|
|---|
|
Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Anne L. Collins Date: 7 February 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Cybex |
[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,
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
[[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