Baby Jogger, LLC, Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 52734-52737 [2016-18770]

Download as PDF 52734 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2016 / Notices Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NSR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by NSR’s filing of a notice of consummation by August 9, 2017, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ Decided: August 4, 2016. By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings. Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2016–18867 Filed 8–8–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0074; Notice 2] Baby Jogger, LLC, Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Ruling on petition for inconsequential noncompliance. AGENCY: Baby Jogger, LLC (Baby Jogger), has determined that certain Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases do not fully comply with paragraphs S5.5, S5.6, S5.8, and S8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Baby Jogger filed an associated report dated June 4, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Baby Jogger then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Zachary Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–5754, facsimile (202) 366– 3081. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Baby Jogger 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. Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on September 8, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 FR 53914). No comments were received. To view the petition, and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015– 0074.’’ II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected are approximately 15,103 of the following Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases manufactured between November 3, 2014 and April 30, 2015: • City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64510 • City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64529 • City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/ Model No. BJ80400 • City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/ Model No. BJ61500 • City Mini Infant Cars Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.BJ72510 • Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No. BJ70411 • Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No. BJ70424 • Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No. BJ70431 III. Noncompliances: Baby Jogger explains that the affected child restraints do not fully comply with numerous paragraphs of FMVSS No. 213 for the following reasons: Paragraph S5.5.2—The required information in English is no smaller than 10 point type, but the Spanish information is smaller at about 7 point type. This only applies to models BJ64510 and BJ64529. Paragraph S5.5.2(d)—The ‘‘manufactured in address’’ on the label is in about 8 font which is smaller than the required 10 point type. Paragraph S5.5.2(m)—The required ’’Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. . .’’ text is on a black background with white text instead of black text on a white background. Paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)—The label has the ‘‘Follow all instructions. . .’’ ahead of the ‘‘Secure this child restraint’’ statement, instead of the reverse order as required. This noncompliance only affects models BJ64510 and BJ64529. Paragraph S5.5.2(n)—The label has ‘‘This child restraint is certified for use PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 in motor vehicles and aircraft.’’ Other than the first word, no other words are capitalized. Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(ii)—The message area measures 23.4 square cm on models BJ70411, BJ70424 and BJ70431 which is less than the minimum required message area of 30 square cm. Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(iii)—On models BJ70411, BJ70424 and BJ70431 the red circle on the required pictogram is 29 mm in diameter which is less than the required 30 mm in diameter. Paragraph S5.6.1.7—The instruction manuals do not include reference to the required Web site in the section regarding child restraint recalls. Paragraph S5.6.3—The instruction manuals do not include the required statement ‘‘A snug strap should not allow any slack. . .’’ Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)—The electronic registration form does not have the required statement ‘‘FOR YOUR CHILD’S CONTINUED SAFETY. . .’’ Paragraph S5.8.1(b)(2)—Figure 9a requires minimum 10 percent screen tint on the lower half of the form. The form is missing the required tinting. Paragraph S8.1—No instructions for installing the system in an aircraft passenger seat were provided. IV. Summary of Baby Jogger’s Analyses: Baby Jogger organized its reasoning to substantiate inconsequentiality into the following five issue groupings that it believes are similar between the numerous noncompliances: a. Information Type Size/Capitalization/ Presentation Order b. Background Color c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes d. Omitted Information e. Spanish Language Type Size Refer to Baby Jogger’s petition for their complete reasoning and associated illustrations. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http:// www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015–0074.’’ Baby Jogger additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected all labeling noncompliances and that all future production of the subject infant car seat/stroller systems and stand-alone units will be in full compliance with FMVSS No. 213. In summation, Baby Jogger believes that the described noncompliance of the subject infant car seat/stroller systems and standalone units is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2016 / Notices petition, to exempt Baby Jogger 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. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES NHTSA’S Decision NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA examined the noncompliances that Baby Jogger described in its petition by category as follows: a. Information Type Size/ Capitalization/Presentation Order Baby Jogger printed labels required in paragraph S5.5.2 containing the place of manufacture in 8 point type rather than the required 10 point type. Baby Jogger believes the smaller type of the place of manufacture will not have any impact on child passenger safety. Baby Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words contained in a label to instruct the user that the restraint is certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)). Baby Jogger believes the lower case letters will not have any impact on child passenger safety. Finally, Baby Jogger printed onproduct labels with two of the required statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby Jogger believes the out of order information will not have any impact on child passenger safety. NHTSA does not concur with Baby Jogger’s reasons for inconsequentiality stated above. With regard to the noncompliant 8 point font size, in the Final Rule establishing FMVSS No. 139, ‘‘New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles,’’ the agency stated ‘‘With respect to the size of the text on the placard and label, NHTSA learned from focus groups that the public generally prefers larger fonts in label text because it is easier to read. This helps ensure the placard and label will effectively convey the message to the reader.’’ 1 Also, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to upgrade dynamic testing in FMVSS No. 213, the agency originally proposed that labeling be in block lettering ‘‘3/32 inch high.’’ 2 In the final rule to upgrade FMVSS No. 213, the agency changed this to ‘‘10 point type’’ and made other changes in response to a comment from General Motors.3 General Motors stated ‘‘The proposal restricts the lettering to block lettering which results in instructions which are hard to read. We recommend that the body type for the label be specified to require at least a 10 point type, based on the character case with the option of using capitals or FR 69600; November 18, 2002. FR 21470; May 18, 1978. 3 44 FR 72131; December 13, 1979. upper and lower case. We believe this specification will result in an easier to read label which, in turn, should promote more complete reading of the label by the consumer.’’ 4 For these reasons, NHTSA believes that font size less than the required 10 point type results in undesirable reading conditions which may cause eye strain and lead to the consumer failing to complete reading all the important safety instructions. Baby Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words contained in a label to instruct the user that the restraint is certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)). Baby Jogger believes the lower case letters will not have any impact on child passenger safety. The agency believes that failure to capitalize the required statements for proper use of child restraints may result in the consumer not adequately seeing and understanding the important safety information pertaining to proper use of the restraints. Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the required statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby Jogger believes the out of order information will not have any impact on child passenger safety because the statements are stand-alone and do not depend on another statement; therefore, the order of bulleted statements do affect the proper use of the car seat. NHTSA disagrees with this reasoning. S5.5.2(g)(1) requires the heading ‘‘‘WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur’, capitalized as written and followed by bulleted statements in the following order:’’ (emphasis added). The order of statements follows a sequence beginning with instructions for rear-facing usage (S5.5.2(k)(1)), the maximum mass of children that can safely occupy the system (S.5.5.2(f)), the proper adjustment of the belts provided with the child restraint (S5.5.2(h)), instructions for securing a child restraint to the vehicle with a top tether strap (S5.5.2(j), and instructions for securing a booster seat to the vehicle using the vehicle’s seat belt system (S5.5.2(i)). Baby Jogger incorrectly placed the statements required by S5.5.2(i) before the statements required by S5.5.2(j). The agency intentionally created a sequence of information that begins with instructions that call for interaction between the occupant and the restraint system, and ends with instructions that call for interaction between the occupant and the written 1 67 2 43 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 4 Docket no. 74–09–N04, comment #78, sent 12/ 1/78. PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52735 instruction. If this sequence is disrupted by placing items out of order the user could become distracted and disregard important instructions. The agency believes the above label noncompliances, in totality, have a compounding effect that may result in the user mistrusting information on the labels and thereby ignoring the labels. b. Background Color Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following two noncompliances related to background color: (1) Paragraph S5.5.2 requires a label with information that child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons to be printed on a white background with black text. The noncompliant label contains the required information but is printed on black background with white text. Baby Jogger believes there is no indication that the reversed color combination will affect consumers’ ability to understand the information on the label, and, therefore, the contrasting colors will not have any impact on child passenger safety. NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger’s assessment that the reversal of required text/label color will not affect the consumers’ ability to understand the label. A visual inspection of the label in a photograph provided by Baby Jogger shows that the white text on the black background is not as easy to read as the compliant text located above. (This picture is located in the docket). The consumer may not read the label in its entirety if the ability to read the information on the label creates a challenge to the reader, which would result in the reader not being aware of important recall information. (2) S5.8.1(b)(2) requires the registration form to conform to Figures 9a and 9b which require portions of the card to have a minimum 10% screen tint. The registration card provided by Baby Jogger does not have any screen tint. Baby Jogger believes that the missing screen tint will not have an impact on motor vehicle safety because there is no indication that the missing tint will affect consumers’ ability to understand the information on the registration card. The image of the registration card provided in Baby Jogger’s petition would seem to support Baby Jogger’s argument that the missing tint does not affect the ability to understand the required information provided on the registration card. c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes Three of the Baby Jogger models have the air bag warning label required by E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52736 