Notice2025-23086
Evenflo Company, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 17, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo) has determined that certain Evenflo All4One child restraint systems do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Evenflo filed a noncompliance report dated January 27, 2025, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the "Agency") on February 14, 2025, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the denial of Evenflo's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 240 (Wednesday, December 17, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58805-58807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-23086]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0013; Notice 2]
Evenflo Company, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo) has determined that certain
Evenflo All4One child restraint systems do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint
Systems. Evenflo filed a noncompliance report dated January 27, 2025,
and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on February 14,
2025, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the
denial of Evenflo's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Corey Barlet, General Engineer, NHTSA,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-1119.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Evenflo determined that certain Evenflo All4One child
restraint systems do not fully comply with paragraph S5.1.1(b)(1) of
FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213).
Evenflo filed a noncompliance report dated January 27, 2025,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Evenflo petitioned NHTSA on February 14, 2025, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor
[[Page 58806]]
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of Evenflo's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 14, 2025, in the Federal Register (90
FR 15610). One comment was received. To view the petition and all
publicly available supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2025-0013.''
II. Child Restraint Systems Involved: Evenflo reported that
approximately 67,416 Evenflo All4One, manufactured between December 1,
2021, and June 30, 2023, do not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
III. Relevant FMVSS Requirements: Paragraph S5.1.1(b)(1) of FMVSS
No. 213 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraph
S5.1.1(b)(1) requires that all adjustable child restraint systems must
remain in the same position after testing (in accordance with paragraph
S6.1 of FMVSS No. 213) to which they were set before testing, unless
the child restraint system meets conditions specified in S5.1.1(b)(2).
IV. Noncompliance: Evenflo explains that some Evenflo All4One child
restraint systems undergoing testing have changed position during
testing.
V. Summary of Evenflo's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Evenflo's Petition,'' are
the views and arguments provided by Evenflo. They do not reflect the
views of NHTSA. Evenflo submits that, although the subject child
restraints changed to a different adjustment position during rear-
facing tests, the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
Evenflo begins its submission by citing previously granted
petitions for inconsequential noncompliance that it submits are
relevant to its own petition. Evenflo first quotes NHTSA's decision on
a petition by Gillig, LLC, describing NHTSA's procedures when
considering petitions: ``(i)n determining inconsequentiality of a
noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against which the recall would otherwise
protect.'' (see Gillig, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 90 FR 735, January 6, 2025).
Evenflo then cites two granted petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance purportedly to show that, for FMVSS relating to occupant
protection, NHTSA grants petitions when the manufacturer can show that
the noncompliance does not subject the occupant to a greater risk of
injury than the risk that would exist if the component or vehicle were
compliant (see General Motors, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355, June 12, 2013; see also
Osram Sylvania, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000, July 30, 2013).
Evenflo states that the precedent of these decisions supports
Evenflo's petition for the subject noncompliance. Evenflo states that
the subject noncompliant child restraint systems (CRSs) still meet the
intended purpose of paragraph S5.1.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 as they do
not expose occupants within the CRS to a greater risk of injury in a
crash than occupants in a compliant CRS. Evenflo submits a 1996 letter
from the NHTSA Chief Council to C. Scott Talbot, Esq. of Howrey & Simon
that stated that the purpose of paragraph S.5.1.1(b)(1) is to (1)
``prevent a child's fingers or limbs from being caught in shifting
parts of the restraint'' and (2) prevent the occupant from sliding from
under the lap belt during a crash (also known as ``submarining'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/12118shdadj">https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/12118shdadj</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo states that there is no risk of children's fingers or limbs
being crushed by the moving parts because all shifting parts of the
child restraint systems are located outside and below the seat
structure and are inaccessible to the child occupant. Evenflo states
that the child has no risk of submarining because the change in recline
adjustment only occurred during a rear facing test, where submarining
is impossible. Furthermore, Evenflo states that the seats come equipped
with a 5-point harness, which functioned as intended during testing,
preventing movement of the child relative to the seating surface.
Additionally, Evenflo recognizes that NHTSA does not consider the
absence of complaints or injuries to be relevant when considering the
inconsequentiality of a noncompliance. However, Evenflo notes that it
has not found any reports or complaints of a child's fingers or limbs
being caught in the shifting parts of the subject child restraint
systems, nor have there been any reports of submarining caused by the
child restraint system's noncompliance with paragraph S5.1.1(b)(1) of
FMVSS No. 213.
Evenflo concludes by stating its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VI. Public Comment: NHTSA received one comment concerning Evenflo's
petition, from Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety (AHAS). AHAS stated
in their comment that the noncompliance of the subject child restraint
system (CRS) does not appear to be equivalent to the other
noncompliance issues cited in Evenflo's petition. AHAS also stated that
Evenflo's petition fails to address that the changing recline of the
subject CRS could lead to additional and injurious loading of the
occupant from the belts and/or harness leading to injury. AHAS said
that NHTSA should collect certain data from Evenflo and provide it to
the public for review before determining whether the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically,
AHAS believes that NHTSA should collect the following information:
1. Visual evidence (videos and photos) of the testing and
noncompliance.
2. Instrumentation data, including any readings from
anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs).
