Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, 15596-15600 [05-5962]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15596
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 58 / Monday, March 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
H. Where Are the Revised State Rules
Different From the Federal Rules?
There are no State requirements that
are more stringent or broader in scope
than the Federal requirements.
I. Who Handles Permits After the
Authorization Takes Effect?
South Carolina will issue permits for
all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the
permits it issues. EPA will continue to
administer any RCRA hazardous waste
permits or portions of permits which we
issued prior to the effective date of this
authorization. We will not issue any
more new permits or new portions of
permits for the provisions listed in the
Table above after the effective date of
this authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA
requirements for which South Carolina
is not yet authorized.
J. How Does Today’s Action Affect
Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115) in South
Carolina?
South Carolina is not authorized to
carry out its hazardous waste program
in Indian country within the State,
which includes the Catawba Indian
Nation. Therefore, this action has no
effect on Indian country. EPA will
continue to implement and administer
the RCRA program in these lands.
K. What Is Codification and Is EPA
Codifying South Carolina’s Hazardous
Waste Program as Authorized in This
Rule?
Codification is the process of placing
the State’s statutes and regulations that
comprise the State’s authorized
hazardous waste program into the Code
of Federal Regulations. We do this by
referencing the authorized State rules in
40 CFR part 272. We reserve the
amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart
PP for this authorization of South
Carolina’s program changes until a later
date.
L. Administrative Requirements
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and
therefore this action is not subject to
review by OMB. This action authorizes
State requirements for the purpose of
RCRA section 3006 and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Accordingly, I
certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action
authorizes pre-existing requirements
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:00 Mar 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
under State law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104–4). For the same
reason, this action also does not
significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Tribal governments, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action 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 Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely authorizes State requirements as
part of the State RCRA hazardous waste
program without altering the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
RCRA. This action also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant and it does not
make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA
grants a State’s application for
authorization as long as the State meets
the criteria required by RCRA. It would
thus be inconsistent with applicable law
for EPA, when it reviews a State
authorization application, to require the
use of any particular voluntary
consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies the
requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 ) do not apply. As required by
Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR
8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in
accordance with the ‘‘Attorney
General’s Supplemental Guidelines for
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings’ issued under the
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
executive order. This rule does not
impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action will be effective May 27, 2005.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous material transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: March 17, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 05–6040 Filed 3–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–03–15351]
RIN 2127–AJ40
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Child Restraint Systems
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions
for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document responds to
petitions for reconsideration of a June
24, 2003 final rule that incorporated
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
28MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 58 / Monday, March 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
improved test dummies and updated
procedures into Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 213 and extended
the standard to child restraints
recommended for use by children
weighing up to 30 kilograms (65
pounds). That final rule responded to
Section 14 of the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability and
Documentation Act of 2000. NHTSA
received petitions for reconsideration of
different aspects of the final rule from
Ford and from Denton ATD. This
document denies Ford’s petition and
grants Denton’s.
DATES: The amendments made in this
rule are effective April 27, 2005. If you
wish to petition for reconsideration of
this rule, your petition must be received
by May 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, you should
refer in your petition to the docket
number of this document and submit
your petition to: Administrator, Room
5220, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
The petition will be placed in the
docket. Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all documents
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 https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call Mike
Huntley of the NHTSA Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, at 202–366–
0029.
For legal issues, you may call Deirdre
Fujita of the NHTSA Office of Chief
Counsel, at 202–366–2992.
You may send mail to both of these
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 24, 2003 (68 FR 37620;
Docket NHTSA–15351), NHTSA
published a final rule that made a
number of revisions to Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, ‘‘Child Restraint Systems,’’
including amendments that
incorporated improved child restraint
test dummies and updated procedures
used to test child restraints, and that
extended the application of the standard
to restraints recommended for use by
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:00 Mar 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
children weighing up to 30 kilograms
(kg) (65 pounds (lb)).1 The final rule
fulfilled a mandate in Section 14 of the
Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation Act
(the TREAD Act) (November 1, 2000,
Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800) that
NHTSA initiate a rulemaking for the
purpose of improving the safety of child
restraints.
As part of its response to the TREAD
Act, NHTSA revised FMVSS No. 213 to
update the test devices and procedures
used in dynamically evaluating child
restraints for compliance with the
standard. The final rule updated the seat
assembly on which child restraints are
tested to make the seat assembly more
representative of those in today’s
vehicles. The final rule changed the seat
bottom and the seat back cushion
angles, the spacing between the anchors
of the lap belt, and, to replicate a rear
seating position, changed the seat back
from a flexible seat back to a fixed one.
The agency also assessed and validated
the reasonableness of the sled pulse.
Sled pulse. In Standard No. 213’s
dynamic sled test, a child restraint is
tested with a crash test dummy on a
representative vehicle bench seat (seat
assembly). The seat assembly, child
restraint and test dummy are accelerated
in a manner simulating a vehicle crash.
The child restraint must manage the
force from the simulated crash so that
the forces imparted to the dummy are
kept within tolerable limits. The
severity of the crash pulse is a function
of its onset rate, peak acceleration, time
of peak g occurrence, and its duration.
FMVSS No. 213 has a relatively
severe crash pulse, in that the sled is
accelerated relatively quickly to an
acceleration of approximately 24 g’s (24
times the force of gravity) and maintains
the 24 g level for a relatively long time
period (37 to 42 milliseconds) before
returning to zero acceleration. A
dynamic test condition of FMVSS No.
213’s 48 kilometers per hour (kph) (30
miles per hour) sled test is that the
acceleration of the test platform must be
within a curve 2 depicted in the
standard (S6.1.1(b)(1)). The sled
acceleration can not exceed the upper
limit of the curve. The laboratory test
procedure (TP) for FMVSS No. 213 also
1 NHTSA published a technical amendment to the
rule at 69 FR 42595, July 16, 2004 (Docket No.
18075) which added cross-references to 49 CFR part
572 subpart S, ‘‘Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted
Child Test Dummy.’’
