Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, 53987-53999 [E9-25241]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
G. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of any written
communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477) or you may visit https://
www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
H. International Trade Analysis
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies
from establishing any standards or
engaging in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. For
purposes of these requirements, Federal
agencies may participate in the
establishment of international
standards, so long as the standards have
a legitimate domestic objective, such as
providing for safety, and do not operate
to exclude imports that meet this
objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards
and, where appropriate, that they be the
basis for U.S. standards. PHMSA
participates in the establishment of
international standards in order to
protect the safety of the American
public, and we would assess the effects
of any rule to ensure that it does not
exclude imports that meet this objective.
Accordingly, any proposals would be
consistent with PHMSA’s obligations
under the Trade Agreement Act, as
amended.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This
Rulemaking
1. 49 U.S.C. 5103(b) authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation,
including security, of hazardous
materials in intrastate, interstate, and
foreign commerce. Harmonization
serves to facilitate international
transportation; at the same time,
harmonization promotes the safety of
people, property, and the environment
by reducing the potential for confusion
and misunderstanding that could result
if shippers and transporters were
required to comply with two or more
conflicting sets of regulatory
requirements. While the intent of this
rulemaking is to consider aligning the
HMR with international standards, we
review and consider each amendment
on its own merit based on its overall
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
impact on transportation safety and the
economic implications associated with
its adoption into the HMR. Our goal is
to harmonize without sacrificing the
current HMR level of safety and without
imposing undue burdens on the
regulated public. Thus, as explained in
the corresponding sections above, we
may not propose harmonization with
certain specific provisions of the UN
Recommendations, the IMDG Code, and
the ICAO TI. Moreover, when proposing
amendments to the HMR, consideration
is given to providing exceptions for
domestic transportation that minimizes
compliance burden on the regulated
community.
2. 49 U.S.C. 5120(b) authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to ensure
that, to the extent practicable,
regulations governing the transportation
of hazardous materials in commerce are
consistent with standards adopted by
international authorities. This notice
considers potential amendments to the
HMR that would maintain alignment
with international standards by
incorporating various amendments. The
continually increasing amount of
hazardous materials transported in
international commerce warrants the
harmonization of domestic and
international requirements to the
greatest extent. The majority of
amendments in any harmonization rule
should result in cost savings and ease
the regulatory compliance burden for
shippers engaged in domestic and
international commerce, including
trans-border shipments within North
America.
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN)
is assigned to each regulatory action
listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. The RIN contained in the heading
of this document can be used to crossreference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
Issued in Washington, DC on October 15,
2009 under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 106.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. E9–25358 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53987
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 572
[Docket No. NHTSA–09–0166]
RIN 2127–AK34
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid
III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: Today’s NPRM proposes two
changes to the agency’s specifications
for the Hybrid III six-year-old child
dummy. In Part 1 of this NPRM, to
improve the durability of the dummy’s
femurs, we propose changes to the
design of and material used for the
femur assembly. In Part 2, the drawing
for the abdomen insert would be
corrected so that the abdominal insert
dimensions on the drawing reflect the
actual part. Part 2 of this rulemaking
commenced in response to a petition for
rulemaking submitted by Denton ATD
(Denton) and First Technology Safety
Systems (FTSS). This document
declines the petitioners’ suggestion to
investigate tolerances for vinyl and
rubber components of the dummy and
to specify the expected time frame each
part would meet the tolerances.
DATES: You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
they are received not later than
December 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
(identified by the Docket ID Number
above) by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 202–493–2251
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Public Participation heading of
the Supplementary Information section
of this document. Note that all
comments received will be posted
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
53988
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78).
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Lori
Summers, NHTSA Office of
Crashworthiness Standards (telephone
202–366–1740) (fax 202–493–2990). For
legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre
Fujita, NHTSA 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, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Overview
II. Part 1—Femur Improvements
a. Introduction
b. Description of the Femur; Failures
c. Proposed Femur Design Changes
d. Analysis of the New Femur Design
1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect
2. Dynamic Evaluation
i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified
HIII–6C Test in the Marathon, Boulevard,
and Decathlon CRSs
ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax
Marathon Test of the Modified HIII–6C
(Test H06337) to Those of a Test of the
Original HIII–6C Where Femur Failure
Occurred (H06120)
A. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics
B. Effect on Dummy Kinematics
C. Dummy Response Biofidelity
D. Hip Lock
III. Part 2—Abdominal Insert
IV. Proposed Effective Date
V. Other Issues: Rubber and Foam Parts
VI. Rulemaking Analyses And Notices
VII. Public Participation
I. Overview
This NPRM proposes two changes to
the agency’s specifications for the
Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy
(HIII–6C). In Part 1 of this NPRM, to
improve the durability of the dummy’s
femurs, we propose changes to the
design of and material used for the
femur assembly. The primary
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
modifications include the addition of a
⁄ -inch (6.35 millimeter (mm)) fillet
between the femur clamp and the
connecting segment (as defined in
section II.b of this preamble) of the
machined femur, removal of material
from the connecting segment, and a
material change from aluminum bronze
to 4340 steel. These changes would be
made by changing the drawings for the
femur in the drawing package specified
in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N (‘‘Sixyear-old child test dummy’’), the parts
list, and the ‘‘Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection’’ (‘‘PADI’’)
document of the Hybrid III 6-year-old
child crash test dummy (June 2002)
incorporated by reference into that
regulation. In Part 2, the drawing for the
HIII–6C abdomen insert would be
corrected so that the abdominal insert
dimensions on the drawing reflect the
actual part. We also propose to make
conforming changes to the
specifications and drawings of the HIII–
6CW weighted child test dummy (49
CFR Part 572, Subpart S).
14
II. Part 1—Femur Improvements
a. Introduction
The HIII–6C is used to represent a sixyear-old child in vehicle crash tests and
equipment compliance tests. It is an
enhanced, more biofidelic upgrade to its
predecessor, the Hybrid II six-year-old
dummy. The HIII–6C is used in multiple
testing environments, including, but not
limited to, out-of-position testing in
FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant Crash
Protection, 49 CFR 571.208), child
restraint system (CRS) evaluation in
FMVSS No. 213 (Child Restraint
Systems, 49 CFR 571.213),1 and for
research purposes in the New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP).
The HIII–6C can be used in its normal
configuration or it can be weighted to
simulate heavier children (see 49 CFR
Part 572, Subpart S). The standard HIII–
6C weighs 52 pounds (lb) (23.6
kilograms (kg)). The weighted version of
the dummy (HIII–6CW) weighs ten
pounds more at 62 lb (28.1 kg). The
HIII–6CW was developed to represent
larger children for purposes of testing
booster seats to the requirements of
FMVSS No. 213.2
NHTSA has become aware that femur
failures, involving complete separation
1 Mandatory use of the HIII–6C by NHTSA in
compliance tests will begin in 2010. Currently,
manufacturers have the option of certifying their
child restraints to FMVSS No. 213 using the HIII–
6C or the Hybrid II six-year-old dummy.
2 As noted earlier, we propose changing the
specifications and drawings of the HIII–6CW set
forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S, consistent with
the changes proposed for the HIII–6C dummy
discussed in this preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the dummy leg(s) from the pelvis,
have occurred in the test dummy in
FMVSS No. 213 testing and in NCAP
research testing.
To improve the durability of the
femur, NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and
Test Center (VRTC), through an existing
contract with dummy manufacturers
First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS)
and Denton ATD (Denton),3 requested
the manufacturers to consider new
femur designs for the HIII–6C. NHTSA
asked the dummy manufacturers to look
into improving the femur design after
learning of a femur failure. The agency
began investigating the femur even
though only a single failure had
occurred because the same failure had
been observed in a prototype version of
the Hybrid III 10-year-old child dummy
(HIII–10C) that had a femur design that
was similar to the present HIII–6C
femur.4 NHTSA was concerned that the
HIII–6C’s femur was a vulnerable design
and that more femur failures would
occur as the dummy became more
widely used in agency testing.
FTSS and Denton separately
developed different redesigns of the
HIII–6C’s femur. NHTSA has assessed
both approaches and has decided to
propose design changes that are based
on the approach developed by FTSS.
NHTSA has prepared a technical report
that discusses in detail the femur
designs, the agency’s analysis of data
relating to the proposed redesign of the
femur, and other technical information
supporting this NPRM. A copy of the
report has been placed in the docket.
b. Description of the Femur; Failures
The present design of the HIII–6C
femur is specified in 49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart N.5 The machined femur,
which is part of the femur assembly
illustrated in Figure 1 below, consists of
a large section that clamps onto the
upper leg and a smaller section that
contains the femur shaft. For ease of
3 These are the manufacturers that produce the
HIII–6C dummy.
