[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 145 (Thursday, July 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 45372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17269]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18653; Notice 1]


Baby Trend, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Baby Trend, Inc. (Baby Trend) has determined that certain child 
restraint seats that it produced and sold between approximately June 
2002 and June 2003 do not comply with S5.2.3.2(a) of 49 CFR 571.213, 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child 
restraint systems.'' Baby Trend has filed an appropriate report 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Baby Trend has 
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Baby Trend's petition is published under 
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    A total of approximately 150,730 Latch-Loc infant car seats, Model 
6078 (65,798 seats), Model 6076 (44,649 seats), Model 
6020 (25,506 seats) and Model 6188 (14,777 seats) are 
affected. S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires that:

    Each system surface * * * which is contactable by the dummy head 
when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered 
with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with the following 
characteristics: (a) A 25 percent compression-deflection resistance 
of not less than 0.5 and not more than 10 pounds per square inch 
when tested in accordance with S6.3.

    The foam covering as molded onto the seat back of these seats has a 
compression-deflection resistance of 0.3 pounds per square inch, and 
therefore does not meet the compression-deflection resistance required 
by S5.2.3.2(a).
    Baby Trend believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Baby 
Trend states:

    Technical issues were * * * noted involving variability in 
application of testing methodologies between Certified Analytical 
Laboratory Services, Inc. (formerly CALSPAN) and NHTSA staff. 
Certified Analytical Laboratory Services applied the Section 6.3.4.2 
[sic--should say 6.3.1] compression-deflection resistance 
methodology on square sheet stock white foam in the appropriate 
ambient laboratory conditions and did not note any lack of 
conformance for white foam material with no back, green foam 
material with no back, white shaped foam material with no back, 
green shaped foam material with polybead backing and white foam 
shaped material with polybead backing. This information was supplied 
by the Company to NHTSA staff. Questions arose between the 
laboratory technicians about variability in testing methodologies to 
ensure absolute real world integrity of the product as it related to 
performance of the energy absorbing foam material in actual use as 
molded on seat shells. The Company also performed a Regulation No. 
44, Annex 17 Test of the Energy Absorbing Material on the seats with 
calibrated dummies (* * * which in turn noted satisfactory real-
world energy absorption performance of the molded foam covered seat 
shells). * * * [T]he Company does not believe that the product 
presents any real world safety hazard as verified by highly 
sensitive testing with calibrated dummies on actual production 
product.

    Baby Trend further states:

    [T]he Company has undertaken additional testing of the subject 
products in accordance with [revised FMVSS No. 213 (68 CFR 37620)]. 
* * * Despite the fact that testing to the revised Standard is not 
yet required, the Company has undertaken such testing to ensure that 
the technical non-compliance alleged with the component of the 
subject products is inconsequential as it relates to child restraint 
system safety. Testing was performed at Advanced Information 
Engineering Services Transportation Sciences Center during June 
2004, utilizing the Center's tandem configuration HYGE Sled with 
reinforced seat covers on both benches. Three sled tests were 
performed utilizing six (6) subject seats in the rearward facing 
reclined configuration with either a 9-month-old size dummy or a 12-
month-old size crabi dummy employing either the integral rigid latch 
system or the ``soft latch'' restraint system. Results of the tests 
indicated that the products were in compliance to the requirements 
of the revised FMVSS No. 213.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the petition described above. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be 
submitted by any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: 
Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that 
two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on 
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal holidays. Comments may 
be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management 
System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be 
faxed to 1-202-493-2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: August 30, 2004.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: July 23, 2004.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 04-17269 Filed 7-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P