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2016 / Notices paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3)(ii) with a message area measuring 23.4 square cm which is less than the minimum required message area of 30 square cm. Baby Jogger does not believe the noncompliance creates a risk to motor vehicle safety because the label is prominently displayed and clearly communicates the required warning, and there is no indication that the sizing issue affects customers’ ability to understand the warnings. In addition, the pictogram required in paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3)(iii) for the Baby Jogger label measures 29 millimeters in diameter which is less than the minimum required diameter of 30 millimeters. Baby Jogger believes that the pictogram that is 1 millimeter too small will not have any impact on child passenger safety. In addition, Baby Jogger maintains for both noncompliances above that the required information is provided in the printed instructions and is prominently featured on the affected products, and there is no indication that the sizing issue affects consumers’ ability to understand or appreciate the warnings. We disagree with Baby Jogger that the smaller than required air bag warning label message area creates no risk to motor vehicle safety. The air bag warning labels are the agency’s primary method for obtaining the consumer’s attention and conveying important safety information with respect to the proper location to install a rear-facing child restraint. The agency believes that these air bag warning labels are necessary to make consumers aware of the potentially serious consequences of placing a rear-facing child seat or any child twelve and under on the front seat with an air bag, and that the rear seat is the safest place for these children. In NHTSA’s occupant crash protection rule published on May 12, 2000,5 the agency stated ‘‘. . . as with the current labels, manufacturers may provide translations of the required English language message as long as all the requirements for the English language are met, including size’’ 6 (emphasis added). Thus, the agency reconfirmed the importance of the message area requirement in the advanced air bag final rule. The air bag warning label requirements in FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, were established as part of a FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, final rule requiring new air bag warning labels in motor vehicles.7 The intent of the final rule is 5 65 FR 30680. FR 30722. 7 61 FR 60206; November 27, 1996. that the warning or alert message fills the message area.8 Not filling the message area would make purposeless the specification. The Baby Jogger label has a message area that is 22 percent below the required 30 square cm. This is a significant reduction in message area equivalent to not filling the message area. The pictogram of the air bag warning label has a diameter that is 3 percent below the required 30 mm. Even though the pictogram minimum format is not met, NHTSA believes in this case that the consumer will have a message size that is acceptable. d. Omitted Information Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following four noncompliances related to missing information required in the printed instructions or electronic registration form in FMVSS No. 213: (1) Paragraph S5.6.1.7 requires the printed instructions to include the statement in paragraph (ii) that ‘‘Child restraints could be recalled . . . or register on-line at (insert Web site for electronic registration form).’’ The printed instruction manual does not include the Web site address in the section regarding child restraint registration. Baby Jogger does not believe the noncompliance with paragraph S5.6.1.7 creates a risk to motor vehicle safety since on-line registration is optional. The agency disagrees with Baby Jogger that the missing information for on-line registration does not create a risk to motor vehicle safety. While the manufacturer has the choice to provide on-line registration or not, if the manufacturer does provide the option for on-line registration then they are required to provide the Web site address in the section regarding child seat registration. The agency recognizes the importance of child restraint registrations. To support increasing the number of registrations, the agency is currently studying efforts to increase the rate of child restraint registrations so that in the event of a recall, all owners of affected units will be notified of a potentially unsafe product. (2) Paragraph S5.6.3 requires the printed instructions to include the statement: ‘‘A snug strap should not allow any slack. It lies in a relatively straight line without sagging. It does not press on the child’s flesh or push the child’s body into an unnatural position.’’ The printed instruction manual does not include this information. Baby Jogger does not believe that this noncompliance creates 6 65 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 8 61 PO 00000 FR 60206 at 60210. Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 a risk to motor vehicle safety because the printed instructions provide adequate text to adjust the harness around the child including statements addressing snugness and sagging (see Baby Jogger’s Petition in Docket NHTSA–2015–0074 for detail). NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger that the provided text to address strap snugness in lieu of the required text is sufficient to replace the required text. The text provided by Baby Jogger contains additional information not related to strap snugness. In addition, the provided text fails to provide guidance to achieve a snug fit which may result in an improper securing of the child in the restraint and a compromise of the child seat’s safety effectiveness in the event of a crash. (3) Paragraph S8.1 requires the printed instructions to include a stepby-step procedure (including diagrams) for installing the system in aircraft passenger seats, securing a child in the system when it is installed in aircraft, and adjusting the system to fit the child. The printed instruction manual does not include instructions for installing the system in aircraft passenger seats. Baby Jogger does not believe that the missing aircraft installation information creates a risk to motor vehicle safety because the printed instructions address the installation of the child seat in a vehicle equipped with a lap belt only, which is similar to the installation of the child seat in an aircraft passenger seat with lap belt only. Baby Jogger