4 In particular, the machined femur of the HIII–
10C had the same sharp corner, discussed in the
next section of this preamble, between the ‘‘femur
clamp’’ and the ‘‘connecting segment’’ regions. The
machined femur of the HIII–10C that had been
involved in the failures was redesigned before the
initiation of the HIII–10C’s incorporation into 49
CFR Part 572 and the redesigned HIII–10C femurs
have not been failing. The redesign of the HIII–10C
dummy femur added a 1⁄4-inch (6.35 mm) fillet to
reduce stress at the intersection of the femur clamp
and connecting segment. Additionally, the material
of the HIII–10C machined femur and shaft was
modified to be 4140 Steel, which has a significantly
higher yield strength (92,000 psi) than the
aluminum bronze used in the HIII–6C femur
(48,000 psi). The shaft angle of the HIII–10C (77°)
is also larger than that of the HIII–6C (55°).
5 Complete drawings for the HIII–6C femur can be
found in Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12541.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
53989
illustration shows the approximate
location of the femur failure. (The femur
load cell, the response of which is
discussed in the ‘‘dynamic evaluation’’
section below, is located in the distal
portion of the upper leg (i.e., farther
from the pelvis) and not in the area of
the machined femur.)
a fractured part can be found in the
technical report accompanying this
NPRM.
c. Proposed Femur Design Changes
The proposed modification to
improve the femur’s durability is based
on the approach developed by FTSS.
The agency decided on that approach
over Denton’s because the FTSS design
was more straightforward and simpler
than that of Denton,6 and a similar
design change had demonstrated
improvement in the HIII–10C. Rather
than re-designing, FTSS increased the
strength and durability of the femur
assembly by fabricating the machined
femur and shaft from 4340 steel, which
has a higher yield strength than the
original material, aluminum bronze C–
624 AMC0–18, while keeping the ball
and retaining flange as the original
aluminum bronze material. A 1⁄4-inch
(6.35 mm) circular fillet was added
between the femur clamp and the
connecting segment to eliminate stressrisers that were present on the original
femur, and a portion of the connecting
segment material near the femur clamp
was removed. The weight of the new
FTSS femur is only 0.002 lb (0.001
kilograms (kg)) heavier than the original
femur. Table 1 below compares the
weights and material properties of the
original femur, the FTSS-developed
femur, and the Denton-developed
femur.
6 Both manufacturers recommended a material
change to increase the strength of the femur. In
terms of design, FTSS reduced the effects of a
stress-riser in the area of the failure, while Denton
completed more extensive design changes to also
address the alleged issue of ‘‘hip lock.’’ Hip lock is
a condition where flexion of the dummy’s hip joint
is mechanically limited due to contact between the
femur and the retaining ring or other pelvis
structure. Hip lock in the HIII-50th percentile male
femur led to design modifications that prevented
‘‘hard’’ (i.e., metal-to-metal contact) hip lock from
occurring (61 FR 67953, Dec. 26, 1996). In that adult
dummy, hard hip lock was characterized by spikes
in the unfiltered pelvis and chest accelerometer
readings, high and sharply-pointed chest z
acceleration traces, non-unimodal chest x and
resultant accelerations, and a high tension
component in the lumbar z force (Klinich et al.,
‘‘Evaluation of a Proposed Hybrid III Hip
Modification,’’ Stapp Paper No. 952730, 1995).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
EP21OC09.029</GPH>
assembly allows for rotation of the
dummy hip joint. The flange is used to
attach the femur assembly to the pelvis.
The entire femur assembly is found
within the lower torso, and the material
specification for this assembly,
including the machined femur, shaft,
flange and ball is Aluminum Bronze C–
624 AMC0–18. The line drawn in the
Failures of the HIII–6C femur appear
to have initiated at a sharp corner
between the femur clamp and
connecting segment sections of the
machined femur. The fracture was
observed from this corner to the bolt
hole within the femur clamp, at an angle
of approximately 45°. The failure
continued through the thin section of
material directly beneath the bolt hole,
causing complete separation of the
machined femur. Additionally, in one
failed component, small indents on the
inner diameter of the retaining flange
were observed, indicating potential
contact between the flange and shaft.
The location of the fracture is depicted
in the Figure 1 illustration. Pictures of
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
discussion, these portions of the
machined femur will be referred to as
the ‘‘femur clamp’’ and the ‘‘connecting
segment,’’ respectively, for the
remainder of this preamble. The femur
shaft, retaining flange, and femur ball
connect the machined femur to the
dummy’s pelvis. Similar to a human hip
joint, the ball in the HIII–6C femur
53990
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WEIGHT AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR THE ORIGINAL AND DEVELOPED HIII–6C FEMUR DESIGNS
Femur design
Measured weight
Original .................................................................
FTSS ....................................................................
Denton ..................................................................
0.532 lb (0.241 kg) ..........................
0.534 lb (0.242 kg) ..........................
0.606 lb (0.275 kg) ..........................
To implement this change in femur
design and material, the following
changes would be made to the materials
describing the HIII–6C in 49 CFR Part
572. Drawings 127–3017–1&–2, ‘‘6 YR
H3—FEMUR MACHINED’’ would be
replaced with drawings 127–3017–1S&–
2S, which show the proposed machined
femur.7 The femur assembly drawings
(127–3016–1&–2) would also be
changed due to the new femur design,
with new part numbers 127–3016–1S&–
2S. Higher assembly drawings including
127–3000, ‘‘LOWER TORSO
ASSEMBLY,’’ and the complete
assembly drawings (127–0000) would be
amended to show the proposed part.
These revisions would be noted on
drawing SA572–127DRL–2. The PADI
would also be updated so that it shows
the proposed machined femur in figures
and reports the proper lower torso
assembly and total weight for the
dummy. Finally, the part numbers for
the machined femur and the femur
assembly would be changed in the
Parts/Drawings list, along with the
revision letters for higher assembly
drawings, as appropriate. Copies of the
HIII–6C drawing package, PADI, and
Parts/Drawings list that include the
proposed change in femur design can be
obtained online at https://
www.regulations.gov, in the same
docket as this NPRM.
Material and yield strength
Aluminum Bronze C–624 AMC0–18
4340 Steel ........................................
4140 Steel ........................................
1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect
In the current HIII–6C machined
femur, the change in dimension
between the femur clamp and the
connecting segment is nearly instant.
This abrupt change can lead to high
stresses in that area when the femur is
loaded. The addition of a fillet in that
area reduces these stresses. We have
estimated that the proposed addition of
the fillet between the femur clamp and
the connecting segment of the HIII–6C
machined femur will result in stresses
approximately 1.6 to two times less than
those in the femur without a fillet.
However, it is noted that this is only an
estimate, as the loading conditions
present in the femur during a FMVSS
No. 213 type sled test were highly
simplified in order to provide a rough
estimate of the fillet benefit. Details
about the stress reduction
approximation can be found in the
technical report. Because the fillet
design results in substantially reducing
stress in the femur of the dummy, we
tentatively conclude that adding the
fillet and using the 4340 steel material
will make the dummy sufficiently
durable to avoid femur failure.
NHTSA has tentatively determined
that the proposed changes to the femur
would successfully prevent the femur
from failing and would not compromise
the utility of the test dummy. This
determination is based on an analysis
showing the stress is reduced by the
addition of the fillet as proposed, and
on an analysis of dynamic test results,
as discussed below.
2. Dynamic Evaluation
NHTSA evaluated the FTSSdeveloped femur in April 2006 at the
MGA testing facility. To assess the effect
of the component modification, a HIII–
6C with new femurs (which we refer to
as a ‘‘modified HIII–6C’’ or ‘‘modified
dummy’’) was tested in the Britax
Marathon, Britax Boulevard and Britax
Decathlon to the FMVSS No. 213 test
conditions, and the results were
compared.8 To obtain a greater
understanding of the loading
experienced by the femur assembly,
instrumentation was added to the
dummy to allow measurement of
7 The material specification on drawing 127–
3021, ‘‘6 YR H3—FEMUR SHAFT,’’ would be
changed from ‘‘Aluminum Bronze 3⁄8 Rnd C–624
AMC0–18’’ to ‘‘4340 Steel 3⁄8 Rnd.’’
8 The Boulevard and Decathlon models were each
tested with a modified HIII–6C and with a HIII–
6CW with the modified femur design. No femur
failure occurred in any of the tests. For simplicity
and because the test results of the HIII–6CW are not
comparable to those of the HIII–6C, tests of the
HIII–6CW dummy are not generally discussed in
this preamble. However, results for all tests of the
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
d. Analysis of the New Femur Design
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48,000 psi.
114,000 psi.
92,000 psi.
triaxial accelerations in the pelvis and
forces and moments in the femurs.
Additionally, to determine the effect of
the new femur, we compared test results
from a test in which the femur had
failed to those of a test with a modified
dummy, under conditions that had
previously caused failure, i.e., the
modified HIII–6C dummy was tested in
the Britax Marathon to the FMVSS No.
213 sled pulse.