2 The curve depicted in Figure 2, S6.1.1(b)(1),
applies to child restraints manufactured before
August 1, 2005. Figure 2A, S6.1.1(b)(1), applies to
child restraints manufactured on or after August 1,
2005. Figure 2A and related amendments were
adopted into FMVSS No. 213 by the TREAD Act
final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15597
provided a lower limit for the curve,
and thus gave a tolerance band, or
corridor, for the acceleration of the sled
(TP–213–04, September 1, 1997; Section
D.3.3). Prior to the TREAD Act
rulemaking, the corridor was about 3 to
4 g’s wide. To ensure that the
acceleration of the sled was within the
relatively narrow 3 to 4 g wide corridor,
compliance tests were typically
conducted at a DV of approximately 28.5
mph.
Changes to the Pulse. The TREAD Act
directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking
to consider, among other matters,
whether FMVSS No. 213’s dynamic test
reflects the designs of modern-day
passenger motor vehicles. As part of its
response to the Act, NHTSA analyzed
the crash pulses of over 150 vehicles
tested under FMVSS No. 208 and the
agency’s frontal New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP). Average crash pulses
from tests of cars, sport utility vehicles
(SUVs), trucks, and vans were obtained
and then filtered. The peak velocity,
peak g, and duration of the crash pulse
were recorded. NHTSA determined in
that rulemaking that the crash pulse
used in FMVSS No. 213 was very
similar to the pulse of light trucks, SUVs
and small school buses in acceleration
onset rate and peak magnitude. Because
these vehicles were regularly used to
transport children in child restraints,
the agency decided that a crash pulse
that was not less than the severity of the
pulses generated by those vehicles was
reasonable for FMVSS No. 213. Such a
pulse would better ensure (in contrast to
a less stringent pulse) that child
restraints will not structurally degrade
in a crash, will adequately restrain child
occupants and will limit to tolerable
levels the forces to a child’s head and
torso, regardless of the vehicle in which
the restraint is used.
Accordingly, the agency did not
significantly revise the existing pulse
but instead adjusted it. The final rule
adopted a trapezoidal-shaped corridor
to define the upper and lower limits of
the pulse. The corridor was about 6 g’s
wide, which is 2 to 3 g’s wider than the
pulse formerly specified in FMVSS No.
213. Those changes achieved several
goals. Use of a trapezoidal shape to
define the maximum and minimum
corridors of the sled pulse made the
pulse similar in shape to those used in
FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash
protection,’’ and in ECE Regulation 44.
The wider corridor enabled NHTSA to
test child restraints closer to 48 kph (30
mph) while maintaining the peak g
acceleration of the standard’s pulse. The
wider corridor also made it easier for
testing facilities to produce pulses that
were within the limits of the corridor,
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
28MRR1
15598
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 58 / Monday, March 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
which meant that more facilities could
participate in FMVSS No. 213 testing.
The existing pulse was also extended
from 80 ms to about 90 ms in duration.
This change made the pulse more
representative of the crash pulses of
today’s vehicles (including light trucks,
SUVs and small school buses), which
are longer in duration than the existing
FMVSS No. 213 pulse.
Ford Petition. Ford petitioned for
reconsideration of the changes to the
sled test pulse specification. https://
dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf87/
251702_web.pdf Ford stated that the
new pulse corridor would allow
increased average acceleration of the
pulse, which Ford thought was contrary
to the agency’s intent. Ford stated that
broadening the pulse corridors from 3 g
to 6 g allows a 30 mph DV by increasing
average acceleration instead of
increasing pulse duration. Ford also
stated that the difference between the
most and least severe 30 mph DV pulses
allowed by the corridor is about 25%.
The petitioner stated that a pulse
corridor that allows a potential 25%
variation in pulse severity is not
sufficiently objective. Ford believed that
the agency intended to change the
corridor to test restraints at a higher
velocity, i.e., closer to 30 mph, and that
NHTSA did not intend to specify a
pulse with a higher average
deceleration. Ford suggested a pulse
corridor that the petitioner believed
would increase the velocity change of
the pulse without allowing a higher
acceleration.
Response: The broadening of the
FMVSS No. 213 pulse corridor does not
necessarily increase the average
acceleration of a particular pulse
meeting the corridor. The agency does
not consider average acceleration over
the duration of a pulse as a single
indicator of the severity of that pulse.
We consider the severity of a crash
pulse to depend on the entire
acceleration-time profile, including
onset rate, peak g, peak g time of
occurrence, and pulse duration. The
pulse formerly specified in the standard
fits entirely within the trapezoidal
corridor. Thus, for that pulse, the
broadening of the corridor resulted in
no increase in average acceleration.
It is true that, with a broadened
corridor, there is more flexibility given
for the different elements of the
acceleration-time profile (onset rate,
peak g, peak g time of occurrence, and
pulse duration) to be individually
increased or decreased to fine-tune the
fitting of the pulse within the
constraints of the corridor. That was one
of the goals of the broadening of the
corridor: to allow greater flexibility to
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:00 Mar 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
test laboratories to reproduce the sled
pulse, and achieve a V closer to 30 mph
than previously achievable. Some
elements of the acceleration-time profile
could be increased within the new
corridor and to that extent, pulses of
increased average acceleration could fit
the corridor. Nonetheless, regardless of
the values of the individual components
of the acceleration-time profile, the
values must be such that the pulses
produced fit within the constraints of
the corridor. The corridor thus defines
and limits the severity of the pulse.
Yet, Ford is concerned that the new
corridor allows test facilities to use
pulses that vary more in severity (based
on average acceleration over the
duration of the pulse) than before. Ford
states that pulses that have a DV of 30
mph can potentially vary 25% in pulse
severity, and that a corridor that allows
a potential 25% variation in pulse
severity is not sufficiently objective. The
petitioner suggests two approaches that
the agency could take to increase ‘‘the
velocity change of the pulse without
allowing a higher acceleration.’’
The most and least severe pulses that
the petitioner uses to illustrate the 25%
variation in average acceleration cannot
be achieved by existing test sleds. That
is, present day test equipment cannot
produce a pulse that is so severe as the
theoretical pulse produced by Ford for
illustration, nor as benign. As such, the
theoretical extreme severity difference
that Ford identifies does not exist in the
real world.
