Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47723 

4A copy of the comment submitted by GM may 

be found at docket ID: NHTSA–2020–0107–0002. 

5A copy of GM’s response may be found at docket 

ID: NHTSA–2020–0107–0003. 

the manufacturer of both the Subject 

Vehicles and the Comparison Vehicles, 

commented that; 

GM does not recommend that these 

vehicles be granted eligibility for importation 

into the United States. The owners of these 

vehicles will find it very difficult or 

impossible to get safety-critical repairs in the 

US. 

GM further explained in its comment 

that its dealers in the US are only 

authorized to service US-designated 

vehicles under the terms of their 

existing franchise agreements, and that 

the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 

will not be recognized by the GM 

Multiple Diagnostic Interface (MDI) tool 

used at a US GM dealership.4

IV. NHTSA’s Analysis 

A petition to determine import 

eligibility must include all information 

required under the applicable 

authorities and must also include data, 

views, and arguments demonstrating the 

conclusions advanced by the petition. 

DVS’s petition fails to meet these 

requirements because it does not 

include sufficient supporting 

information and relies almost 

exclusively on unsupported conclusory 

allegations. The petition fails to 

distinguish between five different model 

years of the Subject Vehicles and 

Comparison Vehicles or even confirm 

that DVS compared vehicles of the same 

model year. See 49 U.S.C. 

30141(a)(1)(A)(iii). The petition also 

fails to provide ‘‘the gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of ’’ the 

Comparison Vehicles. 49 CFR 

593.6(a)(1). The petition does not 

provide adequate ‘‘[d]ata, views and 

arguments demonstrating’’ that the 

Comparison Vehicles are ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ to the Subject Vehicles. Id. 

§ 593.6(a)(4). The petition also fails to 

provide, ‘‘[w]ith respect to each Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard’’ 

applicable to the Comparison Vehicles, 

‘‘data, views, and arguments 

demonstrating’’ that the Subject 

Vehicles either were ‘‘originally 

manufactured to conform to such 

standard, or [are] capable of being 

readily modified to conform to such 

standard.’’ Id. § 593.6(a)(5). 

As the basis for its assertion that the 

Subject Vehicles are compliant with the 

FMVSS identified above, Petitioner 

simply repeats the statement that the 

‘‘MX-Cheyenne complies with the 

requirements of this standard and is 

identical to the U.S.-vehicle with 

respect to those requirements’’ 

following a reference to each of these 

standards. Petitioner offers no factual or 

analytical support for any of these 

conclusory assertions. For two of the 

standards (FMVSS No. 138 (tire 

pressure monitoring systems) and 

FMVSS No. 208 (occupant crash 

protection)), Petitioner identifies 

various components by part number and 

states that the Subject Vehicles and the 

Comparison Vehicles employ identical 

components. Petitioner did not submit 

any parts catalogs or any other technical 

resource for any model year of either the 

Subject Vehicles or the Comparison 

Vehicles to verify these assertions and 

fails to explain why the usage of 

identical parts would demonstrate that 

the Subject Vehicles, as built, were 

compliant with these standards. For 

FMVSS No. 214 (side impact 

resistance), Petitioner states that it 

‘‘removed the interior trim on a door of 

[a Subject Vehicle] and confirm[ed] that 

the vehicle is originally equipped with 

door beams to comply with the 

requirements of this standard.’’ This 

level of examination and analysis does 

not demonstrate compliance for the 

Subject Vehicles because meeting the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 214 requires far more than the 

existence of door beams. See 49 CFR 

571.214. 

As part of its analysis of DVS’s 

petition, NHTSA requested additional 

information from GM, the manufacturer 

of both the Subject Vehicles and the 

Comparison Vehicles.5 In response to 

NHTSA’s question regarding the 

compliance of the Subject Vehicles with 

FMVSS requirements, GM explained 

that the Subject Vehicles, as built, fail 

to conform with the speedometer and 

odometer display requirements in 

FMVSS No. 101 (controls and displays), 

the tire placard requirements in FMVSS 

No. 110 (tires and rims), the language 

visibility requirements of FMVSS No. 

135 (brake systems), and the passenger 

air bag telltale and visor warning 

requirements in FMVSS No. 208 

(occupant crash protection). This 

information directly contradicts 

Petitioner’s assertion that the Subject 

Vehicles, as built, were compliant with 

these requirements. 

In regard to the Subject Vehicles, GM 

also explained that tire pressure 

monitoring systems (TPMS) are not 

required in Mexico, and each imported 

vehicle would therefore have to be 

checked to verify that it had an optional 

FMVSS No. 138 compliant TPMS 

installed at the time of manufacture. 

This information directly contradicts 

Petitioner’s assertion that all Subject 

Vehicles, as built, are equipped with a 

FMVSS No. 138 compliant TPMS. 

Finally, GM explained that there is a 

unique engine and manual transmission 

combination available for the Subject 

Vehicles in Mexico, and that GM has no 

documentation demonstrating 

compliance of vehicles so equipped 

with FMVSS No. 102 (transmission shift 

position sequence), FMVSS No. 114 

(rollaway prevention), and FMVSS No. 