In all tests of the FTSS-developed
femurs, there were no femur failures. In
addition, test data relating to left and
right femur maximum moments,
measurement of FMVSS Nos. 208 and
213 injury mechanisms, dummy
kinematics, and other factors concerning
the performance of the dummy raised
no concerns about the new femur
design. We tentatively conclude that the
testing indicated that use of the new
femur would not affect the utility of the
modified HIII–6C and HIII–6CW
dummies in FMVSS No. 208, FMVSS
No. 213, and NCAP research tests,
except to make the dummies more
durable and, therefore, more acceptable
as anthropomorphic test instruments
used in agency testing.
i. Comparing Test Results of the
Modified HIII–6C Test in the Marathon,
Boulevard, and Decathlon CRSs
NHTSA measured and compared
maximum forces and moments
measured in the femur load cells (over
both legs) of the modified HIII–6C
dummy in the Britax Marathon,
Boulevard, and Decathlon. The
Marathon and Boulevard showed
similar maximum forces, while the
Decathlon had a higher maximum femur
force. All maximum forces occurred
along the Z-axis, and all maximum
moments were about the Y-axis.
HIII–6CW are discussed in the technical report,
including test numbers, maximum head, chest and
pelvis accelerations and left and right femur
maximum moments and forces.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
53991
TABLE 2—MAXIMUM FORCES AND MOMENTS MEASURED IN THE FEMUR LOAD CELLS OF MODIFIED HIII–6C DUMMIES IN
AN FMVSS NO. 213 COMPLIANCE TESTING ENVIRONMENT
Britax
Marathon*
Max Force (N) ..............................................................................................................................
Max Moment (N-m) ......................................................................................................................
Britax
Decathlon*
Britax
Boulevard
6C
Femur measure
6C
6C
1492.9
¥78
2264.7
¥63.9
1578.4
¥70
* Marathon: Restraint changed from upright to reclined during test. Decathlon: Top tether webbing separated at the attachment clip and the restraint changed position from upright to reclined.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
displayed in Figure 2, while Figure 3
shows the maximum moments
measured in the left and right legs
during each test. In general, force and
moment measurements made in the left
and right femurs were similar, though
not identical. This may give some
insight into why failures were observed
in the left leg, right leg, or both legs in
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
any given test. We believe that the
failures were caused by stresses
exceeding the material strength of the
femur, so the occurrence of one femur
failure, rather than both, may be due to
the fact that the forces present during
the test were unevenly distributed.
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
EP21OC09.030</GPH>
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
At the time of maximum moment
there are visible differences in the
degree of knee extension (test video
pictures are provided in the technical
report). These visual differences in
response are consistent with the
differences in force and moment
magnitude seen in the tests.
Maximum left and right femur forces
from the tests of the HIII–6C dummy are
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax
Marathon Test of the Modified HIII–6C
(Test H06337) to Those of a Test of the
Original HIII–6C Where Femur Failure
Occurred (H06120)
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Both tests were performed using the
same dummy (S/N 158).9 In test H06120
(with the original femurs), the left femur
failed and detached completely. The
right knee of this dummy was in a fully
extended position, which could have
9 Both tests were performed using the same
dummy (S/N 158). However, because FMVSS No.
213 does not require measurement of femoral loads,
no femoral force data was available for test H06120
with the original femurs. Therefore, comparisons
were made between pre- and post-test positioning,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
resulted from the change in kinematics
due to loss of one leg. In test H06337
(modified dummy), there were no femur
failures and both legs remained attached
to the dummy.10
A. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury
Metrics
In these two tests, we compared the
maximum head and chest accelerations.
As seen in Figure 4, these measures
were similar for both tests, suggesting
that the new femur does not affect the
head and chest measurements, and dummy position
throughout the test, as indicated by the test videos.
This is discussed in detail in the technical report.
10 We note that in test H06337 (modified dummy),
the child seat had multiple cracks in its base
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
dummy head or chest response
significantly. Specifically, peak chest
resultant acceleration, an FMVSS No.
213 injury criterion, increased only 2.42
percent from 41.4 g with the current
Part 572 femur to 42.4 g with the
proposed femur. However, we note that
the maximum head Z and resultant
accelerations occurred after the time of
femur failure in test H06120. Therefore,
it is possible that the acceleration
magnitude or response in time was
affected by the loss of one limb.
following the test, and during the test the restraint
position shifted from upright to reclined. However,
these issues are not likely linked to the performance
of the new femur.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
EP21OC09.031</GPH>
53992
53993
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
We also compared the 36 millisecond
(ms) head injury criterion (HIC) values.
These values are displayed in Table 3
and Figure 5, along with the previouslydiscussed peak chest accelerations
(Figure 6). The response measured in
the modified HIII–6C resulted in a 5.65
percent decrease in HIC over the
response of the original HIII–6C. These
relatively low changes in response
suggest that HIC and chest g’s are not
significantly altered by the femur
replacement.
TABLE 3—HIC 36 AND PEAK CHEST ACCELERATION VALUES FOR MATCHED FMVSS NO. 213 TESTS
[These results are presented in Figures 5 and 6, below]
H06120: Femur
failure w/current
part 572 design
Measure
H06337:
Proposed femur
723.3
41.4
682.4
42.4
HIC 36 ..............................................................................................................................................................
Peak Chest Acceleration (g) ............................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
EP21OC09.032</GPH>
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
EP21OC09.033</GPH>
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
53994
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
B. Effect on Dummy Kinematics
Because the FTSS-developed femur
design only involves a material change,
removal of material, and the addition of
a fillet at a high-stress location, we do
not expect that use of the new femur
would change the dummy’s kinematic
response. This expectation is borne out
by an analysis of test video comparing
the kinematics of the dummy in tests
H06337 (modified dummy) and H06120
(femur failure). (Photographs from the
video are presented in the technical
report.) Until the time of maximum
femur force, in the test with new
femurs, the position of the dummy in
each test is fairly similar. At maximum
force, the dummy’s knees in H06337
(modified dummy) are slightly more
extended and lower than the knees in
H06120 (femur failure). At the
approximate time of femur failure in test
H06120, the positions of the two
dummies are noticeably different. The
fully extended left knee of the dummy
in test H06120 (femur failure) and the
additional excursion of the leg (as noted
by the position of the knee marker) may
be indicative of the failing femur
component. After femur failure at 100
ms, slight differences in dummy
position could be attributable to the loss
of one leg in the test H06120. Since the
dummies’ positions before femur failure
were very similar, and because the new
femur design is so similar to the current
design, we believe that the new femur
would not significantly alter dummy
response.
C. Dummy Response Biofidelity
Since the FTSS-developed femur has
the same geometry as the original
femurs where it interfaces with the
pelvis, the new femur is not expected to
behave any differently than the original
femur. As discussed in the previous
sections, little difference in head and
chest measurements and dummy
kinematics was observed in the dummy
with the new versus the current Part 572
femur. Therefore, the slight
modification in femur design and
material is not expected to have an
effect on dummy biofidelity.
D. Hip Lock
Because the Denton-developed femur
was designed specifically to address the
potential issue of hip lock, after being
tested, the FTSS-developed femur was
inspected for indications of
susceptibility to this condition. There
was no evidence of excessive wear near
the retaining ring/ball joint of the new
FTSS-developed femurs. Some wear
was noticed on the upper leg of dummy
S/N 155 where the femur clamp is
fastened to the upper leg weldment.
However, because this wear is located at
a fastening site, metal-to-metal contact
is inevitable and is not indicative of hip
lock.
III. Part 2—Abdominal Insert
FTSS and Denton petitioned NHTSA
to change Drawing No. 127–8210 of the
HIII–6C drawing package, which
specifies the abdominal insert for the
dummy. The petitioners stated that
FTSS owns the original mold for the
abdominal insert that was part of the
dummies used by NHTSA to develop
the 49 CFR Part 572 specifications for
the dummy, and that the mold is still
being used to manufacture the HIII–6C
dummies. The petitioners stated that
they have measured the mold to
compare its dimensions to those of the
drawing and have ‘‘a number of
discrepancies between the mold and the
drawing.’’ The petitioners stated that
Denton has also measured its abdominal
insert mold, and has found it to match
the FTSS mold dimensions. Both
53995
manufacturers stated their belief that
Drawing No. 127–8210 is in error
because of these discrepancies, and
have asked NHTSA to revise the
abdomen insert drawing to match the
part mold dimensions. The petitioners
submitted a revised drawing as part of
their petition for rulemaking which
provided new dimensions for the ledge
height, depth, and taper angle of cone.
Agency Response:
NHTSA is granting this request, with
slight modification.
During 2006 and in early 2007, the
agency investigated the subject
dimensional discrepancies of the
abdominal insert at NHTSA’s VRTC.
Five abdominal inserts were measured
to obtain the dimensions listed in Table
4; four of these were manufactured by
FTSS and ranged in age from 5–12 years
old. The fifth abdominal insert was new
and purchased from Denton, ATD. The
results of this investigation showed (see
Table 4 and Figure 7) that the
abdominal insert as manufactured did
not always meet the ledge height (items
2&3 in Figure 7), depth (items 4&5),
notch half width (item 8), notch depth
(item 9) and taper of cone specifications
(items 6&7).