To the extent that some difference in
severity exists, we do not agree that the
test is not objective. FMVSS No. 213
(S6.1.1(b)(1)) specifies that the tests for
testing add-on child restraints ‘‘are at a
velocity change of 48 km/h with the
acceleration of the test platform entirely
within the curve shown in Figure 2 (for
child restraints manufactured before
August 1, 2005) or in Figure 2A (for
child restraints manufactured on or after
August 1, 2005). * * *’’ The standard
clearly defines the trapezoidal-shaped
corridor that delineates the upper and
lower boundaries of the pulse. Anyone
conducting the test is able to determine
whether the pulse used fell within the
corridor. Use of identical pulses will
result in similar test results. The
compliance of a child restraint will
continue to be based on objective
testing.
Objectivity in testing and evaluating
child restraints was not only achieved
by the final rule, it was also balanced
with the need to increase flexibility and
practicability in conducting the test.
Fewer pulses would fit a narrower
corridor, but fewer test laboratories
would be able to conduct compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
tests if a narrower corridor were
specified. The new pulse corridor
adopted by the final rule enables more
laboratories to participate in objective
compliance testing of child restraints
than before.
Ford believes that the new corridor
allows a pulse that has an average
deceleration about 10% higher than the
current pulse, and that this outcome is
contrary to the agency’s intent not to
increase the severity of the current pulse
used to test child restraints. The
petitioner states that the agency said in
the preamble to the final rule that ‘‘the
pulse should not be made more severe
at this time.’’ 68 FR at 37640. The issue
under consideration in the TREAD Act
final rule was whether the already
demanding FMVSS No. 213 24 g pulse
should be made more severe than the
pulses of today’s light trucks, SUVs and
small school buses. The agency decided
against such an increase because
‘‘[i]ncreasing the severity could
necessitate the redesign of many child
restraints and could increase costs of the
restraints to manufacturers, without a
proportionate safety benefit.’’ Id. The
agency recognized in the TREAD Act
final rule that the new pulse corridor
will improve the effectiveness of the
standard’s sled test by enabling NHTSA
to test child restraints closer to 30 mph
than under the former pulse. The agency
acknowledged that child restraint tests
run closer to 30 mph are more stringent
than tests conducted under the former
pulse, and that that was an intended
outcome of the rule.
It is true that child restraints must
meet the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 213 when tested to a pulse
contained anywhere within the corridor.
However, the increase in the width of
the pulse corridor is not likely to affect
the ability of child restraints to pass
performance criteria. Agency tests have
shown that child restraints are currently
manufactured with a wide compliance
margin when tested to the FMVSS No.
213 pulse. See 68 FR at 37634, Figures
1, 2 and 3. Thus, as a practical matter
the new corridor is unlikely to
necessitate redesign of the restraints.
Ford suggested two preferred pulse
corridors that petitioner believed would
allow most sled tests to achieve a full 30
mph DV, but would limit pulse severity
to about the same average acceleration
level specified by the former pulse
corridor. The first widens the existing
FMVSS No. 213 pulse corridor after 65
ms. The second pulse corridor uses the
trapezoidal pulse of the final rule, but
has a peak acceleration at 22 g, instead
of 25 g (between 9 and 56 ms).
NHTSA believes that neither of the
suggested corridors satisfies the goals of
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
28MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 58 / Monday, March 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the rulemaking. The first suggestion
does not generally change the 2–3 g
width of the pulse formerly specified in
FMVSS No. 213 which many test
laboratories found difficult or
impossible to work with.3 The second
pulse also maintains a 3 g width
between its upper and lower boundaries
for most of the pulse and thus would
create the same type of practical
difficulties that test labs had in meeting
the former FMVSS No. 213 pulse. In
addition, the second suggested pulse is
unacceptable because it does not fit the
previous FMVSS No. 213 pulse. It has
a peak acceleration that is lower than
the FMVSS No. 213 pulse (at 14, 20, and
28 ms) and thus would reduce the
severity of the existing FMVSS No. 213
crash pulse. Reducing the severity of the
pulse is contrary to the agency’s intent
in amending the standard in this
TREAD Act rulemaking.
For the reasons explained above,
Ford’s request for reconsideration of the
sled pulse is denied.
Ford on Braking: A second issue
raised by Ford related to testing built-in
child restraint systems on a sled. (Builtin child restraints are tested either on a
sled or by crash testing the specific
vehicle in which the built-in restraint is
installed.) Ford stated that the test pulse
specification is not objectively stated for
sled tests of built-in seats because the
agency has not specified the period of
time during which the velocity change
should occur. The petitioner stated: We
believe that NHTSA intended that the
DV specified in S6.1.1.1(b)(1) is the
velocity change prior to the sled
acceleration dropping to zero, rather
than the DV during the 90 ms maximum
pulse duration or the DV during the 200
3 The suggested pulse also does not allow a small
deviance at time zero, which some sleds need to
generate a pulse that fits within the corridor of the
standard. See 67 FR at 21812–21813, NPRM for the
TREAD Act discussing grant of petition for
rulemaking from Transportation Research Center,
Inc.
Ford believes that test labs are able to meet a
narrow corridor because they can meet the corridor
of FMVSS No. 208, which specifies a sled pulse that
has a peak g variation of only 2.2 g. NHTSA notes
that the 2.2 g spread between the upper and lower
bounds of the FMVSS No. 208 corridor is only
maintained for a relatively short period of time,
between 55 and 70 ms, while the FMVSS No. 213
pulse specifies that the peak acceleration must be
maintained from about 13 to 47 ms. That is, it is
easier to control the pulse for a shorter period (as
in the FMVSS No. 208 pulse) than for a longer
period (as in the FMVSS No. 213 pulse). Further,
the acceleration onset rate specified in FMVSS No.