124 (accelerator control). Petitioner 

provided no information regarding this 

particular engine and transmission 

combination, no basis for identifying its 

presence or absence in the Subject 

Vehicles, and no information regarding 

whether Subject Vehicles with this 

unique engine and transmission 

combination could be modified to 

conform with the relevant FMVSS. 

V. NHTSA’s Decision 

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate 

that the Subject Vehicles are 

substantially similar to the Comparison 

Vehicles, failed to demonstrate that its 

comparison of the Subject Vehicles to 

the Comparison Vehicles involved 

vehicles of the same model year, and 

failed to demonstrate that the Subject 

Vehicles are either compliant with or 

capable of being readily altered to 

comply with all applicable FMVSS. The 

petition is therefore denied. Pursuant to 

49 CFR 593.7(e), NHTSA will not 

consider a new petition covering the 

models that are the subject of this 

decision until at least three months from 

the date of this notice of denial. 

(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. 2021–18357 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47724 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

systems manufactured between May 1, 

2016, and August 31, 2019, do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child 

Restraint Systems. Combi filed an 

original noncompliance report dated 

March 8, 2021, and later amended it on 

March 10, 2021, March 11, 2021, May 

25, 2021, and July 22, 2021. 

Subsequently, Combi petitioned NHTSA 

on March 30, 2021, for a decision that 

the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the denial of Combi’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety 

Compliance Engineer, NHTSA, Office of 

Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

kelley.adamscampos@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Combi has determined that certain 

Combi USA BabyRide rear-facing child 

restraint systems manufactured between 

May 1, 2016, and August 31, 2019, do 

not fully comply with the requirements 

of paragraph S5.4.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 

213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 

571.213). Combi filed an original 

noncompliance report dated March 8, 

2021, and later amended it on March 10, 

2021, March 11, 2021, May 25, 2021, 

and July 22, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. Combi 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

March 30, 2021 for an exemption from 

the notification and remedy 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 

on the basis that this noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 

556, Exemption for Inconsequential 

Defect or Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of Combi’s petition 

was published with a 30-day public 

comment period, on April 22, 2021, in 

the Federal Register (86 FR 21435). No 

comments were received. To view the 

petition and all supporting documents 

log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2021– 

0025.’’ 

II. Child Restraint Systems Involved 

Approximately 13,880 Combi USA 

BabyRide rear-facing child restraint 

systems with model number 378099, 

manufactured between May 1, 2016, and 

August 31, 2019, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

Combi explains that the 

noncompliance is that the subject rearfacing 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 microorganisms 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-mmwide 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-mmwide 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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47725 

1Test 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. 

4Cf. 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). 

5See 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). 

6See Dorel Juvenile Group, Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 

53189, 53190 (August 28, 2013). 

7United 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’’). 

8Combi USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision 

of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 71028 

(and decisions cited therein) (Nov. 27, 2013). 

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. 

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 safetycritical equipment, like seat belts or air 

bags, are rarely deemed inconsequential. 

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

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-mmwide 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. 

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/ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47726 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

9Frank Savino (2020, October). Child restraint 

system, component parts: Model No.: Combi 

Babyride (Report No. 4642921–018). National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 10 70 FR 37731 (June 30, 2005) 11 71 FR 32855 (June 7, 2006) 

12Frank Savino (2005, June). Child restraint 

system, component parts: Model No.: Combi—Baby 

One (Report No. 206827–08). National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

or NHTSA. In NHTSA’s compliance 

tests of the Combi BabyRide 25-mmwide 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. 

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). 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0077; Notice 2] 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, 

Denial of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of petition denial. 

SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber 

Company (Cooper Tire) has determined 

that certain Cooper brand tires do not 

fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for 

Light Vehicles. Cooper Tire filed a 

noncompliance report dated May 4, 

2018, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on May 21, 2018, for a decision 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the denial of Cooper Tire’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 

366–5310, facsimile (202) 366–3081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Cooper Tire has determined that 

certain Cooper brand tires do not fully 

comply with paragraph S5.5.1 of 

FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial 

Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR part 

571.139). Cooper Tire filed a 

noncompliance report dated May 4, 

2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports, and 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 

21, 2018, 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 49 

CFR part 556, Exemption for 

Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of Cooper Tire’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on December 6, 

2018, in the Federal Register (83 FR 

62949). 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–2018– 

0077.’’ 

II. Tires Involved 

Approximately 327 Evolution H/T 

size 245/70R16 tubeless radial tires, 

manufactured between June 4, 2017, 

and June 10, 2017, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

Cooper Tire explains that the 

noncompliance is that the subject tires 

were molded with an incorrectly 

ordered serial week and year on the 

outboard sidewall. This date is required 

by paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 

139. Specifically, the subject tires were 

manufactured with serial week ‘‘1723’’ 

when they should have been 

manufactured with serial week ‘‘2317.’’ 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 

139, includes the requirements relevant 

to this petition: 

• For tires manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2009, each tire must be 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES