Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 8033-8037 [2023-02577]

Download as PDF ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Notices Authority (Deed Record 2090, Page 252) on the northeasterly side of Penn’s Way (a 60 foot wide public road), said point being measured along the northeasterly and easterly sides of said Penn’s Way, the three (3) following described courses and distances from the southwesterly end of a corner cut-off joining the southerly side of Commons Boulevard (a 110 foot wide public road) with said easterly side of Penn’s Way: 1. South 06°04′44″ East, 108.30 feet to a point of curvature; 2. Southeasterly, by a curve to the left having a radius of 242.84 feet, an arc length of 192.59 feet to a point of tangency, said point being distant by a chord of South 28°47′56″ East, 187.58 feet from the last described point; and 3. South 51°31′08″ East, 484.38 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence, from the said point of Beginning, along southeasterly, southwesterly and northwesterly lines for said land now or formerly of the Delaware River & Bay Authority (Deed Record 2090, Page 252), the three (3) following described courses and distances: 1. North 38°23′27″ East, 373.10 feet to a point; 2. South 51°36′33″ East, 345.90 feet to a bent iron pin found; and 3. South 38°23′27″ West, 347.43 feet to a bent iron pin found on said northeasterly side of Penn’s Way; Thence along said northeasterly side of Penn’s Way, the three (3) following described courses and distances: Northwesterly, by a curve to the right having a radius of 242.83 feet, an arc length of 113.87 feet to a point of tangency, said point being distant by a chord of North 64°57′10″ West, 112.83 feet from the last described point; and North 51°31′08″ West, 236.11 feet to the point and place of Beginning. Containing within said metes and bounds, 2.94 acres of land, being the same, more or less. The proposed action consists of the land release for sale of Tax Parcel ID #10–018.00–006 (the PARCEL) from Wilmington/New Castle County Airport (ILG) ownership. The existing office space on the parcel is currently vacant. The interested buyer intends to use existing office building and parking area as a pandemic response center for the Delaware Air National Guard which would be considered a non-aeronautical use. No exterior physical alternations to the subject parcel are currently proposed. The parcel is located on the on the northwest portion of ILG. Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 release. All comments will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, January 31, 2023. Rick Harner, Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office. [FR Doc. 2023–02478 Filed 2–6–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 8033 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0065; Notice 2] Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition. AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., (CTP), has determined that certain Cybex child restraint systems distributed by CTP do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. CTP filed an original noncompliance report dated June 30, 2022. CTP petitioned NHTSA on July 5, 2022, and amended the petition on August 4, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the denial of CTP’s petition. 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: I. Overview: CTP has determined that certain child restraint systems manufactured under the brand name CYBEX and distributed by CTP do not fully comply with paragraph S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). CTP filed an original noncompliance report dated June 30, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. CTP petitioned NHTSA on July 5, 2022, and amended the petition on August 4, 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. Notice of receipt of CTP’s petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on August 26, 2022, in the Federal Register (87 FR 52674). No comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then SUMMARY: Corridor Identification and Development Program Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). AGENCY: Notice of solicitation and funding opportunity (NOFO or notice); extension of application submittal period. ACTION: FRA is extending the application submittal period for its Notice for the Corridor Identification and Development program published on December 20, 2022, from March 20, 2023, to March 27, 2023. SUMMARY: FRA extends the NOFO application period and applications are now due by 5 p.m. ET on March 27, 2023. DATES: For further information related to this notice and the Corridor Identification and Development Program, please contact Mr. Peter Schwartz, Acting Director, Office of Railroad Planning and Engineering at PaxRailDev@dot.gov or 202–493–6360. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FRA amends its NOFO for the Corridor Identification and Development Program published on December 20, 2022 (87 FR 77920), by extending the period for submitting applications to 5 p.m. ET on March 27, 2023. The reason for the extension is due to a technical issue preventing applications from being received on March 20, 2023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issued in Washington, DC. Amitabha Bose, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2023–02566 Filed 2–6–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES 8034 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Notices follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2022– 0065.’’ II. Child Restraint Systems Involved: Approximately 31,080 Aton M, Aton 2, Aton, Aton Q, and Cloud Q model child restraint systems manufactured by CYBEX approximately between June 6, 2017,1 and November 1, 2020, are potentially involved. III. Noncompliance: After being subjected to abrasion, the breaking strength of the harness central adjuster (adjuster) webbing on the subject child restraint systems was less than 75 percent of the new webbing strength as required by S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213. IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S5.4.1.2(a) and S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 include the requirements relevant to this petition. The webbing of belts provided with a child restraint system which are used to restrain the child within the system shall, after being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209 (§ 571.209), have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the new webbing strength when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) 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. Background: In response to a July 2021 Information Request (IR) from NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) relating to this noncompliance, and after learning that CTP’s supplier, Holmbergs, did not have any historical test data for abrasion testing pursuant to FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(b)(1),2 CTP claims it conducted abrasion testing on 2018 production adjuster webbing samples that would have been used on the (US) Aton M child restraint systems. As stated in CTP’s petition, the results from this testing were that the webbing abraded using the hex bar test subceeded the required 75 percent of the new webbing breaking strength, averaging a median value of 64 percent, and the webbing abraded using CTP’s ‘‘through-adjuster’’ test exceeded the required 75 percent of the new webbing breaking strength. CTP shared the results with NHTSA, submitting that FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(b)(1) provides two alternative abrasion test compliance options. The first, as provided in FMVSS No. 209 S5.1(d), (hex bar test) and the second, as 1 In its June 30, 2022, Part 573 submission, CTP reported production dates between March 7, 2017, and November 1, 2020. 2 In section 2 of its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 as S5.4.2.1(b)(1). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 provided in FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c), referred to by CTP as ‘‘through-adjuster test.’’ CTP filed a form 573 Noncompliance report acknowledging the noncompliance with the abrasion tests in FMVSS No. 209 and then filed a petition, as summarized below. VI. Summary of CTP’s Petition: CTP explains that the adjuster webbing retained only 56.9 percent of the new webbing strength following the hex bar abrasion test 3 as specified in S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 209.4 CTP also acknowledges that, using an alternate ‘‘through-adjuster’’ 5 test methodology it developed, the adjuster webbing is noncompliant because CTP’s test methods were ‘‘not an appropriate interpretation of FMVSS No. 209.’’ The views and arguments provided by CTP are presented in this section, ‘‘VI. Summary of CTP’s Petition.’’ They do not reflect the views of the Agency. CTP describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. CTP believes that the subject noncompliance with the hex bar test is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on results from overload dynamic crash tests it conducted on Aton M child restraints assembled using abraded adjuster webbing. CTP states that this webbing was sourced from the same batch of webbing samples where some were tested for breaking strength after being abraded. Those tested for breaking strength averaged a median value of 64 percent retention of strength. CTP asserts that because the adjuster webbing loads (1,014 N maximum) measured in the dynamic tests were only a small fraction (11 percent) of the abraded webbing’s retained strength, a significant safety margin is built into the adjuster webbing making it ‘‘sufficient for this application,’’ i.e., Aton M and similar. This difference, CTP explains, shows that significantly more degradation (of webbing strength) could be tolerated. According to internal crash test data collected from tests varying in configuration, ATDs, attachment methods and crash severities, CTP states that the peak adjuster strap load recorded was 4,745 N. CTP also states that the dynamic crash tests of the child restraints with the hex bar abraded webbing showed that structural integrity 3 OVSC compliance test report available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-6473892020-001.pdf. 4 In its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to FMVSS No. 209 as FMVSS No. 213. 5 In its petition, CTP refers to S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209 Resistance to buckle abrasion as ‘‘throughadjuster’’ test. PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 of the child restraint was maintained and that the occupant was retained. CTP notes that NHTSA’s laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies 6 ‘‘specifies that for webbing resistance to abrasion tests performed pursuant to FMVSS § 4.2(d), 5.1(d), and 5.3(c) the assembly ‘‘shall be subjected to the buckle abrasion test’’ if the ‘‘assembly contain [sic] a manual adjusting device’’ with the emphasis added. CTP then explains its methodology for the ‘‘through-adjuster’’ testing it employed. With respect to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) Resistance to buckle abrasion, CTP states, with the emphases added, that ‘‘[t]he webbing shall be pulled back and forth through the buckle or manual adjusting device as shown schematically in Figure 7 . . .’’ and ‘‘[t]he webbing shall pass through the buckle . . .’’ CTP contends that the referenced schematic in Figure 7 of Standard No. 209 ‘‘should only be viewed as a general visual aid,’’ and that the schematic ‘‘contradict[s] the plain language of the FMVSS.’’ CTP states that although the schematic (in Figure 7 of Standard No. 209) does not appear to show the buckle or adjusting device opening and closing, ‘‘that action certainly must occur to meet the plain language and clear intent of the regulation.’’ When CTP performed its ‘‘through-adjuster’’ testing on the 2018 production webbing samples, the webbing was cycled through the adjuster containing a cam lock. CTP states that the cam lock ‘‘must be opened during the lengthening stroke’’ otherwise the adjuster will ‘‘not allow webbing to move,’’ i.e., pass through it. CTP investigated a variety of test conditions it claims are related to FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) ‘‘varying the amount and timing of the central adjuster cam opening’’ in each. CTP believes the ‘‘through-adjuster’’ abrasion test it used accurately exposes the webbing to the abrading environment that exists in the real-world application, and that ‘‘the language of the regulation, as well as the stated purpose of the regulation, should control the test methodology employed.’’ CTP explains it ‘‘relies on its suppliers to self-certify compliance to certain standards and requirements’’ and that Holmbergs ‘‘was following the Aton M US Control Plan’’ based on CTP’s On-going Quality Control (OQC) reports. CTP provided the Control Plan, OQC and other documents in its April 14, 2022, supplemental response to NHTSA. CTP states it has implemented replacement adjuster webbing on new 6 Dated E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM December 7, 2007. 07FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Notices ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES child restraints manufactured beginning October 27, 2021, and that this webbing complies with all retained breaking 7 strength requirements after having been subject to both hex bar and ‘‘throughadjuster’’ testing. Additionally, CTP states it has clarified to its webbing supplier that the supplied webbing must comply with both available abrasion tests in its specifications. Finally, CTP states that since 2017 no adjuster webbing or adjuster assembly issues have been observed. Details of CTP’s investigation and testing can be found in its amended petition at https://www.regulations.gov/ document/NHTSA-2022-0065-0001. CTP 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. VII. NHTSA’s Analysis: The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances inconsequential.8 In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise protect.9 In general, NHTSA does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.10 Thus CTP’s claim that, 7 In its petition, CTP mistakenly refers to breaking as tensile. 8 Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or approaching drivers). 9 See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source). 10 See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 since 2017, no adjuster webbing or adjuster assembly issues have been observed is not persuasive in evaluating if this noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. As CTP’s petition explains, S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 provides two alternative abrasion test compliance options: the hex bar test (FMVSS No. 209 S5.1(d)) and the resistance to buckle abrasion test (FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c)). Note that in its petition, CTP mischaracterizes the resistance to buckle abrasion test as a ‘‘through-adjuster’’ test; NHTSA takes this opportunity to correct this mischaracterization of Standard No. 209 S5.3(c) from hereon. With respect to CTP’s argument that the webbing’s maximum load, 1,014 N, measured during its overload dynamic crash testing using child restraint systems assembled with hex bar abraded adjuster webbing, or 4,745 N from its other internal crash test data, compared to the average median breaking strength, 9,506 N,11 from its hex bar abraded webbing tests does not meet its burden of persuasion. The Agency does not find the argument that abraded webbing with a breaking strength less than the required minimum is offset, compliant or inconsequential to safety by exceeding webbing loads observed in dynamic crash tests. If we did, the minimum requirements would be written to accommodate it. Consistent with past Agency denials 12 for inconsequentiality petitions for noncompliant child restraint webbing that used dynamic crash test analyses in its basis, NHTSA is not compelled by CTP’s arguments. Furthermore, neither CTP’s dynamic test analysis nor its claims based on other internal crash test data address the potential for safety issues resulting from possible further loss in webbing strength with continued long-term use. The webbing breaking strength test and child restraint system dynamic test do not test for the same conditions and serve distinct purposes. Requirements that apply to new child restraints only, such as the dynamic sled tests conducted on the child restraint as a system, do not 565 F.2d 754, 759 (DC Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the future’’). 11 CTP determined the median value in each of four tests (each test contained 3 samples) and then averaged the four median values to come up with an ‘‘average median breaking strength’’ of 9,506 N. 12 Combi USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 86 FR 47723 (and decisions cited therein) (August 26, 2021). PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8035 provide comparable assurances for components, such as webbing, tested independently from the child restraint system. Among our concerns is also that, according to its petition, CTP assembled the Aton M child restraints in the foregoing overload dynamic crash tests with adjuster webbing, after being abraded, sourced from the 2017–2018 production adjuster webbing batches ‘‘that would have been used on the (US) Aton M’’ subject to its petition. Adjuster webbing from these batches were also used in CTP’s hex bar abrasion and breaking strength tests, where the webbing’s median breaking strength retention ranged from 61 percent to 66.2 percent.13 CTP relies on the average of these degradation rates as being representative of all adjuster webbing coming from these 2017–2018 batches. However, in the Aton M models tested in the OVSC’s compliance testing, assembled with adjuster webbing that CTP asserts would have come from these same 2017–2018 production batches, the breaking strength retention after abrasion was 56.9 percent, a significantly lower degradation rate. Even if CTP’s test results were relevant, NHTSA does not find them persuasive. Notwithstanding that other webbing samples from the same batches could have even greater degradation rates, i.e., lower breaking strength retention percentages, the webbing strength could degrade to levels even lower than in these foregoing instances over an entire lifetime of actual use. CTP uses its dynamic testing to argue that the adjuster webbing’s absolute strength, versus the required 75 percent retention strength, after abrasion is sufficient for its application in an infant child restraint. According to CTP, all that matters is whether webbing that has been subjected to the abrasion test is stronger than certain loads it claims to have measured on the webbing in limited dynamic testing, tantamount to establishing an ‘‘effective minimum.’’ This argument challenges the stringency of the requirement in the standard, to which a petition for rulemaking, not an inconsequentiality petition, is the appropriate means.14 CTP’s approach is additionally inconsistent with the twofaceted regulatory structure that NHTSA 13 Section 8, Table ‘‘HEX-BAR ABRASION TEST RESULTS (performed Sept 2021), FMVSS213. S5.4.1.2(b)’’ in CTP’s petition. 14 See Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510, January 5, 2010. E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1 8036 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Notices ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES adopted in the 2005–2006 rulemaking,15 establishing a minimum breaking strength requirement for new webbing. In that rulemaking, the Agency explained that the fact that webbing has a particular strength after being subjected to the abrasion test does not mean further degradation is not possible.16 Both the new webbing strength and degradation rate requirements after abrasion are important from a safety perspective 17 and do not vary based on probable use patterns, e.g., infant child restraints or otherwise. The abrasion test is an accelerated aging test that provides a snapshot of the webbing over prolonged exposure to environmental conditions. The tests do not, and are not intended to, assess how strong a particular tested specimen will be at the end of its life.18 The tests do not replicate the lifetime use of the webbing.19 In the 2006 Final Rule, the Agency affirmed that retaining control over webbing material degradation rates is critical to ensure sufficient webbing strength over time. NHTSA believes that when a required webbing degradation rate is not met, as in the case of CTP’s Aton M adjuster webbing, its performance as it ages will expose child occupants to a risk that increases with long-term use, thus we are not persuaded with this argument made by CTP that the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. Figure 7 of Standard No. 209 illustrates the required setup for the resistance to buckle abrasion testing specified in S5.3(c). NHTSA does not agree with CTP’s argument that the schematic in Figure 7 ‘‘should only be used as a general visual aid.’’ In fact, the regulatory text specifically states, ‘‘[t]he webbing shall be pulled back and forth through the buckle or manual adjusting device as shown schematically in Figure 7.’’ The design of the manual adjusting device for the adjuster on the subject child restraint systems does not facilitate performing the test in the manner specified in S5.3(c) or as shown in Figure 7. This is illustrated by CTP’s 15 See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, 70 FR 37731 and 71 FR 32855. 16 See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, 71 FR 32858–859, June 7, 2006. 17 See Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510, January 5, 2010. 18 Id. 19 ‘‘The primary purposes of laboratory tests are merely to save valuable time and to serve as controls in the manufacture of basic materials.’’ Plastics Engineering Handbook of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., Third Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1960. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 alternate test methodology it performed, explaining that in order for the webbing to be pulled back and forth through the manual adjusting device as shown in Figure 7 its cam lock ‘‘must be opened during the lengthening stroke’’ otherwise the manual adjusting device will ‘‘not allow webbing to move,’’ i.e., pass through it. In its petition, CTP states that it investigated a variety of test conditions related to FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) that included ‘‘varying the amount and timing of the central adjuster cam opening’’ and that the results exceeded the retained breaking strength requirement of 75 percent. The Agency does not find these results to be impactful because the way in which they were obtained is not consistent with any procedure established in the standard and therefore does not demonstrate compliance. Intentionally and actively, i.e., manually, opening the cam lock, as CTP did, in any amount, regardless of the timing cadence, is in direct conflict with S5.3(c) and Figure 7 of FMVSS No. 209. Such manipulation, or any other purposeful means of releasing the buckle or manual adjusting device, is not specified in S5.3(c) or elsewhere in Standard No. 209. Moreover, such manipulation directly reduces the amount of contact between the adjusting device and the adjuster webbing, making the test less severe. The Agency reiterates its longstanding position that a manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of that standard, provided the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal requirements when tested by the Agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show that its chosen means is a reasonable surrogate for the test procedure specified by the standard 20 and should be sufficient to support the conclusion that, if tested under the specified conditions, the product would perform as required.21 CTP’s procedure was not sufficient as a surrogate or otherwise in demonstrating compliance with FMVSS No. 213 because its procedure did not replicate the abrading produced by following S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209. CTP appears to suggest that the schematic in Figure 7 of Standard No. 209 has little value in defining the 20 https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ aiam4760. 21 https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ aiam0434. PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 required test methodology, through its belief that ‘‘the language of the regulation, as well as the stated purpose of the regulation, should control the test methodology employed.’’ CTP’s assertion is incorrect. FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) states that ‘‘[t]he webbing shall be pulled back and forth through the buckle or manual adjusting device as shown schematically in Figure 7.’’ Thus, Figure 7 is directly incorporated into the standard. CTP asserts in its petition that the Agency’s laboratory test procedure (TP) for enforcement of FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies,22 specifies that if the ‘‘assembly contain [sic] a manual adjusting device’’ the assembly shall be subjected to the buckle abrasion test. As explained in a legal note set forth at its beginning, ‘‘[t]he OVSC Test Procedures are prepared for the limited purpose of use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC. The TPs are not rules, regulations or NHTSA interpretations regarding the FMVSS.’’ The note continues to explain that as long as the tests are performed in a manner consistent with the FMVSS itself, NHTSA may authorize contractors to deviate from the procedures. In order to be consistent with the requirement options provided in FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(b)(1) for the abrasion testing of the adjuster webbing, and to conduct the tests as specified with respect to the design of the subject child restraint system, the hex bar test of S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 209 was the correct procedure in this case. Despite CTP’s contention that its test methodology ‘‘accurately exposes the central adjuster webbing to the abrading environment that exists in the [child restraint] application’’ NHTSA concludes that because of CTP’s deviations from the protocol established in the FMVSS, the protocol fabricated by CTP with its ‘‘through-adjuster’’ test was less stringent than required by the standard and does not establish compliance with it. In regard to CTP’s description that what caused the noncompliance of the subject child restraint systems was its reliance on its suppliers to self-certify to the FMVSSs, NHTSA takes this opportunity to remind the reader of the following. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 23 (the Safety Act) requires that motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment meet two separate requirements before they may be sold or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce in the United 22 Dated 23 49 E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM December 7, 2007. U.S.C. 30101. 07FEN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Notices States: (1) they must be compliant with the FMVSS, and (2) they must be certified as compliant by a manufacturer exercising reasonable care.24 ‘‘Manufacturer’’ means a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.25 Second, as previously stated, a manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. In this case, it appears that CTP fully and solely relied on its supplier to produce webbing compliant with S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213. While this may be legally permitted, as the distributor whose name appears on the child restraint system, CTP accepted certification responsibility of the subject child restraint systems, and ultimately is accountable for it. CTP claims it has implemented replacement adjuster webbing on newly manufactured child restraints beginning October 27, 2021, and that this webbing complies with all retained breaking strength requirements after having been subjected to both hex bar and resistance to buckle abrasion testing. In its petition, CTP attached Exhibit A 26 in support of its claim that child restraints with webbing manufactured in 2021 were verified to be compliant with FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(b)(1). Exhibit A contained portions of the January 14, 2022, OVSC test report 27 for FMVSS No. 213 Component Tests for Aton M models tested as part of its FY2021 compliance program. The date of manufacture of the Aton M models tested in that report was 11/26/2020. NHTSA does not consider CTP’s Exhibit A to be relevant to its petition because it did not apply to the child restraint systems that were the subject of its petition. VIII. NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that CTP has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, CTP’s petition is hereby denied, and CTP is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. 24 49 U.S.C. 30112, 30115. U.S.C 30102. 26 In its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to Exhibit A as Exhibit 1. 27 https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR647554-2021-001.pdf. 25 49 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.) Anne L. Collins, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2023–02577 Filed 2–6–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DOT–OST–2023–0016] 60-Day Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (Department) or (DOT). ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: The OSDBU invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves ‘‘SBTRC Regional Field Offices Intake Form (DOT F 4500)’’ with OMB Control Number 2105–0554. DATES: Please submit comments by April 10, 2023. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT–OST– 2023–0016 through one of the following methods: • Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, • email: oira_submission@ omb.eop.gov. • Fax: (202) 395–5806. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Kontakos, 202–366–1930 ext. 62253, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W56–444, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: SBTRC Regional Field Offices Intake Form (DOT F 4500). OMB Control Number: 2105–0554. Background: In accordance with Public Law 95–507, an amendment to the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1953, OSDBU is responsible for the implementation and execution of DOT activities on behalf of small businesses, in accordance with sections 8, 15 and 31 of the Small Business Act (SBA), as SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8037 amended. The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization also administers the provisions of title 49, of the United States Cole, section 332, the Minority Resource Center (MRC) which includes the duties of advocacy, outreach, and financial services on behalf of small and disadvantaged businesses and those certified under CFR 49 parts 23 and or 26 as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). SBTRC’s Regional Field Offices will collect information on small businesses, which includes Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), Women-Owned Small Business (WOB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), 8(a), Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB), Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB), HubZone, and types of services they seek from the Regional Field Offices. Services and responsibilities of the Field Offices include business analysis, general management & technical assistance and training, business counseling, outreach services/ conference participation, short-term loan and bond assistance. The cumulative data collected will be analyzed by the OSDBU to determine the effectiveness of services provided, including counseling, outreach, and financial services. Such data will also be analyzed by the OSDBU to determine agency effectiveness in assisting small businesses to enhance their opportunities to participate in government contracts and subcontracts. We are required to publish this notice in the Federal Register by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Title: Small Business Transportation Resource Center Regional Field Office Intake Form (DOT F 4500). Form Numbers: DOT F 4500. Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection. The Regional Field Offices Intake Form, (DOT F 4500) is used to enroll small business clients into the program in order to create a viable database of firms that can participate in government contracts and subcontracts, especially those projects that are transportation related. Each area on the fillable pdf form must be filled in electronically by the Field Offices and submitted every quarter to OSDBU. The Offices will retain a copy of each Intake Form for their records. The completion of the form is used as a tool for making decisions about the needs of the business, such as; referral to technical assistance agencies for help, identifying the type of profession or trade of the business, the type of certification that the business holds, length of time in E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8033-8037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0065; Notice 2]


Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., (CTP), has determined 
that certain Cybex child restraint systems distributed by CTP do not 
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
213, Child Restraint Systems. CTP filed an original noncompliance 
report dated June 30, 2022. CTP petitioned NHTSA on July 5, 2022, and 
amended the petition on August 4, 2022, for a decision that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
This document announces the denial of CTP's petition.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: CTP has determined that certain child restraint 
systems manufactured under the brand name CYBEX and distributed by CTP 
do not fully comply with paragraph S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213, 
Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). CTP filed an original 
noncompliance report dated June 30, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. CTP petitioned 
NHTSA on July 5, 2022, and amended the petition on August 4, 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.
    Notice of receipt of CTP's petition was published with a 30-day 
public comment period, on August 26, 2022, in the Federal Register (87 
FR 52674). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then

[[Page 8034]]

follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2022-0065.''
    II. Child Restraint Systems Involved: Approximately 31,080 Aton M, 
Aton 2, Aton, Aton Q, and Cloud Q model child restraint systems 
manufactured by CYBEX approximately between June 6, 2017,\1\ and 
November 1, 2020, are potentially involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its June 30, 2022, Part 573 submission, CTP reported 
production dates between March 7, 2017, and November 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    III. Noncompliance: After being subjected to abrasion, the breaking 
strength of the harness central adjuster (adjuster) webbing on the 
subject child restraint systems was less than 75 percent of the new 
webbing strength as required by S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S5.4.1.2(a) and S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of 
FMVSS No. 213 include the requirements relevant to this petition. The 
webbing of belts provided with a child restraint system which are used 
to restrain the child within the system shall, after being subjected to 
abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209 (Sec.  
571.209), have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the 
new webbing strength when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) 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. Background: In response to a July 2021 Information Request (IR) 
from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) relating to 
this noncompliance, and after learning that CTP's supplier, Holmbergs, 
did not have any historical test data for abrasion testing pursuant to 
FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(b)(1),\2\ CTP claims it conducted abrasion 
testing on 2018 production adjuster webbing samples that would have 
been used on the (US) Aton M child restraint systems. As stated in 
CTP's petition, the results from this testing were that the webbing 
abraded using the hex bar test subceeded the required 75 percent of the 
new webbing breaking strength, averaging a median value of 64 percent, 
and the webbing abraded using CTP's ``through-adjuster'' test exceeded 
the required 75 percent of the new webbing breaking strength. CTP 
shared the results with NHTSA, submitting that FMVSS No. 213 
S5.4.1.2(b)(1) provides two alternative abrasion test compliance 
options. The first, as provided in FMVSS No. 209 S5.1(d), (hex bar 
test) and the second, as provided in FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c), referred to 
by CTP as ``through-adjuster test.'' CTP filed a form 573 Noncompliance 
report acknowledging the noncompliance with the abrasion tests in FMVSS 
No. 209 and then filed a petition, as summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In section 2 of its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to 
S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 as S5.4.2.1(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VI. Summary of CTP's Petition: CTP explains that the adjuster 
webbing retained only 56.9 percent of the new webbing strength 
following the hex bar abrasion test \3\ as specified in S5.1(d) of 
FMVSS No. 209.\4\ CTP also acknowledges that, using an alternate 
``through-adjuster'' \5\ test methodology it developed, the adjuster 
webbing is noncompliant because CTP's test methods were ``not an 
appropriate interpretation of FMVSS No. 209.'' The views and arguments 
provided by CTP are presented in this section, ``VI. Summary of CTP's 
Petition.'' They do not reflect the views of the Agency. CTP describes 
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OVSC compliance test report available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-647389-2020-001.pdf.
    \4\ In its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to FMVSS No. 209 as 
FMVSS No. 213.
    \5\ In its petition, CTP refers to S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209 
Resistance to buckle abrasion as ``through-adjuster'' test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP believes that the subject noncompliance with the hex bar test 
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on results from 
overload dynamic crash tests it conducted on Aton M child restraints 
assembled using abraded adjuster webbing. CTP states that this webbing 
was sourced from the same batch of webbing samples where some were 
tested for breaking strength after being abraded. Those tested for 
breaking strength averaged a median value of 64 percent retention of 
strength. CTP asserts that because the adjuster webbing loads (1,014 N 
maximum) measured in the dynamic tests were only a small fraction (11 
percent) of the abraded webbing's retained strength, a significant 
safety margin is built into the adjuster webbing making it ``sufficient 
for this application,'' i.e., Aton M and similar. This difference, CTP 
explains, shows that significantly more degradation (of webbing 
strength) could be tolerated. According to internal crash test data 
collected from tests varying in configuration, ATDs, attachment methods 
and crash severities, CTP states that the peak adjuster strap load 
recorded was 4,745 N. CTP also states that the dynamic crash tests of 
the child restraints with the hex bar abraded webbing showed that 
structural integrity of the child restraint was maintained and that the 
occupant was retained.
    CTP notes that NHTSA's laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 209 
Seat Belt Assemblies \6\ ``specifies that for webbing resistance to 
abrasion tests performed pursuant to FMVSS Sec.  4.2(d), 5.1(d), and 
5.3(c) the assembly ``shall be subjected to the buckle abrasion test'' 
if the ``assembly contain [sic] a manual adjusting device'' with the 
emphasis added. CTP then explains its methodology for the ``through-
adjuster'' testing it employed. With respect to the requirements of 
FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) Resistance to buckle abrasion, CTP states, with 
the emphases added, that ``[t]he webbing shall be pulled back and forth 
through the buckle or manual adjusting device as shown schematically in 
Figure 7 . . .'' and ``[t]he webbing shall pass through the buckle . . 
.'' CTP contends that the referenced schematic in Figure 7 of Standard 
No. 209 ``should only be viewed as a general visual aid,'' and that the 
schematic ``contradict[s] the plain language of the FMVSS.'' CTP states 
that although the schematic (in Figure 7 of Standard No. 209) does not 
appear to show the buckle or adjusting device opening and closing, 
``that action certainly must occur to meet the plain language and clear 
intent of the regulation.'' When CTP performed its ``through-adjuster'' 
testing on the 2018 production webbing samples, the webbing was cycled 
through the adjuster containing a cam lock. CTP states that the cam 
lock ``must be opened during the lengthening stroke'' otherwise the 
adjuster will ``not allow webbing to move,'' i.e., pass through it. CTP 
investigated a variety of test conditions it claims are related to 
FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) ``varying the amount and timing of the central 
adjuster cam opening'' in each. CTP believes the ``through-adjuster'' 
abrasion test it used accurately exposes the webbing to the abrading 
environment that exists in the real-world application, and that ``the 
language of the regulation, as well as the stated purpose of the 
regulation, should control the test methodology employed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Dated December 7, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP explains it ``relies on its suppliers to self-certify 
compliance to certain standards and requirements'' and that Holmbergs 
``was following the Aton M US Control Plan'' based on CTP's On-going 
Quality Control (OQC) reports. CTP provided the Control Plan, OQC and 
other documents in its April 14, 2022, supplemental response to NHTSA.
    CTP states it has implemented replacement adjuster webbing on new

[[Page 8035]]

child restraints manufactured beginning October 27, 2021, and that this 
webbing complies with all retained breaking \7\ strength requirements 
after having been subject to both hex bar and ``through-adjuster'' 
testing. Additionally, CTP states it has clarified to its webbing 
supplier that the supplied webbing must comply with both available 
abrasion tests in its specifications. Finally, CTP states that since 
2017 no adjuster webbing or adjuster assembly issues have been 
observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In its petition, CTP mistakenly refers to breaking as 
tensile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Details of CTP's investigation and testing can be found in its 
amended petition at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0065-0001.
    CTP 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.
    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the 
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance 
requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and difficult to meet. 
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances 
inconsequential.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for 
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected 
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or 
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses 
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event 
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\9\ In general, NHTSA 
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when 
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The 
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not 
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be 
safety issues in the future.\10\ Thus CTP's claim that, since 2017, no 
adjuster webbing or adjuster assembly issues have been observed is not 
persuasive in evaluating if this noncompliance is inconsequential to 
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding 
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no 
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system 
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. 
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using 
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly 
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \10\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 
754, 759 (DC Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk 
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden 
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such 
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in 
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As CTP's petition explains, S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 
provides two alternative abrasion test compliance options: the hex bar 
test (FMVSS No. 209 S5.1(d)) and the resistance to buckle abrasion test 
(FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c)). Note that in its petition, CTP 
mischaracterizes the resistance to buckle abrasion test as a ``through-
adjuster'' test; NHTSA takes this opportunity to correct this 
mischaracterization of Standard No. 209 S5.3(c) from hereon.
    With respect to CTP's argument that the webbing's maximum load, 
1,014 N, measured during its overload dynamic crash testing using child 
restraint systems assembled with hex bar abraded adjuster webbing, or 
4,745 N from its other internal crash test data, compared to the 
average median breaking strength, 9,506 N,\11\ from its hex bar abraded 
webbing tests does not meet its burden of persuasion. The Agency does 
not find the argument that abraded webbing with a breaking strength 
less than the required minimum is offset, compliant or inconsequential 
to safety by exceeding webbing loads observed in dynamic crash tests. 
If we did, the minimum requirements would be written to accommodate it. 
Consistent with past Agency denials \12\ for inconsequentiality 
petitions for noncompliant child restraint webbing that used dynamic 
crash test analyses in its basis, NHTSA is not compelled by CTP's 
arguments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CTP determined the median value in each of four tests (each 
test contained 3 samples) and then averaged the four median values 
to come up with an ``average median breaking strength'' of 9,506 N.
    \12\ Combi USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 86 FR 47723 (and decisions cited 
therein) (August 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, neither CTP's dynamic test analysis nor its claims 
based on other internal crash test data address the potential for 
safety issues resulting from possible further loss in webbing strength 
with continued long-term use. The webbing breaking strength test and 
child restraint system dynamic test do not test for the same conditions 
and serve distinct purposes. Requirements that apply to new child 
restraints only, such as the dynamic sled tests conducted on the child 
restraint as a system, do not provide comparable assurances for 
components, such as webbing, tested independently from the child 
restraint system.
    Among our concerns is also that, according to its petition, CTP 
assembled the Aton M child restraints in the foregoing overload dynamic 
crash tests with adjuster webbing, after being abraded, sourced from 
the 2017-2018 production adjuster webbing batches ``that would have 
been used on the (US) Aton M'' subject to its petition. Adjuster 
webbing from these batches were also used in CTP's hex bar abrasion and 
breaking strength tests, where the webbing's median breaking strength 
retention ranged from 61 percent to 66.2 percent.\13\ CTP relies on the 
average of these degradation rates as being representative of all 
adjuster webbing coming from these 2017-2018 batches. However, in the 
Aton M models tested in the OVSC's compliance testing, assembled with 
adjuster webbing that CTP asserts would have come from these same 2017-
2018 production batches, the breaking strength retention after abrasion 
was 56.9 percent, a significantly lower degradation rate. Even if CTP's 
test results were relevant, NHTSA does not find them persuasive. 
Notwithstanding that other webbing samples from the same batches could 
have even greater degradation rates, i.e., lower breaking strength 
retention percentages, the webbing strength could degrade to levels 
even lower than in these foregoing instances over an entire lifetime of 
actual use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Section 8, Table ``HEX-BAR ABRASION TEST RESULTS (performed 
Sept 2021), FMVSS213. S5.4.1.2(b)'' in CTP's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP uses its dynamic testing to argue that the adjuster webbing's 
absolute strength, versus the required 75 percent retention strength, 
after abrasion is sufficient for its application in an infant child 
restraint. According to CTP, all that matters is whether webbing that 
has been subjected to the abrasion test is stronger than certain loads 
it claims to have measured on the webbing in limited dynamic testing, 
tantamount to establishing an ``effective minimum.'' This argument 
challenges the stringency of the requirement in the standard, to which 
a petition for rulemaking, not an inconsequentiality petition, is the 
appropriate means.\14\ CTP's approach is additionally inconsistent with 
the two-faceted regulatory structure that NHTSA

[[Page 8036]]

adopted in the 2005-2006 rulemaking,\15\ establishing a minimum 
breaking strength requirement for new webbing. In that rulemaking, the 
Agency explained that the fact that webbing has a particular strength 
after being subjected to the abrasion test does not mean further 
degradation is not possible.\16\ Both the new webbing strength and 
degradation rate requirements after abrasion are important from a 
safety perspective \17\ and do not vary based on probable use patterns, 
e.g., infant child restraints or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510, January 5, 2010.
    \15\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint 
Systems, 70 FR 37731 and 71 FR 32855.
    \16\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint 
Systems, 71 FR 32858-859, June 7, 2006.
    \17\ See Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510, January 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The abrasion test is an accelerated aging test that provides a 
snapshot of the webbing over prolonged exposure to environmental 
conditions. The tests do not, and are not intended to, assess how 
strong a particular tested specimen will be at the end of its life.\18\ 
The tests do not replicate the lifetime use of the webbing.\19\ In the 
2006 Final Rule, the Agency affirmed that retaining control over 
webbing material degradation rates is critical to ensure sufficient 
webbing strength over time. NHTSA believes that when a required webbing 
degradation rate is not met, as in the case of CTP's Aton M adjuster 
webbing, its performance as it ages will expose child occupants to a 
risk that increases with long-term use, thus we are not persuaded with 
this argument made by CTP that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ ``The primary purposes of laboratory tests are merely to 
save valuable time and to serve as controls in the manufacture of 
basic materials.'' Plastics Engineering Handbook of the Society of 
the Plastics Industry, Inc., Third Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold 
Company, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 7 of Standard No. 209 illustrates the required setup for the 
resistance to buckle abrasion testing specified in S5.3(c). NHTSA does 
not agree with CTP's argument that the schematic in Figure 7 ``should 
only be used as a general visual aid.'' In fact, the regulatory text 
specifically states, ``[t]he webbing shall be pulled back and forth 
through the buckle or manual adjusting device as shown schematically in 
Figure 7.'' The design of the manual adjusting device for the adjuster 
on the subject child restraint systems does not facilitate performing 
the test in the manner specified in S5.3(c) or as shown in Figure 7. 
