RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Recaro
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
November 21, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69551-69553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0109; Notice 1]
RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RECARO Child Safety, LLC (RECARO) has determined that certain
RECARO child restraints do not fully comply with paragraph S5.1.1(a) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child
Restraints. RECARO has filed an appropriate report and was received by
NHTSA on July 30, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 22,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of
[[Page 69552]]
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. RECARO's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), RECARO submitted a petition
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 RECARO'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.
II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected are approximately 78,339
RECARO ProRide child restraints manufactured between April 9, 2010 and
July 8, 2014 and approximately 42,303 RECARO Performance RIDE child
restraints manufactured between January 15, 2013 and July 8, 2014.
III. Noncompliance: RECARO explains that the noncompliance is that
the subject child restraints do not comply with the system integrity
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 paragraph S5.1.1(a) when subjected to the
dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 213 S6.1. During NHTSA's
compliance tests with the Hybrid II Six Year Old Dummy and the Hybrid
III Weighted Six Year Old Dummy configured to the child restraints with
the internal harness and the child restraints attached to the test
bench with a lap belt and top tether, the tether belt separated at the
attachment point to the child restraints. The top tether belt
separation exhibited a complete separation of a load bearing structural
element and therefore does not comply with the requirements set forth
in FMVSS No. 213 S5.1.1(a).
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 requires in
pertinent part:
S5.1.1 Child Restraint System Integrity. When tested in
accordance with S6.1 each child restraint system shall meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing
structural element and no partial separation exposing either
surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with
protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent
surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the
system.
V. Summary of RECARO's Analyses: RECARO stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
(A) FMVSS Safety: RECARO believes that NHTSA's test procedure is
in direct violation of the instructions and warnings included with
each ProRIDE and Performance RIDE child restraint and would
constitute a misuse of the child restraint by the consumer, as seen
on page 36 of the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE instruction manuals.
RECARO designed and tested the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE child
restraints to meet FMVSS No. 213 requirements when tested according
to the instruction manuals, which was developed from decades of
research and experience in the automotive industry. Installation in
accordance with the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE instruction manuals
decreases the likelihood of top tether anchor failure from the
vehicle. RECARO has limited lower anchor and top tether use for the
ProRIDE/Performance RIDE since the inception of the RIDE platform,
and recently lowered the LATCH (lower anchors and top tether
attachment) limit to 45 pounds from the previously stated 52 pounds
to meet current FMVSS No. 213 requirements. RECARO also made mention
that NHTSA noted in its 2012 FMVSS No. 213 Final Rule response,
limitations were added to the lower anchors to ``prevent lower LATCH
anchor loads from exceeding their required strength level specified
in FMVSS No. 225.'' RECARO states that they used this same rationale
when they developed the RIDE platform in 2010 and concluded that a
load limit of 52 pounds would be the safest for consumers.
(B) Structural Integrity: RECARO stated that technology has
shown repeatedly that collapse, breakage, and crumpling of material
minimizes energy and increases the rate of survival for the occupant
in the event of a collision. They also stated that vehicles are
designed to reduce the rate of acceleration, and more importantly
deceleration, of passengers by crushing and breaking to absorb the
energy. Thus, RECARO believes that child restraint technology has
fallen in-line with vehicle technology in recent years and that
other child restraints have been designated ``compliant'' even
though their convertible shell-to-base connection has been designed
to crack and break during the peak loading in a crash, due to life-
saving decreases in injury criterion values. RECARO further stated
that the top tether webbing has been designed to rip and break apart
under extreme loads to allow the deceleration time to increase for
the occupant in the crash event. Recaro states that if the injury
criterion meets industry standards, then controlled breakage has
proven multiple times to be a positive outcome in the event of a
vehicle crash, as seen in the RIDE platform.
(C) Publications: RECARO cites the ``2013 LATCH Manual''
published by Safe Ride News Publication which confirms that top
tether anchors in vehicles are becoming limited more frequently in
the weight to which they can be subjected. The manual states that 16
vehicle models limit the use of top tethers to 65 pounds minus the
weight of the child restraint when using the vehicle belt, and 27
vehicle models use the same tether limit rationale when installed
with lower anchors. Recaro indicates that this demonstrates that a
majority of vehicles on the road instruct consumers to use top
tether load limit restrictions that align with RECARO's top tether
load limit of 65 pounds minus the 20 pound weight of the child
restraint equaling a 45 pound load limit. When installing the child
restraint with a top tether and vehicle belt, 26 vehicle models
advise to follow the child restraint manufacturer's instructions and
an additional 3 vehicle models limit the child's weight to 48 pounds
or less.
RECARO states that none of the examples above disagree with
RECARO's warnings and installation instructions and therefore reduce
consumer confusion when installing their child restraint. RECARO
also states that they
[[Page 69553]]
have always supported the alignment of child restraint anchorage
requirements and vehicle anchorage requirements for LATCH, such as
the 2012 Final Rule which amended the testing requirements for lower
anchor use above the combined weight of the child and the child
restraint. RECARO says they would support NHTSA's review of its
current testing requirements for top tether use and the
consideration of either implementing similar load limitations for
the top tether or requirements for the automotive industry to
increase the load to which the tether anchorage can bear.
RECARO referred to documents published in the public docket for
the 2012 Final Rule amendment of FMVSS No. 213 to limit lower anchor
loads, which by request of NHTSA was performed by ALPHA Technology
Associates. In this document, which was used to justify the
increased risk of ``lower LATCH loads . . . exceeding their required
strength,'' there is a table depicting top tether anchor loads at
the point in which certain makes and models saw a quasi-static
failure. In another study, the Transportation Research Center
conducted similar testing of vehicles and found failure of the top
tether of two models at 606 and 1,281 pounds of force.
RECARO believes that these documents, which were prepared for
NHTSA, give validation to the reasoning by RECARO to limit the use
of the top tether.
(D) Previous NHTSA Decisions: RECARO is aware that NHTSA has a
clear precedent of denying child restraint manufacturers' petitions
for inconsequential noncompliance concerning top tether separation.
However, RECARO believes that the environment in which those
decisions were made has changed. Recaro claims that the methodology
it uses to limit top tether loads actually increases safe
installations of child restraints by limiting the pounds of force
applied and decreasing the chance tether anchor load failures.
RECARO also believes that in the event of tether separation the
increase to risk of safety is non-existent because the head
excursion limits were not exceeded in NHTSA's compliance tests.
RECARO indicates that the risk of the subject child restraints
impacting objects in the vehicle is identical to, or better than,
other compliant child restraints because both restraints meet the
same head excursion requirements.
Recaro noted that in an earlier denial of a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance NHTSA noted that if it granted the
petition it would be contradictory to NHTSA's mission to promote
greater use of LATCH and tether. RECARO believes that this reasoning
is no longer relevant due to the recently implemented limits on the
use of lower anchors, and thus consumers are now more aware of the
limits to the lower anchor and top tether which is consistent with
guidance provided in RECARO's owner's manual.
(E) RECARO Accident Reports: Recaro states that its accident
reports for the four years that the subject restraints have been on
the market indicate no incidents of separation in the tether
anchorage area. Recaro surmises the reason that tether separation
occurs in testing is due to an outdated test bench seat and testing
apparatus.
RECARO informed NHTSA that production and distribution of the
subject child restraints affected by the noncompliance have been
corrected effective July 9, 2014.
In summation, RECARO believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject child restraints is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt RECARO from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120
should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject child restraint that RECARO
no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve child
restraint distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraint under their
control after RECARO notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-27586 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P