71648 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Throughout this document, HIC refers to the 

head injury criterion computed using a 36 

millisecond (msec) time interval. 

industry to tailor proposals and better 

describe the offeror’s intended 

approach, increases the probability that 

the offeror’s proposal satisfies 

Government requirements, and often 

results in better contract performance. 

Asking contracting officers to conduct 

discussions with industry provides a 

reasonable approach to recognizing and 

addressing valid industry concerns and 

a constructive alternative to protests 

resulting from industry frustration over 

misunderstood requirements. 

DoD notes the potential disadvantages 

of this proposed change in increased 

time to complete the source-selection 

process and additional workload for 

acquisition staff. However, failure to 

hold discussions in high-dollar value, 

more complex source selections has led 

to misunderstandings of Government 

requirements by industry and flaws in 

the Government’s evaluation of offerors’ 

proposals, leading to protests that have 

been sustained, and ultimately 

extending source-selection timelines. 

DoD proposes to decrease the possibility 

of this outcome by making such 

discussions the default procedure for 

source selections for procurements at or 

above $100 million. However, use of the 

term ‘‘should,’’ as defined in FAR part 2, 

provides that the expected course of 

action need not be followed if 

inappropriate for a particular 

circumstance. 

II. Executive Order 12866 

This is not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, is not subject to 

review under Section 6 of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD does not expect this rule to have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 

because the rule does not add to or 

delete existing regulations on 

discussions for the vast majority of DoD 

procurements, i.e., those under $100 

million. For the largest procurements of 

at least $100 million, any increase in 

discussions is anticipated to benefit all 

offerors, including small businesses, by 

providing them an opportunity to 

explain details of the offer and market 

their particular capabilities. 

An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis has been prepared and is 

summarized as follows: The opportunity 

to participate in discussions increases 

the probability of selection for award, as 

described above. In fiscal year 2009, the 

most recent fiscal year for which data is 

available, DoD awarded 620 new 

contracts and 252 new task orders/ 

delivery orders of $100 million or more 

to small businesses. While there is no 

way to determine how many more small 

businesses may have been selected for 

high-dollar value DoD awards had 

discussions been held, it is reasonable 

to assume that the number would have 

been higher, thus providing small 

businesses with a net positive benefit. 

DoD invites comments from small 

business concerns and other interested 

parties on the expected impact of this 

rule on small entities. DoD will also 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the existing regulations in 

subparts affected by this rule in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested 

parties must submit such comments 

separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 

(DFARS Case 2010–D013) in 

correspondence. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply, because there are no 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 215 

Government procurement. 

Clare M. Zebrowski, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 

CFR part 215 as follows: 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 215 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

PART 215—CONTRACTING BY 

NEGOTIATION 

2. Add sections 215.203–71 and 

215.209 to read as follows: 

215.203–71 Requests for proposals— 

procurements of $100 million or more. 

For source selections when the 

procurement is $100 million or more, 

contracting officers should conduct 

discussions with offerors in the 

competitive range. 

215.209 Solicitation provisions and 

contract clauses. 

(a) For source selections when the 

procurement is $100 million or more, 

contracting officers should use the 

provision at 52.215–1, Instructions to 

Offerors—Competitive Acquisition, with 

its Alternate I. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29510 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0158 

Regulation Identifier No. (RIN) 2127–AJ44 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards, Child Restraint Systems; 

Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test 

Dummy 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child 

Restraint Systems, regarding a Hybrid III 

10-year-old child test dummy that the 

agency seeks to use in the compliance 

test procedures of the standard. This 

document supplements a 2005 notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and a 

2008 SNPRM previously published in 

this rulemaking (RIN 2127–AJ44) 

regarding this test dummy. In the 2005 

NPRM, in response to Anton’s Law, 

NHTSA proposed to adopt the 10-yearold child test dummy into FMVSS No. 

213 to test child restraints for older 

children. Subsequently, to address 

variation that was found in dummy 

readings due to chin-to-chest contact, 

NHTSA published the 2008 SNPRM to 

propose a NHTSA-developed procedure 

for positioning the test dummy in beltpositioning seats. Comments on the 

SNPRM objected to the positioning 

procedure, and some suggested an 

alternative procedure developed by the 

University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute (UMTRI). Today’s 

SNPRM proposes to use the UMTRI 

procedure to position the test dummy 

rather than the NHTSA-developed 

procedure. We note that the 10-year-old 

child dummy may sometimes 

experience stiff contact between its chin 

and upper sternal bib region which may 

result in an unrealistically high value of 

the head injury criterion (HIC) 1

referenced in the standard. Accordingly, 

NHTSA proposes that the dummy’s HIC 

measurement will not be used to assess 

the compliance of the tested child 

restraint. This SNPRM also proposes 

other amendments to FMVSS No. 213, 

including a proposal to permit NHTSA 

to use, at the manufacturer’s option, the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71649 

2NPRM for FMVSS No. 213, 70 FR 51720, August 

31, 2005, Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21245. 

3A Type I (or Type 1) seat belt is defined in 

FMVSS No. 209 as a lap belt for pelvic restraint. 

A Type II (or Type 2) seat belt is defined in FMVSS 

No. 209, ‘‘Seat belt assemblies,’’ as a combination of 

pelvic and upper torso restraints, which is 

commonly referred to as a lap/shoulder or threepoint belt. 

4NPRM for 49 CFR part 572, July 13, 2005, 70 FR 

40281; Docket No. NHTSA 2004–2005–21247, RIN 

2127–AJ49. 

Hybrid II or Hybrid III versions of the 

6-year-old test dummy, and a proposal 

to use the UMTRI procedure to position 

the Hybrid III 6-year-old and 10-year-old 

dummies when testing belt-positioning 

seats. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

the docket receives them not later than 

January 24, 2011. However, comments 

on our reinstating a provision in FMVSS 

No. 213 that permitted NHTSA to use, 

at the manufacturer’s option, the Hybrid 

II or Hybrid III versions of the 6-year-old 

dummy in compliance testing should be 

received no later than 30 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the DOT Docket ID 

Number above) by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may call Ms. 

Cristina Echemendia (Telephone: 202– 

366–6345) (Fax: 202–493–2990). For 

legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre 

Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel 

(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202– 

366–3820). You may send mail to these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

a. August 31, 2005 NPRM 

b. January 23, 2008 SNPRM 

c. Overview of Today’s SNPRM 

II. UMTRI Positioning Procedure for the HIII– 

10C 

III. HIC and the Hybrid III 10-Year-Old 

Dummy 

IV. Optional Use of Hybrid II or Hybrid III 

6-Year-Old Test Dummy 

V. UMTRI Positioning Procedure for the HIII– 

6C 

VI. Other Applications of the UMTRI 

Procedure 

VII. Other Proposals 

a. Using the HIII–10C to Test a CRS on 

LATCH 

b. CRSs Must Be Capable of Fitting the 

ATD 

c. Housekeeping 

VIII. Research Plans 

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

X. Public Participation 

I. Background 

a. August 31, 2005 NPRM 

On August 31, 2005, NHTSA 

published an NPRM proposing to 

amend FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint 

Systems (49 CFR 571.213), to adopt into 

the standard’s compliance test an 

instrumented 78 pound (lb) (35 

kilogram (kg)) Hybrid III test dummy 

representing a 10-year-old child.2

NHTSA proposed, among other matters, 

to use this dummy (referred to as the 

‘‘HIII–10C’’) to test belt-positioning seats 

and other child restraint systems 

recommended for children weighing 

more than 50 lb (22.7 kg), and to 

incorporate with this dummy the injury 

criteria and other performance measures 

specified in S5 of FMVSS No. 213 for 

evaluating child restraint systems 

(CRSs) with current test dummies. (Beltpositioning seats are a type of booster 

seat, see, S4 of FMVSS No. 213, and are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘beltpositioning booster seats’’ (BPB).) The 

NPRM proposed expanding the 

definition of ‘‘child restraint system’’ in 

FMVSS No. 213 to include any device, 

except Type I or Type II seat belts,3

designed for use in a motor vehicle or 

aircraft to restrain, seat, or position 

children who weigh 80 lb (36 kg) or less, 

thus expanding the applicability of 

FMVSS No. 213 to CRSs recommended 

for children weighing up to 80 lb (36 kg) 

from the current threshold of 65 lb (29.5 

kg). 

The rulemaking proposal was part of 

an on-going agency initiative to enhance 

the safety of children in motor vehicle 

crashes. It also implemented Section 

4(b) of Public Law 107–318, 116 Stat. 

2772 (‘‘Anton’s Law’’), which required 

the initiation of a rulemaking 

proceeding for the adoption of an 

anthropomorphic test device (ATD) that 

simulates a 10-year-old child. Section 4 

of Anton’s Law, signed on December 4, 

2002, stated that not later than 24 

months after the date of the enactment 

of that Act, the Secretary shall develop 

and evaluate an ATD that simulates a 

10-year-old child for use in testing child 

restraints used in passenger motor 

vehicles, and that within one year 

following such development and 

evaluation, the Secretary shall initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding for the adoption 

of an ATD so developed. 

In accordance with Anton’s Law, 

NHTSA completed its evaluation of the 

suitability of the HIII–10C dummy in 

September 2004. Following the 

evaluation, NHTSA issued an NPRM to 

initiate rulemaking to adopt 

specifications and performance 

requirements for the test dummy into 49 

CFR Part 572, the agency’s regulation for 

anthropomorphic test devices.4 That 

July 13, 2005 proposal was followed by 

the August 31, 2005 NPRM on FMVSS 

No. 213 initiating rulemaking to adopt 

the dummy into FMVSS No. 213 as a 

compliance test device. 

b. January 23, 2008 SNPRM 

The comments on the August 31, 2005 

NPRM supported extending the 

applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to child 

restraints recommended for children up 

to 80 lb (36 kg), and supported having 

a 10-year-old dummy to test higher 

weight-rated child restraints. However, 

commenters raised concerns about the 

biofidelity of the HIII–10C dummy, 

particularly with regard to the 

interaction of the dummy’s chin with 

the upper sternal bib region covering the 

upper portion of a metal ‘‘spine box.’’ 

