Combi USA, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Combi
|
Joseph Kolly
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
26 August 2021
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47723-47726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18356]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0025; Notice 2]
Combi USA, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Combi USA (Combi), has determined that certain Combi USA
BabyRide rear-facing child restraint
[[Page 47724]]
systems manufactured between May 1, 2016, and August 31, 2019, do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, Child Restraint Systems. Combi filed an original noncompliance
report dated March 8, 2021, and later amended it on March 10, 2021,
March 11, 2021, May 25, 2021, and July 22, 2021. Subsequently, Combi
petitioned NHTSA on March 30, 2021, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces the denial of Combi's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
kelley.adamscampos@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Combi has determined that certain Combi USA BabyRide rear-facing
child restraint systems manufactured between May 1, 2016, and August
31, 2019, do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213).
Combi filed an original noncompliance report dated March 8, 2021, and
later amended it on March 10, 2021, March 11, 2021, May 25, 2021, and
July 22, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Combi subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
March 30, 2021 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 Combi's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 22, 2021, in the Federal Register (86
FR 21435). 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 follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2021-0025.''
II. Child Restraint Systems Involved
Approximately 13,880 Combi USA BabyRide rear-facing child restraint
systems with model number 378099, manufactured between May 1, 2016, and
August 31, 2019, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Combi explains that the noncompliance is that the subject rear-
facing child restraint systems are equipped with 25-mm-wide webbing
used in the center front harness adjuster that does not comply with the
minimum breaking strength requirements as required in paragraph
S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 213. Specifically, the subject child restraint
systems have an initial breaking strength of between 9,622 N and 10,136
N (median load 9,871 N), which is less than the required minimum
breaking strength of 11,000 N.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 213 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. The webbing of belts provided with a child
restraint system and used to secure a child to a child restraint system
shall have a minimum breaking strength for new webbing of not less than
11,000 N when tested in accordance with paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No.
209. Each value shall be not less than 11,000 N. ``New webbing'' means
webbing that has not been exposed to abrasion, light, or micro-
organisms as specified elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213.
V. Summary of Combi's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Combi's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Combi and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Combi describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Combi submitted the following
reasoning:
1. Combi has not received any reports from consumers related to the
strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing in the BabyRide infant car seat.
2. The BabyRide with the 25-mm-wide webbing at issue complies with
dynamic testing requirements of FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S5.1, in
testing conducted by both NHTSA and Combi between 2016 and 2019. This
includes testing with the 12-month-old CRABI ATD that represents the
heaviest child that the BabyRide infant car seat is used with.
3. The actual webbing strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing far
exceeds the strength needed for the application of an infant car seat
used with children 10 kg (22 lbs.) or less. When tested with the 12-
month-old CRABI ATD that weighs 22 lbs., representing the maximum
weight occupant for the car seat, the maximum load that the 25-mm-wide
webbing is subjected to during an FMVSS No. 213 compliance crash test
is 302.9 N. Combi believes that this peak loading represents the
maximum load applied to the 25-mm-wide webbing in all Combi USA
BabyRide infant car seats. Combi bases that belief on the total belt
load applied to the vehicle lap belt and LATCH belt recorded in the
2016 UMTRI and 2021 UMTRI testing with the 12-month-old ATD. The total
vehicle lap belt load recorded in the 2021 test (AG2101) of 4206 N
(945.6 lbs.) is consistent with the total vehicle lap belt and LATCH
belt loading recorded in the 2016 tests conducted by UMTRI with the 12-
month-old ATD of 4,067.2 N (851.4 lbs.) in Test TT1603 and 3,989.1 N
(896.8 lbs.) in Test TT1604. The maximum load measured in the 25-mm-
wide webbing in the BabyRide infant car seat is much lower than the
total load applied to the vehicle lap belt and LATCH belt as the car
seat is for rear-facing use only and for use with a child weighing 10
kg (22 lb.) or less. In a rear-facing car seat, a significant portion
of the load from the ATD during the dynamic test is transferred and
supported by the seatback, thus reducing the maximum load applied to
the harness system including the 25-mm-wide webbing. Combi has reviewed
the harness webbing specifications defined in FMVSS No. 213 and notes
the webbing specified is for use with children up to 80 lbs. (36 kg),
and sufficiently strong to restrain an 80 lb occupant when forward
facing. Combi states that the loads carried by the seatback support
surface significantly reduce the loading experienced by the harness
webbing and center front adjuster webbing as shown in the UMTRI test
AG2101, and that this load is significantly lower than the load applied
to the harness and center front adjuster webbing when used in a
forward-facing restraint system that is used up to 80 lbs. Combi
asserts that rear-facing use of the BabyRide car seat with children 22
lbs. or less will subject the harness belts and adjuster belt to only a
small percentage of the load applied when forward-facing with an
occupant weighing 80 lbs. Combi believes that the initial minimum
breaking strength of 11,000 N is much higher than the strength needed
for a rear-facing car seat like the BabyRide even when occupied by a
child at the maximum weight and that the 25-mm-wide webbing used in the
BabyRide exceeds the forces applied in a crash.
