[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13856-13857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6746]



[[Page 13856]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket Nos. NHTSA 2000-7052 and NHTSA 2001-11111]


Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Denial of Petitions for 
Reconsideration Regarding the Hybrid III 3-Year Old Child and CRABI 
Test Dummies

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of petitions for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice denies two petitions for reconsideration submitted 
by Ford Motor Company. The petitions ask the agency to reconsider some 
aspects of final rules, adopting design and performance characteristics 
of the 12-month-old Child Restraint Airbag Interaction (CRABI) dummy 
and the 3-year-old Hybrid III child dummy. The petitioner specifically 
requests that the agency disregard the neck readings in certain 
circumstances. We are denying these petitions for two reasons. One, we 
believe that the neck readings do not require special or different 
instructions and procedures for their analysis, beyond those used for 
data treatment in the safety standards. Two, we feel that questions 
related to either the selection of injury criteria or interpretation of 
compliance test results should be resolved within the relevant safety 
standard rather than 49 CFR, part 572.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Nathaniel 
Beuse, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-111, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1740. Fax: (202) 473-2629.
    For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: 
(202) 366-3820.

Summary of the Petitions

    Ford Motor Company (Ford) petitioned the National Highway Traffic 
Administration (NHTSA), in a letter dated September 28, 2001, to 
reconsider the specifications for the CRABI dummy in 49 CFR part 572, 
subpart R. Specifications for the dummy were published in an August 30, 
2001, final rule. Ford claimed in its petition that in rear-facing 
child restraints, the dummy produces unacceptably high neck extension 
moment readings when the neck is not substantially extended. Based on 
this claim, Ford asked the agency to disregard the CRABI dummy neck 
extension readings in certain circumstances and to specify the 
circumstances under which the neck extension readings would be 
disregarded.
    On January 30, 2002, Ford submitted an additional petition for 
reconsideration concerning a December 13, 2001, final rule establishing 
the Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy. In that petition, Ford raised 
nearly identical concerns as it did for the CRABI dummy.

Issues Raised in the Petitions

    In the petitions, Ford expressed concerns with the CRABI and Hybrid 
III 3-year-old child dummies' neck responses when the dummies are 
tested in rear-facing child seats. Ford claimed that the dummies 
produce ``falsely'' high upper neck extension moments while their 
torsos and heads are fully supported by the support surface of the 
child restraint. Ford asserted that this occurs in 56 KMPH (35 MPH) 
full frontal rigid barrier vehicle tests. Ford believes the high neck 
extension moments, with practically no head translation, could also 
occur in compliance tests conducted pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' and the 
out-of-position airbag tests specified in FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant 
crash protection.'' Ford stated that their engineers disregard high 
neck extension moments in evaluation tests with these child dummies 
when the neck is not substantially extended. Ford claims that such a 
judgment is not practicable for complying with the relevant safety 
standards. Ford asked the agency to disregard the CRABI dummy neck 
extension readings in certain circumstances, and to specify the 
circumstances under which the neck extension readings would be 
disregarded during its compliance testing.

Analysis of Petitions

    Ford claimed that both the CRABI and Hybrid III 3-year-old child 
dummies produce artificially high neck extension moments when the head 
shows no substantial translation. Ford stated that this occurs in rear 
facing CRABI and Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummies during 56 KMPH (35 
MPH) frontal rigid barrier vehicle crash tests. Inasmuch as the Ford 
petition did not include any test data to support the claims, the 
agency reviewed its own relevant test data. The agency has very limited 
data with these dummies in rear facing child restraints in 56 KMPH (35 
MPH) frontal barrier crashes, but does have more extensive data on 
these dummies in the rear facing position at other speeds. The agency's 
own data did not indicate any signal abnormalities that would undermine 
the relevance and usefulness of the CRABI and the Hybrid III 3-year-old 
child dummies. Subsequently, in January 2002 and again in March 2002, 
the agency asked Ford to provide data that would help the agency better 
understand Ford's assertions. Failing to receive a response, the agency 
approached the chairman of the Hybrid III Dummy Family Task Group of 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (which was instrumental in 
developing these dummies) to determine if such issues were raised in 
its discussions. The chairman of the task group found no evidence or 
knowledge of such concerns.
    Similarly, we have examined comments to the advanced airbag final 
rule (65 FR 30680, Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013). Neither the comments, nor 
the agency's data, have suggested that the CRABI and Hybrid III 3-year-
old child dummies are inappropriate for use in testing under FMVSS No. 
208.
    As part of on-going research, the agency previously conducted tests 
using the FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse and the CRABI dummy in a rear-facing 
child restraint. In those tests, extension moments were recorded 
without considerable head translation. The agency examined the test 
results in considerable detail. We believe that extension moments 
without head translation can happen in at least two situations. In the 
first event, the extension moments could be a result of head contact 
with the child restraint system (CRS) seatback before substantial 
translation of the dummy's torso had occurred. In this case, an 
extension moment in the neck can be developed when the seat back of the 
CRS interacts with the back of the dummy's head below its center of 
gravity. A shear force, caused by the CRS interacting with the head, 
coupled to a moment arm, can result in an extension moment at the upper 
neck load cell. In the second event, a moment can be generated by a 
frictional force caused by even a minute vertical motion of the head of 
the dummy that is imbedded into the CRS seat back. During the impact, 
the torso, as it is being pushed into the seat back cushion by inertial 
forces, has a tendency to ramp-up. The ramping action is resisted 
through the neck by the frictional force at the back of the dummy head. 
The two opposing

[[Page 13857]]

forces, coupled by the distance between the back of head and the center 
of the neck, can also generate a moment at the neck load cell. 
Accordingly, an extension moment without appreciable head translation 
is not an unrealistic event. Based on this review, the agency agrees 
with Ford that the necks of the CRABI and the Hybrid III 3-year-old 
child dummies could produce extension moments with little or no head 
translation.
    NHTSA believes that injury to the neck of a child can occur without 
appreciable head translation under the two conditions cited above. We 
feel that the human neck, under the loading conditions cited above, 
could produce moments at the occipital condyles with little or no head-
to-torso rotation or head translation. Because of this, we also believe 
that the neck extension measurements in the specified compliance tests 
do not require special or different instructions and procedures for 
their analysis, beyond those used for data treatment of FMVSS No. 208 
and FMVSS No. 213 measurements. Furthermore, we feel that questions 
related to either the selection of injury criteria or interpretation of 
compliance test results should be resolved within the relevant safety 
standard rather than 49 CFR, part 572. In the FMVSS No. 213 notice of 
proposed rulemaking published May 1, 2002, the agency proposed a number 
of injury criteria to assure improved safety of children in child 
restraints systems. The agency will evaluate comments relative to the 
appropriate neck injury criteria for both the CRABI and the Hybrid III 
3-year-old dummies in the context of that rulemaking.

Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, the agency is denying both Ford 
petitions for reconsideration.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued on: March 14, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-6746 Filed 3-20-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P