Baby Jogger, LLC, Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
|
Stephen A. Ridella
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
9 August 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52734-52737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18770]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0074; Notice 2]
Baby Jogger, LLC, Ruling on Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Ruling on petition for inconsequential noncompliance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Baby Jogger, LLC (Baby Jogger), has determined that certain
Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases do not fully comply with
paragraphs S5.5, S5.6, S5.8, and S8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Baby Jogger filed an
associated report dated June 4, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Baby Jogger then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Zachary
Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5754,
facsimile (202) 366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Baby Jogger 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.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 8, 2015 in the Federal Register (80
FR 53914). No comments were received. To view the petition, 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-2015-0074.''
II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected are approximately 15,103 of
the following Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases
manufactured between November 3, 2014 and April 30, 2015:
City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64510
City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64529
City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ80400
City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ61500
City Mini Infant Cars Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model
No.BJ72510
Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70411
Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70424
Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70431
III. Noncompliances: Baby Jogger explains that the affected child
restraints do not fully comply with numerous paragraphs of FMVSS No.
213 for the following reasons:
Paragraph S5.5.2--The required information in English is no smaller
than 10 point type, but the Spanish information is smaller at about 7
point type. This only applies to models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
Paragraph S5.5.2(d)--The ``manufactured in address'' on the label
is in about 8 font which is smaller than the required 10 point type.
Paragraph S5.5.2(m)--The required ''Child restraints could be
recalled for safety reasons. . .'' text is on a black background with
white text instead of black text on a white background.
Paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)--The label has the ``Follow all
instructions. . .'' ahead of the ``Secure this child restraint''
statement, instead of the reverse order as required. This noncompliance
only affects models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
Paragraph S5.5.2(n)--The label has ``This child restraint is
certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft.'' Other than the
first word, no other words are capitalized.
Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(ii)--The message area measures 23.4 square
cm on models BJ70411, BJ70424 and BJ70431 which is less than the
minimum required message area of 30 square cm.
Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(iii)--On models BJ70411, BJ70424 and
BJ70431 the red circle on the required pictogram is 29 mm in diameter
which is less than the required 30 mm in diameter.
Paragraph S5.6.1.7--The instruction manuals do not include
reference to the required Web site in the section regarding child
restraint recalls.
Paragraph S5.6.3--The instruction manuals do not include the
required statement ``A snug strap should not allow any slack. . .''
Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)--The electronic registration form does not
have the required statement ``FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY. . .''
Paragraph S5.8.1(b)(2)--Figure 9a requires minimum 10 percent
screen tint on the lower half of the form. The form is missing the
required tinting.
Paragraph S8.1--No instructions for installing the system in an
aircraft passenger seat were provided.
IV. Summary of Baby Jogger's Analyses: Baby Jogger organized its
reasoning to substantiate inconsequentiality into the following five
issue groupings that it believes are similar between the numerous
noncompliances:
a. Information Type Size/Capitalization/Presentation Order
b. Background Color
c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes
d. Omitted Information
e. Spanish Language Type Size
Refer to Baby Jogger's petition for their complete reasoning and
associated illustrations. To view the petition 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-2015-0074.''
Baby Jogger additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected
all labeling noncompliances and that all future production of the
subject infant car seat/stroller systems and stand-alone units will be
in full compliance with FMVSS No. 213.
In summation, Baby Jogger believes that the described noncompliance
of the subject infant car seat/stroller systems and standalone units is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
[[Page 52735]]
petition, to exempt Baby Jogger 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 Decision
NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA examined the noncompliances that Baby
Jogger described in its petition by category as follows:
a. Information Type Size/Capitalization/Presentation Order
Baby Jogger printed labels required in paragraph S5.5.2 containing
the place of manufacture in 8 point type rather than the required 10
point type. Baby Jogger believes the smaller type of the place of
manufacture will not have any impact on child passenger safety. Baby
Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words contained in
a label to instruct the user that the restraint is certified for use in
motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)). Baby Jogger believes
the lower case letters will not have any impact on child passenger
safety. Finally, Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the
required statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby
Jogger believes the out of order information will not have any impact
on child passenger safety.