Commenters said that the dummy 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

5 In the January 23, 2008 SNPRM, infra, torso 

angle was defined as the angle between the line 

joining the center of gravity of the dummy’s head 

to its H-point and a vertical plane (73 FR 3901, 

3907). 

6SNPRM for FMVSS No. 213, 73 FR 3901, Docket 

No. NHTSA–2007–0048; reopening of comment 

period, 73 FR 15963, March 26, 2008. 

7This proposal was subsequently adopted by a 

final rule published August 5, 2008 (73 FR 45355, 

Docket No. 2008–0137). 

8The private individual worked for a baby 

product retailer and was in favor of using the 

Hybrid III 10-year-old child test dummy for testing 

child restraints rated for children weighing 60 

pounds and greater. 

9The SNPRM referred briefly to the UMTRI 

seating procedure. NHTSA’s view, which was 

disputed by some commenters, was that the UMTRI 

procedure was similar to the procedure proposed by 

the SNPRM. 73 FR at 3907. 

10As used in the August 5, 2008 NPRM, 

‘‘submarining’’ is a term describing the kinematics 

occurring when a child occupant’s pelvis becomes 

unrestrained by the lap belt portion of a seat belt 

assembly and then slides under the lap belt in a 

frontal impact. As a result, the belt can enter the 

abdominal region and cause injury to the 

unprotected internal organs and lumbar spine. 

Submarining frequently involves the child’s knees 

sliding forward and the torso reclining rearward. 

exhibited ‘‘chin-to-chest’’ contacts 

resulting in high HIC scores and high 

HIC variability when tested multiple 

times under the same conditions. 

In response to these comments, the 

agency launched a series of tests to 

investigate the factors that influenced 

chin-to-chest contact. Results revealed 

that dummy posture was the primary 

factor contributing to HIC variation 

observed in testing of BPB seats. A 

consistent posture of the dummy in 

repeated tests with the same BPB 

revealed significant decreases in HIC 

variation. A more upright dummy 

posture minimized the chin-to-chest 

contact, which resulted in more 

repeatable and generally lower HIC 

values. In response to the comments, the 

agency developed a new dummy 

positioning procedure which 

established dummy posture (14 degree 

torso angle 5) and a belt positioned at 

specific landmarks of the dummy’s 

body. 

On January 23, 2008 the agency 

published a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 6

proposing the new dummy positioning 

procedure for the Hybrid III 10-year-old 

dummy and the Hybrid III 6-year-old 

dummy (HIII–6C) in BPB seats. The 

SNPRM supplemented the proposals of 

the August 31, 2005 NPRM in the 

following manner: 

1. The agency proposed dummy 

positioning procedures that establish 

dummy posture (torso angle at 14 

degrees) and seat belt positions based on 

specific landmarks of the dummy’s 

body. It was proposed that the dummy 

positioning procedures would be used 

when using the HIII–10C and the HIII– 

6C dummies to test BPB. 

2. In response to comments on a 

proposal in the August 31, 2005 NPRM 

regarding which CRSs would be tested 

with the HIII–10C dummy, NHTSA 

revised the earlier proposal which had 

envisioned using the HIII–10C to test 

child restraints for children weighing 

over 50 lb (22.7 kg). The SNPRM 

proposed that child restraints 

recommended for children weighing 50 

to 65 lb (22.7 to 29.5 kg) be tested with 

the HIII–6C dummy for performance, 

and with the weighted HIII–6C dummy 

for structural integrity, rather than with 

the HIII–10C. The HIII–10C dummy 

would be used to test CRSs 

recommended for children weighing 

more than 65 lb (29.5 kg). 

3. The SNPRM proposed to maintain 

the exclusion of belt-positioning seats 

from the seat back requirement by 

specifying that the HIII–10C dummy 

would not be used to determine the 

applicability of the head support surface 

requirements. 

4. To allow sufficient time for 

manufacturers to incorporate the 

SNPRM’s seating procedure into their 

certification testing with the HIII–6C 

dummy, the SNPRM proposed to 

postpone, until August 1, 2010, an 

August 1, 2008 compliance date that 

had been specified for the mandatory 

use of the HIII–6C dummy. The 

proposal was to allow use of the Hybrid 

II 6-year-old dummy at the 

manufacturers’ option, in lieu of the 

HIII–6C, until August 1, 2010.7

The agency received comments on the 

January 23, 2008 SNPRM from the 

University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute (UMTRI), CRS 

manufacturers (Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association, Inc. (JPMA), 

Dorel), automobile manufacturers 

(Chrysler, the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (the Alliance)), and a 

private individual.8 All commenters 

that directly addressed the proposed 

dummy positioning procedure opposed 

it, finding the procedure to be 

complicated, cumbersome and difficult 

to use. Some found they could not 

position the dummy’s torso angle in 

some BPB seats as specified in the 

SNPRM. Many commenters believed 

that the dummy’s posture using the 

SNPRM-proposed method does not 

position the dummy as a child would sit 

on a particular BPB seat, and so 

dynamic tests using the proposed 

positioning procedure would not 

evaluate the true performance of BPB 

seat designs. 

UMTRI espoused the strengths of the 

dummy positioning procedure it 

developed and urged NHTSA to adopt 

those procedures.9 UMTRI stated that 

tests conducted at its facility show that 

children sit with a wide range of torso 

angles that depend on the BPB seat 

characteristics. UMTRI stated: ‘‘We 

recommend a seating procedure that 

allows the ATD to sit against the back 

of the booster like a child, rather than 

being placed in a single posture 

regardless of the booster design, a 

practice that can result in a gap between 

the ATD and the back of the booster.’’ 

The commenter stated that its 

procedures position the test dummies in 

postures that are more representative of 

how children similar in size to the ATD 

sit in different BPB seats, and would 

produce more meaningful assessments 

of BPB performance. The commenter 

also noted that its testing has 

demonstrated that the SNPRM’s 

procedure, which was developed to 

reduce HIC variability, may in fact 

‘‘adversely affect child safety by creating 

incentives to produce poorer rather than 

better belt routing.’’ That is, the 

commenter believed that HIC can be 

lowered by repositioning the torso belt 

further off of the dummy’s shoulder, 

placing it in a position that could result 

in a child rotating out of the belt in a 

frontal crash. 

The UMTRI procedure results in 

unrealistically high HIC values 

measured by the dummy due to the 

more slouched positioning of the 

dummy. UMTRI suggested that NHTSA 

suspend use of HIC in the testing of BPB 

seats with the HIII–10C until the 

biofidelity of the test dummy is 

improved. UMTRI suggested that 

instead of HIC, NHTSA should use other 

measures to assess BPB seat 

performance, such as how the BPB seat 

affects seat belt placement and limits 

head excursion and submarining.10

JPMA stated that the CRS 

manufacturers support including the 

HIII–10C dummy into FMVSS No. 213 

but do not support the implementation 

of the proposed dummy positioning 

procedure. JPMA suggested that the 

procedure appears to be compensating 

for ‘‘a dummy design issue’’ and results 

in the dummy being ‘‘artificially 

positioned’’ in the BPB seat with the lap 

and shoulder belt set in a predetermined 

position on the dummy. JPMA 

expressed particular concern about 

using the SNPRM-proposed positioning 

procedure for testing high back BPB 

seats that have more than one recline 

adjustment position. The commenter 

stated that with some BPB seats, the 

shoulders of the dummy could be 

positioned as much as two inches 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71651 

11LATCH refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers 

for Children, a term that was developed by industry 

to refer to the child restraint anchorage system 

required to be installed in vehicles by FMVSS No. 

225. FMVSS No. 213 requires harness-equipped 

conventional child safety seats to be able to be 

installed in a vehicle by both a vehicle’s LATCH 

system, and the vehicle’s seat belt. (Footnote 

added.) 

12Proposals made in the 2005 NPRM and the 

2008 SNPRM that are not discussed in today’s 

SNPRM are still being considered by NHTSA. 

Today’s proposed regulatory text mainly reflects the 

proposals discussed in today’s SNPRM and does 

not reflect all of the earlier proposed amendments 

to FMVSS No. 213, even though those proposals are 

still part of this proposed rulemaking. It is not 

necessary for a commenter to resubmit views on 

proposals made in the 2005 NPRM and the 2008 

SNPRM that the commenter has expressed in 

previous comments on the earlier NPRMs. The 

agency will respond to all relevant comments in a 

final rule or other document following on today’s 

document. 

13 Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0048–0010. 

14There are a few aspects of the UMTRI 

procedure that we have modified or that we do not 

propose to include. For example, we eliminated the 

‘‘hip offset’’ tool and all the steps involving the tool. 

(See UMTRI May 12, 2008 comment, p. 7.) The 

measurements done with the tool are unnecessary 

for our purposes, so we eliminated its use from our 

procedure. We followed the instruction on how to 

apply the belt, but we eliminated any steps that 

involved ‘‘belt fit’’ measures as we are not including 

this in our procedure. We do not specify performing 

three static installations of the ATD and that the 

mean posture and belt locations obtained in these 

installations would be the ‘‘design’’ targets when 

positioning the ATD for the sled test. (UMTRI 

comment, p. 6.) We found the three static 

installations to be unnecessary. 

forward of the seat back when the torso 

angle is set to 14 degrees. JPMA stated 

that since the use of the proposed 

dummy positioning procedure does not 

represent how children sit in BPB seats, 

it does not allow proper evaluation of 

these seats as intended for use. JPMA 

stated that the proposed seating 

procedure would increase the total test 

time and cost, due to the repeated 

adjustments and measurements and 

measuring tools that are required. JPMA 

expressed support for the UMTRI 

seating procedure and suggested that 

NHTSA delay implementation of the 

HIC requirement until such time that 

the design/biofidelity issue with the 

ATD has been addressed. 