208 is much broader (longer in duration and
‘‘wider’’) than that specified in FMVSS No. 213,
which allows test labs much greater flexibility in
developing an acceleration curve that fits entirely
within the curve. Therefore, the practicability of
test labs of meeting the FMVSS No. 208 pulse does
not show practicability of meeting the FMVSS No.
213 pulse.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:00 Mar 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
to 300 ms effective duration of the test.’’
Ford stated that head injury criterion
(HIC) and neck readings can be driven
upwards during the rebound phase of a
HYGE sled test in tests of built-in seats.
Ford states that freestanding seat backs
will bend forward during sled
acceleration then rebound, pulling the
dummy rearward, and may spring
forward again after rebounding due to
the braking of the sled. Ford maintains
that the rebounding dummy in the builtin child restraint can hit the seat back
as it moves forward because of the sled
braking, and can drive the HIC reading
higher. Thus, Ford believes that the
resulting dummy readings can be highly
dependent on sled braking after the
initial acceleration pulse.
Response: NHTSA does not agree that
there is a need to specify expressly the
time during which the velocity change
should occur to account for the braking
characteristics of the sled. We believe
that by specifying that there be a
velocity change of 48 km/h and that the
velocity change be achieved with the
acceleration of the test platform entirely
within the curve shown in the standard,
the test pulse is objectively stated.
Testing laboratories can alter the various
components of the sled pulse, including
braking characteristics, as long as the
pulse has a velocity change of 48 km/
h and the acceleration is entirely within
the corridor. Further, the agency is not
aware of instances where a specific
braking profile between 90–300 ms
influences dummy readings in FMVSS
No. 213 sled tests. NHTSA maintains
that if the acceleration pulse remains
within the corridor, at DV = 30 mph, the
specification of a braking profile is
unnecessary because the effect of
braking is minimal with respect to
dummy readings—regardless of the type
of dynamic test. For the aforementioned
reasons, the petition for reconsideration
is denied.
Denton Petition
Denton ATD (Denton) petitioned
NHTSA to reconsider (correct) the
specification of the mass of the clothing
worn by the Hybrid III 3-year-old
dummy incorporated into FMVSS No.
213 by the TREAD Act final rule, and
the specification for the shoes of the
Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-old dummies.
The specifications are set forth by the
final rule in S9.1(e) and (f) of FMVSS
No. 213 for the Hybrid III 3- and Hybrid
III 6-year-old dummies, respectively.
Clothing: The petitioner stated that
both the agency’s regulation (49 CFR
Subpart P) specifying the Hybrid III 3year-old dummy and the Procedure for
Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection
(PADI) manual, incorporated by
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15599
reference into that regulation, specify
that the combined weight of the
dummy’s shirt and pants be no more
than .25 kg (.55 lb) (49 CFR 572.144(c)).
However, Denton stated, S9.1(e) of
FMVSS No. 213 erroneously specifies
that the 3-year-old dummy’s shirt and
pants each have a mass of .090 kg. The
petitioner also believed that the
specification of the mass of the 6-yearold dummy’s clothing is confusing (as
specified in both S9.1(e) and (f)) and
should be clarified.
The petition as to the clothing is
granted. This document amends S9.1(e)
to make it consistent with the dummy
regulation and PADI. This final rule is
also clarifying the clothing
specifications for the Hybrid III 6-yearold dummy (correcting S9.1(e) to
remove reference to that dummy and
revising S9.1(f)). The agency does not
believe that these corrections will affect
the performance of the dummy or child
restraint in any way.
Shoes: Denton stated that there is an
inconsistency between the
specifications in 49 CFR part 572 and
FMVSS No. 213 regarding the size and
weight of the shoes worn by the Hybrid
III 3- and Hybrid III 6-year-old
dummies.
The PADI for the 3-year-old dummy
(which is incorporated by reference into
part 572) specifies a size 8 shoe, and
further specifies that each shoe must
weigh .21 +/¥0.05 kg (.47 +/¥.10 lb).
In contrast, FMVSS No. 213 specifies a
size 7M shoe size, and a total mass of
.453 kg for the shoes for this dummy.
Denton stated that the drawings and
the PADI for the Hybrid III 6-year-old
dummy (which are incorporated by
reference into 49 CFR part 572, Subpart
N) specify canvas oxford, size 13M
shoes and that each shoe weighs .38 +/
¥.05 kg (.83 +/¥.10 lb). The petitioner
stated that in contrast, FMVSS No. 213
(S9.1(f)) specifies a size 121⁄2M canvas
oxford with a total mass of .453 kg (1.00
lb). Denton stated that it can not find
shoes that meet the FMVSS No. 213
weight specification in the specified
style. Denton suggested that the agency
reconsider FMVSS No. 213’s
specification of shoe size and weight.
Denton’s petition as to the shoes is
also granted. The agency is amending
S9.1(e) of the standard to specify that
the shoes for the Hybrid III 3-year-old
dummy are size 8 canvas oxford style
sneakers weighing not more than 0.26
kg each. The agency is amending S9.1(f)
to specify that the shoes for the Hybrid
III 6-year-old dummy are children’s size
13M canvas oxford style sneakers
weighing not more than 0.43 kg each.
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
28MRR1
15600
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 58 / Monday, March 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
The agency does not believe that these
changes will affect the performance
measured under FMVSS No. 213.
Effective Date
The amendments on the dummies’
clothing and shoes are effective in 30
days. An effective date less than 180
days after date of publication of this rule
is in the public interest because these
amendments correct and clarify the
specifications for the clothing and
shoes. Further, there is good cause for
the effective date because FMVSS No.
