Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NOTICE: NOTICES
ACTION: Denial of Applications for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance:
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Dorel Juvenile Group [Cosco] (DJG); Denial of Applications for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG), of Columbus, Indiana, the parent
company manufacturing Cosco brand child restraints, determined that
certain tether webbing used on various child restraints (39 models and
3,957,826 units) failed the webbing strength requirements of S5.4.1(a)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child
Restraint Systems''.\1\ DJG also determined that certain harness
webbing used on various child restraints (14 models and 54,400 units)
failed the webbing strength requirements of FMVSS No. 213, S5.4.1(b).
For each noncompliance, DJG filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' DJG also applied to
be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301, ``Motor Vehicle Safety,'' on the basis that the
noncompliance in both situations is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
\1\ Throughout this Notice, all references to FMVSS No. 213 are
based on the version of the standard in effect for the applicable manufacturing dates of the noncompliant webbing.
Notices of receipt of the applications were published on July 30, 2002 and December 3, 2002 in the Federal Register (67 FR 49387 and 67 FR 72025) with 30day comment periods. In response to the first petition, NHTSA received one comment from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) in support of establishing a minimum breaking strength requirement (Docket No. NHTSA2002124792). NHTSA received no comments in response to the second petition.
The noncompliant tether webbing used on Cosco child restraints failed to meet the percentofstrength
[[Page 41398]]
requirement of FMVSS No. 213 when subjected to the abrasion test. The
tether webbing retained only 55 percent of its new webbing strength; 75
percent was and is required by the standard. The noncompliant harness
webbing failed to meet the percentofstrength requirement of FMVSS No.
213 when exposed to a carbon arc light. The harness webbing retained
only 37 percent of its new webbing strength; 60 percent was and is required by the standard.
As indicated above, NHTSA's standards were based on retention of a
specified percentage of the original strength of the webbing. However,
there was no minimum strength requirement. These DJG petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance highlighted NHTSA's concern that the
standard could allow manufacturers to use low strength and potentially
unsafe webbing provided that the webbing retained most of its strength
following exposure to abrasion or light. At the time of receiving these
petitions, NHTSA had undertaken a rulemaking to consider whether to
amend FMVSS No. 213 to require a minimum breaking strength for webbing
to ensure that all child restraints being introduced into the market
would have adequate webbing strength to provide child safety protection
over their lifetimes. NHTSA postponed final determinations on these
petitions in order to obtain the benefit of public comments responding
to the proposed breaking strength requirements. In a rule published on
June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32855), NHTSA established minimum breaking strength requirements.\2\
\2\ Under the final rule the webbing must meet both minimum
breaking strengths and percentofstrength retention requirements to be compliant with the Standard.
Abrasion Petition Summary
As part of the Agency's 2001 testing activities, NHTSA tested the
tether webbing used on DJG child restraints to the requirements in
FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213, S5.4.1(a) ``Performance requirements,''
requires that the webbing of belts provided with a child restraint
system, after being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or
S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies,'' have a breaking
strength of not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded
webbing when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 209.
Section 5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 209 requires that the median value of three
webbing samples meet the abrasion requirement.\3\ Following the
abrasion test, the DJG tether webbing retained only 55 percent of the
original webbing breaking strength (from 19,803 N to 10,903 N). The
noncompliant tether webbing was manufactured between January 2000 and
September 30, 2001. On July 11, 2001, as a result of its fiscal year
2001 testing, NHTSA notified DJG of a potential noncompliance regarding DJG's tether webbing utilized for their tether assembly.
\3\ The 75 percent webbing reduction requirement is calculated
using median breaking strength values of abraded webbing (out of
three samples) and original (unabraded) webbing (out of three samples).
