Graco Children's Products Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 14055-14057 [2012-5623]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices
Geographic Region: ‘‘Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island.’’
The complete application is given in
DOT docket MARAD–2012–0023 at
https://www.regulations.gov. Interested
parties may comment on the effect this
action may have on U.S. vessel builders
or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and
MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part
388, that the issuance of the waiver will
have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.vessel builder or a business that uses
U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a
waiver will not be granted. Comments
should refer to the docket number of
this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the
comments. Comments should also state
the commenter’s interest in the waiver
application, and address the waiver
criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s
regulations at 46 CFR Part 388.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
Dated: March 1, 2012.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–5503 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket No. MARAD–2012 0028]
Requested Administrative Waiver of
the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel
SKYKOMISH TOO; Invitation for Public
Comments
Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
As authorized by 46 U.S.C.
12121, the Secretary of Transportation,
as represented by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), is authorized
to grant waivers of the U.S.-build
requirement of the coastwise laws under
certain circumstances. A request for
such a waiver has been received by
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Mar 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
MARAD. The vessel, and a brief
description of the proposed service, is
listed below.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
April 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to
docket number MARAD–2012–0028.
Written comments may be submitted by
hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk,
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. You may also
send comments electronically via the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
All comments will become part of this
docket and will be available for
inspection and copying at the above
address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. An electronic version
of this document and all documents
entered into this docket is available on
the World Wide Web at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Room W21–203,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–
366–5979, Email Joann.Spittle@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
As described by the applicant the
intended service of the vessel
SKYKOMISH TOO is:
Intended Commercial Use of Vessel:
‘‘Charter vessel.’’
Geographic Region: ‘‘California,
Oregon and Washington.’’ The complete
application is given in DOT docket
MARAD–2012–0028 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Interested parties
may comment on the effect this action
may have on U.S. vessel builders or
businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag
vessels. If MARAD determines, in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and
MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part
388, that the issuance of the waiver will
have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.vessel builder or a business that uses
U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a
waiver will not be granted. Comments
should refer to the docket number of
this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the
comments. Comments should also state
the commenter’s interest in the waiver
application, and address the waiver
criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s
regulations at 46 CFR Part 388.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14055
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
Dated: March 1, 2012.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–5504 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0042; Notice 2]
Graco Children’s Products Inc., Grant
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
AGENCY:
Graco Children’s Products
Inc. (Graco), has determined that certain
warning labels attached to detachable
accessory pillows that it sold with
MyRideTM 65 line child restraint
systems produced between April, 2009,
and October, 2009, failed to meet the
flammability requirements of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) No. 213 1. Graco estimates that
about 90,000 child restraint systems
may be affected. Graco filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports on
November 13, 2009.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing
those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556,
Graco 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.
Notice of receipt of the petition was
published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on April 13, 2010 in
the Federal Register (75 FR 18952). One
comment was received from Dean L.
Hoppe. To view the petition, the
comment, and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
SUMMARY:
1 Graco describes the noncompliance as one with
FMVSS No. 302. However, FMVSS No. 302 does
not in itself apply to motor vehicle equipment.
Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 302 is invoked by
reference in FMVSS No. 213, therefore, this
noncompliance is a noncompliance with FMVSS
No. 213 not FMVSS No. 302.
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14056
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2010–
0042.’’
For further information on this
decision contact Mr. Zachary R. Fraser,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5754, facsimile (202) 366–
7002.
Affected are all models of MyRideTM
65 convertible child restraint systems
manufactured between April, 2009, and
October, 2009, in the Company’s Mexico
facility. The Company estimated that
approximately 90,000 child restraint
systems may be affected, and of this
total, 50,000 are potentially in use by its
customers (consumers) and 40,000 were
with retailers.
Graco describes the MyRideTM 65
child restraint system as being
manufactured with a detachable
accessory pillow, and this pillow
includes a warning label (the ‘‘pillow
label’’) regarding appropriate use of the
pillow for children of a certain age
range. The pillow label warns
consumers not to use the pillow when
the MyRideTM 65 child restraint system
is being used by children weighing more
than 40 lbs (18.1 kg). The pillow, which
is removable, is attached to the
MyRideTM 65 child restraint system by
a hook and loop fastener material, one
side of which is sewn onto a ‘‘tail’’ of
the pillow and the other onto the top of
the child restraint system above the
child’s head.