213 specifies that the agency will use
the Hybrid III dummies in the
standard’s compliance tests of child
restraints manufactured on or after
August 1, 2005.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Federal
Regulation) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not
reviewed under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review.’’ The agency has
considered the impact of this
rulemaking action under the
Department of Transportation’s
regulatory policies and procedures, and
has determined that it is not
‘‘significant’’ under them. This
document amends FMVSS No. 213 to
correct the specification for the clothing
and shoes worn by the new 3- and 6year old child test dummies. The
correction does not affect the
performance of the dummies or the
performance of child restraints. There
are no cost or benefit changes associated
with this final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Public Law 96–354), as amended,
requires agencies to evaluate the
potential effects of their proposed and
final rules on small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This final rule
simply corrects an inconsistency in the
specification of clothing and shoes worn
by the test dummies. It does not reduce
or impose any new obligations or
requirements.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and
has determined that it does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and
local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:00 Mar 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
The rule will not have any substantial
effects on the States, or on the current
Federal-State relationship, or on the
current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local
officials.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking
action for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has determined that implementation of
this action will not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This rule will not have any retroactive
effect. A petition for reconsideration or
other administrative proceeding will not
be a prerequisite to an action seeking
judicial review of this rule. This rule
will not preempt the states from
adopting laws or regulations on the
same subject, except that it will preempt
a state regulation that is in actual
conflict with the Federal regulation or
makes compliance with the Federal
regulation impossible or interferes with
the implementation of the Federal
statute.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
2. S9.1(e) and (f) of § 571.213 are
revised as set forth below.
I
§ 571.213
systems.
Standard No. 213, Child restraint
*
*
*
*
*
S9.1 Type of clothing.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy (49
CFR Part 572, Subpart P). When used in
testing under this standard, the dummy
specified in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart P,
is clothed as specified in that subpart,
except that the shoes are children’s size
8 canvas oxford style sneakers weighing
not more than 0.26 kg each.
(f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49
CFR Part 572, Subpart N) and Hybrid III
6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR
Part 572, Subpart S). When used in
testing under this standard, the
dummies specified in 49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart N and Subpart S, are clothed as
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
specified in those subparts, except that
the shoes are children’s size 13 M
canvas oxford style sneakers weighing
not more than 0.43 kg each.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued on March 22, 2005.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–5962 Filed 3–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 041126333–5040–02; I.D.
032205C]
Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive
Zone Off Alaska; Deep-Water Species
Fishery by Vessels Using Trawl Gear in
the Gulf of Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for species that comprise the
deep-water species fishery by vessels
using trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA). This action is necessary because
the first seasonal apportionment of the
2005 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance
specified for the deep-water species
fishery in the GOA has been reached.
DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local
time (A.l.t.), March 23, 2005, through
1200 hrs, A.l.t., April 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh
Keaton, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
GOA exclusive economic zone
according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Regulations governing
fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance
with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50
CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The first seasonal apportionment of
the 2005 Pacific halibut bycatch
allowance specified for the deep-water
species fishery in the GOA is 100 metric
tons as established by the 2005 and
2006 harvest specifications for
groundfish of the GOA (70 FR 8958,
February 24, 2005), for the period 1200
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
28MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 58 (Monday, March 28, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15596-15600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5962]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-03-15351]
RIN 2127-AJ40
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
June 24, 2003 final rule that incorporated
[[Page 15597]]
improved test dummies and updated procedures into Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 213 and extended the standard to child restraints
recommended for use by children weighing up to 30 kilograms (65
pounds). That final rule responded to Section 14 of the Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act of 2000. NHTSA
received petitions for reconsideration of different aspects of the
final rule from Ford and from Denton ATD. This document denies Ford's
petition and grants Denton's.
DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effective April 27, 2005.
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition
must be received by May 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590.
The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents 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 https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Mike Huntley of the NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-
366-0029.
For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita of the NHTSA Office
of Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992.
You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 24, 2003 (68 FR 37620; Docket NHTSA-15351), NHTSA published
a final rule that made a number of revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' including
amendments that incorporated improved child restraint test dummies and
updated procedures used to test child restraints, and that extended the
application of the standard to restraints recommended for use by
children weighing up to 30 kilograms (kg) (65 pounds (lb)).\1\ The
final rule fulfilled a mandate in Section 14 of the Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act (the TREAD
Act) (November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800) that NHTSA
initiate a rulemaking for the purpose of improving the safety of child
restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA published a technical amendment to the rule at 69 FR
42595, July 16, 2004 (Docket No. 18075) which added cross-references
to 49 CFR part 572 subpart S, ``Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted
Child Test Dummy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its response to the TREAD Act, NHTSA revised FMVSS No.
213 to update the test devices and procedures used in dynamically
evaluating child restraints for compliance with the standard. The final
rule updated the seat assembly on which child restraints are tested to
make the seat assembly more representative of those in today's
vehicles. The final rule changed the seat bottom and the seat back
cushion angles, the spacing between the anchors of the lap belt, and,
to replicate a rear seating position, changed the seat back from a
flexible seat back to a fixed one. The agency also assessed and
validated the reasonableness of the sled pulse.
Sled pulse. In Standard No. 213's dynamic sled test, a child
restraint is tested with a crash test dummy on a representative vehicle
bench seat (seat assembly). The seat assembly, child restraint and test
dummy are accelerated in a manner simulating a vehicle crash. The child
restraint must manage the force from the simulated crash so that the
forces imparted to the dummy are kept within tolerable limits. The
severity of the crash pulse is a function of its onset rate, peak
acceleration, time of peak g occurrence, and its duration.