3. Evaluation of the injury risk to vulnerable occupants due to the
modified orientation and movement during the testing.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\3\ Petitioners are
reminded that
[[Page 58807]]
they have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety. Granting a petition does not permit the
manufacturer to continue to produce products that have the
noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of Evenflo's petition and determined
Evenflo has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Paragraph S5.1.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 requires that all
adjustable child restraint systems must remain in the same position
after testing (in accordance with paragraph S6.1 of FMVSS No. 213) to
which they were set before testing, unless the child restraint system
meets conditions specified in S5.1.1(b)(2). Evenflo's petition states
the subject child restraints changed to a different adjustment position
during rear-facing tests. Throughout the petition, Evenflo argues that
the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety because the component
that is changing position does not pose a risk of injury to the child
occupant's fingers or limbs.
Evenflo relies on a 1996 NHTSA interpretation whereby NHTSA found a
change in position of booster CRS shoulder belt adjustment guide during
a crash test was permitted under S5.1.1(b)(1).\4\ This interpretation
is not applicable to Evenflo's noncompliance. The 1996 interpretation
concerns a belt-positioning seat that had adjustable devices for
positioning the vehicle belt onto the child's lap and shoulder. The
interpretation states that movement of the belt adjuster device during
a crash is permitted because, in part, it is not a structural element,
such as the seating surface. In contrast, the interpretation
specifically identifies movement of structural elements, such as
repositioning of the reclining feature, as the type of movement the
standard was aimed at preventing. This is the precise movement at issue
in the current petition: a support structure failure that causes the
reclining feature to change position during the test.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/12118shdadj">https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/12118shdadj</a>.
\5\ It is also noteworthy that the 1996 interpretation cited the
1979 final rule highlighted that the intent of paragraph
S5.1.1(b)(1) is to prevent child occupants' fingers or limbs from
being caught between the shifting parts of the child restraint. This
safety intent related to change of position remains relevant today;
however, it is worth highlighting that preambles and interpretations
do not necessarily list all safety purposes of a given requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This change in position of the subject child restraint poses a risk
to other nearby occupants whose fingers may be pinched, even if it does
not pose a risk to pinching fingers of the occupant of the child
restraint itself. NHTSA has closely examined the CRS in question and
has concluded that vehicle occupants seated alongside the CRS are at a
risk of having their limbs pinched in the opening or gap located above
the recline indicator on the bottom of the CRS when the CRS changes
position.
NHTSA observed that the All4One changed recline position in NHTSA
compliance testing.\6\ Evenflo's customer complaints and NHTSA's
Vehicle Owner's Questionnaires (VOQs) demonstrate that the All4One has
changed recline position during routine use when parents were securing
their children into the child restraint and driving under normal
conditions. NHTSA has sixteen (16) consumer complaints (VOQs)
specifically relating to the change in recline position, as of August
20, 2025. Evenflo submits in its petition that it has received no
reports of injury related to catching of the CRS child occupant's
fingers or limbs in the shifting parts. However, Evenflo reported four-
hundred and one (401) consumer complaints which they characterized as
``recline slips position,'' with an additional twenty-five (25)
complaints related to the All4One's recline mechanism. Two of the
consumer complaints produced by Evenflo concern finger entrapment in
the All4One's recline mechanism, demonstrating Evenflo knew of injuries
associated with the seat changing position. These consumer complaints
indicate that the Evenflo All4One is subject to change position simply
when placing the child in the CRS as well as under normal driving
conditions. Therefore, the noncompliance not only creates a safety
concern during a crash, but the noncompliance also poses safety issues
during other common use scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Test Report 213-2460906-TEST (<a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/2024/213-2460906-TEST.pdf">https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/2024/213-2460906-TEST.pdf</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the change in position presents safety concerns
related to the positioning of the child occupant's head and neck in the
CRS. As the printed instructions provided with the CRS state: ``Failure
to properly recline the child restraint could increase the child's risk
of serious injury or death.'' The All4One user manual instructs the
user to recline the seat in a position that ensures it is in the
``blue'' zone on the CRS's level indicator. Consumer complaints
indicate that the change of recline position during routine use causes
the CRS's level indicator to move from the safe ``blue'' zone into a
``red'' zone. When the CRS is in a reclined position that is outside of
the proper recline zone for the weight of the child, per the
manufacturer's instructions, the CRS is at an increased risk of
exceeding the 70-degree back angle requirement, set by FMVSS No.
213.\7\ The risks associated with exceeding the 70-degree back angle
limit include increased crash forces to the child's head and neck and
the child slipping out of the restraint's internal harness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo has not met its burden of persuasion and for the reasons
described herein NHTSA does not find the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. In reaching this decision,
NHTSA considered the comment received from AHAS and will consider
whether providing additional information as part of the petition
process would be beneficial for future petitions. NHTSA also examined
information Evenflo submitted in its response to our December 18, 2024,
Information Request related to this noncompliance exhibited in our
compliance testing.
VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
has decided that Evenflo has not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Evenflo's petition is hereby denied and Evenflo is
consequently obligated to provide notification of and a free remedy for
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2025-23086 Filed 12-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 17, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.