Baby Trend, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 55465-55467 [2022-19516]

Download as PDF jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Notices determining the incremental costs associated with full implementation of the recommendations is effectively impossible without detailed insight into the organizational processes of every company. Fifth, many of NHTSA’s recommendations lean very heavily on industry standards, such as ISO/SAE 21434. Three of the 21 ‘‘new’’ best practices simply reference the ISO/SAE 21434 industry standard. Since many aspects of NHTSA’s recommendations are mapped to an industry standard, costs would also be limited for those companies who are adopting ISO/SAE 21434 already. Thus, it would be very difficult to parse whether a company implemented ISO/SAE 21434 or whether it had decided to adopt NHTSA’s voluntary recommendations. While the Best Practices have some recommendations 36 that cannot be mapped to an industry standards document at this time, most of those recommendations involve common vehicle engineering and sound business management practices, such as risk assessment and supply-chain management. For these recommendations, NHTSA’s inclusion in the Best Practices serve as a reminder. Regarding benefits, entities that do not implement appropriate cybersecurity measures, like those guided by these recommendations, or other sound controls, face a higher risk of cyberattack or increased exposure in the event of a cyberattack, potentially leading to safety concerns for the public. Implementation of the best practices can, therefore, facilitate ‘‘cost prevention’’ in the sense that failure to adopt appropriate cybersecurity practices could result in other direct or indirect costs to companies (i.e., personal injury, vehicle damage, warranty, recall, or voluntary repair/ updates). The best practices outlined in this document help organizations measure their residual risks better, particularly the safety risks associated with potential cybersecurity issues in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that they design and manufacture. Further, the document provides a toolset of techniques organizations can utilize commensurate to their measured risks and take appropriate actions to reduce or eliminate them. Doing so could lower the future liabilities these risks 36 For example, G.6 in Section 4.2.3 recommends consideration of sensor vulnerabilities as part of risk assessment; and G.10 and G.11 in Section 4.2.6 recommend tracking software components on vehicles in a manner similar to hardware components. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Sep 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 represent in terms of safety risks to public and business costs associated with addressing them. In addition, quantitatively positive externalities have been shown to stem from vehicle safety and security measures (Ayres & Levitt, 1998). The high marginal cost of cybersecurity failures (crashes) extends to third parties. Widely accepted adoption of sound cybersecurity practices limits these potential costs and lessens incentives for attempts at market disruption (i.e., signal manipulation, Global Positioning System (GPS) spoofing, or reverse engineering). Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Cem Hatipoglu, Associate Administrator, Vehicle Safety Research. [FR Doc. 2022–19507 Filed 9–8–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0074; Notice 1] Baby Trend, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: Baby Trend, Inc., (BT), has determined that certain BT Hybrid 3-in1 Combination Booster Seat child restraint systems (CRSs) do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. BT filed an original noncompliance report dated July 6, 2022. BT subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 1, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of BT’s petition. DATES: Send comments on or before October 11, 2022. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods: • Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S. Department of SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55465 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 for Federal Holidays. • Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https:// www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493–2251. Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated at the end of this notice. All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown in the heading of this notice. DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, kelley.adamscampos@dot.gov, (202) 366–7479. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1 55466 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Notices I. Overview BT determined that certain BT Hybrid 3-in-1 Combination Booster Seat CRSs do not fully comply with paragraph S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). BT filed an original noncompliance report dated July 6, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. BT petitioned NHTSA on August 1, 2022, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance. This notice of receipt of BT’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. II. Child Restraint Systems Involved Approximately 101,361 BT Hybrid 3in-1 Combination Booster Seat CRSs, manufactured from December 6, 2021, to June 6, 2022,1 are potentially involved: III. Noncompliance BT explains that the lower anchor webbing in the subject CRSs failed the minimum breaking strength when tested in accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209,2 referenced in FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(a). Specifically, the breaking 3 strength of the lower anchor webbing of the Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH 4) system in the subject CRSs was 13,926 Newtons (N), 13,940 N, and 14,087 N when tested by NHTSA. IV. Rule Requirements Paragraph S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 213 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. The webbing of belts provided with a child restraint system and used to attach the system to the vehicle must have a minimum breaking strength for new webbing of not less than 15,000 N, including the tether and lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system, when tested in jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES 1 As reported in BT’s July 6, 2022, Part 573 filing. its petition, BT refers to the test in S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209 as tensile. 3 In its petition, BT refers to breaking as tensile. 4 ‘‘LATCH’’ refers to the child restraint anchorage system that FMVSS 225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage systems,’’ requires to be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have developed the term ‘‘LATCH’’ to refer to Standard 225’s child restraint anchorage system. 2 In VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Sep 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209. ‘‘New webbing’’ means webbing that has not been exposed to abrasion, light or micro-organisms as specified elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213. V. Summary of BT’s Petition The following views and arguments presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary of BT’s Petition,’’ are the views and arguments provided by BT. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. BT describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Upon receiving an information request from NHTSA on June 6, 2022, regarding the subject noncompliance, BT states that production and distribution of the subject CRSs were halted, and BT began an investigation. BT states that, as part of its investigation, it conducted dynamic sled testing, webbing testing and examined internal processes to determine the root cause of the noncompliance. As a result of its investigation, BT found that the wrong webbing was installed in a portion of the subject CRSs, but BT believes, through its analysis of existing and new test data, that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. BT claims that FMVSS No. 213 dynamic sled testing ensures the structural integrity of the subject CRSs and that this is supported by NHTSA’s November 2, 2020, notice of proposed rulemaking 5 regarding FMVSS No. 213. In its petition, BT questions ‘‘the utility of considering the webbing strength tests in isolation rather than the integrity of the LATCH system as required under FMVSS 213.’’ BT believes the webbing tests specified in FMVSS No. 213 have utility in safety ‘‘only in the context of maintaining strength of the webbing with wear and tear of the child restraint following years of use and asserts that the unabraded webbing strength test is not necessary to ensure the structural integrity of a CRS. BT states that it conducts, in addition to the dynamic sled testing required by FMVSS No. 213, dynamic sled testing through Consumer’s Union (CU), on child restraints produced by each of its factories. BT contends that if NHTSA previously found the dynamic sled testing at 48 kph to be sufficient to ensure the structural integrity of a CRS, 5 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Incorporation by Reference; 85 FR 69388 (November 2, 2020.) PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 BT’s additional testing is also similarly sufficient. The CU dynamic testing, as BT explains, has important differences from that required by FMVSS No. 213. First, the test is conducted at 56 kph whereas the FMVSS No. 213 test is conducted at 48 kph. Second, the bench used is derived from a vehicle seat, providing ‘‘a boundary condition for LATCH attachment and seat cushion-to-CRS interaction.’’ Finally, the CU test protocol includes a structure to represent the seat in front of the CRS seat position, which, BT claims, provides a ‘‘clear tell-tale’’ of failure in any way of the LATCH lower anchor belt in adequately restraining the CRS and its occupant. BT also claims that the minimum LATCH lower anchor webbing strength requirements of FMVSS No. 213 are unrealistic, based on dynamic crash testing it conducted on the subject CRSs using the same incorrect webbing used on the noncompliant CRSs that are the subject of this petition, and without attaching the CRS’ tether to the tether anchor. This testing, as BT explains, was conducted on the test bench proposed by NHTSA in the 2020 FMVSS No. 213 NPRM. Other test apparatus and conditions used in its testing were those either specified in FMVSS No. 213, and/or the current NPRM, or ‘‘widely accepted’’ as due care tests. For the tests BT conducted in the frontal direction, sled test speeds ranging from 57.1 kph to 63.9 kph were used. See the Table 6 in BT’s petition for the parameters used in its testing. BT states that it is confident that its frontal sled testing conducted at ‘‘64 kph . . . encompasses all crashes including the most severe crashes’’ and that ‘‘at no time and in no test did the LATCH Lower Anchor webbing or belt system fail to perform its intended purpose of restraining the CRS.’’ BT also found ‘‘that at no time during any of these tests did the LATCH Lower Anchor webbing load exceed 5000 Newtons and, more importantly, come even close to the 15,000 Newton minimum threshold’’ required by FMVSS No. 213. In its petition, BT shares a graphic 7 to illustrate its beliefs for the minimum strength of various components in the LATCH system and points to examples where, ‘‘in the rare instances of failures of the LATCH system, the failures occurred in . . . the LATCH lower anchor on the vehicle.’’ Thus, BT contends that the webbing is not the weak link in the LATCH lower anchor system, and that ‘‘any deficiencies with 6 Section 7 Section E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 3 of its petition. 5 of its petition. 09SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Notices the strength of the LATCH Lower Anchor webbing would have been revealed in the dynamic sled tests of FMVSS 213.’’ BT states that there is no evidence of webbing failure in any CRS in the real world, that it has never received a complaint, nor has any knowledge of, a webbing failure on any of its products in the real world. BT concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 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, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject child restraints that BT no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve child restraint distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraints under their control after BT notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8) Otto G. Matheke III, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2022–19516 Filed 9–8–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0069; Notice 1] jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES Hercules Tire & Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: Hercules Tire & Rubber Company, (Hercules), has determined SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Sep 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 that certain Ironman iMOVE PT specialty trailer tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Hercules filed an original noncompliance report dated May 10, 2022, and amended the report on May 12, 2022. Hercules petitioned NHTSA on June 21, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Hercules’s petition. Send comments on or before October 11, 2022. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods: • Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the 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 for Federal Holidays. • Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https:// www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493–2251. Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55467 supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated at the end of this notice. All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown in the heading of this notice. DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (325) 655–0547. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview Hercules determined that certain Ironman iMOVE PT specialty trailer tires do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). Hercules filed an original noncompliance report dated May 10, 2022, and amended the report on May 12, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Hercules subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 21, 2022, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance. This notice of receipt of Hercules’s petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition. II. Tires Involved Approximately 555 Ironman iMOVE PT specialty trailer tires, manufactured between August 14, 2021, and August 20, 2021, are potentially involved: III. Noncompliance Hercules explains that the subject tires are labeled with a tire E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55465-55467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19516]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0074; Notice 1]


Baby Trend, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Baby Trend, Inc., (BT), has determined that certain BT Hybrid 
3-in-1 Combination Booster Seat child restraint systems (CRSs) do not 
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
213, Child Restraint Systems. BT filed an original noncompliance report 
dated July 6, 2022. BT subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 1, 2022, 
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of 
BT's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before October 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the 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 for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance 
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 
[email protected], (202) 366-7479.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 55466]]

I. Overview

    BT determined that certain BT Hybrid 3-in-1 Combination Booster 
Seat CRSs do not fully comply with paragraph S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 
213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213).
    BT filed an original noncompliance report dated July 6, 2022, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. BT petitioned NHTSA on August 1, 2022, for an exemption 
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates 
to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) 
and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of BT'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.

II. Child Restraint Systems Involved

    Approximately 101,361 BT Hybrid 3-in-1 Combination Booster Seat 
CRSs, manufactured from December 6, 2021, to June 6, 2022,\1\ are 
potentially involved:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As reported in BT's July 6, 2022, Part 573 filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Noncompliance

    BT explains that the lower anchor webbing in the subject CRSs 
failed the minimum breaking strength when tested in accordance with 
S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209,\2\ referenced in FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(a). 
Specifically, the breaking \3\ strength of the lower anchor webbing of 
the Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH \4\) system in the 
subject CRSs was 13,926 Newtons (N), 13,940 N, and 14,087 N when tested 
by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In its petition, BT refers to the test in S5.1 of FMVSS No. 
209 as tensile.
    \3\ In its petition, BT refers to breaking as tensile.
    \4\ ``LATCH'' refers to the child restraint anchorage system 
that FMVSS 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' requires to 
be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have 
developed the term ``LATCH'' to refer to Standard 225's child 
restraint anchorage system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 213 includes the requirements 
relevant to this petition. The webbing of belts provided with a child 
restraint system and used to attach the system to the vehicle must have 
a minimum breaking strength for new webbing of not less than 15,000 N, 
including the tether and lower anchorages of a child restraint 
anchorage system, when tested in accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209. 
``New webbing'' means webbing that has not been exposed to abrasion, 
light or micro-organisms as specified elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213.

V. Summary of BT's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. 
Summary of BT's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by BT. 
They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views 
of the Agency. BT describes the subject noncompliance and contends that 
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety.
    Upon receiving an information request from NHTSA on June 6, 2022, 
regarding the subject noncompliance, BT states that production and 
distribution of the subject CRSs were halted, and BT began an 
investigation. BT states that, as part of its investigation, it 
conducted dynamic sled testing, webbing testing and examined internal 
processes to determine the root cause of the noncompliance. As a result 
of its investigation, BT found that the wrong webbing was installed in 
a portion of the subject CRSs, but BT believes, through its analysis of 
existing and new test data, that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    BT claims that FMVSS No. 213 dynamic sled testing ensures the 
structural integrity of the subject CRSs and that this is supported by 
NHTSA's November 2, 2020, notice of proposed rulemaking \5\ regarding 
FMVSS No. 213. In its petition, BT questions ``the utility of 
considering the webbing strength tests in isolation rather than the 
integrity of the LATCH system as required under FMVSS 213.'' BT 
believes the webbing tests specified in FMVSS No. 213 have utility in 
safety ``only in the context of maintaining strength of the webbing 
with wear and tear of the child restraint following years of use and 
asserts that the unabraded webbing strength test is not necessary to 
ensure the structural integrity of a CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint 
Systems, Incorporation by Reference; 85 FR 69388 (November 2, 2020.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BT states that it conducts, in addition to the dynamic sled testing 
required by FMVSS No. 213, dynamic sled testing through Consumer's 
Union (CU), on child restraints produced by each of its factories. BT 
contends that if NHTSA previously found the dynamic sled testing at 48 
kph to be sufficient to ensure the structural integrity of a CRS, BT's 
additional testing is also similarly sufficient.
    The CU dynamic testing, as BT explains, has important differences 
from that required by FMVSS No. 213. First, the test is conducted at 56 
kph whereas the FMVSS No. 213 test is conducted at 48 kph. Second, the 
bench used is derived from a vehicle seat, providing ``a boundary 
condition for LATCH attachment and seat cushion-to-CRS interaction.'' 
Finally, the CU test protocol includes a structure to represent the 
seat in front of the CRS seat position, which, BT claims, provides a 
``clear tell-tale'' of failure in any way of the LATCH lower anchor 
belt in adequately restraining the CRS and its occupant.
    BT also claims that the minimum LATCH lower anchor webbing strength 
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 are unrealistic, based on dynamic crash 
testing it conducted on the subject CRSs using the same incorrect 
webbing used on the noncompliant CRSs that are the subject of this 
petition, and without attaching the CRS' tether to the tether anchor. 
This testing, as BT explains, was conducted on the test bench proposed 
by NHTSA in the 2020 FMVSS No. 213 NPRM. Other test apparatus and 
conditions used in its testing were those either specified in FMVSS No. 
213, and/or the current NPRM, or ``widely accepted'' as due care tests. 
For the tests BT conducted in the frontal direction, sled test speeds 
ranging from 57.1 kph to 63.9 kph were used. See the Table \6\ in BT's 
petition for the parameters used in its testing. BT states that it is 
confident that its frontal sled testing conducted at ``64 kph . . . 
encompasses all crashes including the most severe crashes'' and that 
``at no time and in no test did the LATCH Lower Anchor webbing or belt 
system fail to perform its intended purpose of restraining the CRS.'' 
BT also found ``that at no time during any of these tests did the LATCH 
Lower Anchor webbing load exceed 5000 Newtons and, more importantly, 
come even close to the 15,000 Newton minimum threshold'' required by 
FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 3 of its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, BT shares a graphic \7\ to illustrate its beliefs 
for the minimum strength of various components in the LATCH system and 
points to examples where, ``in the rare instances of failures of the 
LATCH system, the failures occurred in . . . the LATCH lower anchor on 
the vehicle.'' Thus, BT contends that the webbing is not the weak link 
in the LATCH lower anchor system, and that ``any deficiencies with

[[Page 55467]]

the strength of the LATCH Lower Anchor webbing would have been revealed 
in the dynamic sled tests of FMVSS 213.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 5 of its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BT states that there is no evidence of webbing failure in any CRS 
in the real world, that it has never received a complaint, nor has any 
knowledge of, a webbing failure on any of its products in the real 
world.
    BT concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance 
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its 
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    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, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject child restraints that BT no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve child 
restraint distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraints under their 
control after BT notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-19516 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.