Based on its internal investigation,
Graco believes that the noncompliance
is that a pillow label sewn onto the
detachable head pillow of certain
MyRideTM 65 child restraint systems
does not comply with paragraph S5.7 of
FMVSS No. 213.
After discovering that a recent lot of
pillow labels delivered in late October
2009 to the Company’s Mexico facility
had not been properly treated for flame
resistance, Graco’s plant management
began an investigation. They
immediately started reviewing all
pillow label lots previously delivered to
its Mexico facility since April 2009, the
production start date for the MyRideTM
line child restraint systems, to
determine the extent of the
noncompliance among its lots of pillow
labels.
Graco found that its noncompliant
pillow labels were manufactured by a
sub-supplier to Graco’s normal pillow
label supplier. Graco has determined
that the sub-supplier did not follow
Graco’s production specifications, and
as a result, failed to meet the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Mar 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
requirements of FMVSS No. 213. Graco
also concluded that that sub-supplier
was the only one providing the
noncompliant pillow labels.
Graco also found that all other labels
and materials for its MyRideTM 65 child
restraint systems were provided by
Graco’s regular supplier itself and not
the sub-supplier. In addition to its
investigation, the Company’s plant
management also examined and verified
through laboratory testing, that all other
material components used in the
MyRideTM 65 child restraint systems
comply with the standards of FMVSS
No. 213. Graco added that new plant
management at its Mexico plant has
implemented more robust quality
controls to prevent such problems from
happening in the future and that Graco
has received no complaints, reports or
any other information about adverse
impacts from this noncompliance from
consumers or any other outside source.
Since the discovery of the
noncompliance, Graco indicated that it
has taken steps to ensure that every
MyRideTM 65 child restraint system
subsequently released for shipment has
been manufactured with labels
compliant with all applicable safety
standards, including FMVSS No. 213. In
addition, Graco stopped all shipments
of the MyRideTM 65 child restraint
systems in its possession when the
noncompliance was discovered and
replaced the detachable accessory
pillows with pillows manufactured with
a pillow label compliant with the
FMVSS No. 213 prior to delivery.
Graco believes that the
noncompliance of the pillow label to
meet the requirements of FMVSS No.
213 is inconsequential to overall motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:
When reviewing the accessory pillow at
issue, including its size, location, function
and overall design, the risk of injury resulting
from the noncompliant Label on the
detachable accessory pillow is
inconsequential to the overall safety of the
MyRide child restraint system. Specifically,
the Label is a physically small component of
the child restraint system located in an area
not likely to be exposed to open flame. In
fact, the potential for the Label serving as an
ignition point for a larger conflagration is
near zero. This circumstance, along with the
compliant status of all other fabric and label
components of the MyRide child restraint
system, render the Label’s noncompliance
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
As noted above, the Label is a rectangular
shaped tag measuring approximately 3 inches
by 11⁄4 inches. The area of the Label is
insignificant with respect to the over two
yards of fabric that is used to make the pad
and the ‘‘soft goods’’ for the MyRide child
restraint system. Proportionally, the
percentage of material is less than 1/100% of
the total surface area of the child restraint
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
system. Moreover, all other fabric, including
other warning labels for the MyRide child
restraint system, are flame resistant. The
small size of affected material renders the
likelihood of ignition of this one Label highly
untenable.
In addition * * * the Label is also located
in an area that makes it highly unlikely to be
exposed to an open flame without the
passenger compartment of the car being
already engulfed in flame * * * When put in
its proper place * * * the Label is
surrounded by flame resistant material and in
a location interior to the overall child
restraint system design * * *’’
* * * the owner’s manual and instructions
for the MyRide child restraint system
expressly states that the pillow is not to be
used with any child over 18.1 kg (40 lbs)
placed into the MyRide child restraint
system. Accordingly, a significant number of
MyRide child restraint systems are not used
with the pillow, thereby further reducing an
already low risk of flammability.