We note that we measured the actual
manufactured part, and not the mold.
Because the drawing package specifies
dimensions for the part, not the mold,
it is logical to correct drawing
dimensions based on the measured
dimensions of parts. Thus, while we
considered the petitioners’
recommendations from measurements
of the mold, we have developed a
revised set of specifications for the
abdomen using the set of measured
dimensions from available parts as the
base. We believe that the dimensions
derived from this set of measurements
will represent a wide range of parts.
TABLE 4—HIII–6C KEY ABDOMEN DIMENSIONS
[Fig. Ref numbers in the table refer to Figure 7. For full table, including individual dummy responses and matching pelvis opening measurements,
see the Technical Report]
Description
Overall height ............................
Ledge height .............................
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Depth excl. plug ........................
Depth incl. plug .........................
Taper angle of cone ..................
Notch Half Width .......................
Notch Depth ..............................
Width Bottom of Cone ...............
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Dim spec.
(in.)
Fig. ref
1
2lt
3rt
4
5
6lt
7rt
8
9
10
Jkt 220001
Min/Max
(in.)
Mean
(in.)
SD
(in.)
M+/¥2SD
(in.)
Petition
(in.)
3.81+/.20
2.10+/.20
2.10+/.20
2.50+/.20
2.50+/.20
123.4 +/¥0.5
123.4 +/¥0.5
1.45+/.20
1.40+/¥.20
5.40+/¥.40
3.73/3.79
1.46/1.63
1.48/1.66
2.60/2.82
2.86/3.03
123/128
123/128
1.56/1.69
1.16/1.34
......................
3.77
1.55
1.61
2.72
2.94
125.4
124.6
1.62
1.24
........................
0.03
0.07
0.08
0.08
.07
2.41
1.95
0.05
0.07
......................
3.82/3.71
1.69/1.41
1.77/1.46
2.88/2.56
3.08/2.80
130/121
128/121
1.72/1.52
1.38/1.11
......................
3.81
1.53
1.53
2.80
2.80
122.4
122.4
1.45
1.40
........................
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
Proposed
spec. (in.)
3.81+/.20
1.53+/.20
1.53+/.20
2.80+/.20
2.80+/.20
121/129
121/129
1.50+/¥.20
1.40+/¥.20
5.40+/¥.40
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
We tentatively agree with the
petitioners that several dimensions of
the abdomen should be revised.
Although the recommended
dimensional changes are mostly based
on agency measurements of physical
parts, nearly all changes are in
agreement with the petitioners’ moldbased dimensions. The recommended
action would incorporate the petitionerrecommended changes in dimension to
the ledge height and overall depth. The
taper angle of the cone dimension
would also be changed to include the
range of angle requested by the
petitioner, but have a nominal value of
125° rather than 122.4°, and an
increased tolerance of ±4° to account for
the range of angles measured in the
available parts.
However, there are two small
dimensional discrepancies between the
part and drawing that were not
addressed in the petition: The notch
half width and notch depth dimensions.
We are adjusting the notch half width
dimension based on measurements of
abdominal inserts at VRTC. The notch
half width measurements were all larger
than the specified nominal dimension of
1.45 inches, and one measurement fell
outside the allowed tolerance.
Therefore, a slight increase in this
dimension to 1.50 inches is proposed.
The suggested changes to the abdominal
insert drawing are reflected in Table 4
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
under ‘‘Proposed Spec.’’ We have
decided not to adjust the notch depth
dimension based on part measurements,
because only one out of five
measurements did not meet the
specification, and the age of this part
may have affected this dimension. This
decision is discussed more fully in the
technical report.
IV. Proposed Effective Date
We propose that the changes to the
femur design of the HIII–6C and HIII–
6CW be effective 180 days after
publication of a final rule. With regard
to the changes proposed in Part 2,
because the changes are more corrective
in nature, we propose that the changes
to the drawing for the abdomen be
effective 45 days after publication of a
final rule.
V. Other Issues—Rubber and Foam
Parts
FTSS and Denton also suggested that
NHTSA undertake a project to
investigate tolerances for vinyl and
rubber components, develop a detailed
procedure on how to measure the
dimensions used to define vinyl flesh
parts, and work with the manufacturers
to ‘‘determine proper values and the
expected time frame each part would
normally comply with the tolerances,
given that these parts can change
dimensionally over time.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Agency Response: We decline this
request. The lifetime of foam parts will
be highly dependent on the part’s age,
the test situations the dummy is
exposed to (i.e., FMVSS No. 213
compliance tests, vehicle compliance
tests, research and development tests,
etc.), as well as the conditions in which
it is stored, the frequency of use, etc. We
encourage the dummy manufacturers to
investigate part lifetimes to provide
replacement time frames for their
customers; the agency lacks the
resources to investigate this type of part
specification. Moreover, the agency does
not have reason to conclude the lifetime
of foam parts raises problems that
NHTSA needs to address, and the
petitioners did not provide data to
sufficiently quantify the extent to which
this may be a problem.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
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 proposed rulemaking action was
not considered a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
EP21OC09.034</GPH>
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
53996
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
This proposed rulemaking action was
also determined not to be significant
under the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT’s) regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034,
February 26, 1979).
We stated in the final rule 11 that
adopted the HIII–6C into 49 CFR Part
572 that the cost of an uninstrumented
HIII–6C dummy is approximately
$30,000 and that instrumentation will
add approximately $25,000 to $40,000
to the cost, depending on the number of
data channels the user chooses to
collect. This proposed rule would only
affect the test dummy by adding a 1⁄4inch fillet between the femur clamp and
the connecting segment of the machined
femur, removing material from the
connecting segment, and changing the
material from aluminum bronze C–624
AMC0–18 to 4340 steel. We do not
expect these changes to significantly
affect the cost of the dummy. Further, if
this proposed Part 572 rule becomes
final, it would not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses
would be affected only if they choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy.
This proposed rule would indirectly
impose requirements on only those
businesses which choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy, in
that the agency will only use dummies
for compliance testing that meet all of
the criteria specified in this proposed
rule. Because the economic impacts of
this proposal are so minimal, no further
regulatory evaluation is necessary.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required
to publish a proposed or final rule, it
must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions),
unless the head of the agency certifies
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Small
Business Administration’s regulations at
13 CFR Part 121 define a small business,
in part, as a business entity ‘‘which
operates primarily within the United
States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
We have considered the effects of this
rulemaking under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the
proposed rulemaking action would not
11 65 FR 2059; January 13, 2000; Docket NHTSA–
99–6714.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because
changing the femur design would not
impose any requirements on anyone.
NHTSA would not require anyone to
manufacture or redesign the dummy or
to test vehicles or CRSs with it.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for
the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and
determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s
proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local
governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The agency has concluded that
the proposed rule does not have
federalism implications because the
proposed rule does 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.’’ This proposed
rule would not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses
would be affected only if they choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy.
Further, no consultation is needed to
discuss the preemptive effect of today’s
proposed rule. NHTSA’s safety
standards can have preemptive effect in
at least two ways. This proposed rule
would amend 49 CFR Part 572 and is
not a safety standard.12 If this proposed
Part 572 rule becomes final, it would
not impose any requirements on
anyone.
12 With respect to the safety standards, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
contains an express preemptive provision: ‘‘When
a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a
State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if
the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second,
the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of
implied preemption: State requirements imposed
on motor vehicle manufacturers, including
sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as
an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of
a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is
discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor
Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53997
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have
any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the
extent that the state requirement
imposes a higher level of performance
and applies only to vehicles procured
for the state’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of
final rules establishing, amending, or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid control
number from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule
would not have any requirements that
are considered to be information
collection requirements as defined by
the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320.
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
NHTSA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards. There are no voluntary
consensus standards relevant to this
proposed rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104–4, Federal requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include
a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
53998
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100
million annually (adjusted for inflation
with base year of 1995). Before
promulgating a NHTSA rule for which
a written statement is needed, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires the
agency to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. This proposed rule would
not impose any unfunded mandates
under the UMRA. This proposed rule
would not meet the definition of a
Federal mandate because it would not
impose requirements on anyone. It
would amend 49 CFR Part 572 by
changing an aspect of a test dummy that
the agency uses. If this proposed rule
becomes final, it would affect only those
businesses that choose to manufacture
or test with the dummy. It would not
result in costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
—Has the agency organized the material
to suit the public’s needs?
—Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
—Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
—Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
—Would more (but shorter) sections be
better?
—Could the agency improve clarity by
adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
—What else could the agency do to
make this rulemaking easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments on this NPRM.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulation Identifier Number
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
VII. Public Participation
Will the agency consider late
comments?
