[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3901-3920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 2007-0048]
RIN 2127-AJ44, RIN 2127-AJ49


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems; 
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (Hybrid III 10-Year-Old and Hybrid III 6-
Year-Old Child Dummies)

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document supplements NHTSA's notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) of August 31, 2005 that proposed to: (a) Expand the 
applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, 
Child restraint systems, to restraints recommended for children up to 
80 pounds, and (b) require booster seats and other restraints to meet 
performance criteria when tested with a crash test dummy representative 
of a 10-year-old child. In Part 1 of this SNPRM, NHTSA is proposing a 
test procedure for positioning the 10-year-old child dummy in a child 
restraint, to reduce variation due to chin-to-lower neck contact that 
was exhibited by the dummy in sled tests conducted subsequent to the 
NPRM. Comments are also requested in Part 1 on some other changes or 
clarifications to the NPRM, proposed in response to the public 
comments. In Part 2 of this SNPRM, we likewise propose to add a seating 
procedure for positioning the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in a child 
restraint for FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing. Concerns about the 
variability in HIC measurements obtained by that test dummy have led 
NHTSA to postpone mandatory use of the dummy in agency compliance 
tests. The seating procedure will address this variability issue and 
facilitate the full use of the dummy as a compliance instrument.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than March 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID 
Number above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    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 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Dr. 
Roger Saul, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202-366-1740) (Fax: 202-
493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of 
Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). You may 
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy

I. Background
II. Summary of Responses to August 31, 2005 NPRM
III. Agency Follow Up
IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments on This SNPRM Relating to the 
HIII-10C Dummy
    a. Dummy Positioning Procedures
    b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII-6-Year-Old Dummy
    c. Head Support Surface
    d. Housekeeping Measures

Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy

I. Background
II. Proposed Amendments Relating to the HIII-6C Dummy
III. Testing

Submission of Comments

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy

I. Background

    On August 31, 2005, NHTSA issued an NPRM proposing: (a) To expand 
the applicability of FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems, to 
restraints recommended for children up to 80 pounds (lb); and (b) to 
require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance criteria 
when tested with a Hybrid III crash test dummy representative of a 10-
year-old child (70 FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245).

[[Page 3902]]

The rulemaking proposal was part of an on-going agency initiative to 
enhance the safety of children in motor vehicle crashes. It also 
furthered Section 4(b) of Public Law 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772 (``Anton's 
Law''), which required the initiation of a rulemaking proceeding for 
the adoption of an anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-
year-old child.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4 of Anton's Law, signed on December 4, 2002, 
states:
    Section 4. Development of Anthropomorphic Test Device Simulating 
a 10-Year-Old Child.
    (a) Development and Evaluation. Not later than 24 months after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop 
and evaluate an anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-
year-old child for use in testing child restraints used in passenger 
motor vehicles.
    (b) Adoption by Rulemaking. Within 1 year following the 
development and evaluation carried out under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of 
an anthropomorphic test device as developed under subsection (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency completed its evaluation of the suitability of the 
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy in September 2004. Following the 
evaluation, NHTSA initiated rulemaking to adopt specifications and 
performance requirements for the test dummy into 49 CFR part 572 
(notice of proposed rulemaking published July 13, 2005, 70 FR 40281; 
Docket No. NHTSA 2004-2005-21247), in addition to publishing the August 
31, 2005 NPRM to incorporate the dummy into FMVSS No. 213.
    Booster seats provide a seating platform which boosts the child to 
a position that enables the vehicle lap and shoulder belts to fit 
better. Without booster seats, children who are too small to be 
adequately restrained with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system 
are at higher risk of injury due to the belts' improper placement. The 
agency recommends that children who have outgrown their internal 
harnessed child restraint systems, but who cannot adequately fit a 
vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system, be properly restrained using 
booster seats until they are at least 4 feet 9 inches tall.
    The August 31, 2005 NPRM addressed the view expressed by many in 
the child passenger safety community that efforts to increase booster 
seat use should go hand-in-hand with expanding the applicability of 
FMVSS No. 213 to all booster seats. In that way, this view maintains, 
the seating system that we recommend for older children will be closely 
assessed in the standard's rigorous dynamic test for adequate 
performance in a crash. FMVSS No. 213 currently applies to child 
restraint systems that are designed to restrain, seat, or position 
children who weigh 30 kg (65 lb) or less.\2\ Booster seats recommended 
for children weighing up to 65 lb are now subject to FMVSS No. 213 
testing, but they are currently tested \3\ with a 52-lb 6-year-old 
instrumented child dummy for injury performance response criteria, and 
with a 62-lb weighted 6-year-old uninstrumented child dummy for 
structural integrity. The NPRM proposed to upgrade the test parameters 
by using the 78-lb (35 kg) instrumented Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy to 
test boosters recommended for children weighing up to 80 lb.\4\ (The 
10-year-old dummy is referred to as the ``HIII-10C dummy.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FMVSS No. 213, S4, definition of ``child restraint system.''
    \3\ For an overview of the current and proposed weight ranges, 
see Table 1 of the NPRM, 70 FR at 51723.
    \4\ The NPRM also requested comments on whether FMVSS No. 213's 
4.4 kg mass limit (S5.4.3.2) for belt-positioning boosters should be 
eliminated, and replaced by a chest deflection requirement (70 FR at 
51724). In addition, the NPRM document announced NHTSA's decision 
not to propose at this time performance criteria for seat belt fit 
for booster seats or other belt guidance devices (70 FR at 51726).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Responses to August 31, 2005 NPRM

    The agency received 11 comments on the August 31, 2005 NPRM. 
Comments were received from Britax Child Safety, Inc. (Britax), Dorel 
Juvenile Group (Dorel), Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo), Graco 
Children's Products, Inc. (Graco), the Children's Hospital of 
Philadelphia (CHOP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the American Automobile 
Association (AAA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 
the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), and Public 
Citizen.
    All commenters supported extending the applicability of FMVSS No. 
213 to child restraints recommended for children up to 80 lb, and 
supported having a 10-year-old dummy to test higher-weight rated child 
restraints. Dorel, however, expressed concerns about the biofidelity of 
the HIII-10C dummy, particularly with regard to a metal ``spine box'' 
in the dummy's thorax region. Dorel stated that the dummy exhibited 
``chin to chest contacts resulting in higher HIC scores in backed 
boosters as compared to backless.'' \5\ Similarly, Graco stated that it 
conducted a limited series of sled tests (22) using the HIII-10C dummy 
and observed a spike in the head X and Z accelerations beginning 
between 45 and 50 milliseconds, typically of a duration of less than 10 
milliseconds. Graco stated that it did not have an explanation for the 
phenomenon, i.e., ``[whether] the spike was caused by a chin strike, 
the biofidelity of the dummy's neck or some other cause,'' but 
suggested that additional testing should be performed to ensure that 
the HIII-10C dummy is appropriate for use in FMVSS No. 213 testing. 
(See also comments to the July 13, 2005 NPRM proposing to adopt 
specifications for the HIII-10C into 49 CFR part 572, Docket 2004-
21247.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Dorel also had concerns about the durability of the HIII-
10C, the characteristics of the abdominal inserts, and the 
availability of the dummy for evaluation. Public Citizen suggested 
that the HIII-10C dummy ``must be upweighted to more closely match 
the mean weight of children today.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Agency Follow-Up

