Dorel Juvenile Group, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Dorel
|
Nancy Lummen Lewis
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 28, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53189-53190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20960]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0002; Notice 2]
Dorel Juvenile Group, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (DJG) has determined that certain
child restraint systems manufactured between July 20, 2010 and May 18,
2011 do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.2(l) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49
CFR 571.213). DJG has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated
July 19, 2011.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), DJG 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 the petition was published, with a 30-day
comment period, on January 19, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR
2776). NHTSA received one comment from Consumers Union (CU).
To view the petition, the comment, and all supporting documents log
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0002.''
Contact Information: For further information on this decision,
contact Mr. Zachary R. Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-5754, facsimile (202) 366-7002.
Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately 89,527 of the
following models of DJG child restraint systems that were manufactured
between July 20, 2010 and May 18, 2011:
22187ANL Alpha Omega Elite
22187REM Alpha Omega Elite
22187REMA Alpha Omega Elite
22187SAR Alpha Omega Elite
22187SARA Alpha Omega Elite
22465FSM Alpha Omega Elite
22790CGT Deluxe 3 in 1
CC033BMT Alpha Omega Elite
CC043ANK Alpha Omega Elite
CC043ANL Alpha Omega Elite
CC043AQS Alpha Omega Elite
CC046AAI Deluxe 3 in 1
CC046AAU Deluxe 3 in 1
CC046CTA Deluxe 3 in 1
CC046SNW Deluxe 3 in 1
CC046WPR Deluxe 3 in 1
CC050AJH Complete Air LX
CC050ANY Complete Air LX
CC050ANZ Complete Air LX
CC050AOQ Complete Air LX
CC051AIR Complete Air SE
Summary of DJG'S Analyses: DJG described the noncompliance as
follows:
The child restraint systems at issue utilize a permanently attached
base which is equipped with color coordinated Ease of Use labels
including base labels depicting the rear-facing mode instructions.
Certain restraints were equipped with base labels positioned on the
incorrect side of the base. Although nearly all the information is
correct, the small indicator arrows do not line up with the rear-facing
vehicle and LATCH belt path for the rear-facing mode. As noted in the
Noncompliance Information Report, this voluntarily supplied information
caused the installation diagram required by FMVSS No. 213 S5.5.2(l) to
be inaccurate.
A noncompliance exists when the base labels are installed
incorrectly and the indicator arrows do not point to the rear-facing
vehicle belt/LATCH routing path. In this case, the arrows are actually
pointing to the area below the forward-facing vehicle belt/LATCH path
routing but could be construed as pointing to the forward-facing
routing path.
DJG states that the subject child restraints contain the label
information required by S5.5.2(l). DJG asserts that the voluntarily
supplied information consisting of pointing arrows caused the
installation diagrams required by FMVSS No. 213 S5.5.2(l) to be
inaccurate when the labels containing the diagrams were installed on
the incorrect side of the child restraint's base. NHTSA agrees with DJG
that the subject child restraints contain the proper labels with the
required installation diagrams. However, DJG voluntarily provided
additional information on the labels intended to assist installation by
adding pointing arrows to the belt path appropriate for that
configuration.
NHTSA believes that the diagrams provided by DJG are compliant with
S5.5.2(l) but the pointing arrows are misplaced due to the incorrect
installation of the labels creating confusing and misleading
information that is noncompliant with S5.5 of FMVSS No. 213. The
incorrect direction of the pointing arrows lends to possible confusion
that the belts should be routed through the forward-facing routing path
rather than through the correct routing path.
DJG contends that the likelihood is low that a consumer would
interpret the arrows as indicating the proper rear-facing path routing
through the forward-facing path routing. It asserts that the proper
rear-facing vehicle belt/LATCH routing path is shown clearly in the
five diagrams on the two base labels.
DJG also argues that instructions included with the subject child
restraint systems also correctly depict the rear-facing vehicle belt/
LATCH routing path numerous times.
DJG noted that it has received only one user complaint related to
this issue. DJG also included the results of a survey conducted to
illustrate any effects the noncompliance may have on seat installation.
DJG contends that the technical noncompliance issue reported in the
June 23, 2011, Noncompliance Information Report does not constitute a
safety related issue because there is no evidence that improper
installation is actually taking place in the field (as evidenced by the
lack of significant complaints from consumers, advocates, health care
specialists or anyone else). DJG also states that the preponderance of
correct rear-facing installation diagrams and instructions appears to
outweigh the potential for improper installation as a result of the
ambiguous arrows on the rear-facing installation labels on the base.
DJG also indicated that there appears to be a low probability that
improper installation is even possible in the vast majority of vehicles
surveyed, which represent a cross section of vehicles in the field.
In summation, DJG asserts that the described noncompliance of its
child restraints is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition to
[[Page 53190]]
exempt 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'S Analysis of DJG'S Reasoning: To answer this petition, the
pertinent regulations in question are:
FMVSS No. 213 S5.5.2 (l) requires:
(l) An installation diagram showing the child restraint system
installed in:
(1) A seating position equipped with a continuous-loop lap/
shoulder belt;
(2) A seating position equipped with only a lap belt, as
specified in the manufacturer's instructions; and
(3) A seating position equipped with a child restraint anchorage
system.
The purpose for S5.5.2 (l) is to provide consumers with an
installation diagram depicting the proper installation of a child
restraint using the attachment methods (lap/shoulder belt, lap belt
only, and anchorage system) available in vehicles.
FMVSS No. 213 S5.5 states:
Labeling. Any labels or written instructions provided in
addition to those required by this section shall not obscure or
confuse the meaning of the required information or be otherwise
misleading to the consumer * * *
The purpose of S5.5 is to prevent additional information from
confusing or misleading the consumer, resulting in misuse of the child
restraint and/or non-use.
The only complaint received by DJG was submitted by a Child
Passenger Safety Technician, on behalf of a consumer, over concerns
that the labels were put on incorrectly and the arrows pointed to the
solid plastic and not the rear-facing belt path.
DJG conducted a survey to demonstrate any effects the noncompliance
may have on seat installation. DJG installed a Complete Air LX model,
which represents the Alpha Elite model as well, in 26 vehicles in rear-
facing mode using both the vehicle belts and lower anchorage belts.
According to DJG, the 26 vehicles represented a cross-section of
vehicles on the road. The vehicle belts and lower anchorage belts were
routed through the forward-facing belt path of the Complete Air LX. DJG
reported that in none of the 26 vehicles was it possible to route the
lower anchorage belts through the forward-facing belt path and secure
the lower anchorages to the vehicle anchor bars due to the lower
anchorage belts being too short to allow this improper installation. In
5 of the 26 evaluated vehicles, the vehicle belt allowed for this
improper installation with a coupling of the vehicle belt and vehicle
buckle.
In reaching our decision, NHTSA carefully reviewed the subject
petition and CU's comments. NHTSA does not agree with DJG that the
preponderance of correct rear-facing installation diagrams and
instructions appears to outweigh the potential for improper
installation resulting from the misplaced arrows. NHTSA believes that
consumers will likely look first at diagrams on the child restraint for
guidance on correct installation, and not from written instructions,
particularly for re-installations, i.e., removing the restraint from
one vehicle and putting it in another vehicle. The pointing arrows on
the label will likely be the first place a consumer will look for
guidance on choosing the proper belt routing path. S5.5 of FMVSS No.
213 specifically addresses that additional information may not confuse
or mislead the user. If a user is reading the labels for guidance on
how to properly install the restraint, the directional arrows pointed
in the wrong direction clearly may present a confusing picture that
could lead to improper installation and/or nonuse.
NHTSA believes that the lone complaint reported by DJG does not
necessarily mean that consumers are installing the restraint properly.
Users may be installing the restraint improperly without realizing it,
and these cases therefore would not be reported.
NHTSA reviewed its Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) data and
uncovered one VOQ, dated May 2011, which highlighted installation
problems with the same child restraint device when the owner attempted
to follow instructions provided on the attached label.
NHTSA understands that the results of DJG's survey of vehicles
shows a low percentage of vehicles surveyed that allow an improper
installation because of the relative short length webbing for either
the lower anchorage belt or the vehicle seat belt. However we believe
that the survey is limited by the relatively small number of vehicles
surveyed compared to the entire vehicle fleet and the use of only two
DJG models.
NHTSA believes that the misplaced labels result in a confusion of
the meaning of the required information (diagram showing correct
installation in the rear-facing configuration) and thus the potential
for mis-installation or perhaps non-use of the restraint.
NHTSA'S Response to Consumer Union Comments: In its comment to the
docket, CU disagrees with DJG's assessment that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety because the incorrectly installed diagrams
will lead to confusion by the consumer and increase the likelihood that
the restraints will be installed improperly or not at all.
CU reported that it tested an Alpha Omega Elite model which is one
of the DJG models included in this petition. Based on CU observations,
the rear-facing belt path on the Alpha Omega Elite is not visible from
the top or the side of the restraint. Therefore without a label clearly
indicating its location, the rear-facing belt path could be hidden from
the consumer. In this case, with the affected label pointing toward the
forward-facing belt path, a consumer may assume that the rear-facing
and forward-facing belt paths are the same, leading to an improper
installation of the restraint.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that the petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that
the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, DJG's petition is hereby denied, and the petitioner must
notify owners, purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
provide a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Issued on: August 22, 2013.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2013-20960 Filed 8-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P