DJG determined that one of the tether webbing suppliers had provided some webbing that did not meet the abrasion test requirements. However, DJG contended that because its unabraded webbing strength was high, noncompliance with the 75 percent abrasion strength requirement of S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. DJG stated that its abraded strength of 10,903 N is far in excess of the anchorage strength requirement specified in FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems.'' DJG also asserted that the abraded webbing strength test procedure set forth in S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 is flawed, and that a minimum abraded breaking strength should be specified. Therefore, DJG filed the petition claiming that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA Decision on Abrasion Petition
As summarized above, DJG contended that because the unabraded
webbing strength was high, the noncompliance with the 75 percent
abrasion strength requirement was inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. However, both the unabraded webbing strength and the
degradation rate requirements are important from a safety perspective,
as explained in the preamble to the June 2006 final rule.\4\ While DJG
focused on the unabraded strength of the webbing, it largely ignored
the high degradation rate of the webbing in the restraints covered by
its Part 573 report. This lack of breaking strength retention after
abrasion signals the distinct probability that the webbing strength would be insufficient throughout a lifetime of use.\5\
\4\ 71 FR 32856858, June 7, 2006 (minimum breaking strength
requirement for new webbing); 71 FR 32858859, June 7, 2006 (minimum percentofstrength requirement for exposed webbing).
\5\ We note that following abrasion, the Dorel tether webbing
had a strength of 10,903 N. Under the 2006 rule, the minimum
strength for new webbing is 15,000 N. That rule did not change the
75 percent strength retention requirement. As a frame of reference,
webbing that had a strength of 15,000 N that retained 75 percent of
its strength would have a strength of 11,250 N. The Dorel tether webbing had a strength, after exposure, of only 10,903 N.
DJG also stated that the abraded webbing strength in its restraints, as measured at 10,903 N, is far in excess of the anchorage strength requirement specified in FMVSS No. 225. However, as noted in the preamble to the June 2006 final rule, the abrasion test is an accelerated aging test that provides a snapshot of the webbing over prolonged exposure to environmental conditions. The test does not replicate the lifetime use of the webbing \6\ and therefore the webbing would have less strength after further abrasion. If the webbing from a child restraint lost a significant percentage of its strength under the test, there would be substantial questions about its ability to perform as intended over a long term use of the child restraint. The high degradation rate of the DJG webbing gives significant cause for concern that the webbing could abrade to the point where the webbing strength is lower than the tether anchor strength, providing for an unsafe connection to the vehicle.
\6\ 71 FR 32859, June 7, 2006.
Finally, DJG stated that a minimum abraded breaking strength should
be specified in the standard. Advocates expressed a similar concern,
stating in its comment that NHTSA should establish an absolute webbing
strength requirement for unabraded webbing, as well as a minimum
numerical breaking strength requirement for webbing that has been
subjected to abrasion.\7\ NHTSA agreed with both Dorel and Advocates
and, following the submission of these petitions, published a proposal
to revise the standard. The final rule reaffirmed that retaining
control over material degradation rates is critical to ensure sufficient webbing strength over time.\8\
\7\ Advocates made no recommendation either to grant or to deny the petition.
\8\ 71 FR 32855860, June 7, 2006.
In summary, the DJG webbing met only 55 percent of the original webbing breaking strength in the abrasion test. Such substantial (almost 50 percent) degradation in strength, notwithstanding the original webbing strength, indicates that the webbing could not be relied upon to provide adequate strength for the life of the restraint.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that DJG has
not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it describes is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, DJG's application
is hereby denied. DJG must fulfill its obligation to notify and remedy under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h).
[[Page 41399]]
Light Exposure Petition Summary
The noncompliant harness webbing was identified as gray Wellington
style
DJG pointed out that testing at Veridian \9\ (simulating a 30 mph
(48 km/h) crash condition) showed a dynamic load of between 846 N and
1,433 N. DJG asserted that its lightexposed harness webbing breaking
strength of 4,539 N far exceeded these dynamic loads. DJG argued that
without a minimum breaking strength requirement, other webbing with a
much lower initial breaking strength could comply with the standard at
a much lower breaking strength than the DJG's 4,539 N, as long as it
retained 60 percent of the original webbing strength. DJG commented
that while its webbing, which was made of nylon fabrics, was
noncompliant when exposed to carbon arc light filtered by a CorexD
filter (tested according to the standard's requirements), the webbing
was compliant when exposed to carbon arc light filtered by a sodalime
glass filter (specified by the standard for use only for polyester
fabrics). DJG also commented that because the standard relies on carbon
arc light for resistance to light testing, the method is obsolete. DJG
stated in Exhibit 7 to its petition that after being subjected to a
xenon arc lamp for 300 hours the webbing retained 93.5 percent of its
initial breaking strength. Therefore, DJG argued that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
\9\ Veridian is now known as Calspan.
NHTSA Decision on Light Exposure Petition
First, DJG asserted that its lightexposed harness webbing breaking
strength of 4,539 N far exceeds forces in dynamic crash testing at 30
mph by a factor of 3.1 to 6.8 times. NHTSA does not find this
persuasive. 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.\10\ These are well above 30 mph.\11\
\10\ 55 FR 17970, April 30, 1990.
\11\ The forces in a crash increase exponentially as velocity increases.
DJG also asserted that under a standard that lacks a specific
minimum strength requirement, manufacturers could produce webbing with
very low afterexposure strength if the preexposure strength was also
low. This assertion is theoretical. The agency's FY 2000 to FY 2002
available compliance test data for harness webbing \12\ showed that the
median strength after light exposure was 10,636 N, and that the median
exposed/original webbing strength ratio was 10,636 N/12,594 N or 84
percent, both of which are far superior to DJG's webbing strength after
light exposure of only 4539 N and strength ratio of 37%.\13\ In order
to prevent manufacturers from producing harness webbing with low
strengths before and after light exposure, NHTSA established minimum breaking strengths in the June 2006 final rule.
\12\ 70 FR 37734, June 30, 2005; Docket NHTSA2005212430002.
\13\ Of the 109 samples from the FY 2000 to FY 2002 compliance
data, only the DJG (Cosco) harness webbing failed to meet the
current 60 percent of original strength requirement after exposure to light.
DJG provided test data for its nylon webbing filtered by a soda lime glass filter. However, the standard specifies that webbing made of nylon fabrics, as in this case, be tested using the CorexD filter. The sodalime glass filter is appropriate only for polyester webbing. Therefore, the DJG compliant data was based on testing using an inappropriate light filter, and was not conducted according to FMVSS No. 213 requirements.
Finally, DJG did not substantiate its statement that carbon arc testing is obsolete for testing child restraint webbing materials. NHTSA believes that the test results obtained by the carbon arc test method are an appropriate reflection of the strength capabilities of DJG's webbing. While NHTSA has decided to use a xenon arc lamp for weathering tests of glazing materials under FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing materials,'' \14\ the conclusion in that rulemaking does not mean that the carbon arc is not indicative of the sunlight spectral power distribution or that it produces invalid weathering results for webbing materials.
\14\ 68 FR 43964, July 25, 2003.
In summary, the DJG harness webbing met only 37 percent of the
original webbing breaking strength when tested according to the
standard with a CorexD filter. Such a rapid (over 60 percent) strength
degradation is an indication of a quality control problem for that
webbing and signals the distinct probability that the webbing strength would be insufficient throughout its use.\15\
\15\ We note that following light exposure, the Dorel harness
webbing had a strength of 4539 N. Under the 2006 rule, the minimum
strength for new webbing is 11,000 N. That rule did not change the
60 percent strength retention requirement. As a frame of reference,
webbing that had a strength of 11,000 N that retained 60 percent of
its strength would have a strength of 6,600 N. The Dorel tether
webbing had a strength, after exposure to light, of only 4,539 N.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that DJG has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it describes is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, DJG's application is hereby denied. DJG must fulfill its obligation to notify and remedy under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h).
Authority: 49 U.S.C 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8
Issued on: July 14, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E816431 Filed 71708; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 491059P
SUMMARY: Dorel Juvenile Group [Cosco] (DJG),
DOCUMENT BODY 2:
Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG), of Columbus, Indiana, the parent
company manufacturing Cosco brand child restraints, determined that
certain tether webbing used on various child restraints (39 models and
3,957,826 units) failed the webbing strength requirements of S5.4.1(a)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child
Restraint Systems''.\1\ DJG also determined that certain harness
webbing used on various child restraints (14 models and 54,400 units)
failed the webbing strength requirements of FMVSS No. 213, S5.4.1(b).
For each noncompliance, DJG filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' DJG also applied to
be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301, ``Motor Vehicle Safety,'' on the basis that the
noncompliance in both situations is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
\1\ Throughout this Notice, all references to FMVSS No. 213 are
based on the version of the standard in effect for the applicable manufacturing dates of the noncompliant webbing.
Notices of receipt of the applications were published on July 30, 2002 and December 3, 2002 in the Federal Register (67 FR 49387 and 67 FR 72025) with 30day comment periods. In response to the first petition, NHTSA received one comment from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) in support of establishing a minimum breaking strength requirement (Docket No. NHTSA2002124792). NHTSA received no comments in response to the second petition.
The noncompliant tether webbing used on Cosco child restraints failed to meet the percentofstrength
[[Page 41398]]
requirement of FMVSS No. 213 when subjected to the abrasion test. The
tether webbing retained only 55 percent of its new webbing strength; 75
percent was and is required by the standard. The noncompliant harness
webbing failed to meet the percentofstrength requirement of FMVSS No.
213 when exposed to a carbon arc light. The harness webbing retained
only 37 percent of its new webbing strength; 60 percent was and is required by the standard.
As indicated above, NHTSA's standards were based on retention of a
specified percentage of the original strength of the webbing. However,
there was no minimum strength requirement. These DJG petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance highlighted NHTSA's concern that the
standard could allow manufacturers to use low strength and potentially
unsafe webbing provided that the webbing retained most of its strength
following exposure to abrasion or light. At the time of receiving these
petitions, NHTSA had undertaken a rulemaking to consider whether to
amend FMVSS No. 213 to require a minimum breaking strength for webbing
to ensure that all child restraints being introduced into the market
would have adequate webbing strength to provide child safety protection
over their lifetimes. NHTSA postponed final determinations on these
petitions in order to obtain the benefit of public comments responding
to the proposed breaking strength requirements. In a rule published on
June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32855), NHTSA established minimum breaking strength requirements.\2\
\2\ Under the final rule the webbing must meet both minimum
breaking strengths and percentofstrength retention requirements to be compliant with the Standard.
Abrasion Petition Summary
As part of the Agency's 2001 testing activities, NHTSA tested the
tether webbing used on DJG child restraints to the requirements in
FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213, S5.4.1(a) ``Performance requirements,''
requires that the webbing of belts provided with a child restraint
system, after being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or
S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies,'' have a breaking
strength of not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded
webbing when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 209.
Section 5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 209 requires that the median value of three
webbing samples meet the abrasion requirement.\3\ Following the
abrasion test, the DJG tether webbing retained only 55 percent of the
original webbing breaking strength (from 19,803 N to 10,903 N). The
noncompliant tether webbing was manufactured between January 2000 and
September 30, 2001. On July 11, 2001, as a result of its fiscal year
2001 testing, NHTSA notified DJG of a potential noncompliance regarding DJG's tether webbing utilized for their tether assembly.
\3\ The 75 percent webbing reduction requirement is calculated
using median breaking strength values of abraded webbing (out of
three samples) and original (unabraded) webbing (out of three samples).
DJG determined that one of the tether webbing suppliers had provided some webbing that did not meet the abrasion test requirements. However, DJG contended that because its unabraded webbing strength was high, noncompliance with the 75 percent abrasion strength requirement of S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. DJG stated that its abraded strength of 10,903 N is far in excess of the anchorage strength requirement specified in FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems.'' DJG also asserted that the abraded webbing strength test procedure set forth in S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 is flawed, and that a minimum abraded breaking strength should be specified. Therefore, DJG filed the petition claiming that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA Decision on Abrasion Petition
As summarized above, DJG contended that because the unabraded
webbing strength was high, the noncompliance with the 75 percent
abrasion strength requirement was inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. However, both the unabraded webbing strength and the
degradation rate requirements are important from a safety perspective,
as explained in the preamble to the June 2006 final rule.\4\ While DJG
focused on the unabraded strength of the webbing, it largely ignored
the high degradation rate of the webbing in the restraints covered by
its Part 573 report. This lack of breaking strength retention after
abrasion signals the distinct probability that the webbing strength would be insufficient throughout a lifetime of use.\5\
\4\ 71 FR 32856858, June 7, 2006 (minimum breaking strength
requirement for new webbing); 71 FR 32858859, June 7, 2006 (minimum percentofstrength requirement for exposed webbing).
\5\ We note that following abrasion, the Dorel tether webbing
had a strength of 10,903 N. Under the 2006 rule, the minimum
strength for new webbing is 15,000 N. That rule did not change the
75 percent strength retention requirement. As a frame of reference,
webbing that had a strength of 15,000 N that retained 75 percent of
its strength would have a strength of 11,250 N. The Dorel tether webbing had a strength, after exposure, of only 10,903 N.
DJG also stated that the abraded webbing strength in its restraints, as measured at 10,903 N, is far in excess of the anchorage strength requirement specified in FMVSS No. 225. However, as noted in the preamble to the June 2006 final rule, the abrasion test is an accelerated aging test that provides a snapshot of the webbing over prolonged exposure to environmental conditions. The test does not replicate the lifetime use of the webbing \6\ and therefore the webbing would have less strength after further abrasion. If the webbing from a child restraint lost a significant percentage of its strength under the test, there would be substantial questions about its ability to perform as intended over a long term use of the child restraint. The high degradation rate of the DJG webbing gives significant cause for concern that the webbing could abrade to the point where the webbing strength is lower than the tether anchor strength, providing for an unsafe connection to the vehicle.
\6\ 71 FR 32859, June 7, 2006.
Finally, DJG stated that a minimum abraded breaking strength should
be specified in the standard. Advocates expressed a similar concern,
stating in its comment that NHTSA should establish an absolute webbing
strength requirement for unabraded webbing, as well as a minimum
numerical breaking strength requirement for webbing that has been
subjected to abrasion.\7\ NHTSA agreed with both Dorel and Advocates
and, following the submission of these petitions, published a proposal
to revise the standard. The final rule reaffirmed that retaining
control over material degradation rates is critical to ensure sufficient webbing strength over time.\8\
\7\ Advocates made no recommendation either to grant or to deny the petition.
\8\ 71 FR 32855860, June 7, 2006.
In summary, the DJG webbing met only 55 percent of the original webbing breaking strength in the abrasion test. Such substantial (almost 50 percent) degradation in strength, notwithstanding the original webbing strength, indicates that the webbing could not be relied upon to provide adequate strength for the life of the restraint.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that DJG has
not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it describes is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, DJG's application
is hereby denied. DJG must fulfill its obligation to notify and remedy under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h).
[[Page 41399]]
Light Exposure Petition Summary
The noncompliant harness webbing was identified as gray Wellington
style
DJG pointed out that testing at Veridian \9\ (simulating a 30 mph
(48 km/h) crash condition) showed a dynamic load of between 846 N and
1,433 N. DJG asserted that its lightexposed harness webbing breaking
strength of 4,539 N far exceeded these dynamic loads. DJG argued that
without a minimum breaking strength requirement, other webbing with a
much lower initial breaking strength could comply with the standard at
a much lower breaking strength than the DJG's 4,539 N, as long as it
retained 60 percent of the original webbing strength. DJG commented
that while its webbing, which was made of nylon fabrics, was
noncompliant when exposed to carbon arc light filtered by a CorexD
filter (tested according to the standard's requirements), the webbing
was compliant when exposed to carbon arc light filtered by a sodalime
glass filter (specified by the standard for use only for polyester
fabrics). DJG also commented that because the standard relies on carbon
arc light for resistance to light testing, the method is obsolete. DJG
stated in Exhibit 7 to its petition that after being subjected to a
xenon arc lamp for 300 hours the webbing retained 93.5 percent of its
initial breaking strength. Therefore, DJG argued that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
\9\ Veridian is now known as Calspan.
NHTSA Decision on Light Exposure Petition
First, DJG asserted that its lightexposed harness webbing breaking
strength of 4,539 N far exceeds forces in dynamic crash testing at 30
mph by a factor of 3.1 to 6.8 times. NHTSA does not find this
persuasive. 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.\10\ These are well above 30 mph.\11\
\10\ 55 FR 17970, April 30, 1990.
\11\ The forces in a crash increase exponentially as velocity increases.
DJG also asserted that under a standard that lacks a specific
minimum strength requirement, manufacturers could produce webbing with
very low afterexposure strength if the preexposure strength was also
low. This assertion is theoretical. The agency's FY 2000 to FY 2002
available compliance test data for harness webbing \12\ showed that the
median strength after light exposure was 10,636 N, and that the median
exposed/original webbing strength ratio was 10,636 N/12,594 N or 84
percent, both of which are far superior to DJG's webbing strength after
light exposure of only 4539 N and strength ratio of 37%.\13\ In order
to prevent manufacturers from producing harness webbing with low
strengths before and after light exposure, NHTSA established minimum breaking strengths in the June 2006 final rule.
\12\ 70 FR 37734, June 30, 2005; Docket NHTSA2005212430002.
\13\ Of the 109 samples from the FY 2000 to FY 2002 compliance
data, only the DJG (Cosco) harness webbing failed to meet the
current 60 percent of original strength requirement after exposure to light.
DJG provided test data for its nylon webbing filtered by a soda lime glass filter. However, the standard specifies that webbing made of nylon fabrics, as in this case, be tested using the CorexD filter. The sodalime glass filter is appropriate only for polyester webbing. Therefore, the DJG compliant data was based on testing using an inappropriate light filter, and was not conducted according to FMVSS No. 213 requirements.
Finally, DJG did not substantiate its statement that carbon arc testing is obsolete for testing child restraint webbing materials. NHTSA believes that the test results obtained by the carbon arc test method are an appropriate reflection of the strength capabilities of DJG's webbing. While NHTSA has decided to use a xenon arc lamp for weathering tests of glazing materials under FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing materials,'' \14\ the conclusion in that rulemaking does not mean that the carbon arc is not indicative of the sunlight spectral power distribution or that it produces invalid weathering results for webbing materials.
\14\ 68 FR 43964, July 25, 2003.
In summary, the DJG harness webbing met only 37 percent of the
original webbing breaking strength when tested according to the
standard with a CorexD filter. Such a rapid (over 60 percent) strength
degradation is an indication of a quality control problem for that
webbing and signals the distinct probability that the webbing strength would be insufficient throughout its use.\15\
\15\ We note that following light exposure, the Dorel harness
webbing had a strength of 4539 N. Under the 2006 rule, the minimum
strength for new webbing is 11,000 N. That rule did not change the
60 percent strength retention requirement. As a frame of reference,
webbing that had a strength of 11,000 N that retained 60 percent of
its strength would have a strength of 6,600 N. The Dorel tether
webbing had a strength, after exposure to light, of only 4,539 N.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that DJG has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it describes is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, DJG's application is hereby denied. DJG must fulfill its obligation to notify and remedy under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h).
Authority: 49 U.S.C 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8
Issued on: July 14, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E816431 Filed 71708; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 491059P
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 40 CFR Part 63 33 CFR Part 100 50 CFR Part 622 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 44 CFR Part 65 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 10 CFR Part 50 44 CFR Part 64 49 CFR Part 571 39 CFR Part 3020