* * * the MyRide * * * child restraint is
not designed to be easily removed from a
motor vehicle once installed * * * the
MyRide child restraint system is tethered
into the child restraint system or is installed
for use with the motor vehicle’s type II lap
and shoulder belt. Therefore, the only risk of
exposure to an ignition source would be
while installed in a motor vehicle where
pinpoint open flame in the upper portion of
the child restraint system on one particular
side is highly unlikely.
Graco has considered the potential for
variety of potential ignition sources that may
be exposed to the tag. The Company believes
that the likelihood of the Label coming
accidentally in contact with any type of
ignition device is extremely low. Graco’s
analysis also included potential ignition from
cigarettes or other smoking materials * * *
Graco also mentioned that real world
reports support the Company’s belief
that the noncompliant pillow labels are
not a risk to safety. Graco said it has
received no reports or complaints of a
fire involving the MyRideTM 65 child
restraint system or any of its
components. Graco added, ‘‘The
insignificant opportunity of a fire
hazard to a child from ignition of this
small tag, located in the interior portion
of the child restraint system contained
inside a motor vehicle supports Graco’s
assertion regarding the inconsequential
nature of this noncompliance.’’
In summation Graco restated its belief
that based on the size of the pillow
label, its location, compliance of all
other labels and fabric with FMVSS No.
213, and the nearly impossible
opportunities for direct ignition of the
pillow label only, that the described
noncompliance of the pillow label to
meet the requirements of FMVSS No.
213 is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Thus, Graco requests that
NHTSA grant its petition to exempt it
from providing notification of
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120.
NHTSA Decision
Requirement Background
The purpose of the flammability
requirements is to reduce deaths and
injuries to motor vehicle occupants
caused by vehicle fires, especially those
originating in the interior of the vehicle
from sources such as matches or
cigarettes. S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213
requires that each material used in a
child restraint system shall conform to
the flammability requirements
contained in S4 of FMVSS No. 302. S4
contains flammability requirements to
measure the burn rate of specific
components of vehicle occupant
compartments.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NHTSA’s Analysis of Graco’s Reasoning
Based on Dorel’s explanation in its
petition, certain warning labels sewn to
a detachable pillow provided with the
Dorel MyRide 65 child restraint system
did not comply with the flammability
requirements contained in FMVSS No.
213 and No. 302. Dorel stated that the
subject warning labels were supplied by
a sub-supplier of Dorel’s usual supplier
of pillow warning labels and were not
properly treated for flammability
resistance. Dorel concludes that since
the warning labels were not properly
treated for flammability resistance then
the labels are not in compliance with
FMVSS No. 213.
Dorel states that the noncompliance of
the pillow label to the requirements of
FMVSS No. 213 is inconsequential to
overall motor vehicle safety. The size,
location, function and overall design of
the pillow at issue, together with the
low risk of injury resulting from the
noncompliant label on the detachable
pillow, is inconsequential to the overall
safety of the MyRide child restraint
system. Since the label is physically
small (3 inches by 11⁄4 inches) the
likelihood of ignition is negligible, and
the label is surrounded by flame
resistant materials. Graco considered a
variety of potential ignition sources that
may be exposed to the label and
believes that the likelihood of the label
coming into contact with any type of
ignition source is extremely low,
including the potential ignition from
cigarettes or other smoking materials.
NHTSA Conclusions
There appears to be an insignificant
safety risk created by the
noncompliance. The underlying
concern is that the label attached to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Mar 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
detachable pillow could ignite since it
was not treated with flame resistant
material. But the relatively small size of
the label, together with its proximity to
other materials on the child restraint
system that have been treated with
flame resistant materials, renders the
likelihood of ignition for this one label
extremely low.
There appears to be no significant
safety risk caused by the
noncompliance.
NHTSA’s Response to the Comment
In its comments to the docket, Hoppe
did not specifically address the pillow
warning label noncompliance that is the
essence of the Graco petition. Instead he
applauded Graco and NHTSA for
enforcing the applicable safety
standards.
Because Hoppes’ comments did not
provide any information addressing
Graco’s noncompliance that is the
essence of its petition,
Hoppes’comments do not support
denying the subject petition.
14057
controlled at the time that it determined
that a noncompliance existed in the
subject vehicles.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8).