Dorel expressed concern that the 

proposed dummy positioning procedure 

does not address the root cause of the 

chin-to-chest contact and that the 

proposed procedure will result in 

adoption of the HIII 10-year-old and 6- 

year-old dummies in spite of the ATDs’ 

non-biofidelic necks and torsos. 

The concerns outlined above were 

echoed by Chrysler as well, which 

stated that the SNPRM’s positioning 

procedure creates an artificial 

unrealistic testing condition for the 

dummy that is not representative of a 

real world 10-year-old child. Chrysler 

stated that this artificial position seems 

to have been created in order to reduce 

the potential for submarining and chinto-chest contact; the commenter 

believed that it would be better to 

correct the design of the dummy rather 

than establish unnatural seating 

positions. Chrysler stated that the HIII– 

10C dummy submarines more 

frequently in FMVSS No. 213 type sled 

tests than has been observed in the field 

for the 8- to 12-year-old age group. 

Chrysler also stated there were 

‘‘frequently occurring noise spikes in the 

dummy chest responses (chest and 

sternum accelerations) [that] lead to 

uncertainty in the measurements 

obtained from the dummy.’’ 

The Alliance opposed the SNPRM’s 

dummy positioning procedures as 

overly complex, impracticable, or 

otherwise inappropriate. The 

commenter stated that setting up the 

dummy torso angle to 14 degrees and 

leveling the head are likely to require 

several iterations and expensive 

measurement tools that make this 

procedure onerous and unnecessarily 

burdensome. The commenter noted that 

the HIII–6C dummy does not have an 

adjustable neck, and that neither 

dummy has an orientation marking on 

the head to use when setting the neck 

to ‘‘level,’’ so it is impractical to achieve 

the level head requirement for some 

vehicle seats. Further, some Alliance 

members found that they had to place 

shims of varying thicknesses behind the 

dummy to achieve a torso angle of 14 

degrees, or had a gap between the 

dummy and the seat back. Further, the 

commenter found that the procedure 

specified placing the shoulder belt 

lower on the dummies than where the 

belt normally would be placed, resulting 

in sub-optimal belt fit. The Alliance 

recommended that NHTSA should limit 

the calculation of HIC to periods prior 

to chin-to-chest contact. The commenter 

also suggested that, ‘‘until NHTSA and 

the industry can confirm that the use of 

LATCH anchorages with heavier 

children does not create an unsafe 

situation, the Alliance urges the agency 

to clarify that it will not use the LATCH 

anchorages when conducting 

compliance tests of harness equipped 

CRSs using the 10-year-old dummy.’’ 11

c. Overview of Today’s SNPRM 

Based on an analysis of the comments 

to the January 23, 2008 SNPRM and 

other information, including the results 

of additional testing by NHTSA of BPB 

seats using the UMTRI positioning 

procedure, NHTSA is issuing this 

SNPRM that supplements the August 

31, 2005 NPRM and the January 31, 

2008 SNPRM, with the following 

proposals.12 Today’s SNPRM adds to or 

supplements the previous documents by 

proposing to: 

1. Adopt a procedure for positioning 

the HIII–10C dummy in BPB seats based 

on the procedure developed by UMTRI, 

instead of the procedure described in 

the January 23, 2008 SNPRM. The 

procedure includes specifications for 

positioning the BPB seat on the standard 

seat assembly. 

2. Suspend the HIC criterion for the 

HIII–10C dummy in all child restraints, 

including BPB seats, until problems 

with the dummy that have resulted in 

unacceptable chin-to-chest contact in 

FMVSS No. 213 testing have been 

resolved. 

3. Specify that a child restraint system 

recommended for children weighing 

over 65 lb (29.5 kg) will not be subject 

to testing with the HIII–10C when 

attached to the standard seat assembly 

using the LATCH system. These CRSs 

would be tested with the HIII–10C while 

attached to the standard seat assembly 

with the seat belt system. To reduce the 

likelihood that a consumer may 

mistakenly use this type of CRS with 

LATCH, this SNPRM proposes to 

require harness-equipped CRSs 

recommended for children of a weight 

range that includes children weighing 

over 65 lb (29.5 kg), to be labeled with 

an instruction to the consumer not to 

use the vehicle LATCH system with a 

child weighing more than 65 lb (29.5 

kg). 

4. Reinstate a provision that expired 

on August 1, 2010 that permitted 

NHTSA to use, at the manufacturer’s 

option, the Hybrid II 6-year old (H2–6C) 

dummy or the HIII–6C dummy for 

testing child restraints and BPB seats. 

This SNPRM also proposes using the 

UMTRI procedure to position the HIII– 

6C dummy in BPB seats. 

II. UMTRI Positioning Procedure for 

the HIII–10C 

We propose adopting a procedure that 

is based on UMTRI’s positioning 

procedure for positioning the HIII–10C 

dummy in BPB seats. UMTRI describes 

the procedure in its May 12, 2008 

comment to the docket for the January 

23, 2008 SNPRM.13 We propose 

adopting the procedure as we have set 

forth in the proposed regulatory text of 

this SNPRM.14 NHTSA is proposing to 

adopt the UMTRI-based procedure 

because the agency has found it simple 

to use, and because the procedure 

results in a positioning of the ATD that 

is substantially more representative of 

how a child would be positioned in a 

BPB seat than the procedure of the 

January 23, 2008 SNPRM. (As noted 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

15With the exception of the HIII–10C’s 

measurement of HIC. However, as explained below, 

we are proposing that HIC would not be measured 

by the HIII–10C using the UMTRI procedure in the 

FMVSS No. 213 test. 

16 In these tests, NHTSA did not use the lap form 

recommended by UMTRI to prevent the lap belt 

from getting caught between the pelvis and thigh of 

the dummy. In these tests, the lap belt did not get 

caught in the gap between the pelvis and thigh. 

below in this preamble, the UMTRI 

procedure is very similar to the 

procedure NHTSA currently uses to 

position ATDs in child restraints for the 

FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests.) With 

the UMTRI procedure, no gaps result 

between the ATD’s back and the back of 

the BPB seat. Moreover, in our 

evaluation, we have tentatively 

determined that the HIII–10C dummy 

positioned according to the UMTRI 

procedure would yield repeatable ATD 

readings for determining compliance 

with FMVSS No. 213’s requirements.15

Generally described, the UMTRI 

procedure first involves centering the 

BPB seat on the seating position of the 

test bench seat. A 30 lb (133 Newton 

(N)) force is then applied to push the 

BPB seat rearward into the test bench 

seat. The dummy is prepared with a lap 

form and a pelvis positioning pad before 

being positioned on the BPB seat. The 

lap form is placed on the ATD’s lap to 

keep the lap belt from intruding into a 

gap that the Hybrid-III ATDs have 

between the pelvis flesh and thigh flesh. 

The pelvis positioning pad, placed 

behind the dummy, is used to help 

position the dummy with a slight 

slouch, which allows the dummy to 

adopt a posture similar to a child seated 

in a relaxed position. The dummy is 

positioned and centered on the BPB seat 

and is pushed rearward by applying a 

40 lb (177 N) force on the dummy’s 

lower pelvis and the thorax. The 

dummy’s knees are placed pelvis width 

apart. These steps help the dummy 

achieve a ‘‘natural’’ seating position on 

the BPB seat. 

To restrain the dummy, the threepoint (lap/shoulder) belt is pulled out of 

the shoulder belt attachment or 

retractor. The shoulder belt and the lap 

belt are routed through any guides, if 

available, according to the CRS 

manufacturer’s instructions. The slack 

of the belt is removed by feeding the 

excess webbing into the shoulder belt 

attachment or retractor. The lap and 

shoulder belt sections are tightened to 

2–4 lb (9–18 N) of tension. The lap belt 

tension is lower than the one currently 

specified in the FMVSS No. 213 test 

(12–15 lb) (53–67 N); however, 

according to UMTRI’s comment, a 2–4 

lb (9–18 N) tension is representative of 

a tension applied by a child in the real 

world. Accordingly, we are proposing a 

lap belt tension of 2–4 lb (9–18 N). 

To provide readers an idea of the 

differences between the January 23, 

2008 SNPRM and the UMTRI-based 

procedures proposed today, Table 1 

below highlights the significant 

differences between the two procedures. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF 2008 SNPRM AND TODAY’S UMTRI–BASED PROCEDURES

2008 SNPRM procedure UMTRI-based procedure 

BPB Seat Positioning ...... Centered and pushed rearward .............................. Centered and pushed rearward applying 30 lb (133 N) of force. 

Dummy Preparation ......... ............................................................................. Install lap form and pelvis positioning pad. 

Dummy Positioning .......... Centered on BPB seat and torso angle at 14.5 degrees from vertical.Centered on BPB seat, torso aligned with BPB’s back or vehicle’s seat back then pushed rearward by applying 40 lb (177 

N) on chest and pelvis. 

Belt Routing (Belt Guides) According to manufacturer’s instructions ................ According to manufacturer’s instructions. 

Lap Belt Tension ............. 12–15 lb (53–67 N) ................................................. 2–4 lb (9–18 N). 

Shoulder Belt Tension ..... 2–4 lb (9–18N) ........................................................ 2–4 lb (9–18N). 

Shoulder Belt-Positioning (1) Outer edge of belt on outer edge of jacket, (2) 

distance between bottom of dummy’s chin and 

the center of the shoulder belt/middle of the 

sternum should be 6.1 +/- 0.19 inches (in) (15.5 

+/-0.5 cm), and (3) angle of the shoulder belt 

relative to horizontal should be 50 degrees +/- 

10 degrees.

Shoulder belt positioned through the shortest path between the 

buckle and the shoulder belt attachment. 

Lap Belt-Positioning ......... Top of belt is 1 in (2.54 cm) or more below the top 

rim of the pelvis molded skin.

Hold the lap belt 6 in (15.24 cm) above the midsagittal line of 

the dummy pelvis, then tighten lap belt by pulling on the 

shoulder portion of the belt towards the shoulder belt attachment. 

