
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33150-33152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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