believes that the installation instructions provided for a vehicle lap belt will be logically understood as the method to secure the child seat to the aircraft passenger seat. NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger’s line of reasoning. We have concerns that absent the required instructions specific to aircraft passenger installation, the user will be unprepared to properly secure the child restraint to the aircraft passenger seat, properly secure the child when it is installed in an aircraft, and properly adjust the system to fit the child. These potential improper procedures could result in a compromise of the child seat’s safety effectiveness during flight. (4) Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)(i) requires the electronic registration form to contain the statement ‘‘FOR YOUR CHILD’S CONTINUED SAFETY’’ at the top of the form. The electronic registration form on the Baby Jogger Web site did not include this statement at the top. Baby Jogger believes that users of child restraints have a basic understanding that recalls are conducted for safety reasons, and that one who navigated to the electronic registration form would not be E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2016 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES dissuaded from registering due to the missing phrase. The Agency agrees that a consumer who has navigated to the on-line registration will not be dissuaded from registering due to the missing phrase. Also, the Agency notes that Baby Jogger has corrected this omission on its online registration form and the required statement is present. e. Spanish Language Type Size Paragraph S5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires the information in the English language to be not smaller than 10 point type. An on-product warning label provided by Baby Jogger has the Spanish information at approximately 7 point type. The English language label is in full compliance with this requirement. Baby Jogger believes that the noncompliant text does not create a risk to motor vehicle safety because the information is clearly displayed on the affected child restraints and clearly communicates the required information. NHTSA believes that the 7 point type text provided in the Spanish language label is not clearly displayed and is difficult to read. The smaller font size likely poses a challenge to the consumer’s ability to read the text and could result in the consumer ignoring the text due to the difficulty in being able to read it. NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger’s reasons for inconsequentiality as supported by the reasons stated above under the category ‘‘Information Type Size.’’ NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that Baby Jogger has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for: (a) Information Type Size/ Capitalization/Presentation order, (b) Background color (excluding the 10 percent tint noncompliance), (c) OnProduct Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes (excluding the pictogram noncompliance), (d) Omitted Information (excluding the missing statement at the top of the on-line registration form), and (e) Spanish Language Type Size. Accordingly, Baby Jogger’s petition is hereby denied for these noncompliances and Baby Jogger is obligated to provide notification of, and free remedies for, the noncompliances as required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliances identified above as ‘‘excluded’’ in its petition are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety: (b) minimum 10 percent tint on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 registration card, (c) minimum 30 mm diameter pictogram on air bag warning label, and (d) missing statement at the top of the on-line registration form. Accordingly, we grant its petition on these issues. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8). Issued on: August 2, 2016. Stephen A. Ridella, Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2016–18770 Filed 8–8–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of five individuals and six entities whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act). Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of one individual currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List). DATES: The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) of the individuals and entities identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act, is effective on August 4, 2016. Additionally, the update to the SDN List of the identifying information of the individual identified in this notice is also effective on August 4, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2490. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Electronic and Facsimile Availability This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC’s Web site at (www.treasury.gov/ofac) or via facsimile PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52737 through a 24-hour fax-on demand service at (202) 622–0077. Background On December 3, 1999, the Kingpin Act (21 U.S.C. Sections 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182) was signed into law by the President of the United States. The Kingpin Act provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. persons and entities. The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury consults with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security when designating and blocking the property or interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons or entities found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; and/or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking. On August 4, 2016, the Associate Director of OFAC’s Office of Global Targeting removed from the SDN List the individuals and entities listed below, whose property and interests in property was blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act. Individuals 1. GARCIA AYALA, Filemon, C Constitucion # 32, Col Rio Grande, Rio Grande, Zacatecas 98400, Mexico; Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico; Rio Grande, Zacatecas, Mexico; DOB 28 Oct 1948; alt. DOB 26 Oct 1948; alt. DOB 27 Oct 1948; POB Loreto, Zacatecas, Mexico; Passport 160010455 (Mexico) issued 03 May 2002 expires 03 May 2012; C.U.R.P. GAAF481027HZSRYL07 (Mexico); alt. C.U.R.P. GAAF481026HTSRYL08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK]. E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52734-52737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18770]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0074; Notice 2]


