[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39545-39546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-14873]



[[Page 39545]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-03-14810; Notice 2]


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

    Evenflo Company, Inc. (``Evenflo'') of Vandalia, Ohio, 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 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 in the Federal 
Register (68 FR 56375) on September 30, 2003, with a 30 day comment 
period. NHTSA received one comment, from Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety (Advocates).
    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 supported 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 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.

Agency Decision

    NHTSA has reviewed Evenflo's application and the comment provided 
by Advocates, and has concluded that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to safety for the following reasons.
    In its comments to the receipt of application notice published by 
NHTSA, Advocates stated:

    Advocates appreciates the amount of testing that was conducted 
and the evidence supplied by Evenflo. However, we are concerned 
about whether purchasers and actual users of child restraints 
equipped with noncompliant tether hooks are able to properly attach 
those hooks to vehicle tether anchors without difficulty. Proper 
attachment and ease-of-use of the noncompliant tether hooks to 
vehicle tether anchors should be demonstrated by consumers in real 
world situations, not trained engineers. The engineers are already 
familiar with the design and performance of the noncompliant tether 
hooks and they have a technical background not shared by the average 
person. Engineer testing, therefore, may not accurately reflect 
problems confronted by untrained consumers when attempting to engage 
the noncompliant tether hooks. While Advocates does not wish to 
overstate the issue, the presentation in the agency notice provides 
no basis on which to conclude that purchasers and users will not 
encounter difficulties in attaching the noncompliant tether hooks 
despite the success of the Evenflo engineers.
    To resolve this issue, Evenflo should provide information 
confirming that real-world users of these tether hooks are not 
having difficulty attaching the tether hooks. Some form of blind 
test protocol using untrained consumers would be appropriate.

    On November 5, 2003, Evenflo submitted supplemental information in 
response to the comments provided by Advocates. Evenflo observed the 
installation of a compliant and a non-compliant tether hook into 
various vehicles by 30 individuals. The candidate installers may have 
had some personal experience installing tether hooks to their personal 
vehicles, but they did not have any special training or knowledge. The 
installers were not told in advance the reason for the installation 
test, nor were the tether hooks identified in any way to differentiate 
them for the installer. None of the installers experienced any 
difficulties with either tether hook. NHTSA believes that the results 
of the additional tests conducted by Evenflo satisfactorily address the 
concerns raised by Advocates.
    NHTSA agrees with Evenflo that the magnitude of the noncompliance--
at most, 0.39 millimeters--is so small that it will not adversely 
affect a consumer's ability to use his/her tether, and thus, will have 
no material effect on safety. NHTSA notes that Detail A of Figure 11

[[Page 39546]]

of FMVSS No. 213, ``Interface Profile of Tether Hook,'' specifies 
numerous dimensional limits for the tether hook, not only the overall 
tether hook height limit of 20 mm that is the subject of this 
inconsequential noncompliance application. Importantly, Detail A of 
Figure 11 specifies dimensional limits for the inside portion of the 
tether hook that actually attaches to the vehicle tether anchorage. 
NHTSA believes that adherence to these dimensional limits provides 
assurance that the tether hook will be able to be properly fastened 
onto the vehicle anchorage, even if the overall height of the tether 
hook is up to 0.39 mm greater than the 20 mm allowed in the standard. 
The tether hooks in question complied with these internal dimensional 
requirements, and NHTSA does not believe that the minor discrepancy in 
overall height will result in a safety problem in real-world 
applications.
    In its application, Evenflo stated:

    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 FMVSS No. 213) 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 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.

    As noted earlier, NHTSA has determined that the magnitude of the 
noncompliance is so small that it will not adversely affect a 
consumer's ability to use (attach/detach) his/her tether. Similarly, 
and as demonstrated by the lack of test failures observed by Evenflo 
during dynamic testing conducted using tether hooks that exceed the 
maximum height requirement, NHTSA does not believe that the additional 
fraction of a millimeter in overall tether anchorage height will result 
in any perceptible negative affect on the performance of the child 
restraint in a crash scenario.
    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. 30118 and 30120.

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

    Issued on: June 24, 2004.
Roger A. Saul,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 04-14873 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P