Document ID: NHTSA-2012-0002-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Dorel Juvenile Group
Posted Date: 2012-01-19T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2776-2777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-936]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0002; Notice 1]

Dorel Juvenile Group, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.\1\ (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 Labeling of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,Child Restraint 
Systems. DJG has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated June 
23, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., a division of Dorel Industries, 
Inc., is an Indiana company that manufactures and imports motor 
vehicle equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    This notice of receipt of DJG'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.
    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
22465 FSM 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

    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 89,527 \2\ child restraint systems that DJG no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DJG's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556, 
requests an agency decision to exempt DJG as an equipment 
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 
CFR part 573 for 89,527 of the affected child restraint systems. 
However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve child restraint 
system distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 
offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraint systems 
under their control after DJG notified them that the subject 
noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DJG described the noncompliance as follows:

    The child restraints at issue utilize a permanently attached 
base which are equipped with color coordinated Ease of Use labels 
including base labels depicting the rear[hyphen]facing mode 
instructions. The issue is that certain restraints were equipped 
with base labels positioned on the incorrect side of the base. Even 
if the base labels are positioned on the incorrect side of the base, 
nearly all the information is correct, except the small indicator 
arrows do not line up with the rear[hyphen]facing vehicle and LATCH 
belt path for the rear[hyphen]facing mode. As noted in the 
Noncompliance Information Report, this voluntarily supplied 
information caused the installation diagram required by FMVSS 213 
S5.5.2(l) to be inaccurate.
    The noncompliance exists when the base labels are installed 
incorrectly and the indicator arrows do not point to the 
rear[hyphen]facing vehicle belt/LATCH routing path. The arrows are 
actually pointing to the area below the forward[hyphen]facing 
vehicle belt/LATCH path routing but could be construed as pointing 
to the forward[hyphen]facing routing path.

    DJG stated its belief that the likelihood a consumer would 
interpret the arrows as indicating the proper rear[hyphen]facing path 
routing through the forward-facing path routing is extremely low. The 
proper rear[hyphen]facing vehicle belt/LATCH routing path is shown very 
clearly in the five diagrams on the two base labels.
    DJG argued that instructions included with the subject child 
restraint systems also correctly depict the rear[hyphen]facing vehicle 
belt/LATCH routing path numerous times.
    DJG noted that only one user complaint related to this issue had 
been received.
    DJG also included the results of a survey conducted to illustrate 
any effects the noncompliance may have on seat installation.
    In conclusion, DJG stated its belief that the technical 
noncompliance issue reported in the June 23, 2011 Noncompliance 
Information Report does not constitute a true 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 stated that the preponderance of correct 
rear[hyphen]facing installation diagrams and instructions appears to 
outweigh the potential for improper installation as a result of the 
ambiguous arrows on the rear[hyphen]facing installation labels on the 
base. DJG also indicated that there appears to be a very low 
probability that improper installation is even possible in the vast 
majority of vehicles surveyed, which represent a good cross section of 
vehicles in the field.

Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

[[Page 2777]]

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 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.

DATES: Comment closing date: February 21, 2012.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: January 12, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-936 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P