80 FR 39832 - RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 132 (July 10, 2015)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 132 (July 10, 2015)
| Page Range | 39832-39835 | |
| FR Document | 2015-16936 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 39832-39835] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-16936] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0109; Notice 2] RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RECARO Child Safety, LLC (Recaro) determined that certain Recaro child restraints do not fully comply with the system integrity requirements of paragraph S5.1.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Recaro filed an appropriate report, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, that was received by NHTSA on July 30, 2014. Recaro also submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis of the petitioner's belief that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA published a notice of receipt of the petition and requested comment on the petition. After consideration of Recaro's analysis and other information, NHTSA has decided to deny the petition. ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Zachary Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5754, facsimile (202) 366-5930. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Recaro submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis of the petitioner's belief that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on November 21, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 69551). Comments were received, from an individual, Sean Stewart, and from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates). Both commenters opposed the petition. Mr. Stewart believes that child restraint manufacturers should be required to meet the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213 regardless of the manufacturer's instructions and warnings. Advocates believes that ``the reasons provided by RECARO fail to justify determining that the non-compliance is inconsequential.'' To view the petition, the comments, and all supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2014-0109.'' II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected are approximately 78,339 Recaro ProRIDE child restraints manufactured between April 9, 2010 and July 8, 2014, and approximately 42,303 Recaro Performance RIDE child restraints manufactured between January 15, 2013 and July 8, 2014. III. Noncompliance: Recaro explains that the subject child restraints do not comply with the system integrity requirements of FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S5.1.1(a), when subjected to the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 213 S6.1. During NHTSA's compliance tests with the Hybrid II six-year-old child dummy and the Hybrid III weighted six-year-old child dummy connected to the child restraints with the internal harness and the child restraints attached to the test bench with a lap belt and top tether, the tether belt separated at the attachment point to the child restraints. The top tether belt separation exhibited a complete separation of a load bearing structural element. Therefore, the child restraints do not comply with the requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 213 S5.1.1(a).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Petitioner informed NHTSA that production and distribution of the subject child restraints affected by the noncompliance were corrected effective July 9, 2014. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 requires, in pertinent part: S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. (a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system. * * * * * Under S6.1 of FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA tests child restraints with a child test dummy selected for use in accordance with the provisions of S7 of the standard. Under S7, the selection is based on the heights and weights of the children for whom the child restraint is sold. Under S7.1.2(d), NHTSA uses the Hybrid II (HII) or Hybrid III (HIII) six- year-old child test dummy to test CRSs recommended for children with masses greater than 18 kg (40 lb). Under S7.1.2(e), NHTSA uses the HIII weighted six-year-old child test dummy to test CRSs for children with masses above 22.7 kg (50 lb). The children for whom Recaro sold the subject CRSs included children with masses from 18 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)) to 30 kg (65 lb). Thus, under FMVSS No. 213, Recaro's child restraints were required to meet the child restraint system integrity requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested with the six-year- old [[Page 39833]] and weighted six-year-old test dummies.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The six-year-old dummy weighs approximately 47 lb and the weighted six-year-old dummy weighs approximately 62 lb. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Summary of Recaro's Position: Recaro believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons. (A) Recaro believes that the FMVSS No. 213 test procedure ``is a direct violation of the instructions and warnings included with each ProRIDE and Performance RIDE child restraint and would constitute a misuse of the child restraint by the consumer.'' Petitioner refers to page 36 of the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE instruction manuals and states that Recaro designed and tested the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE child restraints ``to meet FMVSS requirements when tested according to the instruction manual.'' Recaro highlights a statement on page 36 that states: ``Additionally, LATCH and top tether anchors are designed to a maximum limit which can vary by vehicle. Due to this variation, RECARO requires use of the vehicle seat belt for any child weighing more than 52 lbs (23.6 kg).'' \3\ Petitioner states that installation in accordance with the instruction manuals decreases the likelihood of top tether anchor failure from the vehicle. Recaro states that it has limited lower anchor and top tether use for the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE since the inception of the RIDE platform, and recently lowered the LATCH limit to 45 pounds from the previously stated 52 pounds to meet current FMVSS No. 213 requirements. Recaro also mentions that ``NHTSA noted in its' [sic] 2012 FMVSS 213 Final Rule response, limitations were added to the lower anchors to `prevent lower LATCH anchor loads from exceeding their required strength level specified in FMVSS 225.' '' Recaro states that it ``used this same rationale when they developed the RIDE platform in 2010 and concluded that a load limit of 52 pounds would be the safest for consumers.