RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 33150-33152 [2013-13099]

Download as PDF 33150 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2013 / Notices Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at http:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– 366–0903, Email Linda.Williams@dot.gov. As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CATTITUDE is: Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: ‘‘Passenger vessel for coastwise trade, six or fewer passengers.’’ Geographic Region: ‘‘New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Florida.’’ The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2013–0064 at http://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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Privacy Act sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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). By Order of the Maritime Administrator. Dated: May 23, 2013. Julie P. Agarwal, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. 2013–13041 Filed 5–31–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–81–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:49 May 31, 2013 Jkt 229001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD–2013 0063] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BLACK ICE; Invitation for Public Comments Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice. 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 MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. DATES: Submit comments on or before July 3, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2013–0063. 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 http://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 http:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– 366–0903, Email Linda.Williams@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel BLACK ICE is: Intended Commercial Use Of Vessel: Small passenger sails. Sightseeing, dinner sails, sailing classes, and eco sails. Geographic Region: ‘‘Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia’’. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2013–0063 at SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 http://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). By Order of the Maritime Administrator. Dated: May 23, 2013. Julie P. Agarwal, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. 2013–13042 Filed 5–31–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 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 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Receipt of Petition. AGENCY: 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, SUMMARY: 1 RECARO Child Safety, LLC is a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and is registered under the laws of the state of Michigan. E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM 03JNN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2013 / Notices 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 31, 2013 Jkt 229001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33151 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 E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM 03JNN1 33152 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2013 / Notices 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 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. 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] sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 31, 2013 Jkt 229001 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review: Disclosure and Reporting of CRARelated Agreements Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. AGENCY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information. In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, ‘‘Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements.’’ The OCC also gives notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review. DATES: Comments must be received by July 3, 2013. ADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–0219, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by electronic mail to regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649–6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and to submit to security screening in SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 order to inspect and photocopy comments. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557–0219, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. You can request additional information of the collection from Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649–5490, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Five CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) requires Federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the OCC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. The OCC is proposing to extend, without change, OMB approval of the following information collection: Title: Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements (12 CFR Parts 35 and 133). OMB Control No.: 1557–0219. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Description: This submission covers an existing regulation and involves no change to the regulation or the information collection requirements. The OCC requests only that OMB extend its approval of the information collection. National banks, Federal savings associations and their affiliates (institutions) occasionally enter into agreements with nongovernmental FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM 03JNN1

Agencies

[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