[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 59302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22280]



[[Page 59302]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18653; Notice 2]


Baby Trend, Inc., Grant 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.'' 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. Notice of 
receipt of Baby Trend's petition was published, with a 30 day comment 
period, on July 29, 2004, in the Federal Register (69 FR 45372). NHTSA 
received no comments.
    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.

    Baby Trend produced a total of approximately 150,730 Latch-Loc 
infant car seats whose 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 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. In June 2003, FMVSS 
No. 213 underwent a number of revisions including amendments to 
incorporate advanced test dummies and updated test procedures (68 FR 
37620, June 24, 2003). This included amending S5.2.3.1 to eliminate 
subjecting child restraint systems to the compression-deflection 
resistance requirements if they are tested to the revised standard 
using the advanced Part 572 Subpart R test dummy.
    The revised S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS No. 213 states:

    Each child restraint system other than a child harness, 
manufactured before August 1, 2005, that is recommended under S5.5.2 
for a child whose mass is less than 10 kg and that is not tested 
with the Part 572 Subpart R dummy, shall comply with S5.2.3.

Section S5.2.3 specifies the head impact protection requirements for 
the child restraint systems and includes the compression-deflection 
resistance requirements for the energy absorbing materials covering the 
child restraint system surfaces that are contactable by the dummy head 
when tested in accordance with S6.1.
    As stated in its petition, Baby Trend conducted testing of the 
subject child restraint systems in accordance with the revised FMVSS 
No. 213. Its testing included dynamic sled testing with the 12-month-
old size CRABI test dummy (Part 572 Subpart R dummy). The test results 
yielded head injury criterion (HIC36) values of approximately 500 to 
600, which are well within the maximum HIC36 requirement of 1000.
    NHTSA agrees that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety. Based on the successful dynamic testing conducted by 
Baby Trend on the non-compliant child restraint systems using the Part 
572 Subpart R dummy in accordance with the revised FMVSS No. 213, the 
head foam material appears to provide adequate head impact protection 
given the low HIC36 values measured.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Baby 
Trend's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the 
obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the 
noncompliance.

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

    Issued on: September 28, 2004.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 04-22280 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P