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
Your comments must not be more
than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We
established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a
concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents
to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
Please submit your comments by any
of the methods provided above under
ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data
Quality Act, in order for substantive
data to be relied upon and used by the
agency, it must meet the information
quality standards set forth in the OMB
and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.
Accordingly, we encourage you to
consult the guidelines in preparing your
comments.
Further, note that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78).
How do I submit confidential business
information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy from which you have
deleted the claimed confidential
business information to the Docket
using any of the methods given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a
comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business
information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR Part
512.)
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We will consider all comments that
the Docket receives before the close of
business on the comment closing date
indicated above under DATES. To the
extent possible, we will also consider
comments that the Docket receives after
that date. If the Docket receives a
comment too late for us to consider in
developing a final rule (assuming that
one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted
by other people?
You may read the comments received
by the Docket at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. The hours of the
Docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also see the
comments on the Internet. To read the
comments on the Internet, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the Docket for new
material.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by
reference.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR
Part 572 as follows:
PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC
TEST DUMMIES
1. The authority citation for Part 572
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
Subpart N—Six-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy, Beta Version
2. Section 572.120 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory
text, (a)(1)(vii), (a)(2), (b), and (c)(1) to
read as follows:
§ 572.120
Incorporation by reference.
(a) * * *
(1) A drawings and inspection
package entitled, ‘‘Parts List and
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart N, Hybrid III
Six-Year Old Child Crash Test Dummy
(HIII6C, Beta Version), June 2009,’’
consisting of:
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(vii) The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old
Child Parts/Drawing List, dated June 1,
2009.
(2) A procedures manual entitled,
‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly,
and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III
6-Year-Old Child Crash Test Dummy
(H–III6C), Beta Version, June 1, 2009’’;
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The Director of the Federal
Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies of the materials may be
inspected at the Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366–9826, and at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), and in
electronic format through
Regulations.gov. For information on the
availability and inspection of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html. For information on
the availability and inspection of this
material at Regulations.gov, call 1–877–
378–5457, or go to: https://
www.regulations.gov.
(c) * * *
(1) The drawings and specifications
package, the parts list, and the PADI
document referred to in paragraphs
(a)(1), and (a)(2) of this section, are
available in electronic format through
www.Regulations.gov and in paper
format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of
New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road,
Gaithersburg, MD 20879, (301) 670–
0090.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 572.121 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory
text (the table is not amended) to read
as follows:
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 572.121
General description.
(a) * * *
(2) Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of
the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy,
Alpha version, dated June 1, 2009.
Issued: October 15, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–25241 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:49 Oct 20, 2009
Jkt 220001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062; 92210–1117–0000–
B4]
[RIN 1018–AW85]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise our designation of critical habitat
for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex
ornatus relictus) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Our proposal is the same as the
proposed critical habitat we published
on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51417). In
total, approximately 4,649 acres (ac)
(1,881 hectares (ha)) occur within the
boundaries of the proposed revised
critical habitat designation. The
proposed revised critical habitat is
located in the Central Valley floor of
Kern County, California.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct this review, we request that we
receive information on or before
December 21, 2009. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
December 7, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: Docket no.
FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062; Division of
Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA
22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Russell, Acting Listing
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone (916)
414–6600; facsimile (916) 414–6712. If
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53999
you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal to revise
critical habitat will be as accurate and
as effective as possible. Therefore, we
request comments or suggestions on this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons we should or should
not revise the designation of habitat as
‘‘critical habitat’’ under section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
including whether there are threats to
the species from human activity, the
degree of which can be expected to
increase due to the designation, and
whether that increase in threat
outweighs the benefit of designation
such that the designation of critical
habitat is not prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
• Areas that provide habitat for the
Buena Vista Lake shrew (herein after
referred to as the shrew) that we did not
discuss in our August 19, 2004 (69 FR
51417) proposed critical habitat rule,
• Areas containing the features
essential to the conservation of the
shrew that we should include in the
revised designation and why,
• Areas proposed that do not contain
features essential for the conservation of
the species and why, and
• Areas not occupied at the time of
listing that are essential to the
conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land-use designations and current
or planned activities in the areas
proposed as revised critical habitat, as
well as their possible effects on
proposed revised critical habitat.
(4) Comments or information that may
assist us in identifying or clarifying the
physical and biological features.
(5) How the proposed revised critical
habitat boundaries could be refined to
more closely circumscribe the
landscapes identified as containing the
features essential to the species’
conservation.
(6) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation. We
are particularly interested in any
impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or
excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(7) Whether any specific areas being
proposed as revised critical habitat
should be excluded under section
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53987-53999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25241]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 572
[Docket No. NHTSA-09-0166]
RIN 2127-AK34
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's NPRM proposes two changes to the agency's
specifications for the Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy. In Part 1
of this NPRM, to improve the durability of the dummy's femurs, we
propose changes to the design of and material used for the femur
assembly. In Part 2, the drawing for the abdomen insert would be
corrected so that the abdominal insert dimensions on the drawing
reflect the actual part. Part 2 of this rulemaking commenced in
response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by Denton ATD (Denton)
and First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS). This document declines the
petitioners' suggestion to investigate tolerances for vinyl and rubber
components of the dummy and to specify the expected time frame each
part would meet the tolerances.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that they
are received not later than December 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the Docket ID Number
above) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted
[[Page 53988]]
without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms.
Lori Summers, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202-
366-1740) (fax 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Ms.
Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA 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, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview
II. Part 1--Femur Improvements
a. Introduction
b. Description of the Femur; Failures
c. Proposed Femur Design Changes
d. Analysis of the New Femur Design
1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect
2. Dynamic Evaluation
i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified HIII-6C Test in the
Marathon, Boulevard, and Decathlon CRSs
ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax Marathon Test of the
Modified HIII-6C (Test H06337) to Those of a Test of the Original
HIII-6C Where Femur Failure Occurred (H06120)
A. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics
B. Effect on Dummy Kinematics
C. Dummy Response Biofidelity
D. Hip Lock
III. Part 2--Abdominal Insert
IV. Proposed Effective Date
V. Other Issues: Rubber and Foam Parts
VI. Rulemaking Analyses And Notices
VII. Public Participation
I. Overview
This NPRM proposes two changes to the agency's specifications for
the Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy (HIII-6C). In Part 1 of this
NPRM, to improve the durability of the dummy's femurs, we propose
changes to the design of and material used for the femur assembly. The
primary modifications include the addition of a \1/4\-inch (6.35
millimeter (mm)) fillet between the femur clamp and the connecting
segment (as defined in section II.b of this preamble) of the machined
femur, removal of material from the connecting segment, and a material
change from aluminum bronze to 4340 steel. These changes would be made
by changing the drawings for the femur in the drawing package specified
in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N (``Six-year-old child test dummy''), the
parts list, and the ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and
Inspection'' (``PADI'') document of the Hybrid III 6-year-old child
crash test dummy (June 2002) incorporated by reference into that
regulation. In Part 2, the drawing for the HIII-6C abdomen insert would
be corrected so that the abdominal insert dimensions on the drawing
reflect the actual part. We also propose to make conforming changes to
the specifications and drawings of the HIII-6CW weighted child test
dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S).
II. Part 1--Femur Improvements
a. Introduction
The HIII-6C is used to represent a six-year-old child in vehicle
crash tests and equipment compliance tests. It is an enhanced, more
biofidelic upgrade to its predecessor, the Hybrid II six-year-old
dummy. The HIII-6C is used in multiple testing environments, including,
but not limited to, out-of-position testing in FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant
Crash Protection, 49 CFR 571.208), child restraint system (CRS)
evaluation in FMVSS No. 213 (Child Restraint Systems, 49 CFR
571.213),\1\ and for research purposes in the New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mandatory use of the HIII-6C by NHTSA in compliance tests
will begin in 2010. Currently, manufacturers have the option of
certifying their child restraints to FMVSS No. 213 using the HIII-6C
or the Hybrid II six-year-old dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HIII-6C can be used in its normal configuration or it can be
weighted to simulate heavier children (see 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S).
The standard HIII-6C weighs 52 pounds (lb) (23.6 kilograms (kg)). The
weighted version of the dummy (HIII-6CW) weighs ten pounds more at 62
lb (28.1 kg). The HIII-6CW was developed to represent larger children
for purposes of testing booster seats to the requirements of FMVSS No.
213.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As noted earlier, we propose changing the specifications and
drawings of the HIII-6CW set forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S,
consistent with the changes proposed for the HIII-6C dummy discussed
in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has become aware that femur failures, involving complete
separation of the dummy leg(s) from the pelvis, have occurred in the
test dummy in FMVSS No. 213 testing and in NCAP research testing.