Issued on: March 2, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012–5623 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 35600]
Gregory B. Cundiff, Connie Cundiff,
CGX, Inc. and Ironhorse Resources,
Inc.; Continuance in Control
Exemption; Santa Teresa Southern
Railroad, LLC
Decision
After a review of Graco’s arguments
and Dean L. Hoppe’s comment, NHTSA
is convinced that Graco has met its
burden of demonstrating that the
noncompliance does not present a
significant safety risk. Therefore,
NHTSA agrees with Graco that this
specific noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Graco has met
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS
No. 213 noncompliance in the child
restraint systems identified in Graco’s
Noncompliance Information Report is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Graco’s petition is granted
and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, that noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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, this
decision only applies to the car child
restraint systems 2 that Graco no longer
Gregory B. Cundiff, Connie Cundiff,
CGX, Inc. (CGX) and Ironhorse
Resources, Inc. (Ironhorse) (collectively,
parties) have filed a verified notice of
exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to
continue in control of Santa Teresa
Southern Railroad, LLC (STSR), upon
STSR’s becoming a Class III rail carrier.
This transaction is related to a
concurrently filed verified notice of
exemption in Santa Teresa Southern
Railroad, LLC—Operation Exemption—
Rail Line of Verde Logistics Railroad,
LLC at Santa Teresa, Dona Ana County,
N.M., Docket No. FD 35599, wherein
STSR seeks Board approval to operate
over approximately 12,000 feet of rail
line owned by Verde Logistics Railroad,
LLC in Santa Teresa, N.M.
The parties intend to consummate the
transaction no sooner than 30 days after
filing their notice with the Board (March
22, 2012).
CGX, a noncarrier holding company,
is owned by Gregory B. Cundiff and
Connie Cundiff. CGX owns Ironhorse,
also a noncarrier holding company. CGX
owns the following Class III rail carriers:
Crystal City Railroad, Inc.; Lone Star
Railroad, Inc.; Rio Valley Railroad, Inc.;
and Mississippi Tennessee Holdings,
LLC. Ironhorse owns the following Class
III rail carriers: Rio Valley Switching
Company; Southern Switching
Company; Mississippi Tennessee
Railroad, LLC; Gardendale Railroad,
Inc.; and STSR.
The parties represent that: (1) The rail
line to be operated by STSR will not
2 Graco’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR
Part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt
Graco as a manufacturer from the notification and
recall responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for the
affected child restraint systems. However, a
decision on this petition cannot relieve distributors
and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of the noncompliant child
restraint systems under their control after Graco
notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14055-14057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5623]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0042; Notice 2]
Graco Children's Products Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Graco Children's Products Inc. (Graco), has determined that
certain warning labels attached to detachable accessory pillows that it
sold with MyRide\TM\ 65 line child restraint systems produced between
April, 2009, and October, 2009, failed to meet the flammability
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 213
\1\. Graco estimates that about 90,000 child restraint systems may be
affected. Graco filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports on November 13,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Graco describes the noncompliance as one with FMVSS No. 302.
However, FMVSS No. 302 does not in itself apply to motor vehicle
equipment. Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 302 is invoked by reference in
FMVSS No. 213, therefore, this noncompliance is a noncompliance with
FMVSS No. 213 not FMVSS No. 302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Graco 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. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on April
13, 2010 in the Federal Register (75 FR 18952). One comment was
received from Dean L. Hoppe. To view the petition, the comment, and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket
[[Page 14056]]
Management System (FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2010-0042.''
For further information on this decision contact Mr. Zachary R.
Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5754,
facsimile (202) 366-7002.
Affected are all models of MyRide\TM\ 65 convertible child
restraint systems manufactured between April, 2009, and October, 2009,
in the Company's Mexico facility. The Company estimated that
approximately 90,000 child restraint systems may be affected, and of
this total, 50,000 are potentially in use by its customers (consumers)
and 40,000 were with retailers.
Graco describes the MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint system as being
manufactured with a detachable accessory pillow, and this pillow
includes a warning label (the ``pillow label'') regarding appropriate
use of the pillow for children of a certain age range. The pillow label
warns consumers not to use the pillow when the MyRide\TM\ 65 child
restraint system is being used by children weighing more than 40 lbs
(18.1 kg). The pillow, which is removable, is attached to the
MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint system by a hook and loop fastener
material, one side of which is sewn onto a ``tail'' of the pillow and
the other onto the top of the child restraint system above the child's
head.