    In response to these comments, NHTSA conducted additional sled 
tests to assess booster seat performance using the HIII-10C dummy. As a 
result of the tests, the agency determined that dummy set-up (posture) 
prior to the test significantly affected the consistency of HIC 
measurements of repeat tests with the HIII-10C dummy. When the dummy 
was somewhat reclined in the child restraint at the outset of the test, 
reduced head forward translation and increased head rotation caused 
severe dummy chin contact to a rigid portion of the dummy, which 
resulted in increased HIC readings. After analyzing the test results, 
NHTSA developed a seating procedure for positioning the HIII-10C dummy 
for the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test to address the chin-to-rigid body 
impacts. The agency has issued this SNPRM to seek public comment on 
incorporating this procedure into the standard. This issue is discussed 
in more detail in the next section.
    Commenters made other suggestions about or asked for clarification 
of certain aspects of the August 31, 2005 NPRM. Two of these, discussed 
in the next section, are topics on which we seek comment in this SNPRM. 
These relate to the proposed parameters that would specify which test 
dummy would be used by NHTSA to test child restraints of recommended 
weight ranges (this issue was raised by Britax), and to the issue of 
head support requirements for CRSs and how the agency would test 
booster seats and other child restraints if the HIII-10C's head were 
above the seat back of the standard seat assembly used in the FMVSS No. 
213 compliance test (this issue was raised by Evenflo).
    Commenters also remarked on various other aspects of the NPRM. 
Comments were submitted on the proposed injury

[[Page 3903]]

criteria \6\ (Advocates believed that the agency should conduct 
research into whether the criteria should be scaled; IIHS and CHOP 
asked whether the proposed head excursion limits are adequate; and 
Graco supported the NPRM's approach of having the injury assessment 
reference values (IARV) and performance measurements be generally the 
same regardless of child restraint tested). Comments were also 
submitted on the NPRM's discussion of injury criteria under 
development, with NTSB, AAP, CHOP and IIHS supporting the development 
of an abdominal criterion, and the latter opposed to the abdominal 
injury ratio discussed in the NPRM. Regarding lead time, Graco noted 
the spikes observed in the dummy's HIC measurements and suggested that 
three years of lead time should be provided to allow manufacturers time 
to gain experience with the HIII-10C dummy, and to make any necessary 
product design changes. A number of comments were received on the 
agency's decision, announced in the NPRM, not to propose at this time 
performance criteria for seat belt fit for booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The NPRM proposed performance criteria for the HIII-10-year-
old dummy similar to the current FMVSS No. 213 criteria, because the 
agency was not aware of any injuries unique to children in booster 
seats that would necessitate separate and differing injury criteria 
limits. Thus, we tentatively concluded that the existing injury 
criteria would likely ensure the continued effectiveness of child 
restraints rated to the higher weight limit of 80 lb. The specific 
injury criteria measurement maximums for the HIII-10-year-old dummy 
were: HIC36 = 1000; chest acceleration = 60 g's (3 
millisecond clip); head excursion = 813 millimeters (mm) for 
untethered condition, 720 mm for tethered condition (if applicable); 
and knee excursion = 915 mm. In preparation for proposing these 
criteria measurement maximums, the agency's Vehicle Research and 
Test Center (VRTC) performed testing on booster seats with the HIII-
10C dummy; only one child restraint in the test series failed the 
existing FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is evaluating the comments to the NPRMs on the HIII-10C, 
and will respond to all relevant comments in rulemaking documents 
following this SNPRM.
    It is not necessary for commenters to resubmit views on today's 
SNPRM that were expressed in previous comments on the earlier NPRMs. 
The agency notes that the regulatory text proposed in this SNPRM 
includes text that was proposed in the August 31, 2005 NPRM. In some 
instances, comments were received on aspects of the proposed regulatory 
text. The agency is including text that was proposed in the earlier 
notice simply to illustrate the appearance of the affected sections. 
The inclusion does not mean that NHTSA has already decided to adopt the 
regulatory text. The agency will respond to all relevant comments in a 
final rule or other document following this SNPRM.

IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments on This SNPRM Relating to the 
HIII-10C Dummy

a. Dummy Positioning Procedures
    Following publication of the NPRM, in March/April 2006 NHTSA 
conducted additional sled testing of booster seats at the agency's 
Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) using the HIII-10C dummy. The 
findings of this testing program indicated that there were HIC 
measurement inconsistencies in repeated tests with the same booster 
seat model. To determine the reasons behind this finding, VRTC 
conducted additional sled tests in July 2006. The following discussion 
summarizes the findings of these testing programs. The findings are 
discussed at length in a NHTSA technical report, ``Development of HIII 
6-Year-Old and 10-Year-Old Seating Procedure for Booster Seat 
Testing,'' (hereinafter ``VRTC report''), which has been placed in the 
docket for this rulemaking.

March/April 2006 Testing Program

    VRTC conducted 58 sled test exposures using 30 booster seats with 
the HIII-10C dummy (see Table 1). All booster seats were installed on 
the FMVSS No. 213 seat test fixture in accordance with the 
manufacturers' instructions. High-back child restraints with adjustable 
head restraints were positioned such that they were at the correct 
height relative to the dummy's head and also gave optimal shoulder belt 
fit (i.e., the belt was not on the dummy's neck or too far outboard on 
the shoulder). Child restraints with non-adjustable head restraints 
with shoulder belt guides attached were tested according to the 
manufacturers' instructions as to belt placement, if provided.
    Table 1 summarizes the chest acceleration, head and knee 
excursions, and HIC36 measurements observed in the March/
April 2006 tests. The full description of the testing set-up and 
details of all injury parameters measurements are provided in the VRTC 
report.

            Table 1.--Evaluation of HIII-10-Year-Old Dummy in FMVSS No. 213 Sled Tests (Mar/Apr 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               HIC 36 ms    Chest acc.      Head         Knee
                                                             -------------     3 ms      excursion    excursion
                            IARV                                          --------------------------------------
                                                                  1000         60 g        813 mm       915 mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restraint:
    Graco Treasured Cargo...................................         1094           51          490          667
                                                                      903           48          562          763
    Graco Treasured Cargo...................................         1128           52          527          736
                                                                      910           51          475          637
    Cosco High Rise.........................................          506           45          421          568
                                                                      395           48          436          590
    Cosco High Rise.........................................          541           45          437          614
                                                                      532           44          449          631
    Safety 1st Intera.......................................          824           52          518          716
    Safety 1st Intera.......................................           NA           46          502          746
    Safety 1st Apex 65......................................         1137           49          540          824
                                                                      950           49          521          801
    Evenflo Generations.....................................          622           56          603          809
                                                                     1216           56          580          808
    Britax Parkway..........................................          764           58          638          863
                                                                      649           51          658          834
    Graco Treasured CarGo...................................          667           46          539          768
                                                                      751           50          537          822
    Compass 500.............................................          792           65          651          851
                                                                     1594           58          583          802

[[Page 3904]]

 
    Graco Cherished CarGo...................................          773           55          585          777
                                                                     1126           51          650          875
    Evenflo Big Kid.........................................          836           54          538          770
                                                                      731           50          517          743
    Cosco Summit Deluxe.....................................          481           47          528          775
                                                                      753           45          557          862
    Cosco Commuter DX.......................................          826           52          591          881
                                                                     1137           52          670          985
    Safety 1st Enspira......................................          586           48          602          874
                                                                      653           50          625          905
    Cosco Alpha Omega.......................................          627           44          601          801
                                                                      472           42          560          767
    Safety 1st Intera.......................................           NA           49          492          751
                                                                     1030           43          551          864
    Cosco High Rise (no back)...............................           NA           47          470          494
                                                                      733           45          682          696
    Evenflo Chase Premiere..................................          839           52          639          907
                                                                      997           53          560          864
    Graco Turbo Booster.....................................          450           46          571          753
                                                                      903           47          525          739
    Recaro Young Style......................................          852           55          678          856
                                                                      848           57          592          778
    Safety 1st Vantage Point................................          911           49          694         1024
                                                                      725           45          609          909
    Combi Dakota (no back)..................................          414           52          507          711
                                                                      424           51          505          695
    Cosco Protek............................................          511           47          578          740
                                                                      855           46          598          794
    Recaro Young Sport......................................          931           50          651          884
                                                                      808           37          607          802
    Combi Kobuk.............................................          989           73          679          895
                                                                      573           52          653          808
    Cosco Commuter..........................................          737           51          573          826
    Cosco Summit............................................          632           52          598          832
    Cosco Alpha Omega.......................................          638           42          654          839
    Safety 1st Enspira......................................          620           41          616          758
    Safety 1st Apex 65......................................           NA           53          577          937
                                                                      965           42          530          822
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the March/April 2006 tests indicated that there were 
inconsistencies in several HIC36 measurements in repeated 
tests with the HIII-10C dummy placed in the same type/model child 
restraint system. For example, the HIC36 measurements for 
the belt positioning booster (BPB) Evenflo Generations varied from 622 
(Pass IARV) to 1216 (Fail IARV). The HIC36 measurements for 
the Compass 500 varied from 792 (Pass IARV) to 1594 (Fail IARV) (see 
Figure 1). Generally, there were no inconsistencies observed in the 
other FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria measurements of chest acceleration, 
and head and knee excursions.
    After analyzing the test results, VRTC determined that dummy 
posture and belt placement affected the kinematic response of the 
dummy, which in turn affected HIC readings. A dummy that is set up to 
have a more reclined torso (high torso angle) is more likely to 
submarine under the vehicle belt. The motion of the head is much 
different in a submarining case than in a situation where the dummy is 
well restrained. When the dummy is restrained effectively (shoulder 
belt centered on the sternum, lap belt on the pelvis), the head moves 
forward in unison with the upper torso as the belt tension increases. 
Then, as the belt reaches its spooling limit, the head rotates in a 
wide arc and late in the event contacts a location either on the 
ribcage or into a portion of the bib \7\ having a large clearance to 
the spine box. Since the ribcage is compliant, the bib-to-spine box 
clearance is high, and the contact occurs very late in the event, the 
resulting head acceleration due to chin contact is low. Thus its 
contribution to the HIC calculation is minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The bib is a piece of thin plastic on the front of the dummy 
that serves as an interface between the ribs and the sternum plate. 
It extends over each shoulder and covers the cavity between the top 
rib and the lower neck region of the spine box. The chest jacket 
covers the bib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, in a submarining case, the head does not translate 
forward much at all because the shoulder belt engages the neck instead 
of restraining the upper torso. Therefore the upper torso steadily 
becomes more horizontal and reclined because the overwhelming majority 
of the dummy's mass is below the shoulder belt. The head is pulled 
downward by the weight of the dummy through the neck, and the forward 
inertia of the head mass causes severe rotation about the shoulder belt 
at the bottom of the neck. As a result, the head arc is much tighter 
and chin contact occurs sooner in the event, before a significant 
amount of kinetic energy is dissipated through the belt. This motion 
causes the chin to contact the low-clearance portion of the bib 
overlaying the top part of the spine box housing the lower neck load 
cell. The bib does not provide much resistance to the head's

[[Page 3905]]

increased rotational energy and the chin essentially ``bottoms out'' on 
the spine box, causing a large spike in head acceleration and increased 
HIC.
    In summary, VRTC found that a more reclined posture of the HIII-10C 
dummy leads to an increased likelihood for submarining of the dummy. 
This situation leads to much higher rotational velocity in the dummy's 
head, putting it in non-representative contact with a more rigid 
portion of the dummy structure. It was thus determined that through 
kinematics, dummy posture significantly affects HIC.

July 2006 Testing Program

    In this test program, an additional matrix of 12 sled tests was 
conducted to address the finding that the dummy HIC36 
response is sensitive to the seating posture of the dummy in the 
booster seat. The purpose of this testing program was to determine if 
the HIC36 variability could be decreased by tighter controls 
on both the dummy's posture and the placement of the belt to restrain 
the dummy to the test seat assembly.
    Four factors were evaluated in the VRTC testing program:
     Seating position--Left Side vs. Right Side
     Torso angle--Upright vs. Reclined
     Dummy manufacturer--FTSS vs. Denton
     Booster model--Evenflo Generations vs. Compass 500
    The results of the testing indicate that the dummy torso angle 
(representing posture) had a much larger effect on HIC36 
than the other three variables. Dummy posture was the only variable to 
have a statistically significant effect on HIC36 outcome 
(alpha significance level = 0.007, n = 8) and the p-value was more than 
an order of magnitude smaller than the next largest effector (dummy 
manufacturer had p = 0.065). Figure 1 shows the average HIC36 
with error bars giving the minimum/maximum values for each variable 
comparison. These test results indicate that the kinematics associated 
with a more horizontal torso (i.e., reclined initial posture) led to 
more head rotation and more severe dummy chin contact, which ultimately 
resulted in higher HIC36 readings. Belt placement, which is 
largely a function of both booster seat design and dummy posture, was 
also shown to influence HIC in a similar manner to dummy posture (torso 
angle). A more inboard shoulder belt was found to have the same effect 
as a more reclined posture, and thus similarly, resulted in higher 
HIC36 values. Controlling the posture and belt placement of 
the dummy decreased the HIC36 variability in the booster 
seats tested by 78%. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ When the torso angle for the HIII-10-year-old dummy was set 
to the upright position of approximately 16[deg], the average 
coefficient of variation for HIC36 for repeat tests of 
the two booster seats used in the July 2006 test series was 12.4%. 
HIC36 variability was lessened to an acceptable level 
below the pass/fail criterion of 1000, and the average HIC readings 
for the two seats used in repeat testing ranged from 874-921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 2 shows the relationship of HIC36 measurements 
vs. torso angle (representing posture) for the two belt-positioning 
boosters (BPBs) (Evenflo Generations and Compass 500) that were tested 
using the pulse and seat assembly of FMVSS No. 213. The plot indicates 
that for these two BPBs, a 20[deg] torso angle is correlated to a 
HIC36 value of 1000. Note that the dispersion in the data at 
each torso angle in Figure 2 is due to the combined effects of left 
side versus right side, dummy manufacturer, dynamic belt motion due to 
booster seat design, and small variations in the controlled torso 
angle.
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[[Page 3906]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.007

Proposed Dummy Positioning Procedure

    A detailed description of the seating procedure used by VRTC is 
provided in the VRTC report and in the proposed regulatory text. The 
general approach is as follows:
    1. Set the dummy's neck angle at 16 degrees.
    2. Set the dummy's lumbar angle at standard posture.
    3. Place the booster seat on the FMVSS No. 213 bench seat.

[[Page 3907]]

    4. Place the dummy in the booster seat so that the midsagittal line 
of the dummy is aligned with the centerline of the booster.
    5. Measure the X and Z locations of the left and right shoulder 
pivots. Make sure that the X and Z values for these two points are 
within 10 mm of each other to ensure that the dummy is not twisted or 
tilted in the seat.
    6. Locate the head CG, H-point, and knee pivot point. Calculate the 
H-point location of the dummy relative to the FMVSS No. 213 seat Z 
point by first measuring the X and Z coordinates of the knee pivot and 
head center of gravity. Then mathematically locate the intersection 
point of two circles using the knee pivot and head center of gravity as 
the centers and the known dummy anthropometric lengths as radii (see 
VRTC report for more detailed explanation).
    7. Set the torso angle (established with the head CG and H-point) 
to 14 degrees  0.5 degrees from vertical.
    8. Apply the belt restraints following the booster manufacturer's 
routing instructions and using standard FMVSS No. 213 belt tensions.
    We note that the University of Michigan Transportation Research 
Institute (UMTRI) has also developed a seating procedure for use with 
the HIII-10C dummy that is similar to the procedure proposed in this 
SNPRM.\9\ UMTRI had similar findings to the ones of VRTC concerning HIC 
measurements of the dummy. In a June 14, 2006 presentation to the 
agency on its preliminary findings of an on-going biomechanics study, 
UMTRI stated that both the dummy's initial position and belt placement 
affected HIC measurements during sled testing of booster seats with the 
HIII-10C dummy. The test data are publicly available on the NHTSA 
biomechanics database. The data and videos can also be accessed from 
the NHTSA Web site http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/biodb/querytesttable.aspx. VRTC used the average child posture data from the 
UMTRI Stapp paper in combination with the HIII-10C dummy's 
anthropometry to derive a mean torso angle of 14.5[deg] as the optimal 
angle to reduce HIC36 variability for the HIII-10C dummy 
while maintaining a biofidelic posture. This angle is consistent with 
the upright torso angle of approximately 16[deg] used by the agency in 
the series of sled tests conducted by VRTC in July 2006.
    A series of tests using the HIII-10C dummy was conducted in March/
April of 2007 to validate the seating procedure. This series was a 
subset of the BPBs that were tested in the March/April 2006 series (see 
Table 1). Table 2 contains the test matrix and Table 3 summarizes the 
test results. All of the tests were conducted at the proposed torso 
angle of 14[deg]  0.5[deg]. This  0.5[deg] 
tolerance limit was achievable with the various BPB models evaluated. 
The Graco Turbo Booster was tested both with and without the highback 
to determine the effect of the highback.
    The results indicated that controlling the torso angle reduced 
dummy response variability for the BPBs that were tested. The IARVs 
were not exceeded in any of the tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Reed MP, et al. ``Improved Positioning Procedures for 6YO 
and 10YO ATDs Based on Child Occupant Postures,'' Stapp Car Crash 
Journal, Vol. 50 (November 2006), pp. 337-388.

Table 2.--Test Matrix for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using
                      HIII-10C Dummy (Mar/Apr 2007)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number
                     BPB model                      Dummy  SN   of tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Parkway....................................       D001          3
Safety 1st Apex 65................................       F001          3
Recaro Young Style................................       D001          3
Cosoc Protek......................................       F001          3
Graco Turbo Booster:
  Without back....................................       D001          3
  With back.......................................       F001          3
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3.--Results for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-10C Dummy in FMVSS No. 213 Sled Tests
                                                 (Mar/Apr 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    HIC  36 ms     Chest acc. 3   Head excursion       Knee
                                                 ----------------       ms       ----------------    excursion
                      IARV                                       ----------------                ---------------
                                                       1000            60 g           813 mm          915 mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restraint:
    Safety 1st Apex 65..........................             830            51.1             614             790
                                                             683            55.7             610             815
                                                             893            53.3             637             810
    Britax Parkway..............................             473            48.4             574             704
                                                             507            49.0             617             717
                                                             420            47.0             614             732
Graco Turbo Booster:
    With highback...............................             433            42.0             611             707
                                                             356            43.3             602             709
Graco Turbo Booster:
    No back.....................................             622            47.3             569             684
                                                             625            49.3             540             698
                                                             703            52.1             579             692
    Recaro Young Style..........................             680            50.1             697             770
                                                             838            46.4             617             754
                                                             763            52.2             706             773
    Cosco Protek................................             496            42.9             622             694
                                                             403            43.8             574             603
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on the proposed dummy positioning procedure. 
It is noted that the proposed dummy positioning procedure may not 
necessarily lower HIC values across the board for the HIII-10C dummy 
(i.e., for some restraints, positioning the dummy in an upright posture 
may not necessarily prevent submarining and high head accelerations 
when the seat is tested dynamically). However, when testing the HIII-
10C dummy in a more

[[Page 3908]]