This is illustrated by CTP's alternate test methodology it performed, 
explaining that in order for the webbing to be pulled back and forth 
through the manual adjusting device as shown in Figure 7 its cam lock 
``must be opened during the lengthening stroke'' otherwise the manual 
adjusting device will ``not allow webbing to move,'' i.e., pass through 
it. In its petition, CTP states that it investigated a variety of test 
conditions related to FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) that included ``varying the 
amount and timing of the central adjuster cam opening'' and that the 
results exceeded the retained breaking strength requirement of 75 
percent.
    The Agency does not find these results to be impactful because the 
way in which they were obtained is not consistent with any procedure 
established in the standard and therefore does not demonstrate 
compliance. Intentionally and actively, i.e., manually, opening the cam 
lock, as CTP did, in any amount, regardless of the timing cadence, is 
in direct conflict with S5.3(c) and Figure 7 of FMVSS No. 209. Such 
manipulation, or any other purposeful means of releasing the buckle or 
manual adjusting device, is not specified in S5.3(c) or elsewhere in 
Standard No. 209. Moreover, such manipulation directly reduces the 
amount of contact between the adjusting device and the adjuster 
webbing, making the test less severe.
    The Agency reiterates its long-standing position that a 
manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to 
determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the 
requirements of that standard, provided the manufacturer exercises due 
care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal 
requirements when tested by the Agency according to the procedures 
specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show 
that its chosen means is a reasonable surrogate for the test procedure 
specified by the standard \20\ and should be sufficient to support the 
conclusion that, if tested under the specified conditions, the product 
would perform as required.\21\ CTP's procedure was not sufficient as a 
surrogate or otherwise in demonstrating compliance with FMVSS No. 213 
because its procedure did not replicate the abrading produced by 
following S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209. CTP appears to suggest that the 
schematic in Figure 7 of Standard No. 209 has little value in defining 
the required test methodology, through its belief that ``the language 
of the regulation, as well as the stated purpose of the regulation, 
should control the test methodology employed.'' CTP's assertion is 
incorrect. FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) states that ``[t]he webbing shall be 
pulled back and forth through the buckle or manual adjusting device as 
shown schematically in Figure 7.'' Thus, Figure 7 is directly 
incorporated into the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam4760.
    \21\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam0434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP asserts in its petition that the Agency's laboratory test 
procedure (TP) for enforcement of FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt 
Assemblies,\22\ specifies that if the ``assembly contain [sic] a manual 
adjusting device'' the assembly shall be subjected to the buckle 
abrasion test. As explained in a legal note set forth at its beginning, 
``[t]he OVSC Test Procedures are prepared for the limited purpose of 
use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance 
tests for the OVSC. The TPs are not rules, regulations or NHTSA 
interpretations regarding the FMVSS.'' The note continues to explain 
that as long as the tests are performed in a manner consistent with the 
FMVSS itself, NHTSA may authorize contractors to deviate from the 
procedures. In order to be consistent with the requirement options 
provided in FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(b)(1) for the abrasion testing of 
the adjuster webbing, and to conduct the tests as specified with 
respect to the design of the subject child restraint system, the hex 
bar test of S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 209 was the correct procedure in this 
case. Despite CTP's contention that its test methodology ``accurately 
exposes the central adjuster webbing to the abrading environment that 
exists in the [child restraint] application'' NHTSA concludes that 
because of CTP's deviations from the protocol established in the FMVSS, 
the protocol fabricated by CTP with its ``through-adjuster'' test was 
less stringent than required by the standard and does not establish 
compliance with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Dated December 7, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regard to CTP's description that what caused the noncompliance 
of the subject child restraint systems was its reliance on its 
suppliers to self-certify to the FMVSSs, NHTSA takes this opportunity 
to remind the reader of the following. First, the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act \23\ (the Safety Act) requires that motor 
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment meet two separate requirements 
before they may be sold or otherwise introduced into interstate 
commerce in the United

[[Page 8037]]

States: (1) they must be compliant with the FMVSS, and (2) they must be 
certified as compliant by a manufacturer exercising reasonable 
care.\24\ ``Manufacturer'' means a person manufacturing or assembling 
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or importing motor vehicles 
or motor vehicle equipment for resale.\25\ Second, as previously 
stated, a manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products 
to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the 
safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures 
specified in the standard. In this case, it appears that CTP fully and 
solely relied on its supplier to produce webbing compliant with 
S5.4.1.2(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213. While this may be legally permitted, 
as the distributor whose name appears on the child restraint system, 
CTP accepted certification responsibility of the subject child 
restraint systems, and ultimately is accountable for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 49 U.S.C. 30101.
    \24\ 49 U.S.C. 30112, 30115.
    \25\ 49 U.S.C 30102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP claims it has implemented replacement adjuster webbing on newly 
manufactured child restraints beginning October 27, 2021, and that this 
webbing complies with all retained breaking strength requirements after 
having been subjected to both hex bar and resistance to buckle abrasion 
testing. In its petition, CTP attached Exhibit A \26\ in support of its 
claim that child restraints with webbing manufactured in 2021 were 
verified to be compliant with FMVSS No. 213 S5.4.1.2(b)(1). Exhibit A 
contained portions of the January 14, 2022, OVSC test report \27\ for 
FMVSS No. 213 Component Tests for Aton M models tested as part of its 
FY2021 compliance program. The date of manufacture of the Aton M models 
tested in that report was 11/26/2020. NHTSA does not consider CTP's 
Exhibit A to be relevant to its petition because it did not apply to 
the child restraint systems that were the subject of its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to Exhibit A as 
Exhibit 1.
    \27\ https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-647554-2021-001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 
has decided that CTP has not met its burden of persuasion that the 
subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety. Accordingly, CTP's petition is hereby denied, and CTP is 
consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for 
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

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

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2023-02577 Filed 2-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.