Baby Jogger, LLC, Ruling on Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Ruling on petition for inconsequential noncompliance.

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

SUMMARY: Baby Jogger, LLC (Baby Jogger), has determined that certain 
Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases do not fully comply with 
paragraphs S5.5, S5.6, S5.8, and S8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Baby Jogger filed an 
associated report dated June 4, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Baby Jogger then 
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Zachary 
Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5754, 
facsimile (202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see 
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Baby Jogger 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.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day 
public comment period, on September 8, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 
FR 53914). No comments were received. To view the petition, and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0074.''
    II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected are approximately 15,103 of 
the following Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases 
manufactured between November 3, 2014 and April 30, 2015:
 City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64510
 City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64529
 City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ80400
 City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ61500
 City Mini Infant Cars Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model 
No.BJ72510
 Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No. 
BJ70411
 Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No. 
BJ70424
 Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No. 
BJ70431
    III. Noncompliances: Baby Jogger explains that the affected child 
restraints do not fully comply with numerous paragraphs of FMVSS No. 
213 for the following reasons:
    Paragraph S5.5.2--The required information in English is no smaller 
than 10 point type, but the Spanish information is smaller at about 7 
point type. This only applies to models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(d)--The ``manufactured in address'' on the label 
is in about 8 font which is smaller than the required 10 point type.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(m)--The required ''Child restraints could be 
recalled for safety reasons. . .'' text is on a black background with 
white text instead of black text on a white background.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)--The label has the ``Follow all 
instructions. . .'' ahead of the ``Secure this child restraint'' 
statement, instead of the reverse order as required. This noncompliance 
only affects models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(n)--The label has ``This child restraint is 
certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft.'' Other than the 
first word, no other words are capitalized.
    Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(ii)--The message area measures 23.4 square 
cm on models BJ70411, BJ70424 and BJ70431 which is less than the 
minimum required message area of 30 square cm.
    Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(iii)--On models BJ70411, BJ70424 and 
BJ70431 the red circle on the required pictogram is 29 mm in diameter 
which is less than the required 30 mm in diameter.
    Paragraph S5.6.1.7--The instruction manuals do not include 
reference to the required Web site in the section regarding child 
restraint recalls.
    Paragraph S5.6.3--The instruction manuals do not include the 
required statement ``A snug strap should not allow any slack. . .''
    Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)--The electronic registration form does not 
have the required statement ``FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY. . .''
    Paragraph S5.8.1(b)(2)--Figure 9a requires minimum 10 percent 
screen tint on the lower half of the form. The form is missing the 
required tinting.
    Paragraph S8.1--No instructions for installing the system in an 
aircraft passenger seat were provided.
    IV. Summary of Baby Jogger's Analyses: Baby Jogger organized its 
reasoning to substantiate inconsequentiality into the following five 
issue groupings that it believes are similar between the numerous 
noncompliances:
a. Information Type Size/Capitalization/Presentation Order
b. Background Color
c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes
d. Omitted Information
e. Spanish Language Type Size
    Refer to Baby Jogger's petition for their complete reasoning and 
associated illustrations. To view the petition and all supporting 
documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site 
at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search 
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0074.''
    Baby Jogger additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected 
all labeling noncompliances and that all future production of the 
subject infant car seat/stroller systems and stand-alone units will be 
in full compliance with FMVSS No. 213.
    In summation, Baby Jogger believes that the described noncompliance 
of the subject infant car seat/stroller systems and standalone units is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its