Based on its internal investigation, Graco believes that the
noncompliance is that a pillow label sewn onto the detachable head
pillow of certain MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint systems does not comply
with paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213.
After discovering that a recent lot of pillow labels delivered in
late October 2009 to the Company's Mexico facility had not been
properly treated for flame resistance, Graco's plant management began
an investigation. They immediately started reviewing all pillow label
lots previously delivered to its Mexico facility since April 2009, the
production start date for the MyRide\TM\ line child restraint systems,
to determine the extent of the noncompliance among its lots of pillow
labels.
Graco found that its noncompliant pillow labels were manufactured
by a sub-supplier to Graco's normal pillow label supplier. Graco has
determined that the sub-supplier did not follow Graco's production
specifications, and as a result, failed to meet the requirements of
FMVSS No. 213. Graco also concluded that that sub-supplier was the only
one providing the noncompliant pillow labels.
Graco also found that all other labels and materials for its
MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint systems were provided by Graco's regular
supplier itself and not the sub-supplier. In addition to its
investigation, the Company's plant management also examined and
verified through laboratory testing, that all other material components
used in the MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint systems comply with the
standards of FMVSS No. 213. Graco added that new plant management at
its Mexico plant has implemented more robust quality controls to
prevent such problems from happening in the future and that Graco has
received no complaints, reports or any other information about adverse
impacts from this noncompliance from consumers or any other outside
source.
Since the discovery of the noncompliance, Graco indicated that it
has taken steps to ensure that every MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint
system subsequently released for shipment has been manufactured with
labels compliant with all applicable safety standards, including FMVSS
No. 213. In addition, Graco stopped all shipments of the MyRide\TM\ 65
child restraint systems in its possession when the noncompliance was
discovered and replaced the detachable accessory pillows with pillows
manufactured with a pillow label compliant with the FMVSS No. 213 prior
to delivery.
Graco believes that the noncompliance of the pillow label to meet
the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 is inconsequential to overall motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:
When reviewing the accessory pillow at issue, including its
size, location, function and overall design, the risk of injury
resulting from the noncompliant Label on the detachable accessory
pillow is inconsequential to the overall safety of the MyRide child
restraint system. Specifically, the Label is a physically small
component of the child restraint system located in an area not
likely to be exposed to open flame. In fact, the potential for the
Label serving as an ignition point for a larger conflagration is
near zero. This circumstance, along with the compliant status of all
other fabric and label components of the MyRide child restraint
system, render the Label's noncompliance inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
As noted above, the Label is a rectangular shaped tag measuring
approximately 3 inches by 1\1/4\ inches. The area of the Label is
insignificant with respect to the over two yards of fabric that is
used to make the pad and the ``soft goods'' for the MyRide child
restraint system. Proportionally, the percentage of material is less
than 1/100% of the total surface area of the child restraint system.
Moreover, all other fabric, including other warning labels for the
MyRide child restraint system, are flame resistant. The small size
of affected material renders the likelihood of ignition of this one
Label highly untenable.
In addition * * * the Label is also located in an area that
makes it highly unlikely to be exposed to an open flame without the
passenger compartment of the car being already engulfed in flame * *
* When put in its proper place * * * the Label is surrounded by
flame resistant material and in a location interior to the overall
child restraint system design * * *'' Moreover * * * the owner's
manual and instructions for the MyRide child restraint system
expressly states that the pillow is not to be used with any child
over 18.1 kg (40 lbs) placed into the MyRide child restraint system.
Accordingly, a significant number of MyRide child restraint systems
are not used with the pillow, thereby further reducing an already
low risk of flammability.
* * * the MyRide * * * child restraint is not designed to be easily
removed from a motor vehicle once installed * * * the MyRide child
restraint system is tethered into the child restraint system or is
installed for use with the motor vehicle's type II lap and shoulder
belt. Therefore, the only risk of exposure to an ignition source
would be while installed in a motor vehicle where pinpoint open
flame in the upper portion of the child restraint system on one
particular side is highly unlikely.
