Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems, 45355-45357 [E8-17932]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Rules and Regulations dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission’s duplicating contractor at its Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com or by calling 1–800–378–3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432 (TTY). Document DA 08–1589 also can be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/ trs.html#orders. Synopsis There are several forms of TRS, including three that are Internet-based TRS: Video Relay Service (VRS), Internet Protocol (IP) Relay (IP Relay), and IP captioned telephone service (IP CTS). The Bureau has received requests for guidance concerning the transferability of Commission certification of Internet-based TRS providers as eligible for compensation from the Fund, pursuant to the provider certification rules contained in 47 CFR 64.606 (as redesignated at 73 FR 21259, Apr. 21, 2008). The Bureau clarifies that such certification is not transferable. Therefore, in the event that an entity not certified pursuant to 47 CFR 64.606 purchases, acquires, or merges with another TRS provider, the acquiring or surviving provider must be certified under 47 CFR 64.606 (or otherwise eligible for compensation from the Fund) before it can receive payments from the Fund. Because the Commission certifies providers based on the attestations of their owners or their representatives, who are ultimately responsible for compliance with the Commission’s rules, the certification of a provider does not automatically transfer to new owners. On the other hand, if an entity that is certified pursuant to 47 CFR 64.606 purchases, acquires, or merges with another TRS provider, the acquiring or surviving provider need only notify the Commission of the change in its TRS program and provision of service within 60 days pursuant to 47 CFR 64.606(f)(2). Under this rule, the acquiring or surviving company must notify the Commission of the changes to its program and provision of service that result from the acquisition and ‘‘must certify that the interstate TRS provider continues to meet federal minimum standards.’’ To meet the latter requirement, the provider may either certify that the responses provided in its initial certification application upon VerDate Aug<31>2005 12:53 Aug 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 which the Commission based certification remain accurate, or describe any changes and certify their compliance with the Commission’s rules. Federal Communications Commission. Nicole McGinnis, Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. [FR Doc. E8–17919 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. 08–0137] RIN 2127–AK36 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This final rule amends a provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 that specifies that child restraints manufactured on or after August 1, 2008 are tested by NHTSA with the Hybrid III version of the 6-year-old child dummy. NHTSA is postponing the August 1, 2008 date to August 1, 2010. The August 1, 2010 date provides NHTSA time to consider comments on seating procedures proposed earlier this year for the dummy and to complete an evaluation of technical issues relating to the use of the Hybrid III dummy in FMVSS No. 213, and provides the public more time to become experienced with testing with the dummy. As a result of this final rule, FMVSS No. 213 will permit, at the manufacturer’s option, the use of either the Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of child restraints manufactured on or before August 1, 2010. Child restraints manufactured on or after August 1, 2010 will be tested with the Hybrid III 6-yearold child test dummy. DATES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by September 19, 2008. Effective date: This final rule is effective August 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, you should refer in your petition to the docket PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 45355 number of this document and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 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). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Shashi Kuppa, PhD, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202–366–1740) (Fax: 202– 493–2990). For legal issues, you may call 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: This final rule amends S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 213 to permit, at the manufacturer’s option, the use of either the Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of child restraints manufactured before August 1, 2010. A notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this final rule was published January 23, 2008 (73 FR 3901, Docket No. 2007– 0048). Background On July 28, 2005, NHTSA issued an interim final rule (70 FR 44520) that amended a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that had specified that child restraints 1 manufactured on or after August 1, 2005 would be subject to compliance testing with a Hybrid III 6-year-old child test dummy (August 3, 2005, Docket No. 05– 22010). The Hybrid III 6-year-old child test dummy is specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart N. The agency had incorporated the Hybrid III test dummy in FMVSS No. 213 to replace its Hybrid II counterpart believing that the Hybrid III test dummy’s enhanced biofidelity and extensive instrumentation would lead to a more thorough and precise assessment of child restraint performance over that resulting from the Hybrid II dummy. However, a child 1 These child restraints are recommended by their manufacturer for children weighing over 18 kilograms (40 pounds (lb)) or whose height is greater than 1100 millimeters. E:\FR\FM\05AUR1.SGM 05AUR1 45356 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Rules and Regulations restraint manufacturer (Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel)) asked to delay the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III dummy because of unexpectedly high Head Injury Criterion (HIC) measurements Dorel found when it tested its booster seats with the Hybrid III dummy. In the interim final rule, the agency agreed that the August 2005 date should be postponed to August 1, 2008 to provide more time to work with the dummy and make needed adjustments to child restraints to enable them to meet FMVSS No. 213 performance criteria. Supplemental Notice dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES Following publication of the interim final rule, NHTSA developed FMVSS No. 213 test dummy seating procedures that could be used with Hybrid III test dummies in belt-positioning booster seats to better control variability of HIC measurements obtained by the test dummy. Seating procedures were developed and proposed for the Hybrid III 10-year-old and Hybrid III 6-year-old child test dummies in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) published January 23, 2008 (73 FR 3901, Docket No. 2007–0048).2 The agency determined that a dummy that is set up to have a more reclined torso is more likely to submarine under the vehicle belt than a dummy that is more upright and well restrained, resulting in higher rotational velocity in the dummy’s head and a non-representative contact of the head with a relatively rigid portion of the dummy structure as compared to a test with the dummy in a more upright position. Thus, because dummy posture in booster seats was found to affect HIC measurements obtained by the dummy, the agency proposed a high degree of specificity in the dummy set-up procedure. Comments were requested on the proposed seating procedure for testing booster seats with the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and on the need for the procedure for testing child restraints other than booster seats. 