[[Page 52735]]

petition, to exempt Baby Jogger 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.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA examined the noncompliances that Baby 
Jogger described in its petition by category as follows:

a. Information Type Size/Capitalization/Presentation Order

    Baby Jogger printed labels required in paragraph S5.5.2 containing 
the place of manufacture in 8 point type rather than the required 10 
point type. Baby Jogger believes the smaller type of the place of 
manufacture will not have any impact on child passenger safety. Baby 
Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words contained in 
a label to instruct the user that the restraint is certified for use in 
motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)). Baby Jogger believes 
the lower case letters will not have any impact on child passenger 
safety. Finally, Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the 
required statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby 
Jogger believes the out of order information will not have any impact 
on child passenger safety.
    NHTSA does not concur with Baby Jogger's reasons for 
inconsequentiality stated above. With regard to the noncompliant 8 
point font size, in the Final Rule establishing FMVSS No. 139, ``New 
pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles,'' the agency stated ``With 
respect to the size of the text on the placard and label, NHTSA learned 
from focus groups that the public generally prefers larger fonts in 
label text because it is easier to read. This helps ensure the placard 
and label will effectively convey the message to the reader.'' \1\ 
Also, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to upgrade dynamic testing in 
FMVSS No. 213, the agency originally proposed that labeling be in block 
lettering ``3/32 inch high.'' \2\ In the final rule to upgrade FMVSS 
No. 213, the agency changed this to ``10 point type'' and made other 
changes in response to a comment from General Motors.\3\ General Motors 
stated ``The proposal restricts the lettering to block lettering which 
results in instructions which are hard to read. We recommend that the 
body type for the label be specified to require at least a 10 point 
type, based on the character case with the option of using capitals or 
upper and lower case. We believe this specification will result in an 
easier to read label which, in turn, should promote more complete 
reading of the label by the consumer.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 67 FR 69600; November 18, 2002.
    \2\ 43 FR 21470; May 18, 1978.
    \3\ 44 FR 72131; December 13, 1979.
    \4\ Docket no. 74-09-N04, comment #78, sent 12/1/78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, NHTSA believes that font size less than the 
required 10 point type results in undesirable reading conditions which 
may cause eye strain and lead to the consumer failing to complete 
reading all the important safety instructions.
    Baby Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words 
contained in a label to instruct the user that the restraint is 
certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)). 
Baby Jogger believes the lower case letters will not have any impact on 
child passenger safety.
    The agency believes that failure to capitalize the required 
statements for proper use of child restraints may result in the 
consumer not adequately seeing and understanding the important safety 
information pertaining to proper use of the restraints.
    Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the required 
statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby Jogger 
believes the out of order information will not have any impact on child 
passenger safety because the statements are stand-alone and do not 
depend on another statement; therefore, the order of bulleted 
statements do affect the proper use of the car seat.
    NHTSA disagrees with this reasoning. S5.5.2(g)(1) requires the 
heading ```WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur', capitalized as 
written and followed by bulleted statements in the following order:'' 
(emphasis added). The order of statements follows a sequence beginning 
with instructions for rear-facing usage (S5.5.2(k)(1)), the maximum 
mass of children that can safely occupy the system (S.5.5.2(f)), the 
proper adjustment of the belts provided with the child restraint 
(S5.5.2(h)), instructions for securing a child restraint to the vehicle 
with a top tether strap (S5.5.2(j), and instructions for securing a 
booster seat to the vehicle using the vehicle's seat belt system 
(S5.5.2(i)). Baby Jogger incorrectly placed the statements required by 
S5.5.2(i) before the statements required by S5.5.2(j). The agency 
intentionally created a sequence of information that begins with 
instructions that call for interaction between the occupant and the 
restraint system, and ends with instructions that call for interaction 
between the occupant and the written instruction. If this sequence is 
disrupted by placing items out of order the user could become 
distracted and disregard important instructions.
    The agency believes the above label noncompliances, in totality, 
have a compounding effect that may result in the user mistrusting 
information on the labels and thereby ignoring the labels.

b. Background Color

    Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following two noncompliances 
related to background color:
    (1) Paragraph S5.5.2 requires a label with information that child 
restraints could be recalled for safety reasons to be printed on a 
white background with black text. The noncompliant label contains the 
required information but is printed on black background with white 
text. Baby Jogger believes there is no indication that the reversed 
color combination will affect consumers' ability to understand the 
information on the label, and, therefore, the contrasting colors will 
not have any impact on child passenger safety.
    NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's assessment that the reversal of 
required text/label color will not affect the consumers' ability to 
understand the label. A visual inspection of the label in a photograph 
provided by Baby Jogger shows that the white text on the black 
background is not as easy to read as the compliant text located above. 
(This picture is located in the docket). The consumer may not read the 
label in its entirety if the ability to read the information on the 
label creates a challenge to the reader, which would result in the 
reader not being aware of important recall information.
    (2) S5.8.1(b)(2) requires the registration form to conform to 
Figures 9a and 9b which require portions of the card to have a minimum 
10% screen tint. The registration card provided by Baby Jogger does not 
have any screen tint. Baby Jogger believes that the missing screen tint 
will not have an impact on motor vehicle safety because there is no 
indication that the missing tint will affect consumers' ability to 
understand the information on the registration card.
    The image of the registration card provided in Baby Jogger's 
petition would seem to support Baby Jogger's argument that the missing 
tint does not affect the ability to understand the required information 
provided on the registration card.

