[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33150-33152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13099]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0038; Notice 1]
RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RECARO Child Safety, LLC (RECARO) \1\ has determined that
certain RECARO brand ProSport child restraint systems produced between
June 16, 2010 and January 31, 2013, do not fully comply with paragraph
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, Child Restraint Systems. RECARO has filed an appropriate report
dated February 6,
[[Page 33151]]
2013, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RECARO Child Safety, LLC is a manufacturer of motor vehicle
equipment and is registered under the laws of the state of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately 39,181 RECARO brand
ProSport child restraint systems produced between June 16, 2010 and
January 31, 2013.
Summary of Recaro's Analysis and Arguments: RECARO explains that
the noncompliance is that the RECARO ProSport child restraint system
does not comply with the head excursion requirements of FMVSS 213
S5.1.3.1(a)(1) when subjected to the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS
No. 213 S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D), using a six year old test dummy secured to
the test bench by lower anchors and no tether.
In support of this Petition, RECARO submits the following comments
and data:
1. The dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 213
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) require using a six year old test dummy secured to
the test bench using lower anchors and no tether. This test procedure
is a direct violation of the instructions and warnings in the
instruction manual included with each ProSport child restraint system
and would constitute a major misuse of the child restraint by the
consumer. (RECARO provided the entire manual as part of its petition.)
2. RECARO has received over 9,000 registration cards returned by
purchasers of the ProSport. Using the on-line survey system Survey
Monkey, RECARO instituted a survey of 3,690 registered owners by
emailing each purchaser the following survey questions:
a. Are you currently using your ProSport child restraint?
b. How is (was) your ProSport installed in the vehicle?
i. Vehicle lap/shoulder belt
ii. Lower anchors provided with child restraint (LATCH)
c. Did you use the top tether included on the ProSport to install
the child restraint into the vehicle?
929 registered owners responded to the survey by confirming that
they installed the child restraint with lower LATCH anchors. Of those
responding, 837 or 90.1% confirmed that the top tether was being used
to install their ProSport when installing the child restraint with
lower LATCH anchors. (RECARO included a copy of the survey details and
results as part of its petition.) RECARO stated its belief that the
survey is a statistically significant confirmation that a very small
percentage of ProSport consumers are misusing the child restraint by
not using the top tether when installing the child restraint with lower
LATCH anchors and that the effectiveness of any noncompliance
notification campaign will be minimal, given the historically low
response rate to technical noncompliance notification campaigns of
child restraints. For example, the survey results indicate that only
those ProSport consumers not properly using the top tether when
installing the child restraint with lower LATCH anchors are likely to
respond to a noncompliance notification. Assuming a response rate of
10% by this group, only 400 of the estimated 4,000 consumers misusing
the child restraint are likely to respond. This statistically
insignificant response renders the technical noncompliance at issue
inconsequential.
3. All vehicles equipped with lower child restraint (LATCH) anchors
are also equipped with top tether anchors. RECARO has received 82
consumer calls regarding the ProSport. (RECARO included copies of
consumer call reports as part of its petition.) No consumer has
questioned the use of the tether when securing the ProSport with the
lower anchors. RECARO has no information of this misuse actually
occurring in the field or of any injuries sustained by a child when
restrained in a ProSport in this misuse condition.
4. RECARO has received notice of three accidents involving four
children seated in ProSport child restraint systems. In these
incidents, the ProSport performed well and the occupant was not
injured. It is not known if the ProSports involved were installed using
the lower LATCH anchors or, if so, whether the top tethers were used.
5. RECARO has implemented an engineering/structural modification to
the ProSport. Dynamic tests of the modified ProSport using a Hybrid II
six year old test dummy secured to the test bench using lower anchors
and no tether confirm that the head excursion requirements of FMVSS No.
213 S5.1.3.1(a)(1) are met. (RECARO included copies of the test reports
as part of its petition.)
6. RECARO stated its belief that the ProSport outperforms any
comparable child restraint with regards to head excursions when
installed with the lap/shoulder belt.
7. Given the relative small number of ProSport child restraints
distributed since introduction in June 2010 (39,181), the effectiveness
of any notification campaign regarding this technical noncompliance
will be limited. Additionally, any noncompliance notice campaign may
result in consumers deciding to discontinue using their ProSport for a
period of time, increasing the risk of injury to a higher degree than
the risk resulting from the small number of consumers misusing the
child restraint by not using the top tether when installing the child
restraint with lower LATCH anchors.
RECARO has additionally informed NHTSA that it has stopped
production of the ProSport at the end of January 2013.
In summation, RECARO believes that the described noncompliance of
its equipment is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to 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.
Comments: 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 be
submitted by any of the following methods:
a. By mail addressed 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.
b. By hand delivery 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.
c. 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 1-202-493-2251.
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
[[Page 33152]]
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.
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, these provisions
only apply to the subject 39,181 \2\ child restraint systems that
RECARO no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ RECARO's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt RECARO as a motor vehicle
equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for the affected motor vehicle
equipment. However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant motor vehicle equipment
under their control after RECARO notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment Closing Date: July 3, 2013.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Issued On: May 21, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-13099 Filed 5-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P