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ ``LATCH'' refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, an acronym developed by manufacturers and retailers to refer to the child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' for installation in motor vehicles. [Footnote not in text.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (B) Recaro states that ``post-crash structural integrity of the occupant compartment is more insignificant to safety when compared to the injury values and excursion data gathered from testing.'' Petitioner also states that ``technology has shown repeatedly that collapse, breakage, and crumpling of material minimizes energy and increases the rate of survival for the occupant in the event of a collision.'' Recaro believes that child restraint technology has fallen in-line with vehicle technology in recent years and that other child restraints have been designated ``compliant'' even though their convertible shell-to-base connection has been designed to crack and break during the peak loading in a crash. Recaro further states that the top tether webbing has been designed to rip and break apart under extreme loads to allow the deceleration time to increase for the occupant in the crash event. Petitioner states that, ``As long as the injury criterion meets industry standards, controlled breakage has proven multiple times to be a positive outcome in the event of a vehicle crash, as seen in the RIDE platform.'' (C) Recaro states that the ``2013 LATCH Manual'' published by Safe Ride News Publication ``confirms that top tether anchors in vehicles are becoming limited more frequently in the weight to which they can be subjected.'' Recaro argues that ``a majority of vehicles on the road instruct consumers to use top tether with load limit restrictions that align with RECARO's top tether load limit of 65 pounds minus the 20 pound weight of the child restraint equaling a 45 pound load limit.'' Recaro also refers to documents NHTSA placed in Docket No. NHTSA-2011- 0176 regarding a 2012 final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 (77 FR 11626, February 27, 2012). Petitioner believes that the documents ``give validation to the reasoning by RECARO to limit the use of the top tether.'' (D) Recaro states that it is aware that NHTSA has a clear precedent of denying child restraint manufacturers' petitions for inconsequential noncompliance concerning top tether separation. However, Recaro believes that ``the environment in which those decisions were made has changed.'' Recaro claims that the methodology it uses to limit top tether loads actually increases safe installations of child restraints by limiting the pounds of force applied and decreasing the chance tether anchor load failures. Recaro also believes that in the event of tether separation, the increase to risk of safety is non-existent because the head excursion limits were not exceeded in NHTSA's compliance tests. Petitioner indicates that the risk of the subject child restraints impacting objects in the vehicle is identical to, or better than, other compliant child restraints because both restraints meet the same head excursion requirements. Recaro states that in a previous denial of a petition for inconsequential noncompliance, NHTSA noted that if it granted the petition it would be contradictory to NHTSA's mission to promote greater use of LATCH and tether. Recaro believes that this reasoning is no longer relevant because in the aftermath of the February 2012 final rule, ``consumers are now more aware of the variation of tether load limits by vehicle manufacturers and consumers are also now becoming accustomed to reviewing limits to the LATCH system. This falls in line with the information and limits in the owner's manual provided with the ProRIDE and Performance RIDE.'' (E) Recaro states that its accident reports for the four years that the subject restraints have been on the market indicate no incidents of separation in the tether anchorage area. Petitioner surmises the reason that tether separation occurs in testing is due to an outdated test bench seat and testing apparatus. In summation, Recaro believes that the described noncompliance of the subject child restraints is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to exempt Recaro from providing recall notification of noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and remedying the recall noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. VI. NHTSA Decision: NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed Recaro's analysis and has decided that the subject ProRIDE and Performance RIDE restraints' noncompliance is not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. We will now specifically address each of Recaro's arguments in the order presented in its petition. (A) Recaro first characterizes NHTSA's installation of the ProRIDE and Performance RIDE with a top tether as ``a direct violation of the instructions and warnings . . . and would constitute a misuse'' condition. The petitioner's reasoning is unpersuasive. Recaro apparently argues (the petitioner's arguments are unclear) that NHTSA