[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3077-3079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)


Denial of Petition for a Defect Investigation

    This notice sets forth the reason for the denial of a petition 
submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162 requesting that the agency 
commence a

[[Page 3078]]

proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to motor 
vehicle safety.
    By letter dated August 20, 1996, Adrienne Mitchem, Legislative 
Counsel, Washington Office, and Donald L. Mays, Director of Testing, 
Recreation and Home Improvement Department, Consumers Union (CU), 
petitioned the Administrator of NHTSA to investigate the Evenflo Travel 
Tandem child safety seat. Their petition is based on testing conducted 
before August 1996 for CU by an independent testing facility that 
utilized the 20-pound test dummy included in the test procedure for 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child 
Restraint Systems,'' that took effect on September 1, 1996.
    The Evenflo infant/child restraint snaps into a base that can be 
left in the car. The seat base is secured to the vehicle seat with the 
vehicle seat belt and does not need to be unstrapped each time the 
child seat is removed from the vehicle. The Evenflo Travel Tandem is 
designed to be used only in a rearward facing position by children less 
than 20 pounds in weight.
    The Travel Tandem seat shell fractured around the buckle assembly 
and the buckle released in two of the three CU tests when used in the 
rearward facing position with the seat snapped into the base, where it 
is held by two spring-loaded latching pawls. This method of using the 
seat is preferred by many parents, as it is a much faster and more 
convenient method of placing the child seat into the vehicle compared 
to fastening and unfastening the vehicle seat belt. The seat can also 
be used without the provided base, by securing it directly to the 
vehicle with the seat belts. When secured in this manner, the seat 
successfully completed all the crash tests conducted for CU. The seat 
portion is equipped with a handle, so that the infant can be carried in 
the seat to and from the vehicle.
    The Travel Tandem seats tested by CU were manufactured in December 
1995 and January 1996. In the version of FMVSS No. 213 in effect at 
that time, Section S7.1 requires that a seat that is recommended by its 
manufacturer for use by children up to 20 pounds be tested in the 
rearward facing position in a 30 mph dynamic test using a ``6-month-
old'' dummy that weighs 17 pounds. Among many performance requirements, 
S5.1.1(a) provides that the seat must ``[e]xhibit no complete 
separation of any load bearing structural element * * * .'' In 
addition, pursuant to S5.1.4, `` * * * the angle between the system's 
back support surface for the child and the vertical shall not exceed 70 
degrees.''
    During an FMVSS No. 213 test, the child restraint is secured with a 
conventional seat belt to a standard specified passenger seat, which is 
mounted on a dynamic test sled. The sled is subjected to an 
acceleration intended to simulate that experienced in a typical 30 mph 
frontal vehicle crash. This acceleration is commonly measured in units 
of g, each of which is equal to 32.174 feet per second squared (i.e., 
the acceleration of gravity). The shape of the curve depicting the g's 
over time during a dynamic test is referred to as the acceleration 
``pulse'' of the sled.
    Section 6 of FMVSS No. 213 specifies the velocity change and 
acceleration conditions for dynamic tests of child restraints. The 
velocity change shall be 30 mph with the acceleration pulse of the test 
sled entirely within the curve shown in figure 2 of FMVSS No. 213.
    Depending on the type of sled and how the sled is calibrated, the 
magnitude of the peak acceleration and the duration of time the seat is 
subjected to the acceleration can vary. If a particular sled subjects 
the seat to higher peak g's or if the duration of time that g's are 
sustained is longer than that specified in FMVSS No. 213, then the sled 
test is considered to be a more ``severe'' test than that specified in 
FMVSS No. 213. This appears to be the case with the CU Travel Tandem 
test and may have affected the outcome.
    Revised requirements of FMVSS No. 213 took effect on September 1, 
1996. Under the revised version of S7.1, a seat that is recommended by 
its manufacturer for use by children in a range up to 10 kg (22 pounds) 
is tested with a ``newborn'' test dummy (7.5 pounds) and a 9-month-old 
test dummy (20 pounds).
    These test conditions, however, were not required for the seats 
tested by CU in order to be certified by Evenflo as complying with the 
standard because the seats were manufactured prior to September 1, 
1996.
    The petitioners reported that when CU tested Travel Tandem seats in 
the rearward-facing position with a 20-pound dummy at a speed of 
slightly over 30 mph, with the seat mounted on the seat base, two of 
the three seats tested exhibited fractures. In the two cases, the shell 
of the seat body fractured around the buckle assembly and the buckle 
released. This could create a serious problem, because in an actual 
collision the child can be ejected from the vehicle. In fact, in one of 
the three tests the child dummy was sent hurtling through the air when 
the buckle was released during the testing.
    In NHTSA's ongoing compliance testing program, four Evenflo Travel 
Tandem seats, one in each fiscal year from 1993 through 1996, were 
tested by the Calspan SRL Corporation, Buffalo, New York, using a 17-
pound test dummy. All seats passed the requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
    NHTSA has reviewed all reported cases of the safety seat body/frame 
cracking and inadvertent buckle release, and found no such cases 
involving the Evenflo Travel Tandem child seat.
    In its petition, CU provided the agency with data indicating that 
the Evenflo Travel Tandem seat may fracture around the buckle assembly 
when the acceleration or dummy weight exceeds the specifications of 
FMVSS No. 213. However, the seat successfully passed the tests that 
were conducted in strict conformance with the test procedures of FMVSS 
No. 213 applicable to the seats tested by CU.
    When a safety standard establishes minimum performance requirements 
for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment through the use 
of specific values for particular parameters, as is the case here, 
NHTSA does not consider performance failures at higher levels to, in 
themselves, demonstrate that a safety-related defect exists. Moreover, 
NHTSA has consistently taken the position that the fact that a vehicle 
or item of motor vehicle equipment would not comply with a newly-
issued, more stringent safety standard, which was not in effect on the 
date the vehicle or equipment was manufactured, does not constitute 
evidence that the vehicle or its equipment is defective. Thus, given 
the fact that the the Evenflo Travel Tandem seat appears to satisfy the 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested with a 17-pound 
test dummy utilizing a conforming acceleration pulse, its performance 
with heavier dummies or at higher test speeds and accelerations does 
not indicate the existence of a safety defect.
    On September 11, 1996, Evenflo Company, Inc. issued a press release 
stating that Evenflo products are designed and tested to meet or exceed 
FMVSS No. 213. Nevertheless, Evenflo will be offering a reinforcing 
plate to any consumers who are concerned about the performance of their 
seats based on the CU report.
    In consideration of the available information, there is no 
reasonable possibility that an order concerning the notification and 
remedy of a safety-related defect based on the petitioner's allegations 
would be issued at the

[[Page 3079]]

conclusion of an investigation. Therefore, the petition has been 
denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(a); delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: January 7, 1997.
Michael B. Brownlee,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 97-706 Filed 1-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P