c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes

    Three of the Baby Jogger models have the air bag warning label 
required by

[[Page 52736]]

paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3)(ii) with a message area measuring 23.4 square cm 
which is less than the minimum required message area of 30 square cm. 
Baby Jogger does not believe the noncompliance creates a risk to motor 
vehicle safety because the label is prominently displayed and clearly 
communicates the required warning, and there is no indication that the 
sizing issue affects customers' ability to understand the warnings. In 
addition, the pictogram required in paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3)(iii) for the 
Baby Jogger label measures 29 millimeters in diameter which is less 
than the minimum required diameter of 30 millimeters. Baby Jogger 
believes that the pictogram that is 1 millimeter too small will not 
have any impact on child passenger safety.
    In addition, Baby Jogger maintains for both noncompliances above 
that the required information is provided in the printed instructions 
and is prominently featured on the affected products, and there is no 
indication that the sizing issue affects consumers' ability to 
understand or appreciate the warnings.
    We disagree with Baby Jogger that the smaller than required air bag 
warning label message area creates no risk to motor vehicle safety. The 
air bag warning labels are the agency's primary method for obtaining 
the consumer's attention and conveying important safety information 
with respect to the proper location to install a rear-facing child 
restraint. The agency believes that these air bag warning labels are 
necessary to make consumers aware of the potentially serious 
consequences of placing a rear-facing child seat or any child twelve 
and under on the front seat with an air bag, and that the rear seat is 
the safest place for these children. In NHTSA's occupant crash 
protection rule published on May 12, 2000,\5\ the agency stated ``. . . 
as with the current labels, manufacturers may provide translations of 
the required English language message as long as all the requirements 
for the English language are met, including size'' \6\ (emphasis 
added). Thus, the agency reconfirmed the importance of the message area 
requirement in the advanced air bag final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 65 FR 30680.
    \6\ 65 FR 30722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air bag warning label requirements in FMVSS No. 213, Child 
Restraint Systems, were established as part of a FMVSS No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection, final rule requiring new air bag warning 
labels in motor vehicles.\7\ The intent of the final rule is that the 
warning or alert message fills the message area.\8\ Not filling the 
message area would make purposeless the specification. The Baby Jogger 
label has a message area that is 22 percent below the required 30 
square cm. This is a significant reduction in message area equivalent 
to not filling the message area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 61 FR 60206; November 27, 1996.
    \8\ 61 FR 60206 at 60210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pictogram of the air bag warning label has a diameter that is 3 
percent below the required 30 mm. Even though the pictogram minimum 
format is not met, NHTSA believes in this case that the consumer will 
have a message size that is acceptable.

