Dorel Juvenile Group, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 2776-2777 [2012-936]

Download as PDF 2776 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Notices 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: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 22187ANL Alpha Omega Elite Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 22187REM Alpha Omega Elite 22187REMA Alpha Omega Elite Issued on: January 12, 2012. 22187SAR Alpha Omega Elite Claude H. Harris, 22187SARA Alpha Omega Elite Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 22465 FSM Alpha Omega Elite [FR Doc. 2012–933 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 22790CGT Deluxe 3 in 1 BILLING CODE 4910–59–P CC033BMT Alpha Omega Elite CC043ANK Alpha Omega Elite CC043ANL Alpha Omega Elite DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CC043AQS Alpha Omega Elite CC046AAI Deluxe 3 in 1 National Highway Traffic Safety CC046AAU Deluxe 3 in 1 Administration CC046CTA Deluxe 3 in 1 [Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0002; Notice 1] CC046SNW Deluxe 3 in 1 CC046WPR Deluxe 3 in 1 Dorel Juvenile Group, Receipt of CC050AJH Complete Air LX Petition for Decision of CC050ANY Complete Air LX Inconsequential Noncompliance CC050ANZ Complete Air LX CC050AOQ Complete Air LX AGENCY: National Highway Traffic CC051AIR Complete Air SE Safety Administration, DOT. NHTSA notes that the statutory ACTION: Receipt of Petition. provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and SUMMARY: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.1 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to (DJG) has determined that certain child file petitions for a determination of restraint systems manufactured between inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to July 20, 2010 and May 18, 2011 do not exempt manufacturers only from the fully comply with paragraph S5.5 duties found in sections 30118 and Labeling of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 30120, respectively, to notify owners, Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,Child purchasers, and dealers of a defect or Restraint Systems. DJG has filed an noncompliance and to remedy the appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR defect or noncompliance. Therefore, part 573, Defect and Noncompliance these provisions only apply to the Responsibility and Reports (dated June 89,527 2 child restraint systems that DJG 23, 2011). no longer controlled at the time it Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and determined that the noncompliance 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 existed. CFR part 556), DJG has petitioned for an DJG described the noncompliance as follows: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 26,224 2 tires that have already passed from the manufacturer to an owner, purchaser, or dealer. 2 Goodyear’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt Goodyear as a replacement equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 26,224 of the affected tires. However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve Goodyear distributors of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Goodyear recognized that the subject noncompliance existed. 1 Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., a division of Dorel Industries, Inc., is an Indiana company that manufactures and imports motor vehicle equipment. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:21 Jan 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 The child restraints at issue utilize a permanently attached base which are 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. PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 equipped with color coordinated Ease of Use labels including base labels depicting the rear-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-facing vehicle and LATCH belt path for the rear-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-facing vehicle belt/LATCH routing path. The arrows are actually pointing to the area below the forward-facing vehicle belt/LATCH path routing but could be construed as pointing to the forward-facing routing path. DJG stated its belief that the likelihood a consumer would interpret the arrows as indicating the proper rear-facing path routing through the forward-facing path routing is extremely low. The proper rear-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-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-facing installation diagrams and instructions appears to outweigh the potential for improper installation as a result of the ambiguous arrows on the rear-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 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Notices 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 https:// 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, selfaddressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https:// 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 https://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). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:21 Jan 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Unblocking of One Specially Designated National or Blocked Person Pursuant to Executive Order 13315, as Amended Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) is publishing the name of an individual whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, ‘‘Blocking Property of the Former Iraqi Regime, Its Senior Officials and Their Family Members, and Taking Certain Other Actions,’’ as amended by Executive Order 13350 of July 30, 2004. DATES: The removal of this individual from the SDN List is effective as of January 10, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: (202) 622–2490. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Electronic and Facsimile Availability The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC’s web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC’s sanctions programs also is available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-ondemand service, tel.: (202) 622–0077. Background On August 28, 2003, the President issued Executive Order 13315 (the ‘‘Order’’) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 287c, section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 of May 22, 2003. In the Order, the President expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2777 to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. The Order blocks the property and interests in property of, inter alia, persons listed on the Annex to the Order. On July 30, 2004, the President issued Executive Order 13350, which, inter alia, replaced the Annex to Executive Order 13315 with a new Annex that included the names of individuals and entities, including individuals and entities that had previously been designated under Executive Order 12722 and related authorities. The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has determined that the individual identified below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13315, as amended, should be removed from the SDN List. The following designation is removed from the SDN List: AL–HABOBI, Dr. Safa Haji J (a.k.a. AL– HABOBI, Dr. Safa; a.k.a. AL–HABUBI, Dr. Safa Hadi Jawad; a.k.a. HABUBI, Dr. Safa Hadi Jawad; a.k.a. HABUBI, Dr. Safa Jawad; a.k.a. JAWAD, Dr. Safa Hadi), Flat 4D Thorney Court, Palace Gate, Kensington, United Kingdom; Iraq; DOB 01 Jul 1946; Former Minister of Oil (individual) [IRAQ2] The removal of this individual’s name from the SDN List is effective as of January 10, 2012. All property and interests in property of the individual that are in or hereafter come within the United States or the possession or control of United States persons are now unblocked. Dated: January 9, 2012. Adam J. Szubin, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. [FR Doc. 2012–960 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Unblocking of One Specially Designated National or Blocked Person Pursuant to Executive Order 13315, as Amended Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1

Agencies

[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 https://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 https://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 https://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