To improve the durability of the femur, NHTSA's Vehicle Research
and Test Center (VRTC), through an existing contract with dummy
manufacturers First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD
(Denton),\3\ requested the manufacturers to consider new femur designs
for the HIII-6C. NHTSA asked the dummy manufacturers to look into
improving the femur design after learning of a femur failure. The
agency began investigating the femur even though only a single failure
had occurred because the same failure had been observed in a prototype
version of the Hybrid III 10-year-old child dummy (HIII-10C) that had a
femur design that was similar to the present HIII-6C femur.\4\ NHTSA
was concerned that the HIII-6C's femur was a vulnerable design and that
more femur failures would occur as the dummy became more widely used in
agency testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These are the manufacturers that produce the HIII-6C dummy.
\4\ In particular, the machined femur of the HIII-10C had the
same sharp corner, discussed in the next section of this preamble,
between the ``femur clamp'' and the ``connecting segment'' regions.
The machined femur of the HIII-10C that had been involved in the
failures was redesigned before the initiation of the HIII-10C's
incorporation into 49 CFR Part 572 and the redesigned HIII-10C
femurs have not been failing. The redesign of the HIII-10C dummy
femur added a \1/4\-inch (6.35 mm) fillet to reduce stress at the
intersection of the femur clamp and connecting segment.
Additionally, the material of the HIII-10C machined femur and shaft
was modified to be 4140 Steel, which has a significantly higher
yield strength (92,000 psi) than the aluminum bronze used in the
HIII-6C femur (48,000 psi). The shaft angle of the HIII-10C
(77[deg]) is also larger than that of the HIII-6C (55[deg]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTSS and Denton separately developed different redesigns of the
HIII-6C's femur. NHTSA has assessed both approaches and has decided to
propose design changes that are based on the approach developed by
FTSS. NHTSA has prepared a technical report that discusses in detail
the femur designs, the agency's analysis of data relating to the
proposed redesign of the femur, and other technical information
supporting this NPRM. A copy of the report has been placed in the
docket.
b. Description of the Femur; Failures
The present design of the HIII-6C femur is specified in 49 CFR Part
572, Subpart N.\5\ The machined femur, which is part of the femur
assembly illustrated in Figure 1 below, consists of a large section
that clamps onto the upper leg and a smaller section that contains the
femur shaft. For ease of
[[Page 53989]]
discussion, these portions of the machined femur will be referred to as
the ``femur clamp'' and the ``connecting segment,'' respectively, for
the remainder of this preamble. The femur shaft, retaining flange, and
femur ball connect the machined femur to the dummy's pelvis. Similar to
a human hip joint, the ball in the HIII-6C femur assembly allows for
rotation of the dummy hip joint. The flange is used to attach the femur
assembly to the pelvis. The entire femur assembly is found within the
lower torso, and the material specification for this assembly,
including the machined femur, shaft, flange and ball is Aluminum Bronze
C-624 AMC0-18. The line drawn in the illustration shows the approximate
location of the femur failure. (The femur load cell, the response of
which is discussed in the ``dynamic evaluation'' section below, is
located in the distal portion of the upper leg (i.e., farther from the
pelvis) and not in the area of the machined femur.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Complete drawings for the HIII-6C femur can be found in
Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12541.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.029
Failures of the HIII-6C femur appear to have initiated at a sharp
corner between the femur clamp and connecting segment sections of the
machined femur. The fracture was observed from this corner to the bolt
hole within the femur clamp, at an angle of approximately 45[deg]. The
failure continued through the thin section of material directly beneath
the bolt hole, causing complete separation of the machined femur.
Additionally, in one failed component, small indents on the inner
diameter of the retaining flange were observed, indicating potential
contact between the flange and shaft. The location of the fracture is
depicted in the Figure 1 illustration. Pictures of a fractured part can
be found in the technical report accompanying this NPRM.
c. Proposed Femur Design Changes
The proposed modification to improve the femur's durability is
based on the approach developed by FTSS. The agency decided on that
approach over Denton's because the FTSS design was more straightforward
and simpler than that of Denton,\6\ and a similar design change had
demonstrated improvement in the HIII-10C. Rather than re-designing,
FTSS increased the strength and durability of the femur assembly by
fabricating the machined femur and shaft from 4340 steel, which has a
higher yield strength than the original material, aluminum bronze C-624
AMC0-18, while keeping the ball and retaining flange as the original
aluminum bronze material. A \1/4\-inch (6.35 mm) circular fillet was
added between the femur clamp and the connecting segment to eliminate
stress-risers that were present on the original femur, and a portion of
the connecting segment material near the femur clamp was removed. The
weight of the new FTSS femur is only 0.002 lb (0.001 kilograms (kg))
heavier than the original femur. Table 1 below compares the weights and
material properties of the original femur, the FTSS-developed femur,
and the Denton-developed femur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Both manufacturers recommended a material change to increase
the strength of the femur. In terms of design, FTSS reduced the
effects of a stress-riser in the area of the failure, while Denton
completed more extensive design changes to also address the alleged
issue of ``hip lock.'' Hip lock is a condition where flexion of the
dummy's hip joint is mechanically limited due to contact between the
femur and the retaining ring or other pelvis structure. Hip lock in
the HIII-50th percentile male femur led to design modifications that
prevented ``hard'' (i.e., metal-to-metal contact) hip lock from
occurring (61 FR 67953, Dec. 26, 1996). In that adult dummy, hard
hip lock was characterized by spikes in the unfiltered pelvis and
chest accelerometer readings, high and sharply-pointed chest z
acceleration traces, non-unimodal chest x and resultant
accelerations, and a high tension component in the lumbar z force
(Klinich et al., ``Evaluation of a Proposed Hybrid III Hip
Modification,'' Stapp Paper No. 952730, 1995).
[[Page 53990]]
Table 1--Weight and Material Properties for the Original and Developed HIII-6C Femur Designs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Femur design Measured weight Material and yield strength
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original....................... 0.532 lb (0.241 kg)........................... Aluminum Bronze C-624 AMC0-18................. 48,000 psi.
FTSS........................... 0.534 lb (0.242 kg)........................... 4340 Steel.................................... 114,000 psi.
Denton......................... 0.606 lb (0.275 kg)........................... 4140 Steel.................................... 92,000 psi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement this change in femur design and material, the
following changes would be made to the materials describing the HIII-6C
in 49 CFR Part 572. Drawings 127-3017-1&-2, ``6 YR H3--FEMUR MACHINED''
would be replaced with drawings 127-3017-1S&-2S, which show the
proposed machined femur.\7\ The femur assembly drawings (127-3016-1&-2)
would also be changed due to the new femur design, with new part
numbers 127-3016-1S&-2S. Higher assembly drawings including 127-3000,
``LOWER TORSO ASSEMBLY,'' and the complete assembly drawings (127-0000)
would be amended to show the proposed part. These revisions would be
noted on drawing SA572-127DRL-2. The PADI would also be updated so that
it shows the proposed machined femur in figures and reports the proper
lower torso assembly and total weight for the dummy. Finally, the part
numbers for the machined femur and the femur assembly would be changed
in the Parts/Drawings list, along with the revision letters for higher
assembly drawings, as appropriate. Copies of the HIII-6C drawing
package, PADI, and Parts/Drawings list that include the proposed change
in femur design can be obtained online at https://www.regulations.gov,
in the same docket as this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The material specification on drawing 127-3021, ``6 YR H3--
FEMUR SHAFT,'' would be changed from ``Aluminum Bronze \3/8\ Rnd C-
624 AMC0-18'' to ``4340 Steel \3/8\ Rnd.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Analysis of the New Femur Design
NHTSA has tentatively determined that the proposed changes to the
femur would successfully prevent the femur from failing and would not
compromise the utility of the test dummy. This determination is based
on an analysis showing the stress is reduced by the addition of the
fillet as proposed, and on an analysis of dynamic test results, as
discussed below.
1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect
In the current HIII-6C machined femur, the change in dimension
between the femur clamp and the connecting segment is nearly instant.
This abrupt change can lead to high stresses in that area when the
femur is loaded. The addition of a fillet in that area reduces these
stresses. We have estimated that the proposed addition of the fillet
between the femur clamp and the connecting segment of the HIII-6C
machined femur will result in stresses approximately 1.6 to two times
less than those in the femur without a fillet. However, it is noted
that this is only an estimate, as the loading conditions present in the
femur during a FMVSS No. 213 type sled test were highly simplified in
order to provide a rough estimate of the fillet benefit. Details about
the stress reduction approximation can be found in the technical
report. Because the fillet design results in substantially reducing
stress in the femur of the dummy, we tentatively conclude that adding
the fillet and using the 4340 steel material will make the dummy
sufficiently durable to avoid femur failure.
2. Dynamic Evaluation
NHTSA evaluated the FTSS-developed femur in April 2006 at the MGA
testing facility. To assess the effect of the component modification, a
HIII-6C with new femurs (which we refer to as a ``modified HIII-6C'' or
``modified dummy'') was tested in the Britax Marathon, Britax Boulevard
and Britax Decathlon to the FMVSS No. 213 test conditions, and the
results were compared.\8\ To obtain a greater understanding of the
loading experienced by the femur assembly, instrumentation was added to
the dummy to allow measurement of triaxial accelerations in the pelvis
and forces and moments in the femurs. Additionally, to determine the
effect of the new femur, we compared test results from a test in which
the femur had failed to those of a test with a modified dummy, under
conditions that had previously caused failure, i.e., the modified HIII-
6C dummy was tested in the Britax Marathon to the FMVSS No. 213 sled
pulse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Boulevard and Decathlon models were each tested with a
modified HIII-6C and with a HIII-6CW with the modified femur design.