After receiving the comments on the 

January 23, 2008 SNPRM, NHTSA 

evaluated the UMTRI positioning 

procedure to assess its potential use in 

FMVSS No. 213. The main objective of 

this evaluation was to assess the 

repeatability of the UMTRI procedure 

when used to position ATDs in CRSs in 

48 kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile 

per hour (mph)) sled tests. We also 

compared the test results with those 

from previously-conducted tests using 

the SNPRM-proposed procedure.16

To assess the UMTRI procedure in 

positioning the HIII–10C dummy, we 

tested four different models of BPB seats 

using the UMTRI positioning procedure 

and the HIII–10C dummy. Each of the 

four BPB seat designs was tested three 

times. We also conducted one test with 

a fifth BPB seat. Results of this 

repeatability assessment are shown 

below in Table 2, below. These data 

show that the chest acceleration and 

head and knee excursion of the ATD 

had good repeatability, with coefficient 

of variation (C.V.) values lower than 10 

percent. The only measure showing a 

C.V. higher than 10 percent was HIC 

caused by the chin-to-chest contact 

interaction present. 

Table 2 also compares the average 

computed torso angles, HIC, chest 

acceleration, head excursion and knee 

excursion of the HIII–10C dummy for 

each BPB design tested multiple times 

using the UMTRI procedure and the 

SNPRM procedure with 14 degree torso 

angle. All tests were performed at a 

speed differential of 48 km/h (30 mph). 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71653 

18American Society of Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) D1056–07, Standard Specification for 

Flexible Cellular Materials—Sponge or Expanded 

Rubber, http://www.astm.org/Standards/ 

D1056.htm. 

19There are only a few non-booster seats 

recommended for children weighing over 29.5 kg 

(65 lb) (e.g., Britax Regent and Sunshine Kids 

Radian 80). 

20http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/ 

NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/ 

Associated%20Files/TP213–9a.pdf 

TABLE 2—NHTSA SLED TESTS RESULTS FOR HIII–10C 17

Restraint Test No. 

Seating 

proc. 

method 

Computed 

torso angle 

(deg) 

HIC 

36 

ms 

3 ms. Chest 

acc. (g) 

Head excursion 

(mm) 

Knee excursion 

(mm) 

1000 60 813 915 

Safety 1st Apex 65 .......... UMTRI ............................ Avg. 24 .1 1200 41 .4 562 890 

S.D. 0 .6 112 .9 3 .35 3 .6 32 .3 

C.V. 2 .59% 9 .41% 8 .09% 0 .64% 3 .63% 

SNPRM 14 deg. ............. Avg. 13 .8 802 53 .4 620 805 

S.D. 0 .2 107 .8 2 .30 14 .6 13 .2 

C.V. 1 .10% 13 .44% 4 .31% 2 .35% 1 .64% 

Britax Parkway ................ UMTRI ............................ Avg. 20 .1 1052 48 .2 541 763 

S.D. 1 .4 229 .2 2 .66 19 .6 20 .5 

C.V. 6 .96% 21 .79% 5 .51% 3 .62% 2 .69% 

SNPRM 14 deg. ............. Avg. 14 .0 467 48 .1 602 718 

S.D. 0 .1 43 .8 1 .03 24 .0 14 .0 

C.V. 0 .82% 9 .40% 2 .13% 3 .99% 1 .95% 

Graco Turbo (No Back) ... UMTRI ............................ Avg. 16 .6 885 48 .7 491 700 

S.D. 1 .8 91 .8 3 .91 8 .8 21 .4 

C.V. 10 .56% 10 .38% 8 .04% 1 .80% 3 .05% 

SNPRM 14 deg. ............. Avg. 14 .1 650 49 .6 563 691 

S.D. 0 .1 45 .9 2 .41 20 .3 7 .0 

C.V. 0 .71% 7 .07% 4 .86% 3 .60% 1 .02% 

Recaro Young Style ........ UMTRI ............................ Avg. 20 .5 1346 50 .1 538 739 

S.D. 0 .6 60 .0 1 .9 13 .1 14 .8 

C.V. 2 .99% 4 .45% 3 .83% 2 .44% 2 .00% 

SNPRM 14 deg. ............. Avg. 14 .1 760 49 .6 673 766 

S.D. 0 .2 79 .0 2 .94 49 .0 10 .2 

C.V. 1 .08% 10 .39% 5 .92% 7 .28% 1 .33% 

17 Results from tests using SNPRM procedure reported in Stammen, J., Sullivan, L. ‘‘Development of a Hybrid III 6 Yr. Old and 10 Yr. Old 

Dummy Seating Procedure for Booster Seat Testing,’’ January 2008, Docket NHTSA 2007–0048. 

Not surprisingly, the test results 

showed that the January 23, 2008 

SNPRM positioning procedure 

consistently yielded the lowest HIC 

values in all models of BPB seats, while 

the UMTRI procedure yielded the 

highest ones. These results illustrate 

how HIC values were affected— 

generally reduced—by the dummy 

upright posture produced by the 2008 

SNPRM procedure. UMTRI’s dummy 

positioning procedure resulted in the 

highest torso angles (i.e., a more 

slouched dummy) when compared to 

the 2008 SNPRM procedure using the 

same BPB seat model, which resulted in 

the higher HIC values. 

As noted above, the UMTRI procedure 

specifies that the dummy is prepared 

with a lap form and a pelvis positioning 

pad before being positioned on the BPB 

seat. In our tests, NHTSA did not use 

the lap form recommended by UMTRI to 

prevent the lap belt from getting caught 

between the pelvis and thigh of the 

dummy. In none of our tests did the lap 

belt get caught in the gap between the 

pelvis and thigh. However, we 

tentatively conclude that the lap form 

should be specified for use in the 

FMVSS No. 213 compliance test to 

avoid the possibility that the lap belt 

could get caught in the thigh/pelvis gap. 

Thus, in the regulatory text proposed by 

today’s SNPRM, we specify use of the 

lap form and pelvis positioning pad. 

We describe the lap form and pelvis 

positioning pad in the proposed 

regulatory text as follows. ‘‘Lap form’’ is 

described as a piece of translucent 

silicone rubber 3 millimeter (mm) thick 

(50A Durometer) cut to a certain pattern 

that would be specified in a new figure 

(proposed Figure 13) added to FMVSS 

No. 213. ‘‘Pelvis positioning pad’’ is 

described as: a 125 x 95 x 20 mm piece 

of foam or rubber with a compression 

resistance between 13 to 17 pounds per 

square inch (psi) in a compressiondeflection test specified in ASTM D– 

1056–07, a maximum compression set 

of 25 percent after a 24 hour recovery 

time in a compression set test for a Type 

2—Grade 4 material specified in ASTM 

D–1056–07, and with a density of 9.5 to 

12.5 lb/ft3.18 The pelvis positioning pad 

used during NHTSA’s testing was made 

from Ensolite IE4 foam (Armacell Inc.). 

NHTSA seeks to avoid material- or 

manufacturer-specific references in the 

regulatory text. Comments are requested 

on these specifications. 

Comments are requested on the 

proposed dummy positioning 

procedure. The proposed positioning 

procedure would apply when the HIII– 

10C dummy is used to test BPB seats 

and not when the dummy is used to test 

child restraints other than BPB seats 

(‘‘non-booster seats’’).19 NHTSA 

tentatively concludes that the procedure 

is not needed to test non-booster seats 

because those child restraints have an 

internal harness to help position the 

dummy. For those restraints, there is 

already a methodology set forth in 

FMVSS No. 213 and in the agency’s 

Laboratory Test Procedures for the 

standard 20 for positioning test dummies 

in the restraint systems. The 

methodology specifies applying a 

certain load to the dummy’s pelvic/ 

lower torso area to ensure the dummy 

is as far back in the restraint as possible, 

and tightening the internal harness to 

specifications. 

We tentatively conclude that the 

current FMVSS No. 213 procedures 

reasonably assure that the ATD is 

properly positioned in the non-booster 

seat. We note also that this Laboratory 

Test Procedure is quite similar to the 

UMTRI procedure. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

21The bib is a piece of thin plastic on the front 

of the dummy that serves as an interface between 

the ribs and the sternum plate. It extends over each 

shoulder and covers the cavity between the top rib 

and the lower neck region of the spine box. The 

chest jacket covers the bib. 

22The Hybrid III–10C dummy incorporates more 

pelvic slouch than other dummies in the Hybrid III 

family. Slouch was introduced in the design of this 

dummy because children not in booster seats tend 

to slouch to keep their knees bent over the vehicle 

seat. This slouching characteristic increases the risk 

of submarining for the Hybrid III 10-year-old 

dummy resulting in a more severe chin-to-chest 

contact (higher HIC values). In addition to this, the 

neck of the Hybrid 10-year-old dummy has a 

segmented neck with aluminum intervertebral disks 

which results in higher excursion and more flexion 

than the Hybrid III–6C. The higher HIC values 

(chin-to-chest contact) are more pronounced in the 

HIII–10C than the HIII–6C. 

However, although the current 

positioning procedure and the UMTRI 

procedure are very similar, the UMTRI 

procedure includes additional steps 

throughout the procedure that facilitate 

more control of the BPB seat, dummy, 

and belt positioning. The UMTRI 

procedure includes a step to center the 

BPB on the sled seat and apply a 30 lb 

(133 N) force rearward. This step 

ensures the proper position of the BPB 

on the test seat. As previously 

mentioned, the UMTRI procedure also 

includes a lap form to prevent the lap 

belt from being caught between the leg 

and the pelvis, and pelvis positioning 

pad to allow a slightly slouched seated 

position of the dummy. The UMTRI 

procedure uses a tension of 2–4 lb (9– 

18 N) in the lap belt while the current 

position uses a 12–15 lb (53–67 N) 

tension. The UMTRI procedure 

describes how to install and tighten the 

seat belt, while the current position 

does not have any specific steps for 

doing so. For these reasons, we believe 

that the UMTRI procedure is a more 

desirable procedure over the current 

FMVSS No. 213 positioning procedure 

and should be used to position the HIII– 

10C on BPB seats. Comments are 

requested on the advantages of the 

UMTRI procedure over the current 

NHTSA procedure for testing BPB seats. 