should not have tested the child restraints attached to the test seat assembly with a lap belt and tether because the manufacturer instructs consumers to use the ``vehicle seat belt for any child weighing more than 52 lbs (23.6 kg).'' The petitioner is unclear but we surmise that Recaro is saying that because it instructs users not to use the top tether with children weighing more than 52 lb, NHTSA's tethering the CRS was in error. [[Page 39834]] This view constitutes an incorrect reading of FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 requires that the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE meet FMVSS No. 213's dynamic test requirements when installed as specified by the standard. Recaro recommended (marketed) the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE child restraints for children with masses from 18 kg (40 lb) to 30 kg (65 lb). Under FMVSS No. 213, child restraints sold for children in this mass range are required to meet the standard's performance requirements, including the system integrity requirements, when tested with the six-year-old and weighted six-year-old test dummies. These test dummies represent the children for whom the child restraint is sold, and are used by NHTSA to assess the performance of the child restraint in protecting children intended for the restraint. If a top tether is necessary to meet FMVSS No. 213's 720 millimeter (mm) (28 inch) head excursion requirement,\4\ the tether is attached when dynamically testing the CRS with those test dummies.\5\ The standard seeks to test CRSs as consumers would use the CRSs in the real world. There is no provision in FMVSS No. 213 that enables manufacturers to exclude themselves from the requirements of the standard by way of ``fine print'' or other restrictions in instruction manuals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ S5.1.3.1(a)(1). \5\ Table to S5.1.3.1(a), S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Recaro did not wish to have its child restraints tested with the six-year-old and weighted six-year-old test dummies in the tethered condition, the manufacturer could have recommended its CRSs for children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb), not 30 kg (65 lb). Since Recaro marketed the CRS as suitable for children over 18 kg (40 lb), the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its CRSs meet all the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested as specified by FMVSS No. 213, and cannot absolve itself of those responsibilities by using its instruction manual to limit NHTSA's assessment of the CRS in a compliance test. Mr. Stewart states in his comment opposing the petition that, ``If a manufacturer is allowed to bypass FMVSS 213 standards simply by mandating or prohibiting certain actions in the instruction manual, what is the point of having standards?'' NHTSA concurs with the commenter that FMVSS No. 213's effectiveness would be substantially diminished if manufacturers were generally permitted to bypass the standard's requirements simply by mandating or prohibiting certain actions in the instruction manual. The ProRIDE/Performance RIDE demonstrated structural integrity failure when the top tether belt separated at the attachment point to the child restraints. The top tether belt separation exhibited a complete separation of a load bearing structural element and therefore does not comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213. Failure of a child restraint system in this manner increases the likelihood of head injury to the occupant, which is not insignificant or inconsequential to safety. (B) NHTSA does not agree with Recaro's line of reasoning that its petition should be granted because ``technology has shown repeatedly that collapse, breakage, and crumpling of material minimizes energy and increases the rate of survival for the occupant in the event of a collision.'' The agency has consistently viewed tether strap separation in FMVSS No. 213 sled tests as a load bearing structural failure. A portion of the load of the child restraint and dummy is transferred to the vehicle by the top tether. A tether attachment failure in a compliance sled test indicates that the minimum level of occupant protection established by FMVSS No. 213 has not been provided. In requiring the upper tether anchorage on vehicles and the tether strap on CRSs, NHTSA noted that, ``Test data show that an attached tether substantially improves the ability of a child restraint to protect against head impacts in a crash.'' \6\ NHTSA does not agree with Recaro's assertion that the failure of the top tether demonstrates a design to allow tether breakage in order to mitigate crash forces and reduce the likelihood of injury to children. Rather, NHTSA believes that the total separation of the top tether, as seen in the Recaro compliance tests, demonstrates a failure of the load bearing element (top tether) to control forward motion of the dummy and, therefore, a liability in the child restraint that increases the potential for injury to children in real world crashes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ 64 FR 10786, 10802; March 5, 1999. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In its comment, Advocates states that-- The damage to the child restraints in this case is unrelated to controlled breakage, of the RECARO restraint. For one thing, RECARO does not assert that the complete separation of the upper tether was a planned design feature of the child restraint. In addition, many other manufacturers have made use of controlled breakage techniques while still meeting all federal regulations. In this case, the failure of the top tether was not planned and its failure mode is not compliant with federal regulation. The consequences of unplanned, uncontrolled complete separation of a load bearing structural element are unknown and can be significantly dangerous if the failure leads to components becoming projectiles in the vehicle or if the failure induces a shock load to other load bearing structural elements. NHTSA concurs with Advocates' observation that the ripping out of the top tether on the Recaro CRSs was likely an unplanned, uncontrolled event, far from a sought-after engineering feat of child restraint technology. Moreover, FMVSS No. 213 does recognize the role that purposeful breakage in child restraint design can have in improving energy absorption performance. However, such breakage is and must be limited by the standard. S5.1.1 permits partial separations that do not result in sharp edges that may contact an occupant. Breakage of the CRS such as that demonstrated by the Recaro child restraints demonstrates a lack of system integrity and is prohibited by S5.1.1, FMVSS No. 213. We disagree with Recaro's statement that ``post-crash structural integrity of the occupant compartment is more insignificant to safety when compared to the injury values and excursion data gathered from testing.'' Each of the requirements in FMVSS No. 213 addresses a safety need. The commenters address this issue well. Advocates states: ``NHTSA specifically included the prohibition against complete separation of any load bearing structural element specifically because the dangers associated with this occurrence were not addressed by the injury criteria alone.'' Mr. Stewart observes: ``If a seat breaks in half during testing but the dummy records lower injury measurement does the manufacturer get away with claiming that they designed it to break in half on purpose--as a way to manage energy?'' Child restraints must be able to hold together in a crash and safely manage the crash forces on the child occupant. To accomplish this, all requirements of the standard must be met. We further note that the weighted six-year-old child test dummy is not instrumented and is not used to measure injury values and excursion limits when testing CRSs under FMVSS No. 213.\7\ Accordingly, the structural integrity requirement is especially pertinent in assessing the crash performance of the subject Recaro child restraints when used with children weighing above 22.7 kg (50 lb), since [[Page 39835]] that is the only dynamic performance requirement that applies to the CRSs. Failure to comply with the requirement is not inconsequential to safety. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See S5(d) of FMVSS No. 213. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NHTSA has taken enforcement action for similar failures. In 2001, the agency notified Britax Child Safety, Inc., (Britax) of a potential noncompliance due to the detachment of a tether strap during dynamic testing of one of its child restraint models. Britax initiated a recall campaign to provide owners of the affected model with repair kits. In 2007, the agency notified Britax of a potential noncompliance due to the tether hook opening during dynamic testing of one of its child restraint models. Britax initiated a recall campaign to provide owners of the affected model with new tether hooks. (C) The materials cited by the petitioner have no bearing on the merits of Recaro's petition. As explained above in NHTSA's response to Recaro's first argument, FMVSS No. 213 requires that the ProRIDE and Performance RIDE child restraints meet the structural integrity requirements when installed with the top tether. NHTSA does not know of any current material published on use of child restraint top tethers that supports not using the child restraint's top tether. (D) Recaro's statement that ``the environment in which [previous denials of inconsequentiality petitions on tether failures] were made has changed'' is incorrect. NHTSA does not know of any current material published on use of child restraint top tethers that supports not using the child restraint's top tether. Moreover, granting the petition would be contradictory to NHTSA's mission to promote greater use of the top tether. (E) The shortcoming in Recaro's design to meet the applicable FMVSS No. 213 dynamic test requirements poses an unacceptable safety risk. The risk exists and is unacceptable even if there has been no incident of separation in the tether anchorage area thus far.\8\ NHTSA does not agree that the tether separation occurs in testing due to the testing equipment \9\ but rather as a shortcoming in Recaro's design to meet the applicable FMVSS No. 213 dynamic test requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ If in fact consumers are not using the tether with children over 52 lb in accordance with Recaro's instructions, then it follows that there would not be reports of tether failure. However, the children would not be benefiting from use of the tether in a crash. Recaro should have designed its restraints such that they could meet the structural integrity requirement when tethered, to afford the children the benefits of a structurally sound CRS and the benefits of the tether. \9\ No data or information was submitted by the petitioner to support this claim. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NHTSA'S Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the ProRIDE and Performance RIDE's noncompliance poses a risk to safety and is therefore not inconsequential. Recaro has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance identified in Recaro's noncompliance information report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Recaro's petition is hereby denied and Recaro is obligated to provide notification of, and a 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) Frank S. Borris, Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2015-16936 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![39832 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 2015 / Notices
Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. of paragraph S5.1.1(a) of Federal Motor manufactured between January 15, 2013
4201–4209]. Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. and July 8, 2014.