No femur failure occurred in any of the tests. For simplicity and
because the test results of the HIII-6CW are not comparable to those
of the HIII-6C, tests of the HIII-6CW dummy are not generally
discussed in this preamble. However, results for all tests of the
HIII-6CW are discussed in the technical report, including test
numbers, maximum head, chest and pelvis accelerations and left and
right femur maximum moments and forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all tests of the FTSS-developed femurs, there were no femur
failures. In addition, test data relating to left and right femur
maximum moments, measurement of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 213 injury
mechanisms, dummy kinematics, and other factors concerning the
performance of the dummy raised no concerns about the new femur design.
We tentatively conclude that the testing indicated that use of the new
femur would not affect the utility of the modified HIII-6C and HIII-6CW
dummies in FMVSS No. 208, FMVSS No. 213, and NCAP research tests,
except to make the dummies more durable and, therefore, more acceptable
as anthropomorphic test instruments used in agency testing.
i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified HIII-6C Test in the Marathon,
Boulevard, and Decathlon CRSs
NHTSA measured and compared maximum forces and moments measured in
the femur load cells (over both legs) of the modified HIII-6C dummy in
the Britax Marathon, Boulevard, and Decathlon. The Marathon and
Boulevard showed similar maximum forces, while the Decathlon had a
higher maximum femur force. All maximum forces occurred along the Z-
axis, and all maximum moments were about the Y-axis.
[[Page 53991]]
Table 2--Maximum Forces and Moments Measured in the Femur Load Cells of Modified HIII-6C Dummies in an FMVSS No.
213 Compliance Testing Environment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Britax Britax
Marathon* Decathlon* Boulevard
Femur measure -----------------------------------------------
6C 6C 6C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Force (N)................................................... 1492.9 2264.7 1578.4
Max Moment (N-m)................................................ -78 -63.9 -70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Marathon: Restraint changed from upright to reclined during test. Decathlon: Top tether webbing separated at
the attachment clip and the restraint changed position from upright to reclined.
At the time of maximum moment there are visible differences in the
degree of knee extension (test video pictures are provided in the
technical report). These visual differences in response are consistent
with the differences in force and moment magnitude seen in the tests.
Maximum left and right femur forces from the tests of the HIII-6C
dummy are displayed in Figure 2, while Figure 3 shows the maximum
moments measured in the left and right legs during each test. In
general, force and moment measurements made in the left and right
femurs were similar, though not identical. This may give some insight
into why failures were observed in the left leg, right leg, or both
legs in any given test. We believe that the failures were caused by
stresses exceeding the material strength of the femur, so the
occurrence of one femur failure, rather than both, may be due to the
fact that the forces present during the test were unevenly distributed.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.030
[[Page 53992]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.031
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax Marathon Test of the Modified
HIII-6C (Test H06337) to Those of a Test of the Original HIII-6C Where
Femur Failure Occurred (H06120)
Both tests were performed using the same dummy (S/N 158).\9\ In
test H06120 (with the original femurs), the left femur failed and
detached completely. The right knee of this dummy was in a fully
extended position, which could have resulted from the change in
kinematics due to loss of one leg. In test H06337 (modified dummy),
there were no femur failures and both legs remained attached to the
dummy.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Both tests were performed using the same dummy (S/N 158).
However, because FMVSS No. 213 does not require measurement of
femoral loads, no femoral force data was available for test H06120
with the original femurs. Therefore, comparisons were made between
pre- and post-test positioning, head and chest measurements, and
dummy position throughout the test, as indicated by the test videos.
This is discussed in detail in the technical report.
\10\ We note that in test H06337 (modified dummy), the child
seat had multiple cracks in its base following the test, and during
the test the restraint position shifted from upright to reclined.
However, these issues are not likely linked to the performance of
the new femur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics
In these two tests, we compared the maximum head and chest
accelerations. As seen in Figure 4, these measures were similar for
both tests, suggesting that the new femur does not affect the dummy
head or chest response significantly. Specifically, peak chest
resultant acceleration, an FMVSS No. 213 injury criterion, increased
only 2.42 percent from 41.4 g with the current Part 572 femur to 42.4 g
with the proposed femur. However, we note that the maximum head Z and
resultant accelerations occurred after the time of femur failure in
test H06120. Therefore, it is possible that the acceleration magnitude
or response in time was affected by the loss of one limb.
[[Page 53993]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.032
We also compared the 36 millisecond (ms) head injury criterion
(HIC) values. These values are displayed in Table 3 and Figure 5, along
with the previously-discussed peak chest accelerations (Figure 6). The
response measured in the modified HIII-6C resulted in a 5.65 percent
decrease in HIC over the response of the original HIII-6C. These
relatively low changes in response suggest that HIC and chest g's are
not significantly altered by the femur replacement.
Table 3--HIC 36 and Peak Chest Acceleration Values for Matched FMVSS No.
213 Tests
[These results are presented in Figures 5 and 6, below]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H06120: Femur
failure w/ H06337:
Measure current part 572 Proposed femur
design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC 36.............................. 723.3 682.4
Peak Chest Acceleration (g)......... 41.4 42.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 53994]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.033
[[Page 53995]]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
B. Effect on Dummy Kinematics
Because the FTSS-developed femur design only involves a material
change, removal of material, and the addition of a fillet at a high-
stress location, we do not expect that use of the new femur would
change the dummy's kinematic response. This expectation is borne out by
an analysis of test video comparing the kinematics of the dummy in
tests H06337 (modified dummy) and H06120 (femur failure). (Photographs
from the video are presented in the technical report.) Until the time
of maximum femur force, in the test with new femurs, the position of
the dummy in each test is fairly similar. At maximum force, the dummy's
knees in H06337 (modified dummy) are slightly more extended and lower
than the knees in H06120 (femur failure). At the approximate time of
femur failure in test H06120, the positions of the two dummies are
noticeably different. The fully extended left knee of the dummy in test
H06120 (femur failure) and the additional excursion of the leg (as
noted by the position of the knee marker) may be indicative of the
failing femur component. After femur failure at 100 ms, slight
differences in dummy position could be attributable to the loss of one
leg in the test H06120. Since the dummies' positions before femur
failure were very similar, and because the new femur design is so
similar to the current design, we believe that the new femur would not
significantly alter dummy response.
C. Dummy Response Biofidelity
Since the FTSS-developed femur has the same geometry as the
original femurs where it interfaces with the pelvis, the new femur is
not expected to behave any differently than the original femur. As
discussed in the previous sections, little difference in head and chest
measurements and dummy kinematics was observed in the dummy with the
new versus the current Part 572 femur. Therefore, the slight
modification in femur design and material is not expected to have an
effect on dummy biofidelity.
D. Hip Lock
Because the Denton-developed femur was designed specifically to
address the potential issue of hip lock, after being tested, the FTSS-
developed femur was inspected for indications of susceptibility to this
condition. There was no evidence of excessive wear near the retaining
ring/ball joint of the new FTSS-developed femurs. Some wear was noticed
on the upper leg of dummy S/N 155 where the femur clamp is fastened to
the upper leg weldment. However, because this wear is located at a
fastening site, metal-to-metal contact is inevitable and is not
indicative of hip lock.
III. Part 2--Abdominal Insert
FTSS and Denton petitioned NHTSA to change Drawing No. 127-8210 of
the HIII-6C drawing package, which specifies the abdominal insert for
the dummy. The petitioners stated that FTSS owns the original mold for
the abdominal insert that was part of the dummies used by NHTSA to
develop the 49 CFR Part 572 specifications for the dummy, and that the
mold is still being used to manufacture the HIII-6C dummies. The
petitioners stated that they have measured the mold to compare its
dimensions to those of the drawing and have ``a number of discrepancies
between the mold and the drawing.'' The petitioners stated that Denton
has also measured its abdominal insert mold, and has found it to match
the FTSS mold dimensions. Both manufacturers stated their belief that
Drawing No. 127-8210 is in error because of these discrepancies, and
have asked NHTSA to revise the abdomen insert drawing to match the part
mold dimensions. The petitioners submitted a revised drawing as part of
their petition for rulemaking which provided new dimensions for the
ledge height, depth, and taper angle of cone.
Agency Response:
NHTSA is granting this request, with slight modification.