III. HIC and the Hybrid III 10-Year-Old 

Dummy 

We propose suspending the HIC 

criterion when using the HIII–10C test 

dummy to test BPB seats and other child 

restraints until we have resolved the 

problems with the dummy that have 

resulted in the chin-to-chest interaction 

that have caused unrealistically high 

HIC values in FMVSS No. 213 tests. 

In the January 23, 2008 SNPRM, we 

explained the chin-to-chest contact in 

the HIII–10C ATD and how the HIC 

values were affected (73 FR at 3904– 

3905): 

A[n] [HIII–10C] dummy that is set up to 

have a more reclined torso (high torso angle) 

is more likely to submarine under the vehicle 

belt. The motion of the head is much 

different in a submarining case than in a 

situation where the dummy is well 

restrained. When the dummy is restrained 

effectively (shoulder belt centered on the 

sternum, lap belt on the pelvis), the head 

moves forward in unison with the upper 

torso as the belt tension increases. Then, as 

the belt reaches its spooling limit, the head 

rotates in a wide arc and late in the event 

contacts a location either on the ribcage or 

into a portion of the bib 21 having a large 

clearance to the spine box. Since the ribcage 

is compliant, the bib-to-spine box clearance 

is high, and the contact occurs very late in 

the event, the resulting head acceleration due 

to chin contact is low. Thus its contribution 

to the HIC calculation is minimal. 

In contrast, in a submarining case, the head 

does not translate forward much at all 

because the shoulder belt engages the neck 

instead of restraining the upper torso. 

Therefore the upper torso steadily becomes 

more horizontal and reclined because the 

overwhelming majority of the dummy’s mass 

is below the shoulder belt. The head is 

pulled downward by the weight of the 

dummy through the neck, and the forward 

inertia of the head mass causes severe 

rotation about the shoulder belt at the bottom 

of the neck. As a result, the head arc is much 

tighter and chin contact occurs sooner in the 

event, before a significant amount of kinetic 

energy is dissipated through the belt. This 

motion causes the chin to contact the lowclearance portion of the bib overlaying the 

top part of the spine box housing the lower 

neck load cell. The bib does not provide 

much resistance to the head’s increased 

rotational energy and the chin essentially 

‘‘bottoms out’’ on the spine box, causing a 

large spike in head acceleration and 

increased HIC. 

While the UMTRI procedure produces 

a more lifelike positioning of the test 

dummy, such positioning results in 

anomalies in HIC values measured by 

the dummy due to the more slouched 

positioning of the dummy.22 The 

slouched positioning produces higher 

rotational velocity in the dummy’s head 

compared to an upright dummy, putting 

the head/chin in non-representative 

contact with a more rigid and nonlifelike portion of the dummy structure 

(the upper sternal bib region covering 

the upper spine box in the ATD’s chest). 

CRSs tested with the HIII–10C ATD in 

the slouched position are more likely to 

produce HIC values in the ATD 

indicating an unacceptable risk of head 

injury, even though head injury due to 

chin-to-chest impacts are not occurring 

in the real world. 

NHTSA analyzed the National 

Automotive Sampling System (NASS) 

Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) 

data files for the years 1999 to 2008 to 

better understand real world injuries 

among children in different restraint 

conditions. The risk and source of 

injury to different body regions was also 

determined. The sampled data consisted 

of children, 5–12 years of age, in rear 

seats of light passenger vehicles that 

were involved in non-rollover frontal 

towaway crashes. Weighting factors in 

NASS/CDS were applied to the sample 

data to represent national estimates of 

towaway crashes. The weighted data 

consisted of 910,308 (1940 unweighted 

sample) children of which 49 percent 

were 5–7-year-olds and 51 percent were 

8–12-year-olds. Among the 5–7-yearolds, 69 percent were using vehicle seat 

belts, 22 percent were in harness CRS or 

BPB, and 9 percent were unrestrained. 

Among the 8–12-year-olds, 90 percent 

were using the vehicle belts, 1 percent 

was in harness CRS or BPB, and 9 

percent were unrestrained. 

The risk of AIS 2+ injury for children 

5–7 years old was 5.2 percent for 

unbelted children, 1.2 percent for belted 

children and 0.9 percent for children in 

CRSs. The AIS2+ injury risk for children 

8–12 years old was 8.1 percent for 

unbelted children and 1.3 percent for 

belted children. There were no cases of 

children 8–12 years old in CRSs. Both 

age groups showed a decrease of injury 

risk when using restraints (belt or CRS). 

The most common AIS 2+ injuries 

among children restrained (vehicle seat 

belt or CRS) in rear seats were to the 

head and face (48 percent), followed by 

upper extremities (19 percent), torso (17 

percent) and lower extremities (16 

percent). The most-common known 

contacts for AIS2+ head injuries to 5–12 

year-old-children restrained by vehicle 

seat belts or CRS/BPB was the seat back 

(50 percent). There was only one case in 

this sample of restrained children where 

an AIS 2+ head injury occurred due to 

self-contact. Further examination of this 

particular case indicated that it involved 

a 7-year-old child restrained with a 

vehicle seat belt. The child’s head 

contacted its knee resulting in an AIS 2- 

severity concussion. 

The results of this real world data 

analysis indicates that the injury risk is 

substantially reduced when the child is 

restrained by vehicle seat belts or in 

child restraints. The results show that 

most head injuries in restrained 

children are caused by contact with the 

seat back. Only one head injury case 

was associated with self contact (head 

contact with knee) but no cases were 

reported where there was chin-to-chest 

contact that resulted in a head injury. 

Thus, the high HIC values measured 

by the HIII–10C dummy in laboratory 

sled tests due to chin-to-chest contact 

do not seem to be replicating a real 

world injury mechanism. Children are 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71655 

23Ash, JH, Sherwood, CP, Abdelilah, Y, Crandall, 

JR, Parent, DP, Kallieris, D., ‘‘Comparison of 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies with a Pediatric 

Cadaver Restrained by a Three-point Belt in Frontal 

Sled Tests,’’ Proceedings of the 21st ESV 

Conference, June 2009. 

24Stammen, J., Sullivan, L., ‘‘Development of a 

Hybrid III 6-Yr.-Old and 10-Yr.-Old Dummy Seating 

Procedure for Booster Seat Testing,’’ January 2008, 

Docket NHTSA–2007–0048. 

25Stammen, J., ‘‘Technical Evaluation of the 

Hybrid III Ten-Year-Old Dummy (HIII–10C),’’ 

September 2004, Docket NHTSA–2005–21247– 

0003. 

26 Klinich, K.D., Reed, M.P., Ritchie, N.L., 

Manary, M.A., Schneider, L.W., Rupp, J.D., 

‘‘Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume II: Effect of 

Restraint Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, 

Seating Procedure, and Belt Fit on the Dynamic 

Response of the Hybrid III 10 YO ATD in Sled 

Tests,’’ September 2008, UMTRI–2008–49–2. 

27Arbogast, K B, et al., ‘‘Predictors of Pediatric 

Abdominal Injury Risk,’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, 

Vol. 48, 2004. 

28Reed, M.P., Ebert-Hamilton, S.M., Klinich, 

K.D., Manary, M.A., Rupp, J.D., ‘‘Assessing Child 

Belt Fit, Volume II: Effects of Restraint 

Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, Seating 

Procedure, and Belt Fit on the Dynamic Response 

of the Hybrid III 10 YO ATD in Sled Tests,’’ 

September 2008, UMTRI–2008–49–2. 

not being injured by chin-to-chest 

contact. 

To see if the HIC values measured by 

the dummy in the FMVSS No. 213 

could be made more meaningful and 

relevant, we investigated the possibility 

of improving the dummy’s biofidelity. 

In 2008, Ash et al.23 published results 

of a study comparing the responses of a 

pediatric cadaver restrained by a threepoint belt with that of a HIII–10C 

dummy in frontal sled tests. The 

cadaver sled test was replicated using 

the HIII–10C dummy, and the 

kinematics of the dummy and cadaver 

were compared, along with the 

accelerations of the head, shoulder and 

lap belt loads of the cadaver and 

dummy. (Due to anthropometric and 

age-equivalent differences between the 

cadaver and the dummy, geometric 

scaling was performed on the signals 

based on the seated height and material 

properties.) 

The study showed similarities in the 

shoulder belt and lap belt forces and 

head excursions of HIII–10C and the 

scaled pediatric cadaver. However, test 

data revealed differences in the 

maximum shoulder excursions and 

translation and rotation at the cervical 

and thoracic spine junction. The head 

excursions between the ATD and the 

scaled cadaver were similar but there 

were differences in how the head 

reached its maximum excursion point. 

The T1 vertebra (base of the neck) of the 

cadaver had greater forward travel than 

that of the dummy while the dummy 

experienced greater rotation at the base 

of the neck than the cadaver. These 

differences in kinematics were 

attributed to the rigid thoracic spine of 

the dummy, along with extensive 

bending at the cervical and thoracic 

spine junction. The greater neck rotation 

at the base of the neck of the dummy 

compared to the cadaver led to greater 

angular velocity of the head. This 

greater head velocity, coupled with the 

stiff chin-to-chest interaction reported 

by Stammen,24 resulted in significantly 

higher HIC values for the dummy than 

that expected based on field injury risk. 

When we evaluated the suitability of 

the HIII–10C dummy, we found that the 

individual components of the HIII–10C 

dummy exhibited excellent performance 

with respect to the Hybrid III Dummy 

Family Task Group (HIII DFTG) 

certification requirements.25 However, 

as explained in Ash (2008), the rigid 

stiff spine of the dummy and the 

extensive bending at the cervical and 

thoracic spine junction affected the 

kinematics of the dummy, particularly 

chin-to-chest contact. In section VIII of 

this preamble to this SNPRM, we 

discuss our plans to improve the 

biofidelity of the HIII–10C as a complete 

system. We have tentatively decided 

that until the biofidelity of the dummy 

is improved to address the chin-to-chest 

interaction in the FMVSS No. 213 

environment, HIC should not be 

measured by the HIII–10C dummy in 

FMVSS No. 213. 