Graco has considered the potential for variety of potential
ignition sources that may be exposed to the tag. The Company
believes that the likelihood of the Label coming accidentally in
contact with any type of ignition device is extremely low. Graco's
analysis also included potential ignition from cigarettes or other
smoking materials * * *
Graco also mentioned that real world reports support the Company's
belief that the noncompliant pillow labels are not a risk to safety.
Graco said it has received no reports or complaints of a fire involving
the MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint system or any of its components.
Graco added, ``The insignificant opportunity of a fire hazard to a
child from ignition of this small tag, located in the interior portion
of the child restraint system contained inside a motor vehicle supports
Graco's assertion regarding the inconsequential nature of this
noncompliance.''
In summation Graco restated its belief that based on the size of
the pillow label, its location, compliance of all other labels and
fabric with FMVSS No. 213, and the nearly impossible opportunities for
direct ignition of the pillow label only, that the described
noncompliance of the pillow label to meet the requirements of FMVSS No.
213 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Thus, Graco requests
that NHTSA grant its petition to exempt it from providing notification
of
[[Page 14057]]
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.
NHTSA Decision
Requirement Background
The purpose of the flammability requirements is to reduce deaths
and injuries to motor vehicle occupants caused by vehicle fires,
especially those originating in the interior of the vehicle from
sources such as matches or cigarettes. S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213 requires
that each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to
the flammability requirements contained in S4 of FMVSS No. 302. S4
contains flammability requirements to measure the burn rate of specific
components of vehicle occupant compartments.
NHTSA's Analysis of Graco's Reasoning
Based on Dorel's explanation in its petition, certain warning
labels sewn to a detachable pillow provided with the Dorel MyRide 65
child restraint system did not comply with the flammability
requirements contained in FMVSS No. 213 and No. 302. Dorel stated that
the subject warning labels were supplied by a sub-supplier of Dorel's
usual supplier of pillow warning labels and were not properly treated
for flammability resistance. Dorel concludes that since the warning
labels were not properly treated for flammability resistance then the
labels are not in compliance with FMVSS No. 213.
Dorel states that the noncompliance of the pillow label to the
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 is inconsequential to overall motor
vehicle safety. The size, location, function and overall design of the
pillow at issue, together with the low risk of injury resulting from
the noncompliant label on the detachable pillow, is inconsequential to
the overall safety of the MyRide child restraint system. Since the
label is physically small (3 inches by 1\1/4\ inches) the likelihood of
ignition is negligible, and the label is surrounded by flame resistant
materials. Graco considered a variety of potential ignition sources
that may be exposed to the label and believes that the likelihood of
the label coming into contact with any type of ignition source is
extremely low, including the potential ignition from cigarettes or
other smoking materials.
NHTSA Conclusions
There appears to be an insignificant safety risk created by the
noncompliance. The underlying concern is that the label attached to the
detachable pillow could ignite since it was not treated with flame
resistant material. But the relatively small size of the label,
together with its proximity to other materials on the child restraint
system that have been treated with flame resistant materials, renders
the likelihood of ignition for this one label extremely low.
There appears to be no significant safety risk caused by the
noncompliance.
NHTSA's Response to the Comment
In its comments to the docket, Hoppe did not specifically address
the pillow warning label noncompliance that is the essence of the Graco
petition. Instead he applauded Graco and NHTSA for enforcing the
applicable safety standards.
Because Hoppes' comments did not provide any information addressing
Graco's noncompliance that is the essence of its petition,
Hoppes'comments do not support denying the subject petition.
Decision
After a review of Graco's arguments and Dean L. Hoppe's comment,
NHTSA is convinced that Graco has met its burden of demonstrating that
the noncompliance does not present a significant safety risk.
Therefore, NHTSA agrees with Graco that this specific noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Graco has
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance in
the child restraint systems identified in Graco's Noncompliance
Information Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Graco's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted
from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for,
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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, this decision
only applies to the car child restraint systems \2\ that Graco no
longer controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance
existed in the subject vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Graco's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Graco as a manufacturer from
the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for
the affected child restraint systems. However, a decision on this
petition cannot relieve distributors and dealers of the prohibitions
on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant child
restraint systems under their control after Graco notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).
Issued on: March 2, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-5623 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