73 FR at 3909. In addition, because the August 1, 2008 date that had been adopted by the interim final rule was approaching while issues related to the proposed seating procedure for the Hybrid III 6year-old dummy were still under consideration, the SNPRM proposed to postpone the August 1, 2008 date for 2 The SNPRM supplemented an August 31, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to restraints recommended for children up to 80 lb and to require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance criteria when tested with the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test dummy (70 FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245). VerDate Aug<31>2005 12:53 Aug 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 mandatory use of the dummy until August 1, 2010. In commenting on the issue of the proposed August 1, 2010 compliance date in the SNPRM, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association Inc. (JPMA) stated that its child restraint manufacturer members supported the proposed postponement of the August 1, 2008 date to August 1, 2010. JPMA believed that testing with the Hybrid III 6-year-old child test dummy ‘‘continue[s] to provide erroneous results’’ and that ‘‘changes to address the design and performance issues have not been implemented to date.’’ (JPMA did not elaborate on its reference to ‘‘design and performance issues’’ of the dummy.) Dorel commented also, indicating concurrence with the JPMA comment and concerns about the ‘‘nonbiofidelic behavior of the Hybrid 3 6yr dummy.’’ No comment opposed the postponement of the August 1, 2008 date. Decision For the reasons stated in the SNPRM and after consideration of the comments on the proposed postponement of the August 1, 2008 date, NHTSA has decided to adopt the proposed amendment of S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 213. The amendment allows, at the manufacturer’s option, the use of either the Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in compliance tests of child restraints manufactured before August 1, 2010. The extended time for optional use of the Hybrid III dummy provides NHTSA time to consider comments on the proposed seating procedure of the SNPRM for the dummy and provides the public more time to become experienced testing with the dummy. The extended time period also provides the agency a window of opportunity to complete an evaluation of two minor changes to the Hybrid III dummy’s design before the effective date for the mandatory use of the dummy in agency compliance tests. The first change relates to a petition for rulemaking submitted by test dummy manufacturers First Technology Safety Systems, Inc. and Denton ATD to correct an error in the drawing package incorporated by reference into 49 CFR part 572 for the abdominal insert for the dummy. These dummy manufacturers believe that the drawing for the abdominal insert does not match the mold used to manufacture the abdomen inserts in the dummies and should therefore be corrected. The second change relates to the femur design of the Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy. When using the dummy in FMVSS No. 213 tests and in vehicle PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 crash tests conducted under NHTSA’s consumer information New Car Assessment Program, the agency observed failures of the femur involving complete separation of the dummy leg(s) from the pelvis. Failures occurred across a variety of test facilities and test conditions and also when testing a variety of child restraints, while the failure mode appeared the same for all cases. Failure appears to have occurred at a sharp corner between two sections of the machined femur: The larger section that clamps onto the upper leg and the smaller section that contains the femur shaft. Fracturing of this area has caused the complete separation of the machined femur. NHTSA is initiating rulemaking to propose a femur design for the dummy that would enable the femur to withstand the stresses of dynamic testing without failure. Postponement of NHTSA’s mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy until August 1, 2010 will provide the agency time to address the dummy’s abdomen drawing and femur design prior to use of the dummy in FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests. The January 23, 2008 SNPRM and August 31, 2005 NPRM addressed many issues other than the August 1, 2010 date for testing with the Hybrid III 6year-old dummy. NHTSA will address these other issues in a subsequent document. Regulatory Analyses and Notices Executive Order, 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It does not impose any burden on manufacturers, and only extends the compliance date for certification to testing with the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy. The agency believes that this impact is so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the impacts of this rulemaking action will have on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact E:\FR\FM\05AUR1.SGM 05AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Rules and Regulations dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES upon a substantial number of small entities within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The following is the agency’s statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This final rule affects child restraint manufacturers. According to the size standards of the Small Business Association (at 13 CFR Part 121.601), the small business size standard for manufacturers of ‘‘Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing’’ (NAICS Code 336360) is 500 employees or fewer. Many child restraint manufacturers would be classified as small businesses under this standard. However, the final rule does not impose any new requirements on manufacturers that produce child restraint systems, but only extends a compliance date. Accordingly, we have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Executive Order 13132, Federalism E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ E.O. 13132 defines the term ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ Under E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of VerDate Aug<31>2005 12:53 Aug 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This action will not result in additional expenditures by state, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule does not impose any new collection of information requirements for which a 5 CFR part 1320 clearance must be obtained. Civil Justice Reform This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a state, or political subdivision of a state, may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings are not required before parties file suit in court. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). rulemaking action only extends the compliance date for certification of child restraint systems using the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy. This rulemaking does not require any change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set forth below. I 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, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S7.1.3 to read as follows: I § 571.213 systems. Standard No. 213; Child restraint * * * * * 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. Issued: July 31, 2008. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8–17932 Filed 7–31–08:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Environmental Impacts We have considered the impacts of this final rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 45357 E:\FR\FM\05AUR1.SGM 05AUR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 5, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45355-45357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17932]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 08-0137]
RIN 2127-AK36