Another reason we propose not to use 

HIC as a criterion when using the HIII– 

10C dummy to test BPB seats is 

UMTRI’s information demonstrating 

that HIC can be reduced by poor 

shoulder belt placement.26 UMTRI 

found in sled tests that when the 

shoulder belt slips off the HIII–10C 

dummy shoulder, the chin-to-chest 

contact did not occur because the 

dummy rolls out of the shoulder belt 

and moves forward. As a result, the HIC 

value was low but head excursion 

increased as the dummy’s upper torso 

was not restrained by the shoulder belt. 

Although head excursion increased in 

situations where the shoulder belt 

slipped off the dummy, the values were 

still substantially within compliance 

limits, therefore giving a ‘‘passing’’ value 

to the BPB seat. These data 

demonstrated that using HIC as an 

injury measure may encourage poor belt 

routing designs that place the shoulder 

belt more outboard, which could allow 

the dummy to roll out of the belt in a 

sled test. 

However, we continue to believe that 

the HIII–10C would be an important test 

instrument to add to FMVSS No. 213 to 

assess the performance of CRSs 

recommended for use by children 

weighing 65 lb (29.5 kg) or more. The 

ways in which we would use the ATD 

in the standard to assess the 

performance of child restraints for larger 

children is discussed in the next section 

below. Incorporating the ATD would 

fulfill the aspirations of Anton’s Law to 

develop and evaluate a test dummy that 

represents a 10-year-old child to 

evaluate the performance of child 

restraints for older children. Further, 

without the HIII–10C, little if anything 

would be gained by extending the 

applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to CRSs 

for children weighing 65 lb (29.5 kg) or 

more, as the performance of the CRSs to 

protect larger children would not be 

dynamically tested with an ATD 

representative of children weighing 

more than 65 lb (29.5 kg). 

We disagree with a point Chrysler 

made in its comments to the 2008 

SNPRM, that the HIII–10C submarines 

more frequently in FMVSS No. 213 type 

sled tests than has been observed in the 

field for the 8- to 12-year-old age group. 

(The commenter noted that the 

consequence from submarining was 

severe chin-to-chest contact which 

results in increased HIC values.) The 

agency reviewed the publications 

referenced by Chrysler 27 in its comment 

on this point and found that those field 

observations were based on insurance 

claims data and involved crashes of 

significantly lower severity than the 

FMVSS No. 213 sled test, which 

represents a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal 

crash. Thus, it is understandable that 

the children in the field studies did not 

submarine at the same frequency as the 

HIII–10C in the FMVSS No. 213 test 

environment. 

Moreover, we are aware that 

UMTRI 28 conducted a series of sled 

tests to investigate the HIII–10C 

response to variations in shoulder and 

lap belt configurations and found that 

the dummy submarined in lap belt 

configurations that did not engage the 

child’s pelvis while it did not 

submarine in belt configurations which 

engaged the pelvis of a child of similar 

size as the dummy. Therefore, we 

believe that the HIII–10C dummy 

correctly submarines in severe crash 

environments such as the FMVSS No. 

213 sled test. 

We are proceeding with our proposal 

to add specifications for the HIII–10C to 

NHTSA’s regulation for 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices, 49 CFR 

part 572, as proposed in the July 13, 

2005 NPRM (RIN 2127–AJ49). We will 

respond to the comments submitted to 

that NPRM when we publish our 

rulemaking document following on that 

NPRM. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

29Tylko, S., ‘‘Protection of Rear Seat Occupants 

in Frontal Crashes,’’ The 19th Enhanced Safety of 

Vehicles (ESV) Conference Proceedings, (2005), 

Paper number: 05–258. 

30Hong, S., Park, C.K. Morgan, R.M., Kan, C.D., 

Park, S., Bae, H., ‘‘A Study of the Rear Seat 

Occupant Safety Using a 10-Year-Old Child Dummy 

in the New Car Assessment Program,’’ SAE 2008 

World Congress, 2008–01–0511. 

31Stammen, J., ‘‘Technical Evaluation of the 

Hybrid III Ten Year Old Dummy (HIII–10C),’’ 

September 2004, Docket: NHTSA–2005–21247–003. 

32Reed, M.P., Ebert-Hamilton, S.M., Klinich, 

K.D., Manary, M.A., Rupp, J.D., ‘‘Assessing Child 

Belt Fit, Volume I: Effects of Vehicle Seat and Belt 

Geometry on Belt Fit for Children with and without 

BPB Seats,’’ September 2008, UMTRI– 2008–49–1. 

We note that in that July 13, 2005 

NPRM, we proposed a head drop 

calibration test (proposed 49 CFR 

572.172) to assess the response of the 

accelerometer in the ATD’s head (70 FR 

at 40289, 40293). Even if HIC is not used 

as a pass-fail criterion in FMVSS No. 

213 with the HIII–10C, we believe that 

the head drop specification should be 

included in 49 CFR 572.172, since we 

plan to obtain HIC data for research 

purposes when using the HIII–10C in 

dynamic tests. Comments are requested 

on this issue. 

Other Measures of Injury Risk 

Although the HIC criterion would not 

apply to CRSs tested with the HIII–10C, 

we continue to believe that head and 

knee excursion and chest acceleration 

criteria should be adopted. We generally 

concur with UMTRI’s comment to the 

SNPRM that NHTSA should ‘‘use other 

measures [besides HIC] that assess belt 

placement, limit head excursion, and 

evaluate the likelihood of submarining 

when assessing booster performance’’ 

when using the UMTRI procedure. 

We believe that the HIII–10C is 

suitable for measuring head and knee 

excursion and chest acceleration. As 

discussed earlier in this preamble, Ash 

et al., supra, published results of a study 

comparing the responses of a pediatric 

cadaver restrained by a three-point belt 

with that of a HIII–10C dummy in 

frontal sled tests. The study showed 

similarities in the shoulder belt and lap 

belt forces and head excursions of the 

HIII–10C and the scaled pediatric 

cadaver. While there were differences in 

the maximum shoulder excursions and 

translation and in the rotation at the 

cervical and thoracic spine junction 

affecting how the head reached its 

maximum excursion point, the head 

excursions between the HIII–10C and 

the scaled cadaver were similar. 

In its comment, Chrysler noted noise 

spikes associated with the HIII–10C 

dummy chest and sternum acceleration 

responses without chin-to-chest contact, 

which were initially observed in a 

Transport Canada research paper.29

Chrysler also referred to a second 

paper 30 where 28 full-scale (56 km/h) 

(35 mph) New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) tests were analyzed. Chrysler 

indicated that occurrence of chest 

acceleration noise spikes were seen 

primarily in the lateral direction, and 

occasionally in the longitudinal and 

vertical directions and were observed in 

80 percent of the tests (22 out of 28 

tests). In addition, Chrysler stated that a 

third paper 31 showed that noise spikes 

in the chest data were observed in 75 

percent of the 30 sled tests NHTSA 

conducted in evaluating the HIII–10C. 

Chrysler hypothesized that a possible 

source of the acceleration spikes is the 

shoulder, since the shoulder design for 

the HIII–10C dummy is more complex 

and potentially more susceptible to 

mechanical noise/metal contacts than is 

seen with the other Hybrid III child 

dummies. Chrysler conducted some 

internal investigations on this potential 

noise issue. Quasi-static testing was 

attempted by loosening the shoulder 

joint in order to allow full rotation range 

of motion. Chrysler stated that tests 

revealed an internal mechanical clicking 

noise emanating from the shoulder 

components which may suggest that a 

potential source of metal-to-metal 

contact exists within the dummy. 

Chrysler hypothesized that if this is the 

cause of the acceleration noise spikes, 

then it is possible that the acceleration 

spike could be greater with significant 

lateral loading, such as that produced by 

side air bags. Chrysler suggested further 

dynamic testing to verify this 

hypothesis. 

Chrysler recognized that in most 

cases, the noise spikes were removed by 

applying the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Channel Frequency 

Class (CFC) 180 filtering, but stated that 

filtering does not eliminate this effect 

for all cases. Therefore, Chrysler 

considers it necessary to check for 

potential influences from these spikes 

on the 3 millisecond (ms) clip chest 

resultant acceleration. 

The agency reviewed the acceleration 

data from the agency’s tests referenced 

by Chrysler and found that the noise 

spikes were removed or attenuated by 

processing the data using an SAE CFC 

180 filter, and determined that these 

acceleration spikes were of no 

consequence to injury assessment using 

the HIII–10C dummy. Further, since the 

HIII–10C dummy is proposed for use in 

frontal sled tests where there is little 

lateral loading, the noise spikes 

observed by Chrysler in lateral chest 

accelerations will have negligible effect 

on the dummy responses. 

For the aforementioned reasons, the 

agency believes that the dummy’s chest 

instrumentation is correctly measuring 

the acceleration experienced by the 

dummy, and the chest acceleration 

injury criterion is not compromised 

when standard filtering techniques are 

applied. Therefore, NHTSA is proposing 

that the HIII–10C is suitable for use in 

FMVSS No. 213 to measure chest 

acceleration and that no changes are 

needed in the dummy regarding the 

acceleration spikes identified by 

Chrysler. 

Belt Fit 

We are not proposing belt fit criteria 

at this time. UMTRI developed belt fit 

criteria and target values and ranges 

corresponding to ‘‘good’’ lap and 

shoulder belt fit.32 NHTSA conducted a 

series of tests to evaluate the 

repeatability and reproducibility of 

UMTRI’s positioning procedure, which 

also included measurements taken at 

specific landmarks to evaluate belt fit. 

These measurements were used to 

develop belt fit scores for the ‘‘lap belt 

score’’ (LBS) and the ‘‘shoulder belt 

score’’ (SBS). The results of these tests 

are discussed in detail in a 

memorandum submitted to the docket 

and are summarized below. 