7. Wetlands and Water Resources: 213, Child Restraint Systems. Recaro III. Noncompliance: Recaro explains
Land and Water Conservation Fund filed an appropriate report, pursuant to that the subject child restraints do not
(LWCF) [16 U.S.C. 4601–4604]; Safe 49 CFR part 573, Defect and comply with the system integrity
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. Noncompliance Responsibility and requirements of FMVSS No. 213,
300(f)–300(j)(6)]; Rivers and Harbors Act Reports, that was received by NHTSA paragraph S5.1.1(a), when subjected to
of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401–406]; Wild and on July 30, 2014. Recaro also submitted the dynamic test requirements of
Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271– a petition for an exemption from the FMVSS No. 213 S6.1. During NHTSA’s
1287]; Emergency Wetlands Resources notification and remedy requirements of compliance tests with the Hybrid II six-
Act [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; TEA–21 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis of year-old child dummy and the Hybrid
Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. the petitioner’s belief that this III weighted six-year-old child dummy
103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster noncompliance is inconsequential to connected to the child restraints with
Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001–4128]. motor vehicle safety. NHTSA published the internal harness and the child
8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990, a notice of receipt of the petition and restraints attached to the test bench with
Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988, requested comment on the petition. a lap belt and top tether, the tether belt
Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, After consideration of Recaro’s analysis separated at the attachment point to the
Federal Actions to Address and other information, NHTSA has child restraints. The top tether belt
Environmental Justice in Minority decided to deny the petition. separation exhibited a complete
Populations and Low Income ADDRESSES: For further information on separation of a load bearing structural
Populations; E.O. 11593, Protection and this decision contact Zachary Fraser, element. Therefore, the child restraints
Enhancement of Cultural Resources; Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the do not comply with the requirements set
E.O. 13007, Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. National Highway Traffic Safety forth in FMVSS No. 213 S5.1.1(a).1
13287, Preserve America; E.O. 13175, Administration (NHTSA), telephone IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1.1 of
Consultation and Coordination with (202) 366–5754, facsimile (202) 366– FMVSS No. 213 requires, in pertinent
Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514, 5930. part:
Protection and Enhancement of S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity.
Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. When tested in accordance with S6.1, each
Invasive Species; E.O. 12372, Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. child restraint system shall meet the
Intergovernmental Review of Federal 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of
Programs. implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), this section.
The environmental review, Recaro submitted a petition for an (a) Exhibit no complete separation of any
consultation, and other actions required exemption from the notification and load bearing structural element and no
by applicable Federal environmental remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. partial separation exposing either surfaces
Chapter 301 on the basis of the with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces
laws for this project are being, or have
with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above
been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to petitioner’s belief that this the immediate adjacent surrounding
23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of noncompliance is inconsequential to contactable surface of any structural element
Understanding dated December 16, motor vehicle safety. of the system.
2014, and executed by FHWA and Notice of receipt of the petition was * * * * *
TxDOT. published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on November 21, 2014 Under S6.1 of FMVSS No. 213,
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
in the Federal Register (79 FR 69551). NHTSA tests child restraints with a
Issued on: June 22, 2015. child test dummy selected for use in
Comments were received, from an
Michael T. Leary,
individual, Sean Stewart, and from accordance with the provisions of S7 of
Director, Planning and Program Development, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety the standard. Under S7, the selection is
Federal Highway Administration.
(Advocates). Both commenters opposed based on the heights and weights of the
[FR Doc. 2015–16182 Filed 7–9–15; 8:45 am] the petition. Mr. Stewart believes that children for whom the child restraint is
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P child restraint manufacturers should be sold. Under S7.1.2(d), NHTSA uses the
required to meet the applicable Hybrid II (HII) or Hybrid III (HIII) six-
requirements in FMVSS No. 213 year-old child test dummy to test CRSs
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION regardless of the manufacturer’s recommended for children with masses
instructions and warnings. Advocates greater than 18 kg (40 lb). Under
National Highway Traffic Safety S7.1.2(e), NHTSA uses the HIII
Administration believes that ‘‘the reasons provided by
RECARO fail to justify determining that weighted six-year-old child test dummy
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0109; Notice 2] the non-compliance is inconsequential.’’ to test CRSs for children with masses
To view the petition, the comments, and above 22.7 kg (50 lb). The children for
RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Denial of all supporting documents, log onto the whom Recaro sold the subject CRSs
Petition for Decision of Federal Docket Management System included children with masses from 18
Inconsequential Noncompliance (FDMS) Web site at: http:// kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)) to 30 kg
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online (65 lb). Thus, under FMVSS No. 213,
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Recaro’s child restraints were required
search instructions to locate docket
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Safety Administration (NHTSA), to meet the child restraint system
Department of Transportation (DOT). number ‘‘NHTSA–2014–0109.’’
integrity requirements of FMVSS No.
