Document ID: NHTSA-2015-0074-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance: Baby Jogger, LLC
Posted Date: 2016-08-09T04:00Z

[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