thepote
New member
From: New York Times 'Wheels' Blog
February 3, 2010, 7:30 am
Car Seat Recall Nearly 10 Years in the Making
By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN
Consumer advocates say Dorel Juvenile Group’s new recall of four million child restraints comes so late it doesn’t matter anymore. Many of the children who once used those seats could have driver’s licenses by now, as the company and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fought over the recall for almost a decade.
What’s more, the restraints are so old that Dorel and other safety experts recommend that they no longer be used – even if the new, safer anchoring straps the safety agency has demanded are installed.
“The seats are through their useful life,” said Jennifer Stockburger, the program manager for vehicle and child safety at Consumer Reports magazine. If safety agency were the hard-nosed agency it is supposed to be, she said, the recall would have happened long ago.
“It is an inordinately long time for a recall,” said Henry Jasny, the general counsel for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. “They should have dealt with it very quickly.”
The safety agency issued a statement saying, “Child passenger safety is a top priority,” and the recall “is further evidence of that commitment.” It denied there had been any unreasonable delay, saying testing and research were required.
The case began in mid-2001, when the agency’s testing showed some straps did not meet its standards for resisting abrasion and exposure to sunlight. The agency said that over time, the straps might weaken and might fail to securely hold the restraint in a crash.
The agency told Dorel that the restraints — made in 2000 and 2001, and sold under the Cosco and Eddie Bauer brands — had to be recalled.
In 2002, Dorel appealed, saying the failure to meet the standard was “inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.” Dorel argued that the safety agency’s standard was so poorly written that its straps were still safe despite being in violation.
Dorel’s basic argument was that, for example, in the case of abrasion, the strap had to retain 75 percent of its original strength. But the standard never specified what that original strength had to be. Dorel contended that its straps were particularly strong to begin with, arguing its straps could lose more than 25 percent of their strength and still be safer than those of another company that started with cheaper, weaker straps but lost only 10 percent and thus met the standard.
Dorel had a point when it argued that the regulation wasn’t very well-thought out, Mr. Jasny said. In 2005, the group asked the agency to adopt a minimum, original strength.
In 2006, the safety agency announced it would revise the standard and specify a minimum strength. Meanwhile, Dorel was still waiting for a response to its 2002 petition, which had appealed the recall, said Mark Evanko, Dorel’s executive vice president for quality assurance and product safety.
In July 2008, a letter from the safety agency arrived at Dorel. It denied the 2002 request. The agency defended its original decision in 2001, saying there was a clear safety issue with the straps and Dorel’s arguments were not persuasive. Mr. Evanko said Dorel couldn’t understand why it took so long to get a response.
Lena Pons, a policy analyst with Public Citizen, added, “It is not clear to me why they would take so long.”
In a report in the Federal Register, the agency explained the six-year delay by saying it needed to do additional testing and get public comments on changing the standard before it could properly address Dorel’s appeal.
Dorel appealed that 2008 decision, but it had to wait until January 2010 for an answer: the safety agency said Dorel had to carry out the recall. It involves contacting owners and offering them replacement straps.
Mr. Evanko said Dorel’s research suggests that less than 1 percent of the four million owners still have the restraints. Also, he says the restraints are so old that Dorel doesn’t recommend anyone use them, even with new straps.
He acknowledges that some people may argue that the delay means that the company managed to save a huge amount of money because so few restraints will be fixed.
“If it was a safety issue, we would have done the right thing back then and recalled all the seats,” he said. “Second of all, we are still are spending a significant amount of money contacting all our people in our product registration database. It is going to be very expensive.”
There are no reports of any injuries, according to the safety agency and Dorel, which is based in Columbus, Ind.
February 3, 2010, 7:30 am
Car Seat Recall Nearly 10 Years in the Making
By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN
Consumer advocates say Dorel Juvenile Group’s new recall of four million child restraints comes so late it doesn’t matter anymore. Many of the children who once used those seats could have driver’s licenses by now, as the company and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fought over the recall for almost a decade.
What’s more, the restraints are so old that Dorel and other safety experts recommend that they no longer be used – even if the new, safer anchoring straps the safety agency has demanded are installed.
“The seats are through their useful life,” said Jennifer Stockburger, the program manager for vehicle and child safety at Consumer Reports magazine. If safety agency were the hard-nosed agency it is supposed to be, she said, the recall would have happened long ago.
“It is an inordinately long time for a recall,” said Henry Jasny, the general counsel for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. “They should have dealt with it very quickly.”
The safety agency issued a statement saying, “Child passenger safety is a top priority,” and the recall “is further evidence of that commitment.” It denied there had been any unreasonable delay, saying testing and research were required.
The case began in mid-2001, when the agency’s testing showed some straps did not meet its standards for resisting abrasion and exposure to sunlight. The agency said that over time, the straps might weaken and might fail to securely hold the restraint in a crash.
The agency told Dorel that the restraints — made in 2000 and 2001, and sold under the Cosco and Eddie Bauer brands — had to be recalled.
In 2002, Dorel appealed, saying the failure to meet the standard was “inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.” Dorel argued that the safety agency’s standard was so poorly written that its straps were still safe despite being in violation.
Dorel’s basic argument was that, for example, in the case of abrasion, the strap had to retain 75 percent of its original strength. But the standard never specified what that original strength had to be. Dorel contended that its straps were particularly strong to begin with, arguing its straps could lose more than 25 percent of their strength and still be safer than those of another company that started with cheaper, weaker straps but lost only 10 percent and thus met the standard.
Dorel had a point when it argued that the regulation wasn’t very well-thought out, Mr. Jasny said. In 2005, the group asked the agency to adopt a minimum, original strength.
In 2006, the safety agency announced it would revise the standard and specify a minimum strength. Meanwhile, Dorel was still waiting for a response to its 2002 petition, which had appealed the recall, said Mark Evanko, Dorel’s executive vice president for quality assurance and product safety.
In July 2008, a letter from the safety agency arrived at Dorel. It denied the 2002 request. The agency defended its original decision in 2001, saying there was a clear safety issue with the straps and Dorel’s arguments were not persuasive. Mr. Evanko said Dorel couldn’t understand why it took so long to get a response.
Lena Pons, a policy analyst with Public Citizen, added, “It is not clear to me why they would take so long.”
In a report in the Federal Register, the agency explained the six-year delay by saying it needed to do additional testing and get public comments on changing the standard before it could properly address Dorel’s appeal.
Dorel appealed that 2008 decision, but it had to wait until January 2010 for an answer: the safety agency said Dorel had to carry out the recall. It involves contacting owners and offering them replacement straps.
Mr. Evanko said Dorel’s research suggests that less than 1 percent of the four million owners still have the restraints. Also, he says the restraints are so old that Dorel doesn’t recommend anyone use them, even with new straps.
He acknowledges that some people may argue that the delay means that the company managed to save a huge amount of money because so few restraints will be fixed.
“If it was a safety issue, we would have done the right thing back then and recalled all the seats,” he said. “Second of all, we are still are spending a significant amount of money contacting all our people in our product registration database. It is going to be very expensive.”
There are no reports of any injuries, according to the safety agency and Dorel, which is based in Columbus, Ind.