ACTION: Denial of petition. II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected
213 when tested with the six-year-old
are approximately 78,339 Recaro
SUMMARY: RECARO Child Safety, LLC ProRIDE child restraints manufactured 1 Petitioner informed NHTSA that production and
(Recaro) determined that certain Recaro between April 9, 2010 and July 8, 2014, distribution of the subject child restraints affected
child restraints do not fully comply and approximately 42,303 Recaro by the noncompliance were corrected effective July
with the system integrity requirements Performance RIDE child restraints 9, 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:07 Jul 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM 10JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_39964/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 2015 / Notices 39833
and weighted six-year-old test collapse, breakage, and crumpling of Recaro states that in a previous denial
dummies.2 material minimizes energy and of a petition for inconsequential
V. Summary of Recaro’s Position: increases the rate of survival for the noncompliance, NHTSA noted that if it
Recaro believes that the subject occupant in the event of a collision.’’ granted the petition it would be
noncompliance is inconsequential to Recaro believes that child restraint contradictory to NHTSA’s mission to
motor vehicle safety for the following technology has fallen in-line with promote greater use of LATCH and
reasons. vehicle technology in recent years and tether. Recaro believes that this
(A) Recaro believes that the FMVSS that other child restraints have been reasoning is no longer relevant because
No. 213 test procedure ‘‘is a direct designated ‘‘compliant’’ even though in the aftermath of the February 2012
violation of the instructions and their convertible shell-to-base final rule, ‘‘consumers are now more
warnings included with each ProRIDE connection has been designed to crack aware of the variation of tether load
and Performance RIDE child restraint and break during the peak loading in a limits by vehicle manufacturers and
and would constitute a misuse of the crash. Recaro further states that the top consumers are also now becoming
child restraint by the consumer.’’ tether webbing has been designed to rip accustomed to reviewing limits to the
Petitioner refers to page 36 of the and break apart under extreme loads to LATCH system. This falls in line with
ProRIDE/Performance RIDE instruction allow the deceleration time to increase the information and limits in the
manuals and states that Recaro designed for the occupant in the crash event. owner’s manual provided with the
and tested the ProRIDE/Performance Petitioner states that, ‘‘As long as the ProRIDE and Performance RIDE.’’
RIDE child restraints ‘‘to meet FMVSS injury criterion meets industry (E) Recaro states that its accident
requirements when tested according to standards, controlled breakage has reports for the four years that the subject
the instruction manual.’’ Recaro proven multiple times to be a positive restraints have been on the market
highlights a statement on page 36 that outcome in the event of a vehicle crash, indicate no incidents of separation in
states: ‘‘Additionally, LATCH and top as seen in the RIDE platform.’’ the tether anchorage area. Petitioner
tether anchors are designed to a (C) Recaro states that the ‘‘2013 surmises the reason that tether
maximum limit which can vary by LATCH Manual’’ published by Safe separation occurs in testing is due to an
vehicle. Due to this variation, RECARO Ride News Publication ‘‘confirms that outdated test bench seat and testing
requires use of the vehicle seat belt for top tether anchors in vehicles are apparatus.
any child weighing more than 52 lbs becoming limited more frequently in the In summation, Recaro believes that
(23.6 kg).’’ 3 Petitioner states that weight to which they can be subjected.’’ the described noncompliance of the
installation in accordance with the Recaro argues that ‘‘a majority of subject child restraints is
instruction manuals decreases the vehicles on the road instruct consumers inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,
likelihood of top tether anchor failure to use top tether with load limit
and that its petition to exempt Recaro
from the vehicle. Recaro states that it restrictions that align with RECARO’s
from providing recall notification of
has limited lower anchor and top tether top tether load limit of 65 pounds minus
noncompliance, as required by 49
use for the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE the 20 pound weight of the child
U.S.C. 30118, and remedying the recall
since the inception of the RIDE restraint equaling a 45 pound load
noncompliance, as required by 49
platform, and recently lowered the limit.’’ Recaro also refers to documents
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
LATCH limit to 45 pounds from the NHTSA placed in Docket No. NHTSA–
2011–0176 regarding a 2012 final rule VI. NHTSA Decision:
previously stated 52 pounds to meet NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA has
amending FMVSS No. 213 (77 FR
current FMVSS No. 213 requirements. reviewed Recaro’s analysis and has
11626, February 27, 2012). Petitioner
Recaro also mentions that ‘‘NHTSA decided that the subject ProRIDE and
believes that the documents ‘‘give
noted in its’ [sic] 2012 FMVSS 213 Final Performance RIDE restraints’
validation to the reasoning by RECARO
Rule response, limitations were added noncompliance is not inconsequential
to limit the use of the top tether.’’
to the lower anchors to ‘prevent lower (D) Recaro states that it is aware that to motor vehicle safety.