upright posture, the HIC values the dummy produces should be within an 
acceptable range of variability in repeated testing.
    The proposed positioning procedure would apply when the HIII-10C is 
used to test booster seats and not when the dummy is used to test child 
restraints other than booster seats (``non-booster seats'') that are 
recommended for children weighing over 30 kg (65 lb).\10\ NHTSA 
tentatively concludes that the procedure is not needed in tests of the 
HIII-10C in non-booster seats because those restraints have an internal 
harness to help position the dummy. For those restraints, there is 
already a methodology set forth in FMVSS No. 213 and in the agency's 
Laboratory Test Procedures for the standard \11\ for positioning test 
dummies in the restraint systems. The methodology specifies applying a 
certain load to the dummy's pelvic/lower torso area to ensure the dummy 
is as far back in the restraint as possible, and tightening the 
internal harness to specifications. Those procedures reasonably assure 
that the dummy is properly positioned in the child restraint, and 
appear suitable for positioning the HIII-10C. In contrast, booster 
seats do not have an internal harness to help position the dummy, so 
there is more opportunity for variation in the positioning of the HIII-
10C and a greater need to control the torso angle and the positioning 
of the lap/shoulder belt. Comments are requested on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ There are only a few non-booster seats recommended for 
children weighing over 30 kg (65 lb) (e.g., Britax Regent and 
Sunshine Kids Radian 80).
    \11\ http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP213-9a.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are also requested on whether FMVSS No. 213 should require 
boosters or other child restraint systems (CRSs) to be designed such 
that the dummy can be positioned in the CRS in accordance with 
positioning procedures. Conversely, if the dummy cannot be so 
positioned, what flexibility should be established to fluctuate from 
the procedures to fit the dummy in the CRS? The agency is also 
considering whether FMVSS No. 213 should expressly require that each 
child restraint system must be capable of fitting the test dummy that 
is specified in S7 of FMVSS No. 213 to evaluate the restraint. (For 
example, if the CRS were recommended for use by children weighing more 
than 30 kg (65 lb), should the standard specify that the CRS must be 
capable of fitting and being tested with the HIII-10C dummy?)
b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII-6-Year-Old Dummy
    FMVSS No. 213 requires that booster seats recommended for use by 
children weighing between 22.7 kg (50 lb) and 30 kg (65 lb) be tested 
with the HIII 6-year-old (HIII-6C) (52 lb) instrumented dummy for 
injury assessment performance requirements, and with the weighted HIII 
62 lb 6-year-old uninstrumented dummy for assessment of the restraint's 
structural integrity. Because a number of booster seats are currently 
recommended by their manufacturers for children weighing up to 80 lb 
(36 kg), the NPRM proposed to use the instrumented HIII-10C 78 lb dummy 
(35 kg) to test all child restraints recommended for children over 50 
lb, and to discontinue the use of the weighted HIII 6-year-old dummy 
entirely in FMVSS No. 213.
    Britax commented that it agreed with our proposal to use the HIII-
10C dummy when testing CRS with a weight capacity greater than 65 lb, 
but disagreed with using the dummy for testing CRS with a weight 
capacity between 50 and 65 lb. The commenter stated that ``Restraints, 
and potentially booster seats, with a maximum capacity between 50 and 
65 pounds are not structurally and/nor dimensionally designed for 
testing with an ATD [anthropomorphic test device], or use by a child, 
having the weight or size of the HIII-10C dummy.'' Britax therefore 
suggested that FMVSS No. 213 remain as it is currently for CRS with 
weight capacity between 50 and 65 lb, using the HIII-6C dummy to 
measure injury criteria and the weighted HIII-6C dummy to assess 
structural integrity.
    We have determined that this comment has merit. We tentatively 
agree that it might not be advisable to require all child restraints 
rated above 50 lb to be tested with the 78 lb HIII-10C dummy, since 
some of these seats are not designed for or intended to accommodate a 
10-year-old child. Some of these child restraints do not currently fit 
a 10-year-old dummy, or, if made to fit, might not be able to meet the 
performance requirements of the standard when tested with the HIII-10C. 
Britax stated that some child restraints rated above 50 lb now serve a 
safety need by providing a 5-point harness restraint system for 
children up to 65 lb. The commenter was concerned that these child 
restraints would be pulled off the market because they might not be 
able to meet FMVSS No. 213's requirements when tested with the HIII-10C 
dummy, a result that would be unwarranted and undesirable since the 
restraints are not intended for children weighing more than 65 lb.
    Because Britax's arguments appear reasonable, we are proposing 
that, for child restraints rated for children weighing from 50 to 65 
lb, these restraints would continue to be tested with the HIII-6C 
instrumented dummy for performance, and with the weighted HIII-6C 
uninstrumented dummy for structural integrity. Accordingly, under this 
proposal, the uninstrumented HIII-6C dummy would be retained in FMVSS 
No. 213. Under the proposal, the instrumented HIII-10C dummy would only 
be used to test child restraints rated for children weighing 30 kg to 
36 kg or more (65 to 80 lb or more).
c. Head Support Surface
    FMVSS No. 213 (S5.2.1.1) currently requires some CRSs to have a 
seat back to provide restraint against rearward movement of the child's 
head (rearward in relation to the child). The determination of whether 
a seat back is required is based on the dummy used in the compliance 
testing of the restraint. A child restraint need not have a seat back 
if a specified point on the dummy's head (approximately located at the 
top of the dummy's ears) is below the top of the standard seat assembly 
on which the restraint is installed for compliance testing (S5.2.1.2). 
Because the Hybrid II and Hybrid III 6-year-old dummies are not used in 
the assessment, booster seats are excluded from the requirement to have 
a seat back. The agency excluded boosters from the seat back 
requirement because it was concerned that the additional costs 
associated with redesigning booster seats to add a seat back were not 
justified from a safety standpoint. The agency did not know of real 
world crash data that indicated a problem with head or neck injuries in 
rear impact crashes. (60 FR 35126, 35135; July 6, 1995.)
    This SNPRM proposes to keep this exclusion unchanged by amending 
S5.2.1.2, such that S5.2.1.2 would specify that the HIII-10C, in 
addition to the 6-year-old test dummies, would not be used to determine 
the applicability of the head support surface requirements of S5.2.1.1. 
We are not aware of real world crash data indicating a problem with 
head or neck injuries in rear impact crashes, i.e., a need for a head 
support surface requirement. NHTSA is interested in crash data 
indicating a need for a requirement for a seat back on booster seats 
for older children. Comments are also requested on any additional costs 
that might result from redesigning booster seats to provide a seat 
back.

[[Page 3909]]

    A related issue concerns how the agency would test backless booster 
seats if the HIII-10C's head were above the seat back of the standard 
seat assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test. Evenflo stated 
that it instructs its consumers to ensure that the child's head is 
supported by the vehicle seat back or head restraint. Evenflo noted 
that when a backless booster is placed on the FMVSS No. 213 test bench, 
the HIII-10C ``is too tall to satisfy this criterion.'' NHTSA intends 
to test the booster to FMVSS No. 213's dynamic test requirements even 
if the HIII-10C's head is above the seat back of the standard seat 
assembly. Such a test would assess the performance of the CRS with an 
older child if the CRS did not have a head support, or if the CRS were 
used in a vehicle that did not have a head restraint or other 
supporting structure for the child. On the other hand, Evenflo also 
observed that in a test of a backless booster seat with the HIII-10C, 
upon rebound the dummy's head struck the cross bar behind the test 
bench seat back that supports the tether anchorage, resulting in a 
HIC36 value above 1000. Evenflo believed that the outcome 
was ``purely an artifact of the test environment and does not reflect 
real-world vehicle experience in this country and in Europe that 
clearly demonstrates the efficacy of backless boosters.'' We are 
interested in other commenters' experiences testing with the HIII-10C, 
especially during the rebound stage of the FMVSS No. 213 sled test.
d. Housekeeping Measures
    In an effort to delete outdated text from FMVSS No. 213, this 
document will remove and reserve S7.1.1 of the standard and a part of 
S7.1.3. S7.1.1 and S7.1.3 were adopted when the CRABI and Hybrid III 3-
year-old and 6-year-old test dummies were incorporated into FMVSS No. 
213's test procedures. The paragraphs relate to the effective date 
(August 1, 2005) for testing with the new dummies. Since the August 1, 
2005 date has passed, the text is no longer necessary in FMVSS No. 213.

Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy

    In this Part 2 of the SNPRM, we are proposing to add a seating 
procedure for positioning the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (HIII-6C) in 
a child restraint for FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing. Concerns about 
the variability in HIC measurements obtained by that test dummy have 
led NHTSA to postpone mandatory use of the dummy in compliance tests. 
The seating procedure addresses the variability issues and facilitates 
the full use of the dummy as a compliance instrument.

I. Background

    When NHTSA incorporated the Hybrid III (HIII) 6-year-old dummy 
(codified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart N) into FMVSS No. 213 by way of a 
2003 final rule,\12\ the agency expected to use the test dummy in 
compliance tests of child restraints manufactured on or after August 1, 
2005. It was brought to the agency's attention, however, that 
manufacturers needed more time than provided in the final rule to 
optimize their product designs to the requirements of the standard. 
Dorel informed the agency \13\ that Dorel belt positioning booster 
seats evaluated with the new dummy would fail to meet FMVSS No. 213, 
showing HIC measurements approximately double that when the same 
booster seats were tested with the Hybrid II (HII) 6-year-old dummy (49 
CFR part 572, subpart I). Dorel believed that the HIII dummy ``exhibits 
severe, non-biofidelic neck elongation and head rotation* * *This 
results in the chin/face of the dummy striking the chest, causing 
artificially high HIC measurements.'' [Footnote not included.] Dorel 
asked NHTSA to take immediate action to permit continued use of the HII 
6-year-old to test CRSs manufactured on and after August 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ June 24, 2003, 68 FR 37620, Docket 15351.
    \13\ http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf92/340975_web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA issued an interim final rule that delayed the August 1, 2005 
date to August 1, 2008. (August 3, 2005; 70 FR 44520, Docket 22010.) 
The agency sought to provide manufacturers additional time to gain 
experience using the test dummy and to optimize their product designs. 
The rule allowed use of the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy at the 
manufacturers' option, for child restraints manufactured until August 
1, 2008.

II. Proposed Amendments Relating to the HIII-6C Dummy

    This SNPRM follows up on the interim final rule by proposing dummy 
positioning procedures for the HIII-6C dummy that would be used when 
testing booster seats. The proposed seating procedure for the HIII-10C 
dummy outlined earlier in this notice is also proposed for the HIII-6C 
dummy, with the exception of the computational values used to determine 
the H-point and torso angle. These values are different for the HIII-6C 
dummy due to differences in dummy size.
    A test program, discussed below, for the 6-year-old dummy was 
conducted in July 2007, using the new seating procedure. The agency 
believes that the introduction of this repeatable positioning procedure 
will address the HIII 6-year-old issues raised by Dorel. We have 
tentatively concluded that the procedure eliminates the variability of 
the test environment that is caused by different seating positions, and 
that implementation of the seating procedure will lead to more 
consistent results in the transition from the Hybrid II dummies to the 
Hybrid III dummies.
    In order to allow sufficient time for manufacturers to incorporate 
this seating procedure into their compliance testing with the HIII 6-
year-old dummy, NHTSA is proposing to postpone the 2008 effective date 
until 2010. Comments are requested on this postponement.
    As with the HIII-10C, the proposed positioning procedure for the 
HIII-6C dummy would apply when the dummy is used to test booster seats 
and not when the dummy is used to test non-booster seats. The agency's 
reasons for concluding that the procedure is not needed in tests of the 
HIII-6C in non-booster seats are the same as those explained above for 
the HIII-10C, i.e., non-booster seats have an internal harness that 
positions the dummy and, together with the adjustment procedures 
already in FMVSS No. 213, controlled and careful positioning of the 
dummy is already achieved. Comments are requested on this issue.

III. Testing

    In July 2007, a series of sled tests were conducted to determine if 
the proposed seating procedure developed for the HIII-10C dummy could 
be applied to the HIII-6C when tested in a BPB. Two models of BPBs were 
selected, based on the results observed with the HIII-10C, to test with 
the HIII-6C: The Britax Parkway and the Safety 1st Apex 65. Each BPB 
was tested at the optimum torso angle of 14[deg] and in the more 
reclined posture of 22[deg]. Table 4 contains the test matrix for the 
HIII-6C and Table 5 contains a summary of the test results.
    As with the HIII-10C dummy, the variability in dummy responses was 
minimal among repeated tests for the HIII 6-year-old dummy. The same 
trend observed for the HIII-10C was observed with the HIII-6C dummy: a 
more reclined initial posture resulted in

[[Page 3910]]

higher HIC36 values compared to the more upright posture.

       Table 4.--Test Matrix for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-6C Dummy (July 2007)
                                  [Numbers in cells indicate sled run numbers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Torso angle = 14 deg      Torso angle = 22 deg
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Driver  SN   Passenger    Driver  SN   Passenger
                                                                  008         SN108         088         SN 108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Parkway..............................................      1, 2, 3  ...........      4, 5, 6  ...........
Safety 1st Apex 65..........................................  ...........      1, 2, 3  ...........      4, 5, 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table 5.--Results for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-6C Dummy (July 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               HIC 36 ms   3 ms. Chest      Head         Knee
                                                             -------------   Acc. (g)    excursion    excursion
                   Restraint                     Torso angle              -------------     (mm)         (mm)
                                                    (deg)         1000                 -------------------------
                                                                                60          813          915
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Parkway.................................         14.2          523         57.4          538          652
                                                        13.9          445         52.9          550          656
                                                        14.5          422         56.7          551          676
                                                        22.3          691         47.0          523          674
                                                        22.3          613         53.8          565          684
                                                        21.9          670         52.0          571          695
Safety 1st Apex 65.............................         15.1          478         47.7          517          649
                                                        13.9          599         49.2          541          694
                                                        14.7          497         47.3          522          657
                                                        21.9          671         46.1          562          726
                                                        22.0          655         43.3          511          693
                                                        21.9          690         44.2          569          729
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket 
identification number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21) 
NHTSA 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 the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES. 
You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically.
    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.
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 the docket 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 NHTSA's confidential 
business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
Will the agency consider late comments?
    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of 
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To 
the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments that the 
docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too 
late for the agency to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming 
that one is issued), the agency 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 the docket at the address 
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated 
above in the same location. You may also read the comments on the 
Internet.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new 
material.
    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).

[[Page 3911]]

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be 
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The August 31, 2005 
NPRM provided a discussion of the costs associated with the proposed 
incorporation of the HIII-10C dummy into FMVSS No. 213. The agency 
stated in the NPRM that the costs are largely attributable to the 
expense of an instrumented HIII-10C dummy. The 2004 price of an 
uninstrumented 10-year-old dummy is about $36,550. The specified 
instrumentation costs approximately $59,297. The NPRM and this SNPRM do 
not require manufacturers to use any test dummy in certifying their 
child restraints. Rather, this rulemaking proposes changes to how NHTSA 
would conduct compliance testing under FMVSS No. 213. The minimal 
impacts of today's proposal do not warrant preparation of a regulatory 
evaluation.
    We cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. However, the 
agency believes this rulemaking would enhance the safety of child 
restraint systems by setting dummy positioning procedures for the 
Hybrid III 6-year-old and HIII-10C. This proposed rule would increase 
the repeatability of the test dummies' HIC measurements, which 
increases the utility of the dummies in FMVSS compliance tests. The 
result of this proposed rule would be to provide better assurance that 
each child restraint safely restrains the children for whom the 
restraint is recommended.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions), 
unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
I certify that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The reasons underlying this certification are discussed in the August 
31, 2005 NPRM. This SNPRM would not increase the testing that NHTSA 
conducts of child restraints. The SNPRM addresses dummy positioning 
procedures and generally would not have any significant impact on the 
testing performed on restraints recommend for children weighing up to 
80 lb. Manufacturers currently must certify their products to the 
dynamic test of Standard No. 213. They typically provide the basis for 
those certifications by dynamically testing their products using child 
test dummies. The effect of this SNPRM on most child restraints would 
be to specify procedures that NHTSA would take in positioning the HIII 
6-year-old and HIII-10C dummies. Testing child restraints using the 
procedures is not expected to affect the pass/fail rate of the 
restraints significantly.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's NPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132 
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rulemaking would not have federalism implications because a final 
rule, if issued, would 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.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect 
of today's rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at 
least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act contains an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle 
safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political 
subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard 
applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or 
motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the 
standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is 
this statutory command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, 
so consultation would be inappropriate.
    In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme 
Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, 
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA 
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy 
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements 
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in 
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise 
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may 
become clear through subsequent experience with today's proposed 
standard and test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the 
future, if warranted. See id. at 883-86.

Civil Justice Reform

    This NPRM would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 
State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the 
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule would not establish any 
requirements that are considered to be information collection 
requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs NHTSA to use voluntary

[[Page 3912]]

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 
The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    The agency searched for, but did not find, any voluntary consensus 
standards applicable to this proposed rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 
Public Law 104-4, Federal 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 (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). (Adjusting this amount by the 
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2000 
increases it to $109 million.) This NPRM would not result in a cost of 
$109 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    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.

    2. Section 571.213 is amended by:
    a. Revising the definition of Child restraint system in S4, the 
introductory paragraph of S5.2.1.2, revising S6.1.1(d)(2), 
S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii), the introductory paragraph of S6.2.3, revising 
S7.1.2(d) and S7.1.2(e), S7.1.3, S9.1(f), S9.3.2, and the heading and 
introductory paragraph of S10.2.2;
    b. Removing and reserving S7.1.1;
    c. Adding S7.1.2(f), S10.2.3 and S10.2.4, and
    d. Adding Figures 13, 14, 15, 16, 17a, 17b, 18, 19, 20 and 21, at 
the end of the section.
    The revised, reserved and added text and figures read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Child restraint system means any device, except Type I or Type II 
seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to 
restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 
lb) or less.
* * * * *
    S5.2.1.2 The applicability of the requirements of S5.2.1.1 to a 
front-facing child restraint, and the conformance of any child 
restraint other than a car bed to those requirements is determined 
using the largest of the test dummies specified in S7.1 for use in 
testing that restraint; provided, that the 6-year-old dummy described 
in subpart I or subpart N of part 572 of this title and the 10-year-old 
dummy described in subpart T of part 572 of this title, are not used to 
determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1. A front-
facing child restraint system is not required to comply with S5.2.1.1 
if the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a 
horizontal plane tangent to the top of * * *
    S6.1.1 Test conditions.
* * * * *
    (d)(1) * * *
    (2) When using the test dummies specified in 49 CFR Part 572, 
subparts N, P, R, or T, performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at 
any ambient temperature from 20.6 [deg]C to 22.2 [deg]C and at any 
relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
* * * * *
    S6.1.2 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (ii) Belt-positioning seats. A belt-positioning seat is positioned 
on either outboard seating position of the standard seat assembly in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the 
system pursuant to S5.6.1, except that only the standard vehicle lap 
and shoulder belt is used to fasten the belt-positioning seat. No 
tether strap or any other supplemental device is used to attach the 
belt-positioning seat to the standard seat assembly. Place the booster 
seat on the standard seat assembly such that it is centered between the 
lap belt anchor positions. Position the base of the booster rearward as 
far as possible against the seat back of the standard seat assembly by 
pushing the booster seat rearward until the intersection of the 
booster's back and bottom contacts the intersection of the standard 
bench seat's back and base cushion.
* * * * *
    S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the dummy restrained in the child 
restraint system and apply the following force: 50 N for a system 
tested with a newborn dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart K); 90 N for a 
system tested with a 12-month-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart R); 
200 N for a system tested with a 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, 
subpart P); 270 N for a system tested with a 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR 
part 572, subpart N or I); 350 N for a system tested with a weighted 6-
year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S); or 437 N for a system 
tested with a 10-year-old-dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart T). The force 
is applied in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 and as follows:
* * * * *
    S7.1.1 [Reserved]
    S7.1.2 * * *
* * * * *
    (d) A child restraint that is 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 (40 
lb) but not greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) or by children in a specified 
height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 
1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, 
subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy).
    (e) A child restraint that is 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 22.7 kg (50 
lb) but not greater than 30 kg (65 lb) or by children in a specified 
height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 
1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, 
subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old

[[Page 3913]]

dummy) and with a part 572, subpart S dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old 
weighted dummy).
    (f) A child restraint that is manufactured on or after [compliance 
date of final rule] and that is 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 30 kg (65 
lb) or by children in a specified height range that includes any 
children whose height is greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR 
part 572, subpart T dummy (Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy).
    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), with regard to testing a child 
restraint manufactured before August 1, 2010, when this section 
specifies use of the 49 CFR part 572, subpart N (Hybrid III 6-year-old 
dummy) test dummy, the test dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart 
I (Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy) may be used in place of the subpart N 
test dummy.
* * * * *
    S9.1 Type of clothing.
* * * * *
    (f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N), 
Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S), and 
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart T). When used in 
testing under this standard, the dummies specified in 49 CFR part 572, 
subparts N, S, and T, are clothed in a light-weight cotton stretch 
short-sleeve shirt and above-the-knee pants, and size 12\1/2\ M 
sneakers with rubber toe caps, uppers of dacron and cotton or nylon and 
a total mass of 0.453 kg.
* * * * *
    S9.3.2 When using the test dummies conforming to part 572 subparts 
N, P, R, S, or T, prepare the dummies as specified in this paragraph. 
Before being used in testing under this standard, dummies must be 
conditioned at any ambient temperature from 20.6 [deg]C to 22.2 [deg]C 
and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at 
least 4 hours.
* * * * *
    S10.2.2 Three-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart P), Hybrid 
II 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart I), Hybrid III 6-year-old 
dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N), Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted 
dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S), and Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy 
(49 CFR part 572, subpart T) positioned in child restraints other than 
belt-positioning seats). Position the 3-year-old dummy and Hybrid II 6-
year-old dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that 
the restraint manufacturer provided with the system in accordance with 
S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to the provisions in S10.2.2. When 
using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, the Hybrid III 6-year-old 
weighted dummy and the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy to test child 
restraints other than belt-positioning seats, position the dummy 
according to the instructions for child positioning that the restraint 
manufacturer provided with the system in accordance with S5.6.1 or 
S5.6.2, while conforming to the provisions in S10.2.2.
* * * * *
    S10.2.3 Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N) in 
belt-positioning seat. When using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 
CFR part 572, subpart N) to test belt-positioning seats, position the 
dummy in the child restraint as follows:
    (a) Place the dummy in the booster seat so that the midsagittal 
line of the dummy is coincident with the centerline of the booster.
    (b) Measure the X and Z locations of the left and right shoulder 
pivots. Position the dummy so that the difference between the X and Z 
values for these two points is less than or equal to 1 cm (see Figure 
13).
    (c) As illustrated in Figure 14 of this section, calculate the H-
point location of the dummy relative to the standard seat assembly Z 
point (see Figure 1B of this standard) by:
    (1) Measuring the X and Z coordinates of the knee pivot (XKP 
and ZKP) and head center of gravity (XCG and 
ZCG);
    (2) Mathematically locating the intersection point of two circles 
using the knee pivot and head center of gravity as the centers and the 
known dummy anthropometric lengths as radii. The equations for 
calculating the H-point are as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.000

    Where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.001
    
    (3) Use the H-point location and head center of gravity location to 
determine the torso angle relative to vertical. This angle is 
calculated using

[[Page 3914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.002

    (4) Adjust the dummy until the torso angle is 140.5 
degrees from vertical.
    (5) Secure the dummy and booster with belt restraint, following 
booster manufacturer's instructions for routing the shoulder and lap 
belts. Only the standard vehicle lap and shoulder belt is used to 
fasten the belt-positioning seat. No tether strap or any other 
supplemental device is used to attach the belt-positioning seat to the 
standard seat assembly. Apply the belt tensions specified in S6.1.2(d) 
of this standard.
    (6) Locate the shoulder and lap belts as follows while conforming 
to the booster manufacturer's belt-routing instructions. If it is not 
possible to do both, follow the manufacturer's instructions:
    (i) Place the outboard edge of the shoulder belt inside of the 
outer edge of the chest jacket (see Figure 15) or as close to the outer 
edge of the chest jacket as possible.
    (ii) The straight line distance from the bottom of the dummy's chin 
to the center of the shoulder belt/middle of the sternum along the 
dummy's midsagittal line is 15.50.5 cm (see Figure 16).
    (iii) The shoulder belt angle relative to horizontal is 
50[deg]10[deg]. If it is not feasible to achieve the 
specified shoulder belt angle, position the shoulder belt as near as 
possible to the 50[deg] angle.
    (iv) Place the lap belt such that the top of the belt is 2.54 cm or 
more below the top rim of the pelvis molded skin at the dummy's 
midsagittal line (illustrated Figure 17). If it is not feasible to 
locate the lap belt at least 2.54 cm below the top of the pelvis due to 
the booster seat's routing path, position belt as low as possible on 
pelvis.
    (7) Place upper arms as close as possible to, and in alignment 
with, the sides of the upper torso. If possible, bend arms at the 
elbows such that the hands are resting on the booster seat cushion; 
otherwise bend lower arm perpendicular to upper arm and have hands 
pointed forward.
    (8) Level dummy's head  1[deg] off of horizontal.
    S10.2.4 Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart T) 
in belt-positioning seat. When using the Hybrid III 10-year-old child 
dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart T) to test belt-positioning seats, 
position the dummy in the child restraint as follows:
    (a) Set the dummy's neck angle at the SP-16 setting (Figure 17a). 
See also Figure 20 of the [Draft] Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly 
and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 10-year-old Child Test Dummy 
(HIII-10C), [April 2005] for more detail.
    (b) Set the dummy's lumbar angle at the SP-12 setting (``SP'' means 
standard posture), see Figure 17b. This is done by aligning the notch 
on the lumbar adjustment bracket with the SP-12 notch on the lumbar 
attachment. See also Figure 45 of PADI for more detail.
    (c) Place the dummy in the booster seat so that the midsagittal 
line of the dummy is coincident with the centerline of the booster.
    (d) Measure the X and Z locations of the left and right shoulder 
pivots. Position the dummy so that the difference between the X and Z 
values for these two points is less than or equal to 1 cm (see Figure 
18).
    (e) As illustrated in Figure 19 of this section, calculate the H-
point location of the dummy relative to the standard seat assembly Z 
point (see Figure 1B of this standard) by:
    (1) Measuring the X and Z coordinates of the knee pivot 
(XKP and ZKP) and head center of gravity 
(XCG and ZCG);
    (2) Mathematically locating the intersection point of two circles 
using the knee pivot and head center of gravity as the centers and the 
known dummy anthropometric lengths as radii. The equations for 
calculating the H-point are as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.003

    Where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.004
    
    (3) Use the H-point location and head center of gravity location to 
determine the torso angle relative to vertical. This angle is 
calculated using
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.005


[[Page 3915]]


    (4) Adjust the dummy until the torso angle is 140.5 
degrees from vertical.
    (5) Secure the dummy and booster with belt restraint, following 
booster manufacturer's instructions for routing the shoulder and lap 
belts. Only the standard vehicle lap and shoulder belt is used to 
fasten the belt-positioning seat. No tether strap or any other 
supplemental device is used to attach the belt-positioning seat to the 
standard seat assembly. Apply the belt tensions specified in S6.1.2(d) 
of this standard.
    (6) Locate the shoulder and lap belts as follows while conforming 
to the booster manufacturer's belt routing instructions. If it is not 
possible to do both, follow the booster manufacturer's instructions:
    (i) Place the outboard edge of the shoulder belt inside of the 
outer edge of the chest jacket (see Figure 20) or as close to the outer 
edge of the chest jacket as possible.
    (ii) The straight line distance from the bottom of the dummy's chin 
to the center of the shoulder belt/middle of the sternum along the 
dummy's midsagittal line is 160.5 cm (see Figure 21).
    (iii) The shoulder belt angle relative to horizontal is 
50[deg]10[deg]. If it is not feasible to achieve the 
specified shoulder belt angle, position the shoulder belt as near as 
possible to the 50[deg] angle.
    (iv) Place the lap belt such that the top of the belt is 2.54 cm or 
more below the top rim of the pelvis molded skin at the dummy's 
midsagittal line (illustrated Figure 21). If it is not feasible to 
locate the lap belt at least 2.54 cm below the top of the pelvis due to 
the booster seat's routing path, position belt as low as possible on 
pelvis.
    (7) Place upper arms as close as possible to, and in alignment 
with, the sides of the upper torso. If possible, bend arms at the 
elbows such that the hands are resting on the booster seat cushion; 
otherwise bend lower arm perpendicular to upper arm and have hands 
pointed forward.
    (8) Level dummy's head 1[deg] off of horizontal.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.008


[[Page 3916]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.010


[[Page 3917]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.011


[[Page 3918]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.012


[[Page 3919]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.014


[[Page 3920]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JA08.016


    Issued: January 11, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E8-856 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C