During 2006 and in early 2007, the agency investigated the subject
dimensional discrepancies of the abdominal insert at NHTSA's VRTC. Five
abdominal inserts were measured to obtain the dimensions listed in
Table 4; four of these were manufactured by FTSS and ranged in age from
5-12 years old. The fifth abdominal insert was new and purchased from
Denton, ATD. The results of this investigation showed (see Table 4 and
Figure 7) that the abdominal insert as manufactured did not always meet
the ledge height (items 2&3 in Figure 7), depth (items 4&5), notch half
width (item 8), notch depth (item 9) and taper of cone specifications
(items 6&7).
We note that we measured the actual manufactured part, and not the
mold. Because the drawing package specifies dimensions for the part,
not the mold, it is logical to correct drawing dimensions based on the
measured dimensions of parts. Thus, while we considered the
petitioners' recommendations from measurements of the mold, we have
developed a revised set of specifications for the abdomen using the set
of measured dimensions from available parts as the base. We believe
that the dimensions derived from this set of measurements will
represent a wide range of parts.
Table 4--HIII-6C Key Abdomen Dimensions
[Fig. Ref numbers in the table refer to Figure 7. For full table, including individual dummy responses and matching pelvis opening measurements, see the
Technical Report]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dim spec. Min/Max M+/-2SD Petition Proposed spec.
Description Fig. ref (in.) (in.) Mean (in.) SD (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall height.................... 1 3.81+/.20 3.73/3.79 3.77 0.03 3.82/3.71 3.81 3.81+/.20
Ledge height...................... 2lt 2.10+/.20 1.46/1.63 1.55 0.07 1.69/1.41 1.53 1.53+/.20
3rt 2.10+/.20 1.48/1.66 1.61 0.08 1.77/1.46 1.53 1.53+/.20
Depth excl. plug.................. 4 2.50+/.20 2.60/2.82 2.72 0.08 2.88/2.56 2.80 2.80+/.20
Depth incl. plug.................. 5 2.50+/.20 2.86/3.03 2.94 .07 3.08/2.80 2.80 2.80+/.20
Taper angle of cone............... 6lt 123.4 +/-0.5 123/128 125.4 2.41 130/121 122.4 121/129
7rt 123.4 +/-0.5 123/128 124.6 1.95 128/121 122.4 121/129
Notch Half Width.................. 8 1.45+/.20 1.56/1.69 1.62 0.05 1.72/1.52 1.45 1.50+/-.20
Notch Depth....................... 9 1.40+/-.20 1.16/1.34 1.24 0.07 1.38/1.11 1.40 1.40+/-.20
Width Bottom of Cone.............. 10 5.40+/-.40 ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. 5.40+/-.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53996]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.034
We tentatively agree with the petitioners that several dimensions
of the abdomen should be revised. Although the recommended dimensional
changes are mostly based on agency measurements of physical parts,
nearly all changes are in agreement with the petitioners' mold-based
dimensions. The recommended action would incorporate the petitioner-
recommended changes in dimension to the ledge height and overall depth.
The taper angle of the cone dimension would also be changed to include
the range of angle requested by the petitioner, but have a nominal
value of 125[deg] rather than 122.4[deg], and an increased tolerance of
4[deg] to account for the range of angles measured in the
available parts.
However, there are two small dimensional discrepancies between the
part and drawing that were not addressed in the petition: The notch
half width and notch depth dimensions. We are adjusting the notch half
width dimension based on measurements of abdominal inserts at VRTC. The
notch half width measurements were all larger than the specified
nominal dimension of 1.45 inches, and one measurement fell outside the
allowed tolerance. Therefore, a slight increase in this dimension to
1.50 inches is proposed. The suggested changes to the abdominal insert
drawing are reflected in Table 4 under ``Proposed Spec.'' We have
decided not to adjust the notch depth dimension based on part
measurements, because only one out of five measurements did not meet
the specification, and the age of this part may have affected this
dimension. This decision is discussed more fully in the technical
report.
IV. Proposed Effective Date
We propose that the changes to the femur design of the HIII-6C and
HIII-6CW be effective 180 days after publication of a final rule. With
regard to the changes proposed in Part 2, because the changes are more
corrective in nature, we propose that the changes to the drawing for
the abdomen be effective 45 days after publication of a final rule.
V. Other Issues--Rubber and Foam Parts
FTSS and Denton also suggested that NHTSA undertake a project to
investigate tolerances for vinyl and rubber components, develop a
detailed procedure on how to measure the dimensions used to define
vinyl flesh parts, and work with the manufacturers to ``determine
proper values and the expected time frame each part would normally
comply with the tolerances, given that these parts can change
dimensionally over time.''
Agency Response: We decline this request. The lifetime of foam
parts will be highly dependent on the part's age, the test situations
the dummy is exposed to (i.e., FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests, vehicle
compliance tests, research and development tests, etc.), as well as the
conditions in which it is stored, the frequency of use, etc. We
encourage the dummy manufacturers to investigate part lifetimes to
provide replacement time frames for their customers; the agency lacks
the resources to investigate this type of part specification. Moreover,
the agency does not have reason to conclude the lifetime of foam parts
raises problems that NHTSA needs to address, and the petitioners did
not provide data to sufficiently quantify the extent to which this may
be a problem.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
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 proposed rulemaking action was not considered a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
[[Page 53997]]
This proposed rulemaking action was also determined not to be
significant under the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
We stated in the final rule \11\ that adopted the HIII-6C into 49
CFR Part 572 that the cost of an uninstrumented HIII-6C dummy is
approximately $30,000 and that instrumentation will add approximately
$25,000 to $40,000 to the cost, depending on the number of data
channels the user chooses to collect. This proposed rule would only
affect the test dummy by adding a \1/4\-inch fillet between the femur
clamp and the connecting segment of the machined femur, removing
material from the connecting segment, and changing the material from
aluminum bronze C-624 AMC0-18 to 4340 steel. We do not expect these
changes to significantly affect the cost of the dummy. Further, if this
proposed Part 572 rule becomes final, it would not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses would be affected only if they
choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. This proposed rule would
indirectly impose requirements on only those businesses which choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy, in that the agency will only use
dummies for compliance testing that meet all of the criteria specified
in this proposed rule. Because the economic impacts of this proposal
are so minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 65 FR 2059; January 13, 2000; Docket NHTSA-99-6714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
We have considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the proposed
rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because changing the femur design would not impose any requirements on
anyone. NHTSA would not require anyone to manufacture or redesign the
dummy or to test vehicles or CRSs with it.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the proposed rule does not have federalism
implications because the proposed rule does 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.'' This
proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone. Businesses
would be affected only if they choose to manufacture or test with the
dummy.
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's proposed rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive
effect in at least two ways. This proposed rule would amend 49 CFR Part
572 and is not a safety standard.\12\ If this proposed Part 572 rule
becomes final, it would not impose any requirements on anyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ With respect to the safety standards, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive
provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under
this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second, the Supreme Court has
recognized the possibility of implied preemption: State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed
by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment
and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is
discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their
State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor
Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the state's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule would not have any
requirements that are considered to be information collection
requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. There
are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to this proposed rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, Federal requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
[[Page 53998]]
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This proposed
rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the UMRA. This
proposed rule would not meet the definition of a Federal mandate
because it would not impose requirements on anyone. It would amend 49
CFR Part 572 by changing an aspect of a test dummy that the agency
uses. If this proposed rule becomes final, it would affect only those
businesses that choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. It would
not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this NPRM.
Regulation Identifier Number
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
VII. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit your comments by any of the methods provided above
under ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments.
Further, note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information to the Docket using any of the methods given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that the Docket receives before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the
Docket receives after that date. If the Docket receives a comment too
late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one
is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the Docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR Part 572 as follows:
PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES
1. The authority citation for Part 572 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Subpart N--Six-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, Beta Version
2. Section 572.120 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)
introductory text, (a)(1)(vii), (a)(2), (b), and (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 572.120 Incorporation by reference.
(a) * * *
(1) A drawings and inspection package entitled, ``Parts List and
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart N, Hybrid III Six-Year Old Child Crash Test
Dummy (HIII6C, Beta Version), June 2009,'' consisting of:
* * * * *
[[Page 53999]]
(vii) The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Child Parts/Drawing List, dated
June 1, 2009.
(2) A procedures manual entitled, ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child
Crash Test Dummy (H-III6C), Beta Version, June 1, 2009'';
* * * * *
(b) The Director of the Federal Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at the Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-9826, and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and in electronic
format through Regulations.gov. For information on the availability and
inspection of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. For information on the availability
and inspection of this material at Regulations.gov, call 1-877-378-
5457, or go to: https://www.regulations.gov.
(c) * * *
(1) The drawings and specifications package, the parts list, and
the PADI document referred to in paragraphs (a)(1), and (a)(2) of this
section, are available in electronic format through www.Regulations.gov
and in paper format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New RT, 18810
Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20879, (301) 670-0090.
* * * * *
3. Section 572.121 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)
introductory text (the table is not amended) to read as follows:
Sec. 572.121 General description.
(a) * * *
(2) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of
the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, Alpha version, dated June 1,
2009.
Issued: October 15, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-25241 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