LATCH anchor loads from exceeding NHTSA has a clear precedent of We will now specifically address each
their required strength level specified in denying child restraint manufacturers’ of Recaro’s arguments in the order
FMVSS 225.’ ’’ Recaro states that it petitions for inconsequential presented in its petition.
‘‘used this same rationale when they noncompliance concerning top tether (A) Recaro first characterizes
developed the RIDE platform in 2010 separation. However, Recaro believes NHTSA’s installation of the ProRIDE
and concluded that a load limit of 52 that ‘‘the environment in which those and Performance RIDE with a top tether
pounds would be the safest for decisions were made has changed.’’ as ‘‘a direct violation of the instructions
consumers.’’ Recaro claims that the methodology it and warnings . . . and would constitute
(B) Recaro states that ‘‘post-crash uses to limit top tether loads actually a misuse’’ condition. The petitioner’s
structural integrity of the occupant increases safe installations of child reasoning is unpersuasive. Recaro
compartment is more insignificant to restraints by limiting the pounds of apparently argues (the petitioner’s
safety when compared to the injury force applied and decreasing the chance arguments are unclear) that NHTSA
values and excursion data gathered from tether anchor load failures. Recaro also should not have tested the child
testing.’’ Petitioner also states that believes that in the event of tether restraints attached to the test seat
‘‘technology has shown repeatedly that separation, the increase to risk of safety assembly with a lap belt and tether
is non-existent because the head because the manufacturer instructs
2 The six-year-old dummy weighs approximately
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
excursion limits were not exceeded in consumers to use the ‘‘vehicle seat belt
47 lb and the weighted six-year-old dummy weighs
approximately 62 lb. NHTSA’s compliance tests. Petitioner for any child weighing more than 52 lbs
3 ‘‘LATCH’’ refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers indicates that the risk of the subject (23.6 kg).’’ The petitioner is unclear but
for Children, an acronym developed by child restraints impacting objects in the we surmise that Recaro is saying that
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the child vehicle is identical to, or better than, because it instructs users not to use the
restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No.
225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage systems,’’ for
other compliant child restraints because top tether with children weighing more
installation in motor vehicles. [Footnote not in both restraints meet the same head than 52 lb, NHTSA’s tethering the CRS
text.] excursion requirements. was in error.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:07 Jul 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM 10JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_39964/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 2015 / Notices 39835
that is the only dynamic performance NHTSA’S Decision: In consideration ADDRESSES: The July 23, 2015 meeting
requirement that applies to the CRSs. of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided will be held in the Media Center of the
Failure to comply with the requirement that the ProRIDE and Performance U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
is not inconsequential to safety. RIDE’s noncompliance poses a risk to New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
NHTSA has taken enforcement action safety and is therefore not DC 20590.
for similar failures. In 2001, the agency inconsequential. Recaro has not met its FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
notified Britax Child Safety, Inc., burden of persuasion that the FMVSS you would like to attend the workshop,
(Britax) of a potential noncompliance No. 213 noncompliance identified in please contact Pei Lee by the date
due to the detachment of a tether strap Recaro’s noncompliance information specified under DATES section above, at:
during dynamic testing of one of its report is inconsequential to motor Telephone (202) 366–1836; email
child restraint models. Britax initiated a vehicle safety. Accordingly, Recaro’s address: pei.lee@dot.gov. Please provide
recall campaign to provide owners of petition is hereby denied and Recaro is her with the following information:
the affected model with repair kits. In obligated to provide notification of, and Name, title, affiliation, address, email
2007, the agency notified Britax of a a remedy for, that noncompliance under address, and telephone number, and
potential noncompliance due to the 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. indicate whether you require
tether hook opening during dynamic Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: accommodations such as a sign
testing of one of its child restraint delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and language interpreter or translator. If you
models. Britax initiated a recall 501.8) are not a U.S. citizen, also provide your
campaign to provide owners of the country of citizenship, date of birth, title
Frank S. Borris,
affected model with new tether hooks. or position, and passport or diplomatic
Acting Associate Administrator for
(C) The materials cited by the Enforcement. ID number, along with expiration date.