NHTSA does not concur with Baby Jogger's reasons for
inconsequentiality stated above. With regard to the noncompliant 8
point font size, in the Final Rule establishing FMVSS No. 139, ``New
pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles,'' the agency stated ``With
respect to the size of the text on the placard and label, NHTSA learned
from focus groups that the public generally prefers larger fonts in
label text because it is easier to read. This helps ensure the placard
and label will effectively convey the message to the reader.'' \1\
Also, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to upgrade dynamic testing in
FMVSS No. 213, the agency originally proposed that labeling be in block
lettering ``3/32 inch high.'' \2\ In the final rule to upgrade FMVSS
No. 213, the agency changed this to ``10 point type'' and made other
changes in response to a comment from General Motors.\3\ General Motors
stated ``The proposal restricts the lettering to block lettering which
results in instructions which are hard to read. We recommend that the
body type for the label be specified to require at least a 10 point
type, based on the character case with the option of using capitals or
upper and lower case. We believe this specification will result in an
easier to read label which, in turn, should promote more complete
reading of the label by the consumer.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 67 FR 69600; November 18, 2002.
\2\ 43 FR 21470; May 18, 1978.
\3\ 44 FR 72131; December 13, 1979.
\4\ Docket no. 74-09-N04, comment #78, sent 12/1/78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, NHTSA believes that font size less than the
required 10 point type results in undesirable reading conditions which
may cause eye strain and lead to the consumer failing to complete
reading all the important safety instructions.
Baby Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words
contained in a label to instruct the user that the restraint is
certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)).
Baby Jogger believes the lower case letters will not have any impact on
child passenger safety.
The agency believes that failure to capitalize the required
statements for proper use of child restraints may result in the
consumer not adequately seeing and understanding the important safety
information pertaining to proper use of the restraints.
Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the required
statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby Jogger
believes the out of order information will not have any impact on child
passenger safety because the statements are stand-alone and do not
depend on another statement; therefore, the order of bulleted
statements do affect the proper use of the car seat.
NHTSA disagrees with this reasoning. S5.5.2(g)(1) requires the
heading ```WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur', capitalized as
written and followed by bulleted statements in the following order:''
(emphasis added). The order of statements follows a sequence beginning
with instructions for rear-facing usage (S5.5.2(k)(1)), the maximum
mass of children that can safely occupy the system (S.5.5.2(f)), the
proper adjustment of the belts provided with the child restraint
(S5.5.2(h)), instructions for securing a child restraint to the vehicle
with a top tether strap (S5.5.2(j), and instructions for securing a
booster seat to the vehicle using the vehicle's seat belt system
(S5.5.2(i)). Baby Jogger incorrectly placed the statements required by
S5.5.2(i) before the statements required by S5.5.2(j). The agency
intentionally created a sequence of information that begins with
instructions that call for interaction between the occupant and the
restraint system, and ends with instructions that call for interaction
between the occupant and the written instruction. If this sequence is
disrupted by placing items out of order the user could become
distracted and disregard important instructions.
The agency believes the above label noncompliances, in totality,
have a compounding effect that may result in the user mistrusting
information on the labels and thereby ignoring the labels.
b. Background Color
Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following two noncompliances
related to background color:
(1) Paragraph S5.5.2 requires a label with information that child
restraints could be recalled for safety reasons to be printed on a
white background with black text. The noncompliant label contains the
required information but is printed on black background with white
text. Baby Jogger believes there is no indication that the reversed
color combination will affect consumers' ability to understand the
information on the label, and, therefore, the contrasting colors will
not have any impact on child passenger safety.
NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's assessment that the reversal of
required text/label color will not affect the consumers' ability to
understand the label. A visual inspection of the label in a photograph
provided by Baby Jogger shows that the white text on the black
background is not as easy to read as the compliant text located above.
(This picture is located in the docket). The consumer may not read the
label in its entirety if the ability to read the information on the
label creates a challenge to the reader, which would result in the
reader not being aware of important recall information.
(2) S5.8.1(b)(2) requires the registration form to conform to
Figures 9a and 9b which require portions of the card to have a minimum
10% screen tint. The registration card provided by Baby Jogger does not
have any screen tint. Baby Jogger believes that the missing screen tint
will not have an impact on motor vehicle safety because there is no
indication that the missing tint will affect consumers' ability to
understand the information on the registration card.
The image of the registration card provided in Baby Jogger's
petition would seem to support Baby Jogger's argument that the missing
tint does not affect the ability to understand the required information
provided on the registration card.
c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes
Three of the Baby Jogger models have the air bag warning label
required by
[[Page 52736]]
paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3)(ii) with a message area measuring 23.4 square cm
which is less than the minimum required message area of 30 square cm.
Baby Jogger does not believe the noncompliance creates a risk to motor
vehicle safety because the label is prominently displayed and clearly
communicates the required warning, and there is no indication that the
sizing issue affects customers' ability to understand the warnings. In
addition, the pictogram required in paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3)(iii) for the
Baby Jogger label measures 29 millimeters in diameter which is less
than the minimum required diameter of 30 millimeters. Baby Jogger
believes that the pictogram that is 1 millimeter too small will not
have any impact on child passenger safety.
In addition, Baby Jogger maintains for both noncompliances above
that the required information is provided in the printed instructions
and is prominently featured on the affected products, and there is no
indication that the sizing issue affects consumers' ability to
understand or appreciate the warnings.
We disagree with Baby Jogger that the smaller than required air bag
warning label message area creates no risk to motor vehicle safety. The
air bag warning labels are the agency's primary method for obtaining
the consumer's attention and conveying important safety information
with respect to the proper location to install a rear-facing child
restraint. The agency believes that these air bag warning labels are
necessary to make consumers aware of the potentially serious
consequences of placing a rear-facing child seat or any child twelve
and under on the front seat with an air bag, and that the rear seat is
the safest place for these children. In NHTSA's occupant crash
protection rule published on May 12, 2000,\5\ the agency stated ``. . .
as with the current labels, manufacturers may provide translations of
the required English language message as long as all the requirements
for the English language are met, including size'' \6\ (emphasis
added). Thus, the agency reconfirmed the importance of the message area
requirement in the advanced air bag final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 65 FR 30680.
\6\ 65 FR 30722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air bag warning label requirements in FMVSS No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems, were established as part of a FMVSS No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, final rule requiring new air bag warning
labels in motor vehicles.\7\ The intent of the final rule is that the
warning or alert message fills the message area.\8\ Not filling the
message area would make purposeless the specification. The Baby Jogger
label has a message area that is 22 percent below the required 30
square cm. This is a significant reduction in message area equivalent
to not filling the message area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 61 FR 60206; November 27, 1996.
\8\ 61 FR 60206 at 60210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pictogram of the air bag warning label has a diameter that is 3
percent below the required 30 mm. Even though the pictogram minimum
format is not met, NHTSA believes in this case that the consumer will
have a message size that is acceptable.
d. Omitted Information
Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following four
noncompliances related to missing information required in the printed
instructions or electronic registration form in FMVSS No. 213:
(1) Paragraph S5.6.1.7 requires the printed instructions to include
the statement in paragraph (ii) that ``Child restraints could be
recalled . . . or register on-line at (insert Web site for electronic
registration form).'' The printed instruction manual does not include
the Web site address in the section regarding child restraint
registration. Baby Jogger does not believe the noncompliance with
paragraph S5.6.1.7 creates a risk to motor vehicle safety since on-line
registration is optional.
The agency disagrees with Baby Jogger that the missing information
for on-line registration does not create a risk to motor vehicle
safety. While the manufacturer has the choice to provide on-line
registration or not, if the manufacturer does provide the option for
on-line registration then they are required to provide the Web site
address in the section regarding child seat registration. The agency
recognizes the importance of child restraint registrations. To support
increasing the number of registrations, the agency is currently
studying efforts to increase the rate of child restraint registrations
so that in the event of a recall, all owners of affected units will be
notified of a potentially unsafe product.
(2) Paragraph S5.6.3 requires the printed instructions to include
the statement: ``A snug strap should not allow any slack. It lies in a
relatively straight line without sagging. It does not press on the
child's flesh or push the child's body into an unnatural position.''
The printed instruction manual does not include this information. Baby
Jogger does not believe that this noncompliance creates a risk to motor
vehicle safety because the printed instructions provide adequate text
to adjust the harness around the child including statements addressing
snugness and sagging (see Baby Jogger's Petition in Docket NHTSA-2015-
0074 for detail).
NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger that the provided text to address
strap snugness in lieu of the required text is sufficient to replace
the required text. The text provided by Baby Jogger contains additional
information not related to strap snugness. In addition, the provided
text fails to provide guidance to achieve a snug fit which may result
in an improper securing of the child in the restraint and a compromise
of the child seat's safety effectiveness in the event of a crash.
(3) Paragraph S8.1 requires the printed instructions to include a
step-by-step procedure (including diagrams) for installing the system
in aircraft passenger seats, securing a child in the system when it is
installed in aircraft, and adjusting the system to fit the child. The
printed instruction manual does not include instructions for installing
the system in aircraft passenger seats. Baby Jogger does not believe
that the missing aircraft installation information creates a risk to
motor vehicle safety because the printed instructions address the
installation of the child seat in a vehicle equipped with a lap belt
only, which is similar to the installation of the child seat in an
aircraft passenger seat with lap belt only. Baby Jogger believes that
the installation instructions provided for a vehicle lap belt will be
logically understood as the method to secure the child seat to the
aircraft passenger seat.
NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's line of reasoning. We have
concerns that absent the required instructions specific to aircraft
passenger installation, the user will be unprepared to properly secure
the child restraint to the aircraft passenger seat, properly secure the
child when it is installed in an aircraft, and properly adjust the
system to fit the child. These potential improper procedures could
result in a compromise of the child seat's safety effectiveness during
flight.
(4) Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)(i) requires the electronic registration
form to contain the statement ``FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY'' at
the top of the form. The electronic registration form on the Baby
Jogger Web site did not include this statement at the top. Baby Jogger
believes that users of child restraints have a basic understanding that
recalls are conducted for safety reasons, and that one who navigated to
the electronic registration form would not be
[[Page 52737]]
dissuaded from registering due to the missing phrase.
The Agency agrees that a consumer who has navigated to the on-line
registration will not be dissuaded from registering due to the missing
phrase. Also, the Agency notes that Baby Jogger has corrected this
omission on its on-line registration form and the required statement is
present.
e. Spanish Language Type Size
Paragraph S5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires the information in the
English language to be not smaller than 10 point type. An on-product
warning label provided by Baby Jogger has the Spanish information at
approximately 7 point type. The English language label is in full
compliance with this requirement. Baby Jogger believes that the
noncompliant text does not create a risk to motor vehicle safety
because the information is clearly displayed on the affected child
restraints and clearly communicates the required information.
NHTSA believes that the 7 point type text provided in the Spanish
language label is not clearly displayed and is difficult to read. The
smaller font size likely poses a challenge to the consumer's ability to
read the text and could result in the consumer ignoring the text due to
the difficulty in being able to read it. NHTSA disagrees with Baby
Jogger's reasons for inconsequentiality as supported by the reasons
stated above under the category ``Information Type Size.''
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
determined that Baby Jogger has not met its burden of persuasion that
the subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliances are inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety for: (a) Information Type Size/Capitalization/
Presentation order, (b) Background color (excluding the 10 percent tint
noncompliance), (c) On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes
(excluding the pictogram noncompliance), (d) Omitted Information
(excluding the missing statement at the top of the on-line registration
form), and (e) Spanish Language Type Size. Accordingly, Baby Jogger's
petition is hereby denied for these noncompliances and Baby Jogger is
obligated to provide notification of, and free remedies for, the
noncompliances as required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliances
identified above as ``excluded'' in its petition are inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety: (b) minimum 10 percent tint on registration card,
(c) minimum 30 mm diameter pictogram on air bag warning label, and (d)
missing statement at the top of the on-line registration form.
Accordingly, we grant its petition on these issues.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).
Issued on: August 2, 2016.
Stephen A. Ridella,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-18770 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P