d. Omitted Information

    Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following four 
noncompliances related to missing information required in the printed 
instructions or electronic registration form in FMVSS No. 213:
    (1) Paragraph S5.6.1.7 requires the printed instructions to include 
the statement in paragraph (ii) that ``Child restraints could be 
recalled . . . or register on-line at (insert Web site for electronic 
registration form).'' The printed instruction manual does not include 
the Web site address in the section regarding child restraint 
registration. Baby Jogger does not believe the noncompliance with 
paragraph S5.6.1.7 creates a risk to motor vehicle safety since on-line 
registration is optional.
    The agency disagrees with Baby Jogger that the missing information 
for on-line registration does not create a risk to motor vehicle 
safety. While the manufacturer has the choice to provide on-line 
registration or not, if the manufacturer does provide the option for 
on-line registration then they are required to provide the Web site 
address in the section regarding child seat registration. The agency 
recognizes the importance of child restraint registrations. To support 
increasing the number of registrations, the agency is currently 
studying efforts to increase the rate of child restraint registrations 
so that in the event of a recall, all owners of affected units will be 
notified of a potentially unsafe product.
    (2) Paragraph S5.6.3 requires the printed instructions to include 
the statement: ``A snug strap should not allow any slack. It lies in a 
relatively straight line without sagging. It does not press on the 
child's flesh or push the child's body into an unnatural position.'' 
The printed instruction manual does not include this information. Baby 
Jogger does not believe that this noncompliance creates a risk to motor 
vehicle safety because the printed instructions provide adequate text 
to adjust the harness around the child including statements addressing 
snugness and sagging (see Baby Jogger's Petition in Docket NHTSA-2015-
0074 for detail).
    NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger that the provided text to address 
strap snugness in lieu of the required text is sufficient to replace 
the required text. The text provided by Baby Jogger contains additional 
information not related to strap snugness. In addition, the provided 
text fails to provide guidance to achieve a snug fit which may result 
in an improper securing of the child in the restraint and a compromise 
of the child seat's safety effectiveness in the event of a crash.
    (3) Paragraph S8.1 requires the printed instructions to include a 
step-by-step procedure (including diagrams) for installing the system 
in aircraft passenger seats, securing a child in the system when it is 
installed in aircraft, and adjusting the system to fit the child. The 
printed instruction manual does not include instructions for installing 
the system in aircraft passenger seats. Baby Jogger does not believe 
that the missing aircraft installation information creates a risk to 
motor vehicle safety because the printed instructions address the 
installation of the child seat in a vehicle equipped with a lap belt 
only, which is similar to the installation of the child seat in an 
aircraft passenger seat with lap belt only. Baby Jogger believes that 
the installation instructions provided for a vehicle lap belt will be 
logically understood as the method to secure the child seat to the 
aircraft passenger seat.
    NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's line of reasoning. We have 
concerns that absent the required instructions specific to aircraft 
passenger installation, the user will be unprepared to properly secure 
the child restraint to the aircraft passenger seat, properly secure the 
child when it is installed in an aircraft, and properly adjust the 
system to fit the child. These potential improper procedures could 
result in a compromise of the child seat's safety effectiveness during 
flight.
    (4) Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)(i) requires the electronic registration 
form to contain the statement ``FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY'' at 
the top of the form. The electronic registration form on the Baby 
Jogger Web site did not include this statement at the top. Baby Jogger 
believes that users of child restraints have a basic understanding that 
recalls are conducted for safety reasons, and that one who navigated to 
the electronic registration form would not be

[[Page 52737]]

dissuaded from registering due to the missing phrase.
    The Agency agrees that a consumer who has navigated to the on-line 
registration will not be dissuaded from registering due to the missing 
phrase. Also, the Agency notes that Baby Jogger has corrected this 
omission on its on-line registration form and the required statement is 
present.

e. Spanish Language Type Size

    Paragraph S5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires the information in the 
English language to be not smaller than 10 point type. An on-product 
warning label provided by Baby Jogger has the Spanish information at 
approximately 7 point type. The English language label is in full 
compliance with this requirement. Baby Jogger believes that the 
noncompliant text does not create a risk to motor vehicle safety 
because the information is clearly displayed on the affected child 
restraints and clearly communicates the required information.
    NHTSA believes that the 7 point type text provided in the Spanish 
language label is not clearly displayed and is difficult to read. The 
smaller font size likely poses a challenge to the consumer's ability to 
read the text and could result in the consumer ignoring the text due to 
the difficulty in being able to read it. NHTSA disagrees with Baby 
Jogger's reasons for inconsequentiality as supported by the reasons 
stated above under the category ``Information Type Size.''
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has 
determined that Baby Jogger has not met its burden of persuasion that 
the subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliances are inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety for: (a) Information Type Size/Capitalization/
Presentation order, (b) Background color (excluding the 10 percent tint 
noncompliance), (c) On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes 
(excluding the pictogram noncompliance), (d) Omitted Information 
(excluding the missing statement at the top of the on-line registration 
form), and (e) Spanish Language Type Size. Accordingly, Baby Jogger's 
petition is hereby denied for these noncompliances and Baby Jogger is 
obligated to provide notification of, and free remedies for, the 
noncompliances as required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliances 
identified above as ``excluded'' in its petition are inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety: (b) minimum 10 percent tint on registration card, 
(c) minimum 30 mm diameter pictogram on air bag warning label, and (d) 
missing statement at the top of the on-line registration form. 
Accordingly, we grant its petition on these issues.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).

    Issued on: August 2, 2016.
Stephen A. Ridella,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-18770 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P