Briefly, the belt fit criteria developed 

by UMTRI was intended as an objective 

method for assessing lap and shoulder 

belt fit for different BPBs. In NHTSA’s 

evaluation of the belt fit criteria, we 

evaluated four BPBs, taking the belt fit 

measures three times per BPB. The 

variance and range in repeated 

measurements, especially for the 

shoulder belt fit, was unacceptably high. 

In NHTSA’s evaluation, the range of lap 

and shoulder belt fit scores from 

repeated measurements for the HIII–6C 

dummy were 11.1 mm and 11.5 mm 

(0.43 in and 0.45 in), respectively, and 

the range for the HIII–10C dummy were 

9.5 mm and 7.4 mm (0.37 in and 0.29 

in), respectively. The results indicate 

poor repeatability of belt fit measures. 

The results also showed inconsistencies 

in the LBS and SBS measurements on 

the same BPB models at different 

laboratories. The results also suggested 

that the belt positioning procedure can 

be influenced by the operator. In short, 

the repeatability and reproducibility of 

the belt fit procedure does not seem 

robust enough to implement in the 

FMVSS No. 213 at this time. NHTSA 

believes that future improvements to the 

procedure may improve its 

reproducibility. NHTSA is currently 

assessing the repeatability and 

reproducibility of a booster seat belt fit 

evaluation protocol developed by 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71657 

33 June 24, 2003, 68 FR 37620, Docket No. 

NHTSA–2003–15351. 

34 73 FR 45355, supra. 

35FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ 

uses Hybrid III dummies, including the HIII–6C 

dummy, in its compliance tests. The HIII–6C has 

been suitable for FMVSS No. 208 testing because 

the test environment for that standard is different 

than the FMVSS No. 213 environment, due to the 

presence of the air bag. 

UMTRI and the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety (IIHS) for booster seat 

belt fit rating. 

We note that although we believe that 

the belt fit procedure is not sufficiently 

robust at this time, we consider the 

UMTRI dummy positioning procedure 

proposed in this SNPRM to be otherwise 

acceptable. As previously noted, the 

current FMVSS No. 213 and the UMTRI 

positioning procedure are very similar, 

with the UMTRI procedure including 

additional steps to facilitate control of 

the BPB seat, dummy, and belt 

positioning. The repeatability and 

reproducibility issues regarding belt fit 

were not attributed to the positioning 

procedure, but were instead associated 

with differences in HIII–6C child 

dummy jackets and friction issues 

between the belt and the dummy’s chest 

or clothes. 

IV. Optional Use of Hybrid II or Hybrid 

III 6-Year-Old Test Dummy 

For child restraints manufactured 

before August 1, 2010, CRS 

manufacturers had the option to specify 

that NHTSA test their child restraints 

with either the Hybrid II or the Hybrid 

III 6-year-old dummy (S7.1.3, FMVSS 

No. 213). Under current FMVSS No. 213 

specifications, NHTSA must test child 

restraint systems manufactured on or 

after August 1, 2010 with the Hybrid III 

ATD. This SNPRM proposes to reinstate 

the option of allowing manufacturers to 

specify the use of either ATD in the 

compliance test, until such time FMVSS 

No. 213 is further amended to specify 

otherwise. 

The agency adopted the HIII–6C into 

FMVSS No. 213 in a final rule33

published in response to a mandate in 

the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 

Accountability and Documentation Act 

(the TREAD Act) (November 1, 2000, 

Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800) that 

required NHTSA undertake rulemaking 

on child restraint systems. Section 14 of 

the TREAD Act directed NHTSA to 

initiate a rulemaking for the purpose of 

improving the safety of child restraints 

by November 1, 2001, and to complete 

it by issuing a final rule or taking other 

action by November 1, 2002. Section 14 

specified nine elements for 

consideration by NHTSA in improving 

child restraint safety, including 

considering whether to require the use 

of the HIII–6C and other Hybrid III 

ATDs in FMVSS No. 213 compliance 

tests. 

Consistent with the TREAD Act, 

NHTSA decided in that rulemaking to 

adopt the HIII–6C into FMVSS No. 213. 

NHTSA considered the dummy to be 

‘‘considerably more biofidelic’’ than its 

predecessor, the H2–6C dummy, and 

with unsurpassed potential to measure 

an array of impact responses never 

before measured by a child ATD, such 

as neck moments and chest deflections. 

However, the agency acknowledged 

there was mixed acceptance by the 

commenters of the HIII–6C dummy. 

Some commenters believed that the 

HIII–6C exhibited large neck elongation 

in the FMVSS No. 213 test environment 

resulting in chin-to-chest and head-toknee contact and correspondingly high 

HICs. In evaluating those comments, 

NHTSA carefully analyzed its test data 

of sled testing conducted with the HIII– 

6C, but found no data indicating that 

head-to-chest or head-to-knee impacts 

were an issue or were typical. 68 FR at 

37644. Accordingly, the HIII–6C was 

adopted into the standard, with what 

was then considered to be sufficient 

lead time to enable manufacturers to 

become familiar with the dummy. As 

noted earlier, the compliance date for 

the mandatory use of the HIII–6C 

dummy was originally August 1, 2005. 

It had since been extended to August 1, 

2010.34

The agency has again closely 

examined the performance of the HIII– 

6C in the FMVSS No. 213 environment, 

in light of the testing NHTSA conducted 

in response to Anton’s Law and the 

agency’s current efforts to develop 

dummy positioning procedures for the 

Hybrid III ATDs in FMVSS No. 213. We 

continue to believe that the HIII–6C 

dummy is more biofidelic in its 

components than its predecessor the 

H2–6C, and that the HIII–6C also has 

more extensive instrumentation to 

measure impact responses such as 

forces, accelerations, moments and 

deflections, which are crucial in 

evaluating vehicle occupant protection 

systems.35 Some CRS manufacturers 

have found the HIII–6C to be a 

satisfactory test instrument and are 

using the dummy to certify the 

compliance of their CRSs to FMVSS No. 

213. These manufacturers are 

positioning the ATD and measuring HIC 

as currently required by FMVSS No. 

213, while positioning the ATD in 

accordance with FMVSS No. 213 

(whose positioning procedure is similar 

to the UMTRI procedure). 

While the HIII–6C is being used to an 

extent today, NHTSA believes it would 

be prudent to undertake efforts to 

improve the HIII–6C dummy to make it 

more useful as an FMVSS No. 213 test 

device before testing child restraints 

solely with this ATD. The Hybrid III 6- 

year-old dummy has a softer neck than 

the H2–6C, which results in slightly 

greater head excursion results and larger 

HIC values (chin-to-chest contact) than 

the H2–6C. This, coupled with the stiff 

thorax of the HIII–6C dummy, 

accentuates the HIC values recorded by 

the dummy. Several measures are 

underway to improve the Hybrid III 

dummy (see discussion later in this 

preamble). Until such time the HIII–6C 

is improved, we believe that FMVSS No. 

213 should permit NHTSA to allow 

manufacturers the option of specifying 

that NHTSA use either the H2–6C or the 

HIII–6C dummy to test their child 

restraints. 

This proposal seeks to change little if 

any of the current requirements of 

FMVSS No. 213 that specify testing with 

the HIII–6C dummy. When the HIII–6C 

is used, it would be used to measure the 

injury criteria and other performance 

measures currently specified in S5 of 

FMVSS No. 213 for evaluating child 

restraint systems as it is used today. As 

explained below, we are proposing 

using the UMTRI positioning procedure 

for the HIII–6C in belt-positioning seats 

rather than the procedure proposed by 

the January 23, 2008 SNPRM. We 

emphasize that the UMTRI procedure is 

very similar to the current FMVSS No. 

213 procedure used for the HIII–6C. As 

such, the agency intends to make no 

substantive change to the FMVSS No. 

213 requirements now applicable to 

CRSs tested with the HIII–6C. 

Because there is an August 1, 2010 

date specified in S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 

213 for the mandatory use of the HIII– 

6C, NHTSA is providing a 30-day 

comment period for this aspect of the 

proposal. 

V. UMTRI Positioning Procedure for the 

HIII–6C 

We are proposing to adopt the UMTRI 

positioning procedure for the HIII–6C 

dummy in BPB seats rather than the 

procedure proposed by the January 23, 

2008 SNPRM for many of the reasons 

explained above for the HIII–10C 

dummy. That is, the UMTRI procedure 

results in the HIII–6C being positioned 

in a posture that is substantially more 

representative of how a child would be 

positioned in the BPB seat than the 

procedure of the 2008 SNPRM. Our test 

data, discussed below, indicates that the 

HIII–6C dummy positioned according to 

the UMTRI procedure would yield 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

36Results from tests using SNPRM procedure 

reported in Stammen, J., Sullivan, L., ‘‘Development 

of a Hybrid III 6 Yr. Old and 10 Yr. Old Dummy Seating Procedure for Booster Seat Testing,’’ January 

2008, Docket NHTSA–2007–0048. 

repeatable ATD readings for 

determining compliance with FMVSS 

No. 213’s requirements. 

To assess the UMTRI procedure with 

the HIII–6C dummy, we tested two 

different BPB models using the UMTRI 

procedure and the HIII–6C dummy. 

Each of the two BPB seats was tested 

three times. A third BPB seat was 

evaluated with one test. The BPBs seats 

were selected so as to enable 

comparison with previously-conducted 

tests using the January 23, 2008 

SNPRM-proposed procedure. 

Results of this repeatability 

assessment are shown below in Table 3. 

These data show that the chest 

acceleration and head and knee 

excursions of the ATD had good 

repeatability, with coefficient of 

variation (C.V.) values lower than 10 

percent. The only measure showing a 

C.V. higher than 10 percent was HIC 

caused by the chin-to-chest contact 

interaction. Table 3 also compares the 

average computed torso angles, HIC, 

chest acceleration, head excursion and 

knee excursion of the HIII–6C dummy 

for each BPB design tested multiple 

times using the UMTRI procedure and 

the SNPRM procedure with a 14 degree 

torso angle. All tests were performed at 

a speed differential of 48 km/h (30 

mph). 