FMVSS No. 213 has a relatively severe crash pulse, in that the sled
is accelerated relatively quickly to an acceleration of approximately
24 g's (24 times the force of gravity) and maintains the 24 g level for
a relatively long time period (37 to 42 milliseconds) before returning
to zero acceleration. A dynamic test condition of FMVSS No. 213's 48
kilometers per hour (kph) (30 miles per hour) sled test is that the
acceleration of the test platform must be within a curve \2\ depicted
in the standard (S6.1.1(b)(1)). The sled acceleration can not exceed
the upper limit of the curve. The laboratory test procedure (TP) for
FMVSS No. 213 also provided a lower limit for the curve, and thus gave
a tolerance band, or corridor, for the acceleration of the sled (TP-
213-04, September 1, 1997; Section D.3.3). Prior to the TREAD Act
rulemaking, the corridor was about 3 to 4 g's wide. To ensure that the
acceleration of the sled was within the relatively narrow 3 to 4 g wide
corridor, compliance tests were typically conducted at a [Delta]V of
approximately 28.5 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The curve depicted in Figure 2, S6.1.1(b)(1), applies to
child restraints manufactured before August 1, 2005. Figure 2A,
S6.1.1(b)(1), applies to child restraints manufactured on or after
August 1, 2005. Figure 2A and related amendments were adopted into
FMVSS No. 213 by the TREAD Act final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to the Pulse. The TREAD Act directed NHTSA to initiate a
rulemaking to consider, among other matters, whether FMVSS No. 213's
dynamic test reflects the designs of modern-day passenger motor
vehicles. As part of its response to the Act, NHTSA analyzed the crash
pulses of over 150 vehicles tested under FMVSS No. 208 and the agency's
frontal New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Average crash pulses from
tests of cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), trucks, and vans were
obtained and then filtered. The peak velocity, peak g, and duration of
the crash pulse were recorded. NHTSA determined in that rulemaking that
the crash pulse used in FMVSS No. 213 was very similar to the pulse of
light trucks, SUVs and small school buses in acceleration onset rate
and peak magnitude. Because these vehicles were regularly used to
transport children in child restraints, the agency decided that a crash
pulse that was not less than the severity of the pulses generated by
those vehicles was reasonable for FMVSS No. 213. Such a pulse would
better ensure (in contrast to a less stringent pulse) that child
restraints will not structurally degrade in a crash, will adequately
restrain child occupants and will limit to tolerable levels the forces
to a child's head and torso, regardless of the vehicle in which the
restraint is used.
Accordingly, the agency did not significantly revise the existing
pulse but instead adjusted it. The final rule adopted a trapezoidal-
shaped corridor to define the upper and lower limits of the pulse. The
corridor was about 6 g's wide, which is 2 to 3 g's wider than the pulse
formerly specified in FMVSS No. 213. Those changes achieved several
goals. Use of a trapezoidal shape to define the maximum and minimum
corridors of the sled pulse made the pulse similar in shape to those
used in FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' and in ECE
Regulation 44. The wider corridor enabled NHTSA to test child
restraints closer to 48 kph (30 mph) while maintaining the peak g
acceleration of the standard's pulse. The wider corridor also made it
easier for testing facilities to produce pulses that were within the
limits of the corridor,
[[Page 15598]]
which meant that more facilities could participate in FMVSS No. 213
testing. The existing pulse was also extended from 80 ms to about 90 ms
in duration. This change made the pulse more representative of the
crash pulses of today's vehicles (including light trucks, SUVs and
small school buses), which are longer in duration than the existing
FMVSS No. 213 pulse.
Ford Petition. Ford petitioned for reconsideration of the changes
to the sled test pulse specification. https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/
pdf87/251702_web.pdf Ford stated that the new pulse corridor would
allow increased average acceleration of the pulse, which Ford thought
was contrary to the agency's intent. Ford stated that broadening the
pulse corridors from 3 g to 6 g allows a 30 mph [Delta]V by increasing
average acceleration instead of increasing pulse duration. Ford also
stated that the difference between the most and least severe 30 mph
[Delta]V pulses allowed by the corridor is about 25%. The petitioner
stated that a pulse corridor that allows a potential 25% variation in
pulse severity is not sufficiently objective. Ford believed that the
agency intended to change the corridor to test restraints at a higher
velocity, i.e., closer to 30 mph, and that NHTSA did not intend to
specify a pulse with a higher average deceleration. Ford suggested a
pulse corridor that the petitioner believed would increase the velocity
change of the pulse without allowing a higher acceleration.
Response: The broadening of the FMVSS No. 213 pulse corridor does
not necessarily increase the average acceleration of a particular pulse
meeting the corridor. The agency does not consider average acceleration
over the duration of a pulse as a single indicator of the severity of
that pulse. We consider the severity of a crash pulse to depend on the
entire acceleration-time profile, including onset rate, peak g, peak g
time of occurrence, and pulse duration. The pulse formerly specified in
the standard fits entirely within the trapezoidal corridor. Thus, for
that pulse, the broadening of the corridor resulted in no increase in
average acceleration.
It is true that, with a broadened corridor, there is more
flexibility given for the different elements of the acceleration-time
profile (onset rate, peak g, peak g time of occurrence, and pulse
duration) to be individually increased or decreased to fine-tune the
fitting of the pulse within the constraints of the corridor. That was
one of the goals of the broadening of the corridor: to allow greater
flexibility to test laboratories to reproduce the sled pulse, and
achieve a V closer to 30 mph than previously achievable. Some elements
of the acceleration-time profile could be increased within the new
corridor and to that extent, pulses of increased average acceleration
could fit the corridor. Nonetheless, regardless of the values of the
individual components of the acceleration-time profile, the values must
be such that the pulses produced fit within the constraints of the
corridor. The corridor thus defines and limits the severity of the
pulse.
Yet, Ford is concerned that the new corridor allows test facilities
to use pulses that vary more in severity (based on average acceleration
over the duration of the pulse) than before. Ford states that pulses
that have a [Delta]V of 30 mph can potentially vary 25% in pulse
severity, and that a corridor that allows a potential 25% variation in
pulse severity is not sufficiently objective. The petitioner suggests
two approaches that the agency could take to increase ``the velocity
change of the pulse without allowing a higher acceleration.''
The most and least severe pulses that the petitioner uses to
illustrate the 25% variation in average acceleration cannot be achieved
by existing test sleds. That is, present day test equipment cannot
produce a pulse that is so severe as the theoretical pulse produced by
Ford for illustration, nor as benign. As such, the theoretical extreme
severity difference that Ford identifies does not exist in the real
world.
To the extent that some difference in severity exists, we do not
agree that the test is not objective. FMVSS No. 213 (S6.1.1(b)(1))
specifies that the tests for testing add-on child restraints ``are at a
velocity change of 48 km/h with the acceleration of the test platform
entirely within the curve shown in Figure 2 (for child restraints
manufactured before August 1, 2005) or in Figure 2A (for child
restraints manufactured on or after August 1, 2005). * * *'' The
standard clearly defines the trapezoidal-shaped corridor that
delineates the upper and lower boundaries of the pulse. Anyone
conducting the test is able to determine whether the pulse used fell
within the corridor. Use of identical pulses will result in similar
test results. The compliance of a child restraint will continue to be
based on objective testing.
