[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