4. Combi cites the webbing requirements in FMVSS No. 213 for new
webbing breaking strength, S5.4.1.2(a), webbing strength after
abrasion,
[[Page 47725]]
S5.4.1.2(b)(1), and webbing strength after exposure to light,
S5.4.1.2(c)(1) and summarizes results for testing based on these
requirements performed by Combi and/or NHTSA. In Combi's summation,
they explain that the initial breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide
webbing in NHTSA's and Combi's \1\ testing is between 9,266 N and
10,136 N \2\ which they recognize does not comply. Combi notes that
based on the required 11,000 N minimum strength for new webbing, the
median breaking strength requirement after abrasion of not less than 75
percent of the new webbing strength must be at least 8,250 N. In spite
of this, Combi believes from their testing that the average breaking
strength after abrasion of 8,047 N or 86.7 percent of the original
breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing complies. The median \3\
breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing after exposure to light in
NHTSA's testing measured 9,752 N or 98.8 percent of the original
breaking strength, which Combi believes complies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Test Report No. 4737580AL-1R-21, (March 16, 2021 revised).
\2\ In their petition, Combi mistakenly refers to 10,136 N as
10,126 N.
\3\ In their petition, Combi mistakenly referred to the median
breaking strength after exposure to light as the average breaking
strength after exposure to light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that 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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\4\ Potential
performance failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or
air bags, are rarely deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\5\ In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``The absence of a complaint does not
mean there have not been any problems or failures, and it does not mean
that there will not be failures in the future.'' \6\ ``[T]he fact that
in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction have prevented many
serious injuries does not mean that good luck will continue to work.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ See Dorel Juvenile Group, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 53189, 53190 (August 28, 2013).
\7\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi identifies no receipt of any reports from consumers related
to the strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing. As discussed above, the
Agency finds the absence of consumer complaints (or reports as Combi
noted) insufficient evidence of an inconsequential effect on the safety
of the webbing.
Next, Combi argues that, based on measured forces acting on the 25-
mm-wide webbing when subjected to the dynamic testing requirements of
FMVSS No. 213 using the 22 lbs. 12-month-old CRABI ATD, the maximum
weight occupant for the car seat, the subject child restraints present
no motor vehicle safety risk since the measured forces acting on the
25-mm-wide webbing were no higher than 320.9 N. Combi also believes
that this represents the maximum load applied to 25-mm-wide webbing in
all Combi USA BabyRide Infant Car Seats, based on the total belt load
applied to the vehicle lap belt and LATCH belt recorded in 2016 and
2021 UMTRI testing with the 12-month-old ATD.
Consistent with the Agency's decision to deny Combi's 2013 petition
\8\ for inconsequential noncompliance for failure to comply with the
initial webbing breaking strength requirements, NHTSA is not persuaded
by these arguments. NHTSA does not simply have one performance test, a
dynamic test. NHTSA has multiple performance tests because a single
test does not address the range of safety concerns with child
restraints. The webbing breaking strength test and the child restraint
system dynamic test do not test for the same conditions and serve
distinct purposes. The webbing breaking strength test conditions are
necessarily more severe than those for dynamic testing to help ensure
that the webbing will afford effective protection for severe crashes,
even after the webbing degrades due to abrasion in use and exposure to
sunlight. In addressing past similar arguments raised by Combi, who
submitted webbing load force data generated in dynamic testing to
demonstrate apparent safety margins in comparison to webbing breaking
strength test results, the Agency stated that ``[a] 30 mile per hour
test is not indicative of the upper limit of safety. The test
conditions in FMVSS No. 213 reflect the concern that child restraints
will withstand even the most severe crashes. These are well above 30
mph.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Combi USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 71028 (and decisions cited
therein) (Nov. 27, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi asserts that in a rear-facing car seat, a significant portion
of the load from the ATD during the dynamic test is transferred and
supported by the seat back, thus reducing the maximum load applied to
the harness system including the 25-mm-wide webbing. The petitioner's
reasoning is unpersuasive. The minimum initial webbing strength
requirements apply to the component level, i.e., child restraint
webbing must comply as required in paragraph S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No.
