sold with a 
detachable base that may be used to permit a fixed installation into 
the vehicle, allowing the child seat to be taken in and out of the 
vehicle without having to do a complete installation each time. The 
Celestia infant seat can also be used without the detachable base. 
Century Products identified 185,175 Celestia infant car seats 
manufactured between January 1, 2000, and December 6, 2001, that may 
contain this noncompliance. In its Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, Century Products stated that it:

has discovered variations in the plastic molding process during the 
manufacture of the plastic shell of the carrier portion (not the 
base) of the Subject Products, which can result in a void in the 
shell wall. This void may cause shell wall separation during the 
dynamic crash test specified by FMVSS No. 213 when the base is not 
used, rendering the seat noncompliant. * * * There is no 
noncompliance problem when the car seat is installed in the vehicle 
with the base (emphasis in original).

In its Part 573 Report, Century Products stated that:

    Graco conducted a dynamic crash test audit of its Celestia 
infant car seats on December 4, 2001. Graco tested (ten) 10 Celestia 
infant car seats without the base, randomly taken from inventory. 
Four (4) of the ten (10) units exhibited wall separation and the 
presence of a void at the initiation point of the separation. As a 
result of this audit testing, Graco determined that a noncompliance 
existed.

    Century Products believes that the FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance 
described above is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Century 
Products supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following:

    The risk of injury resulting from the wall separation during the 
dynamic crash test is inconsequential for several reasons. First, 
the shell wall separation does not affect, increase, or adversely 
influence the seat back angle. Thus, the restraint systems comply 
with FMVSS 213 S5.1.4, which provides that ``[w]hen a rear-facing 
child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1, the angle 
between the system's back support surface for the child and the 
vertical shall not exceed 70 degrees.''
    Second, all portions of the test dummy's torso were retained 
within the system and all other requirements regarding target points 
on either side of the dummy's head comply with FMVSS 213 S5.1.3.2.
    Third, the infant shell remained securely attached to the lap 
belt during testing. The separation did not contribute to any 
degradation in the ability of the vehicle belt to retain the infant 
seat in its original position.
    Fourth, the shell wall separation did not create an opening that 
contributes to the pinching, shearing, or scissoring of fingers, 
toes, or limbs or any other body part of either the occupant or an 
adjacent child seated next to the infant seat. The seat pad also 
acts as a mechanism to keep the occupant from contacting the 
separated area.
    Fifth, the shell wall separation occurs at relatively high 
energy levels, with the separation occurring late in the application 
of energy of the crash test (as revealed by Century Products' review 
of the flexing of the infant shell wall). Few motor vehicle 
accidents occur at the maximum energy levels of the dynamic crash 
test. The possibility of a wall separation occurring in the field 
therefore is remote.
    Sixth, the shell wall separation occurs only in a high stress 
area on the shell when the shell is used without the base. When the 
shell is used with the base, the area in question experiences no 
significant stress. All of the subject products were sold with a 
stay-in-the-car base. The base is the most predominately used mode 
with the infant shell due to its convenience of removing the carrier 
from the vehicle.
    Seventh, in the approximately 18 months that the infant shell 
has been in use in the subject products, there have been no reports 
of any incidents or complaints regarding the wall separation on the 
shell.
    Eighth, product owners are advised in the accompanying 
literature that the seat should be discarded following a crash. In 
addition, it is a well-known industry practice to discontinue using 
a child restraint after it has experienced a crash. Thus, there is 
little risk of injury from the wall separation during a subsequent 
incident.
    Based on the above, Century Products believes that a child 
subjected to a crash will be fully protected as required by FMVSS 
No. 213.

    NHTSA has reviewed Century Products' application and concluded that 
the noncompliance is not inconsequential to safety for the following 
reasons.
    The requirements to be met in the dynamic testing of child 
restraints include: (1) Maintaining the structural integrity of the 
system, (2) retaining the head and knees of the dummy within specified 
excursion limits, and (3) limiting the forces exerted on the dummy by 
the restraint system. These requirements reduce the likelihood that a 
child using a complying child restraint system will be killed or 
injured by the collapse or disintegration of the system, by contact 
with the interior of the vehicle, or by imposition of intolerable 
forces by the restraint system. Omission

[[Page 61038]]

of any one of these three requirements would render incomplete the 
criteria for the quantitative assessment of the safety of a child 
restraint system and could lead to the design and use of unsafe 
restraints. It follows that the failure to comply with one or more of 
these three requirements will increase the likelihood that a child may 
be killed or injured in the event of a crash.
    Graco's dynamic crash test audit of 10 units selected at random 
confirmed that, in this limited series of tests, four of the selected 
units ``exhibited wall separation and the presence of a void at the 
initiation point of the separation.'' However, there is no way for 
either Graco, Century Products, or NHTSA to assure that the location, 
extent, and consequences of the structural failures seen in this 
limited series of tests is representative of the performance of all 
potentially defective units that have been manufactured. In its 
comments, Advocates states that:

    Nothing indicates that the wall separation occurs only in a 
location that cannot be reached by either the infant occupant or 
another child passenger. Furthermore, this conclusion is premised 
entirely on the four failures that were found in the Applicant's 
test of Celestia infant seats taken from its inventory. Those tests 
may not reveal the full extent and location of wall separation that 
may occur in the 40 percent (or more) noncompliant models in use. 
There is no evidence that suggests that the four test failures 
accurately reflect the full scope, extent and location of shell wall 
separation that could potentially occur in real-world crashes.

    While Century Products contends ``[t]he seat pad also acts as a 
mechanism to keep the occupant from contacting the separated area,'' we 
agree with Advocates that it is possible that the seat pad could 
prevent a parent ``from observing that the infant seat has suffered 
shell wall separation. Indeed, unless a close inspection is conducted, 
the shell wall separation may not be detected. * * *'' Notwithstanding 
Century Products' assertion that it is a ``well-known industry 
practice'' to discard a child seat that has been in a crash, it is 
likely that many parents will continue to use a restraint that does not 
exhibit any evidence of damage. A child restraint that has been 
structurally damaged in a crash, but has not been replaced and remains 
in use, is unlikely to be capable of adequately protecting the child in 
the event of a subsequent crash.
    With respect to the assertion by Century Products that ``[t]he base 
is the most predominately used mode with the infant shell due to its 
convenience of removing the carrier from the vehicle,'' Advocates 
commented:

    The implication of this contention is that the base is used in 
most cases and, therefore, actual shell wall separation is a remote 
possibility. Aside from the fact that the Applicant presents no data 
to support its assertion that the ``base is the most predominately 
used mode with the infant shell due to its convenience,'' the 
Applicant acknowledges that the infant carrier shell can be used as 
a separate, independent seat without the detachable base. This use 
is readily foreseeable even if the Applicant did not affirmatively 
advertise the separate use of the detachable carry shell. The 
possibility that some portion of the public will use the carry shell 
without the base is not remote.

    We concur with Advocates. In addition, we note that it is possible 
that some parents will leave the base installed in one vehicle and use 
the restraint without the base in other vehicles. In any event, the 
relative frequency of use with and without the base is not relevant to 
the issue of the safety risk that is present when the base is not used.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
applicant has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
it describes is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, its application 
is hereby denied. Century Products must now fulfill its obligation to 
notify and remedy under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h).

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

    Issued on: October 16, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-26874 Filed 10-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P