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends a provision in Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 that specifies that child restraints 
manufactured on or after August 1, 2008 are tested by NHTSA with the 
Hybrid III version of the 6-year-old child dummy. NHTSA is postponing 
the August 1, 2008 date to August 1, 2010. The August 1, 2010 date 
provides NHTSA time to consider comments on seating procedures proposed 
earlier this year for the dummy and to complete an evaluation of 
technical issues relating to the use of the Hybrid III dummy in FMVSS 
No. 213, and provides the public more time to become experienced with 
testing with the dummy. As a result of this final rule, FMVSS No. 213 
will permit, at the manufacturer's option, the use of either the Hybrid 
II or Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of child 
restraints manufactured on or before August 1, 2010. Child restraints 
manufactured on or after August 1, 2010 will be tested with the Hybrid 
III 6-year-old child test dummy.

DATES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your 
petition must be received by September 19, 2008.
    Effective date: This final rule is effective August 5, 2008.

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, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 
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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call 
Shashi Kuppa, PhD, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202-366-1740) (Fax: 
202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call 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: This final rule amends S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 
213 to permit, at the manufacturer's option, the use of either the 
Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of child 
restraints manufactured before August 1, 2010. A notice of proposed 
rulemaking preceding this final rule was published January 23, 2008 (73 
FR 3901, Docket No. 2007-0048).

Background

    On July 28, 2005, NHTSA issued an interim final rule (70 FR 44520) 
that amended a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that had specified that child 
restraints \1\ manufactured on or after August 1, 2005 would be subject 
to compliance testing with a Hybrid III 6-year-old child test dummy 
(August 3, 2005, Docket No. 05-22010). The Hybrid III 6-year-old child 
test dummy is specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart N. The agency had 
incorporated the Hybrid III test dummy in FMVSS No. 213 to replace its 
Hybrid II counterpart believing that the Hybrid III test dummy's 
enhanced biofidelity and extensive instrumentation would lead to a more 
thorough and precise assessment of child restraint performance over 
that resulting from the Hybrid II dummy. However, a child

[[Page 45356]]

restraint manufacturer (Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel)) asked to delay 
the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III dummy 
because of unexpectedly high Head Injury Criterion (HIC) measurements 
Dorel found when it tested its booster seats with the Hybrid III dummy. 
In the interim final rule, the agency agreed that the August 2005 date 
should be postponed to August 1, 2008 to provide more time to work with 
the dummy and make needed adjustments to child restraints to enable 
them to meet FMVSS No. 213 performance criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These child restraints are recommended by their manufacturer 
for children weighing over 18 kilograms (40 pounds (lb)) or whose 
height is greater than 1100 millimeters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Notice

    Following publication of the interim final rule, NHTSA developed 
FMVSS No. 213 test dummy seating procedures that could be used with 
Hybrid III test dummies in belt-positioning booster seats to better 
control variability of HIC measurements obtained by the test dummy. 
Seating procedures were developed and proposed for the Hybrid III 10-
year-old and Hybrid III 6-year-old child test dummies in a supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) published January 23, 2008 (73 FR 
3901, Docket No. 2007-0048).\2\ The agency determined that a dummy that 
is set up to have a more reclined torso is more likely to submarine 
under the vehicle belt than a dummy that is more upright and well 
restrained, resulting in higher rotational velocity in the dummy's head 
and a non-representative contact of the head with a relatively rigid 
portion of the dummy structure as compared to a test with the dummy in 
a more upright position. Thus, because dummy posture in booster seats 
was found to affect HIC measurements obtained by the dummy, the agency 
proposed a high degree of specificity in the dummy set-up procedure. 
Comments were requested on the proposed seating procedure for testing 
booster seats with the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and on the need for 
the procedure for testing child restraints other than booster seats. 73 
FR at 3909. In addition, because the August 1, 2008 date that had been 
adopted by the interim final rule was approaching while issues related 
to the proposed seating procedure for the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy 
were still under consideration, the SNPRM proposed to postpone the 
August 1, 2008 date for mandatory use of the dummy until August 1, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The SNPRM supplemented an August 31, 2005 notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to expand the applicability of FMVSS 
No. 213 to restraints recommended for children up to 80 lb and to 
require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance 
criteria when tested with the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test 
dummy (70 FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In commenting on the issue of the proposed August 1, 2010 
compliance date in the SNPRM, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers 
Association Inc. (JPMA) stated that its child restraint manufacturer 
members supported the proposed postponement of the August 1, 2008 date 
to August 1, 2010. JPMA believed that testing with the Hybrid III 6-
year-old child test dummy ``continue[s] to provide erroneous results'' 
and that ``changes to address the design and performance issues have 
not been implemented to date.'' (JPMA did not elaborate on its 
reference to ``design and performance issues'' of the dummy.) Dorel 
commented also, indicating concurrence with the JPMA comment and 
concerns about the ``non-biofidelic behavior of the Hybrid 3 6yr 
dummy.'' No comment opposed the postponement of the August 1, 2008 
date.

Decision

    For the reasons stated in the SNPRM and after consideration of the 
comments on the proposed postponement of the August 1, 2008 date, NHTSA 
has decided to adopt the proposed amendment of S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 213. 
The amendment allows, at the manufacturer's option, the use of either 
the Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in compliance tests 
of child restraints manufactured before August 1, 2010. The extended 
time for optional use of the Hybrid III dummy provides NHTSA time to 
consider comments on the proposed seating procedure of the SNPRM for 
the dummy and provides the public more time to become experienced 
testing with the dummy.
    The extended time period also provides the agency a window of 
opportunity to complete an evaluation of two minor changes to the 
Hybrid III dummy's design before the effective date for the mandatory 
use of the dummy in agency compliance tests. The first change relates 
to a petition for rulemaking submitted by test dummy manufacturers 
First Technology Safety Systems, Inc. and Denton ATD to correct an 
error in the drawing package incorporated by reference into 49 CFR part 
572 for the abdominal insert for the dummy. These dummy manufacturers 
believe that the drawing for the abdominal insert does not match the 
mold used to manufacture the abdomen inserts in the dummies and should 
therefore be corrected.
    The second change relates to the femur design of the Hybrid III 6-
year-old child dummy. When using the dummy in FMVSS No. 213 tests and 
in vehicle crash tests conducted under NHTSA's consumer information New 
Car Assessment Program, the agency observed failures of the femur 
involving complete separation of the dummy leg(s) from the pelvis. 
Failures occurred across a variety of test facilities and test 
conditions and also when testing a variety of child restraints, while 
the failure mode appeared the same for all cases. Failure appears to 
have occurred at a sharp corner between two sections of the machined 
femur: The larger section that clamps onto the upper leg and the 
smaller section that contains the femur shaft. Fracturing of this area 
has caused the complete separation of the machined femur. NHTSA is 
initiating rulemaking to propose a femur design for the dummy that 
would enable the femur to withstand the stresses of dynamic testing 
without failure. Postponement of NHTSA's mandatory use of the Hybrid 
III 6-year-old child dummy until August 1, 2010 will provide the agency 
time to address the dummy's abdomen drawing and femur design prior to 
use of the dummy in FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests.
    The January 23, 2008 SNPRM and August 31, 2005 NPRM addressed many 
issues other than the August 1, 2010 date for testing with the Hybrid 
III 6-year-old dummy. NHTSA will address these other issues in a 
subsequent document.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order, 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under 
Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It does not impose any burden 
on manufacturers, and only extends the compliance date for 
certification to testing with the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy. The 
agency believes that this impact is so minimal as to not warrant the 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the 
impacts of this rulemaking action will have on small entities (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a 
significant economic impact

[[Page 45357]]

upon a substantial number of small entities within the context of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The following is the agency's statement 
providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). 
This final rule affects child restraint manufacturers. According to the 
size standards of the Small Business Association (at 13 CFR Part 
121.601), the small business size standard for manufacturers of ``Motor 
Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing'' (NAICS Code 336360) 
is 500 employees or fewer. Many child restraint manufacturers would be 
classified as small businesses under this standard. However, the final 
rule does not impose any new requirements on manufacturers that produce 
child restraint systems, but only extends a compliance date. 
Accordingly, we have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Privacy Act

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

Environmental Impacts

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set 
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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


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


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

* * * * *
    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.

    Issued: July 31, 2008.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-17932 Filed 7-31-08:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P