petitioner have no bearing on the merits
of Recaro’s petition. As explained above [FR Doc. 2015–16936 Filed 7–9–15; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is
in NHTSA’s response to Recaro’s first BILLING CODE 4910–59–P hosting a meeting to address the
argument, FMVSS No. 213 requires that challenges and barriers that have
the ProRIDE and Performance RIDE prevented schools from taking action to
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION install three-point seat belt systems in
child restraints meet the structural
integrity requirements when installed school buses.
National Highway Traffic Safety
with the top tether. NHTSA does not This meeting will update the current
Administration
know of any current material published state of knowledge regarding occupant
on use of child restraint top tethers that [Docket No. NHTSA–2015—0069] protection technology on school buses,
supports not using the child restraint’s identify operational challenges, and
School Bus Occupant Protection: explore new approaches for funding
top tether.
Taking Safety to a New Level Meeting mechanisms. The meeting will explore
(D) Recaro’s statement that ‘‘the
environment in which [previous denials AGENCY: National Highway Traffic topics such as seating capacity loss,
of inconsequentiality petitions on tether Safety Administration (NHTSA), which in the past has prevented many
failures] were made has changed’’ is Department of Transportation (DOT). States and school districts from
incorrect. NHTSA does not know of any ACTION: Notice of public meeting. considering three-point belt systems as
current material published on use of an option, communication strategies to
child restraint top tethers that supports SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic reach parents and children, and new
not using the child restraint’s top tether. Safety Administration (NHTSA) is training programs that may be needed
Moreover, granting the petition would announcing a meeting that will be held for bus drivers and students.
be contradictory to NHTSA’s mission to in Washington, DC on July 23, 2015 to Additionally, the National
promote greater use of the top tether. address the challenges and barriers that Transportation Safety Board has been
(E) The shortcoming in Recaro’s have prevented schools from taking invited to present on their findings and
design to meet the applicable FMVSS action to install three-point seat belt recommendations from investigations of
No. 213 dynamic test requirements systems in school buses. The workshop school bus crashes.
poses an unacceptable safety risk. The will include presentations and Workshop Procedures. NHTSA will
risk exists and is unacceptable even if discussions on the topic. Information on conduct the meeting informally. Thus,
there has been no incident of separation the date, time, location, and framework technical rules of evidence will not
in the tether anchorage area thus far.8 for this public event is included in this apply. The workshop will include brief
NHTSA does not agree that the tether notice. Attendance requires prior presentations and breakout group
separation occurs in testing due to the registration; there will be no registration discussions with representatives from
testing equipment 9 but rather as a at the door. There are no fees to register NHTSA and school transportation
shortcoming in Recaro’s design to meet or to attend this event; however space officials. There will be opportunities for
the applicable FMVSS No. 213 dynamic is limited on a first-come basis. The attendees to ask NHTSA and the
test requirements. meeting will also be webcast live at speakers questions.
www.nhtsa.gov. To attend this workshop, please
8 If in fact consumers are not using the tether with DATES: The workshop will be held on register with NHTSA by the date
children over 52 lb in accordance with Recaro’s July 23, 2015, at the location indicated specified under the DATES section above
instructions, then it follows that there would not be
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
in the ADDRESSES section below. The by sending the required information to
reports of tether failure. However, the children
would not be benefiting from use of the tether in workshop will start at 9:00 a.m. and is the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
a crash. Recaro should have designed its restraints scheduled to continue until 4:15 p.m., INFORMATION CONTACT section.
such that they could meet the structural integrity local time. If you would like to register Registration is necessary for security
requirement when tethered, to afford the children to attend the workshop, please contact and space limitation reasons. After
the benefits of a structurally sound CRS and the
benefits of the tether. the person identified under FOR FURTHER registration, NHTSA will send attendees
9 No data or information was submitted by the INFORMATION CONTACT no later than July follow-up information regarding
petitioner to support this claim. 17, 2015. workshop day logistics (i.e., directions
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 Jul 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM 10JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_39964/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 09:15:55
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 09:15:55
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Denial of petition. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 39832 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR