[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44520-44523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15268]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 05-22010]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On June 24, 2003, the agency published a final rule mandating, 
in part, the use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in compliance 
testing under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, 
Child restraint systems, beginning August 1, 2005. That same rule 
permitted optional use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy for 
compliance testing prior to August 1, 2005. A child restraint 
manufacturer filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the date 
for mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy be delayed. 
The manufacturer stated that such a delay was necessary because of 
technical issues that have arisen through the use of this new test 
dummy.
    In response to this petition, we are permitting use of the Hybrid 
III 6-year-old test dummy or the Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy for 
compliance testing under FMVSS No. 213 until August 1, 2008.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendment made in this rule is effective 
August 1, 2005.
    Comments: Comments must be received by NHTSA not later than October 
3, 2005, and should refer to the docket and notice number of this 
document.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by the DOT DMS Docket 
Number above] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on 
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking 
process, see the Request for Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received 
will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any 
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under 
Regulatory Analyses and Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

[[Page 44521]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Dr. 
George Mouchahoir, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-
4919, facsimile (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may call Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to any of these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2003, the agency published a 
final rule making a number of revisions to FMVSS No. 213, Child 
Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) (68 FR 37620). The revisions 
incorporated four elements into the standard: (a) An updated bench seat 
used to dynamically test add-on child restraint systems; (b) a sled 
pulse that provides a wider test corridor; (c) expanded applicability 
to child restraint systems recommended for use by children weighing up 
to 65 pounds; and (d) improved child test dummies. The newly 
incorporated test dummies included the Hybrid III 6-year-old test 
dummy, conforming to 49 CFR part 572 subpart N. Under the June 2003 
final rule, use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in compliance 
testing under FMVSS No. 213 is required beginning August 1, 2005.
    The agency incorporated the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy 
because we believe that the performance of child restraint systems will 
be more thoroughly and precisely assessed by use of this test dummy's 
enhanced biofidelity and extensive instrumentation. Since the Hybrid 
III is more biomechanically based, we believe that it provides a more 
humanlike response than the Hybrid II version of the dummy.
    On June 14, 2005, the agency received a petition from Dorel 
Juvenile Group (Dorel), a child restraint manufacturer, seeking to 
delay the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-
year-old test dummy. Although the final rule incorporating the Hybrid 
III 6-year-old test dummy was finalized in June 2003, Dorel stated that 
it had anticipated continued compliance of its belt positioning booster 
seats when tested with the new test dummy. However, Dorel submitted 
data in support of its petition demonstrating that testing of its belt 
positioning boosters with the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy yielded 
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) measurements approximately double that when 
the same seats were tested with the Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy. As 
such, Dorel stated that some of its belt positioning booster seats 
would fail to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 as of 
August 1, 2005. Dorel stated that the high HIC values were a result of 
chin to chest contact experienced by the Hybrid III 6-year-old test 
dummy, which was the result of elongation of the Hybrid III neck.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dorel's petition and the accompanying data have been placed 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a June 20, 2005 meeting with the agency, Dorel stated that it 
would be able to redesign its child restraint systems so that they 
would comply with testing using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, but 
that they would be unable to do so by August 1, 2005.
    In response to this petition, we are making a change to the June 
2003 final rule. We are delaying the date for mandatory use of the 
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy until August 1, 2008. Prior to August 1, 
2008, a manufacturer may comply with testing using the Hybrid II 6-
year-old test dummy. Although manufacturers were originally provided 
two years of lead time for the use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test 
dummy, it was an insufficient period for manufacturers to optimize 
their product designs to the requirements of the standard when tested 
with this new test dummy.
    The agency continues to believe that the Hybrid III 6-year-old test 
dummy provides a better assessment of a child restraint system's 
performance. However, the agency is aware of the need to allow 
manufacturers to obtain and gain experience with using the Hybrid III 
6-year-old test dummy for child restraint system compliance purposes. 
We previously determined that two years should be allowed for 
manufacturers to gain this experience, but this now appears to have 
been insufficient.
    As previously stated, we incorporated the Hybrid III 6-year-old 
test dummy because it is considerably more biofidelic than its 
predecessor, the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy conforming to 49 CFR part 
572 subpart I, and has considerably more extensive instrumentation to 
measure impact responses such as forces, accelerations, moments, and 
deflections in conducting tests to evaluate vehicle occupant protection 
system. Under today's final rule, if a manufacturer does not certify to 
the testing requirements using the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, it 
must still certify to testing requirements using the Hybrid II 6-year-
old test dummy. Given that restraints currently certified using the 
Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy have performed well in the real world, 
we believe that temporarily delaying the compliance date for mandatory 
use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old will not impact safety.
    Because the August 1, 2005 compliance date is fast approaching, 
NHTSA finds good cause to issue this interim final rule effectively 
delaying the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-
year-old test dummy until August 1, 2008. Further we find good cause to 
make it effective on August 1, 2005, in order to prevent a reduction in 
the number of belt positioning booster seats available to consumers. We 
are accepting comments on this interim final rule. See, Request for 
Comments section below.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order, 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. It does not impose any burden on 
manufacturers, and only extends the compliance date for certification 
to testing with the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy.
    The agency believes that this impact is so minimal as to not 
warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the 
impacts of

[[Page 44522]]

this rulemaking action will have on small entities (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 
et seq.). I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities 
within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis 
for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This final rule affects child 
restraint manufacturers. According to the size standards of the Small 
Business Association (at 13 CFR 121.601), the small business size 
standard for manufacturers of ``Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim 
Manufacturing'' (NAICS Code 336360) is 500 employees or fewer. A 
majority of child restraint manufacturers would be classified as a 
small business under this standard. However, the final rule does not 
impose any new requirements on manufacturers that produce child 
restraint systems. This final extends a compliance date in response to 
a petition from Dorel, a child restraint manufacturer. Accordingly, we 
have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' E.O. 13132 defines the term ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and 
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides 
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 
State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

D. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually. This action will not result in additional 
expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or by any members of 
the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic 
assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 
(PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid 
OMB control number. This final rule does not impose any new collection 
of information requirements for which a 5 CFR part 1320 clearance must 
be obtained.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in 
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard only if the standard is identical 
to the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a 
State, or political subdivision of a State, may prescribe a standard 
for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use 
that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the 
Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings are not required before parties file suit in 
court.

F. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

G. Environmental Impacts

    We have considered the impacts of this final rule under the 
National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking action only extends 
the compliance date for certification of child restraint systems using 
the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy. This rulemaking does not require 
any change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no 
environmental assessment is required.

Request for Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be 
more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to 
encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. 
However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your 
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please 
submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to 
Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. Comments 
may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the 
Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 
``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for 
filing the document electronically. If you are submitting comments 
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents 
submitted be scanned using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, 
thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your 
submissions.\2\ Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in 
order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it 
must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and 
DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to 
consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may 
be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. 
DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://

[[Page 44523]]

dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing 
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that 
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on 
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following 
steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``Search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and 
tires.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S7.1.2 introductory text and 
S7.1.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.213  Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S7.1.2 Child restraints that are manufactured on or after August 1, 
2005, are subject to the following provisions and S7.1.3.
* * * * *
    S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative dummies. At the manufacturer's 
option (with said option irrevocably selected prior to, or at the time 
of, certification of the restraint), child restraint systems 
manufactured before August 1, 2005 may be tested to the requirements of 
S5 while using the test dummies specified in S7.1.2 according to the 
criteria for selecting test dummies specified in that paragraph. At the 
manufacturer's option (with said option irrevocably selected prior to, 
or at the time of, certification of the restraint), child restraints 
manufactured on or after August 1, 2005, and before August 1, 2008, 
that are recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for 
use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any 
children having a mass greater than 18 kg, or by children in a 
specified height range that includes any children whose height is 
greater than 1100 mm may be tested to the requirements of S5 while 
using the test dummy specified in S7.1.1(d). Child restraints 
manufactured on or after August 1, 2008, must be tested using the test 
dummies specified in S7.1.2.
* * * * *

    Issued: July 28, 2005.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-15268 Filed 7-29-05; 10:39 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P