213 when tested independently from the child restraint system, and are
not uniquely specified according to rear-facing or forward-facing child
restraint systems. The breaking strength requirements ensure that the
performance of webbing over the lifetime of a child restraint system is
sufficient to provide the necessary protection. Requirements that apply
to new child restraints only, such as the dynamic sled test conducted
on the child restraint as a system, do not provide comparable
assurances, particularly for components such as webbing that are likely
to experience extraordinary ``wear and tear'' and exposure to elements
that can degrade the webbing strength in the course of normal use.
Combi cites the webbing requirements in FMVSS No. 213 for new
webbing breaking strength, S5.4.1.2(a), webbing strength after
abrasion, S5.4.1.2(b)(1), and webbing strength after exposure to light,
S5.4.1.2(c)(1) and summarizes results for testing based on these
requirements performed by Combi and/
[[Page 47726]]
or NHTSA. In NHTSA's compliance tests of the Combi BabyRide 25-mm-wide
webbing for new webbing breaking strength, three samples were tested
and each sample failed to meet the minimum requirement of 11,000 N.\9\
Combi submitted test data for a single sample of the 25-mm-wide webbing
measuring 9,278 N initial breaking strength, also less than the
required minimum value of 11,000 N and consistent with their submitted
2016-2019 production data which measured between 9,600 N and 9,900 N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Frank Savino (2020, October). Child restraint system,
component parts: Model No.: Combi Babyride (Report No. 4642921-018).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi also submitted test data for two samples of the 25-mm-wide
webbing after being subjected to abrasion and referenced a 98.8 percent
retention of the original breaking strength in NHTSA's testing of the
25-mm-wide webbing after exposure to light. The Agency is not opining
on the compliance of these results as they are not germane to the
subject noncompliance, thus not dispositive of the inconsequentiality
analysis.
Combi believes that the initial minimum breaking strength of 11,000
N is much higher than the strength needed for a rear-facing car seat
like the BabyRide, even when occupied by a child at the maximum weight,
and that the 25-mm-wide webbing used in the BabyRide exceeds the forces
applied in a crash. FMVSS No. 213 requires an absolute minimum initial
breaking strength for new webbing to provide a margin of safety for use
throughout the life of a child restraint. In the Agency's analysis in
determining a minimum breaking strength requirement for new webbing,
published in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) \10\ and subsequent
Final Rule,\11\ NHTSA examined harness webbing compliance data for 109
child restraint systems collected from 2000 to 2002. That compliance
data showed that 92 percent (100 out of 109) of the harness webbing
complied with the proposed 11,000 N minimum breaking strength
requirement. In Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510 (January 5, 2010) (NHTSA-2008-
0132) (and decisions cited therein), the Agency explained that an
inconsequentiality petition is not the appropriate means to challenge
the methodology of a specific test and/or stringency of a performance
requirement in a FMVSS. The appropriate venue for such arguments is to
comment during the proposal phase or as a petition for rulemaking to
amend a current safety standard. During the 2005-2006 proposal and
final rulemaking phases for the new webbing strength requirement, NHTSA
published a report showing test results for the Combi Baby One dated
June 10, 2005.\12\ In that report the median new webbing strength of
the adjuster webbing was 9,207 N (converted from 2,070 lbs.). Despite
this, Combi neither commented on the NPRM nor petitioned for
reconsideration of the final rule with respect to FMVSS No. 213
paragraph S5.4.1.2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 70 FR 37731 (June 30, 2005)
\11\ 71 FR 32855 (June 7, 2006)
\12\ Frank Savino (2005, June). Child restraint system,
component parts: Model No.: Combi--Baby One (Report No. 206827-08).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Combi has
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 213
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Combi's petition is hereby denied, and Combi 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)
Joseph Kolly,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021-18356 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P