Objectivity in testing and evaluating child restraints was not only
achieved by the final rule, it was also balanced with the need to
increase flexibility and practicability in conducting the test. Fewer
pulses would fit a narrower corridor, but fewer test laboratories would
be able to conduct compliance tests if a narrower corridor were
specified. The new pulse corridor adopted by the final rule enables
more laboratories to participate in objective compliance testing of
child restraints than before.
Ford believes that the new corridor allows a pulse that has an
average deceleration about 10% higher than the current pulse, and that
this outcome is contrary to the agency's intent not to increase the
severity of the current pulse used to test child restraints. The
petitioner states that the agency said in the preamble to the final
rule that ``the pulse should not be made more severe at this time.'' 68
FR at 37640. The issue under consideration in the TREAD Act final rule
was whether the already demanding FMVSS No. 213 24 g pulse should be
made more severe than the pulses of today's light trucks, SUVs and
small school buses. The agency decided against such an increase because
``[i]ncreasing the severity could necessitate the redesign of many
child restraints and could increase costs of the restraints to
manufacturers, without a proportionate safety benefit.'' Id. The agency
recognized in the TREAD Act final rule that the new pulse corridor will
improve the effectiveness of the standard's sled test by enabling NHTSA
to test child restraints closer to 30 mph than under the former pulse.
The agency acknowledged that child restraint tests run closer to 30 mph
are more stringent than tests conducted under the former pulse, and
that that was an intended outcome of the rule.
It is true that child restraints must meet the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested to a pulse contained anywhere
within the corridor. However, the increase in the width of the pulse
corridor is not likely to affect the ability of child restraints to
pass performance criteria. Agency tests have shown that child
restraints are currently manufactured with a wide compliance margin
when tested to the FMVSS No. 213 pulse. See 68 FR at 37634, Figures 1,
2 and 3. Thus, as a practical matter the new corridor is unlikely to
necessitate redesign of the restraints.
Ford suggested two preferred pulse corridors that petitioner
believed would allow most sled tests to achieve a full 30 mph [Delta]V,
but would limit pulse severity to about the same average acceleration
level specified by the former pulse corridor. The first widens the
existing FMVSS No. 213 pulse corridor after 65 ms. The second pulse
corridor uses the trapezoidal pulse of the final rule, but has a peak
acceleration at 22 g, instead of 25 g (between 9 and 56 ms).
NHTSA believes that neither of the suggested corridors satisfies
the goals of
[[Page 15599]]
the rulemaking. The first suggestion does not generally change the 2-3
g width of the pulse formerly specified in FMVSS No. 213 which many
test laboratories found difficult or impossible to work with.\3\ The
second pulse also maintains a 3 g width between its upper and lower
boundaries for most of the pulse and thus would create the same type of
practical difficulties that test labs had in meeting the former FMVSS
No. 213 pulse. In addition, the second suggested pulse is unacceptable
because it does not fit the previous FMVSS No. 213 pulse. It has a peak
acceleration that is lower than the FMVSS No. 213 pulse (at 14, 20, and
28 ms) and thus would reduce the severity of the existing FMVSS No. 213
crash pulse. Reducing the severity of the pulse is contrary to the
agency's intent in amending the standard in this TREAD Act rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The suggested pulse also does not allow a small deviance at
time zero, which some sleds need to generate a pulse that fits
within the corridor of the standard. See 67 FR at 21812-21813, NPRM
for the TREAD Act discussing grant of petition for rulemaking from
Transportation Research Center, Inc.
Ford believes that test labs are able to meet a narrow corridor
because they can meet the corridor of FMVSS No. 208, which specifies
a sled pulse that has a peak g variation of only 2.2 g. NHTSA notes
that the 2.2 g spread between the upper and lower bounds of the
FMVSS No. 208 corridor is only maintained for a relatively short
period of time, between 55 and 70 ms, while the FMVSS No. 213 pulse
specifies that the peak acceleration must be maintained from about
13 to 47 ms. That is, it is easier to control the pulse for a
shorter period (as in the FMVSS No. 208 pulse) than for a longer
period (as in the FMVSS No. 213 pulse). Further, the acceleration
onset rate specified in FMVSS No. 208 is much broader (longer in
duration and ``wider'') than that specified in FMVSS No. 213, which
allows test labs much greater flexibility in developing an
acceleration curve that fits entirely within the curve. Therefore,
the practicability of test labs of meeting the FMVSS No. 208 pulse
does not show practicability of meeting the FMVSS No. 213 pulse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons explained above, Ford's request for reconsideration
of the sled pulse is denied.
Ford on Braking: A second issue raised by Ford related to testing
built-in child restraint systems on a sled. (Built-in child restraints
are tested either on a sled or by crash testing the specific vehicle in
which the built-in restraint is installed.) Ford stated that the test
pulse specification is not objectively stated for sled tests of built-
in seats because the agency has not specified the period of time during
which the velocity change should occur. The petitioner stated: We
believe that NHTSA intended that the [Delta]V specified in
S6.1.1.1(b)(1) is the velocity change prior to the sled acceleration
dropping to zero, rather than the [Delta]V during the 90 ms maximum
pulse duration or the [Delta]V during the 200 to 300 ms effective
duration of the test.'' Ford stated that head injury criterion (HIC)
and neck readings can be driven upwards during the rebound phase of a
HYGE sled test in tests of built-in seats. Ford states that
freestanding seat backs will bend forward during sled acceleration then
rebound, pulling the dummy rearward, and may spring forward again after
rebounding due to the braking of the sled. Ford maintains that the
rebounding dummy in the built-in child restraint can hit the seat back
as it moves forward because of the sled braking, and can drive the HIC
reading higher. Thus, Ford believes that the resulting dummy readings
can be highly dependent on sled braking after the initial acceleration
pulse.
Response: NHTSA does not agree that there is a need to specify
expressly the time during which the velocity change should occur to
account for the braking characteristics of the sled. We believe that by
specifying that there be a velocity change of 48 km/h and that the
velocity change be achieved with the acceleration of the test platform
entirely within the curve shown in the standard, the test pulse is
objectively stated. Testing laboratories can alter the various
components of the sled pulse, including braking characteristics, as
long as the pulse has a velocity change of 48 km/h and the acceleration
is entirely within the corridor. Further, the agency is not aware of
instances where a specific braking profile between 90-300 ms influences
dummy readings in FMVSS No. 213 sled tests. NHTSA maintains that if the
acceleration pulse remains within the corridor, at [Delta]V = 30 mph,
the specification of a braking profile is unnecessary because the
effect of braking is minimal with respect to dummy readings--regardless
of the type of dynamic test. For the aforementioned reasons, the
petition for reconsideration is denied.
Denton Petition
Denton ATD (Denton) petitioned NHTSA to reconsider (correct) the
specification of the mass of the clothing worn by the Hybrid III 3-
year-old dummy incorporated into FMVSS No. 213 by the TREAD Act final
rule, and the specification for the shoes of the Hybrid III 3- and 6-
year-old dummies. The specifications are set forth by the final rule in
S9.1(e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 213 for the Hybrid III 3- and Hybrid III
6-year-old dummies, respectively.
Clothing: The petitioner stated that both the agency's regulation
(49 CFR Subpart P) specifying the Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy and the
Procedure for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) manual,
incorporated by reference into that regulation, specify that the
combined weight of the dummy's shirt and pants be no more than .25 kg
(.55 lb) (49 CFR 572.144(c)). However, Denton stated, S9.1(e) of FMVSS
No. 213 erroneously specifies that the 3-year-old dummy's shirt and
pants each have a mass of .090 kg. The petitioner also believed that
the specification of the mass of the 6-year-old dummy's clothing is
confusing (as specified in both S9.1(e) and (f)) and should be
clarified.
The petition as to the clothing is granted. This document amends
S9.1(e) to make it consistent with the dummy regulation and PADI. This
final rule is also clarifying the clothing specifications for the
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (correcting S9.1(e) to remove reference to
that dummy and revising S9.1(f)). The agency does not believe that
these corrections will affect the performance of the dummy or child
restraint in any way.
Shoes: Denton stated that there is an inconsistency between the
specifications in 49 CFR part 572 and FMVSS No. 213 regarding the size
and weight of the shoes worn by the Hybrid III 3- and Hybrid III 6-
year-old dummies.
The PADI for the 3-year-old dummy (which is incorporated by
reference into part 572) specifies a size 8 shoe, and further specifies
that each shoe must weigh .21 +/-0.05 kg (.47 +/-.10 lb). In contrast,
FMVSS No. 213 specifies a size 7M shoe size, and a total mass of .453
kg for the shoes for this dummy.
Denton stated that the drawings and the PADI for the Hybrid III 6-
year-old dummy (which are incorporated by reference into 49 CFR part
572, Subpart N) specify canvas oxford, size 13M shoes and that each
shoe weighs .38 +/-.05 kg (.83 +/-.10 lb). The petitioner stated that
in contrast, FMVSS No. 213 (S9.1(f)) specifies a size 12\1/2\M canvas
oxford with a total mass of .453 kg (1.00 lb). Denton stated that it
can not find shoes that meet the FMVSS No. 213 weight specification in
the specified style. Denton suggested that the agency reconsider FMVSS
No. 213's specification of shoe size and weight.
Denton's petition as to the shoes is also granted. The agency is
amending S9.1(e) of the standard to specify that the shoes for the
Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy are size 8 canvas oxford style sneakers
weighing not more than 0.26 kg each. The agency is amending S9.1(f) to
specify that the shoes for the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy are
children's size 13M canvas oxford style sneakers weighing not more than
0.43 kg each.
[[Page 15600]]
The agency does not believe that these changes will affect the
performance measured under FMVSS No. 213.
Effective Date
The amendments on the dummies' clothing and shoes are effective in
30 days. An effective date less than 180 days after date of publication
of this rule is in the public interest because these amendments correct
and clarify the specifications for the clothing and shoes. Further,
there is good cause for the effective date because FMVSS No. 213
specifies that the agency will use the Hybrid III dummies in the
standard's compliance tests of child restraints manufactured on or
after August 1, 2005.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the
impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, and has determined
that it is not ``significant'' under them. This document amends FMVSS
No. 213 to correct the specification for the clothing and shoes worn by
the new 3- and 6-year old child test dummies. The correction does not
affect the performance of the dummies or the performance of child
restraints. There are no cost or benefit changes associated with this
final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354), as
amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their
proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule simply corrects an inconsistency in the
specification of clothing and shoes worn by the test dummies. It does
not reduce or impose any new obligations or requirements.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and has determined that it does not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with
State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement. The rule will not have any substantial effects on the
States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local
officials.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule will not have any retroactive effect. A petition for
reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will not be a
prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this rule. This
rule will not preempt the states from adopting laws or regulations on
the same subject, except that it will preempt a state regulation that
is in actual conflict with the Federal regulation or makes compliance
with the Federal regulation impossible or interferes with the
implementation of the Federal statute.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
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, 30166 and 30177;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. S9.1(e) and (f) of Sec. 571.213 are revised as set forth below.
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S9.1 Type of clothing.
* * * * *
(e) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart P). When
used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR Part
572, Subpart P, is clothed as specified in that subpart, except that
the shoes are children's size 8 canvas oxford style sneakers weighing
not more than 0.26 kg each.
(f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N) and
Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S). When
used in testing under this standard, the dummies specified in 49 CFR
Part 572, Subpart N and Subpart S, are clothed as specified in those
subparts, except that the shoes are children's size 13 M canvas oxford
style sneakers weighing not more than 0.43 kg each.
* * * * *
Issued on March 22, 2005.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-5962 Filed 3-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
