[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, 
[email protected].

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