TABLE 3—NHTSA SLED TESTS RESULTS FOR HIII–6C 36

Restraint Test No. 

Seating 

proc. 

method 

Computed 

torso angle 

(deg) 

HIC ms 

3 ms. chest 

acc. (g) 

Head excursion 

(mm) 

Knee excursion 

(mm) 

1000 60 813 915 

Safety 1st Apex 65 ............... UMTRI ................................. Avg. 24 .9 834 45 .5 562 755 

S.D. 0 .9 89 .7 1 .87 11 .3 18 .4 

C.V. 3 .7% 10 .8% 4 .1% 2 .0% 2 .4% 

SNPRM 14 deg. .................. Avg. 14 .6 525 48 .1 527 667 

S.D. 0 .6 65 .1 1 .00 12 .7 24 .0 

C.V. 4 .2% 12 .4% 2 .1% 2 .4% 3 .6% 

Britax Parkway ..................... UMTRI ................................. Avg. 20 .6 1144 52 .9 501 689 

S.D. 2 .5 87 .0 2 .87 15 .4 8 .5 

C.V. 12 .3% 7 .6% 5 .4% 3 .1% 1 .2% 

SNPRM 14 deg. .................. Avg. 14 .2 463 55 .7 546 661 

S.D. 0 .3 52 .9 2 .42 7 .2 12 .9 

C.V. 2 .1% 11 .4% 4 .3% 1 .3% 1 .9% 

As discussed previously, the UMTRI 

procedure is very similar to the current 

procedure now used in FMVSS No. 213 

to position the HIII–6C. In the agency’s 

view, this SNPRM would make no 

notable change to any substantive 

provision in the standard relating to the 

HIII–6C ATD. We believe there is 

insufficient need to undertake such a 

change. Manufacturers now using the 

ATD to certify compliance with FMVSS 

No. 213 are measuring and assessing 

HIC. They should continue to do so 

without change. NHTSA believes that 

the HIC criterion should not be 

suspended for CRSs tested with the 

HIII–6C, since NHTSA does not believe 

there is good reason to reduce the 

stringency of the current requirements 

of FMVSS No. 213 for CRSs tested with 

the HIII–6C test dummy. Comments are 

requested on this issue. 

VI. Other Applications of the UMTRI 

Procedure 

NHTSA also seeks comment on 

whether the UMTRI procedure should 

be used in FMVSS No. 213 to position 

other ATDs used in the standard. Would 

having a single dummy positioning 

procedure simplify the test procedures 

and make the standard easier to 

understand? The proposed regulatory 

text does not specify that the UMTRI 

procedure is used to position the H2–6C 

dummy in BPB seats. We have not used 

the UMTRI procedure with the Hybrid 

II dummy. However, we tentatively 

believe the UMTRI procedure could be 

used with the H2–6C dummy, since the 

procedure is very similar to the current 

dummy positioning procedure used 

with the H2–6C. For the sake of 

simplicity, it appears advantageous to 

use the same procedure for all BPB, no 

matter what dummy is used. 

The proposed regulatory text specifies 

that the current FMVSS No. 213 dummy 

positioning procedure (set forth in 

S10.2.2) would be used for the H2–6C, 

the HIII weighted 6-year-old, the HIII– 

6C in child restraints other than BPB 

seats, and the HIII–10C in child 

restraints other than BPB seats. The 

UMTRI-based positioning procedure is 

set forth in proposed S10.2.3. For the 

convenience of the reader, the following 

Table 4 shows which positioning 

procedure would apply in tests of CRSs 

with the ATDs: 

TABLE 4—APPLICABLE POSITIONING PROCEDURE (PROPOSED) 

Dummy Child restraint tested 

Position 

dummy in 

accordance with: 

Hybrid III 3-year-old (Subpart P*) .............................................................................. All child restraints .................................... S10.2.2 

Hybrid II 6-year-old (Subpart I) .................................................................................. All child restraints .................................... S10.2.2 

Hybrid III 6-year-old (Subpart N) ............................................................................... Belt-positioning seats .............................. S10.2.3 

All other child restraints ........................... S10.2.2 

Hybrid III Weighted 6-year-old (Subpart S) ............................................................... All child restraints .................................... S10.2.2 

Hybrid III 10-year-old (Proposed Subpart T) ............................................................. Belt-positioning seats .............................. S10.2.3 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71659 

37 Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0048–0008, page 7. 

38Final rule, response to petitions for 

reconsideration of LATCH final rule, 68 FR 38208, 

June 27, 2003, Docket NHTSA–2003–15438–0001. 39 Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0048–0012, page 11. 

TABLE 4—APPLICABLE POSITIONING PROCEDURE (PROPOSED)—Continued 

Dummy Child restraint tested 

Position 

dummy in 

accordance with: 

All other child restraints ........................... S10.2.2 

* All subparts in this table are to 49 CFR part 572. 

VII. Other Proposals 

a. Using the HIII–10C To Test a CRS on 

LATCH 

In its comment,37 the Alliance 

requested that ‘‘NHTSA should make it 

clear that it will not use the LATCH 

anchorages when conducting 

compliance tests of CRSs using the 10- 

year-old dummy.’’ The commenter 

explained: 

When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 225, 

‘‘Child restraint anchorage systems,’’ and 

made corresponding changes to FMVSS No. 

213 to require CRSs to comply with that 

standard when tested utilizing Lower 

Anchorage and Tethers for Children (LATCH) 

anchorages, the LATCH systems in vehicles 

were intended for use by children up to 48 

pounds. No vehicle manufacturer 

recommends the use of LATCH anchors with 

children that even approach the weight of the 

10-year-old dummy. And although some CRS 

manufacturers are offering harness-equipped 

CRSs that are recommended for use by 

children that weigh up to 65 pounds, it is the 

Alliance’s understanding that they explicitly 

instruct parents and caregivers to use the 

vehicle belts rather than the LATCH 

anchorages when using such a CRS with a 

child that weighs more than 50 pounds. 

The Alliance was concerned that 

under the SNPRM’s proposed changes, 

the agency could test, using LATCH 

attachments and an HIII–10C dummy, a 

harness-equipped CRS recommended 

for use with children weighing more 

than 65 lb (29.5 kg). The Alliance stated: 

The consequences of using LATCH 

anchorages to restrain harnessed children 

who weigh up to 65 pounds is the subject of 

a study currently being conducted by a 

Working Group consisting of members of the 

Alliance, the Association of International 

Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), and the 

Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association 

(JPMA). Unless and until NHTSA and the 

industry can confirm that the use of LATCH 

anchorages with heavier children does not 

create an unsafe situation, the Alliance urges 

the agency to clarify that it will not use the 

LATCH anchorages when conducting 

compliance tests of harness equipped CRSs 

using the 10-year-old dummy. 

Agency Response: We agree that this 

point has merit. In specifying the 

strength requirement of FMVSS No. 225 

(the LATCH standard), NHTSA based 

the requirement on a calculation of the 

forces that the agency believed the 

LATCH system should reasonably be 

required to withstand in a crash.38 The 

calculation assumed a child mass of 65 

lb (29.5 kg) (68 FR at 38218). NHTSA 

also noted its belief that LATCH systems 

‘‘can best be optimized by focusing on 

the masses generated by children in 

child restraints and not by adding to the 

burden of the LATCH system the goal of 

restraining older passengers as well.’’ 68 

FR at 38220. We also confirm that our 

understanding is that CRS 

manufacturers generally instruct 

consumers to use the vehicle seat belt 

system rather than the LATCH 

anchorages when using their harnessequipped CRSs with a child weighing 

more than 65 lb. 

Accordingly, we propose specifying 

in FMVSS No. 213 that a CRS tested 

with the HIII–10C test dummy would 

not be tested with the LATCH system. 

However, to reduce the likelihood that 

a consumer may use this type of CRS 

with LATCH when restraining a heavier 

child, this SNPRM proposes to require 

CRSs recommended for children of a 

weight range that includes children 

weighing over 65 lb (29.5 kg), to be 

labeled with an instruction to the 

consumer to use the vehicle’s seat belts 

to attach the CRS, and not the LATCH 

system, when restraining a child 

weighing more than 65 lb (29.5 kg). 

NHTSA tentatively believes that this 

warning is needed since the 

performance of the CRS with LATCH 

would not be assessed under FMVSS 

No. 213 with the HIII–10C test dummy 

under this proposal. CRS manufacturers 

would be prohibited from stating that 

the CRS can be used with LATCH when 

restraining children weighing more than 

65 lb (29.5 kg). 

While we acknowledge that a label 

may not mitigate all misuse situations 

due to caregivers not reading the CRS 

labels and instruction manuals, we 

believe this proposal is better than 

having the CRS manufacturer 

recommend LATCH use for children 

weighing more than 65 lb (29.5 kg), as 

is currently permitted. However, we are 

seeking comment on this issue. 

Specifically, we request information on: 

• Would the proposed label be 

effective at preventing misuse? Are 

there better strategies? 

• Is it feasible to design CRSs such 

that LATCH could only be used less 

when using the CRS with children 

weighing less than 65 lb (29.5 kg)? 

We note that with regard to CRSs 

recommended for children weighing 

less than 65 lb (29.5 kg), under FMVSS 

No. 213, such CRSs may be tested by 

NHTSA with the LATCH system or with 

the belt system, at NHTSA’s option. 

NHTSA may select the ATDs used to 

test the child restraint in accordance 

with S7 of the standard, and may choose 

to use LATCH or the belt system, 

notwithstanding any statements by the 

CRS manufacturer as to the children for 

whom the CRS is recommended or how 

the CRS should be attached to the 

vehicle seat. Comments are requested on 

the label’s reference to the 65 lb (29.5 

kg) threshold. 

b. CRSs Must Be Capable of Fitting the 

ATD 

The January 23, 2008 SNPRM 

requested comments on whether 

FMVSS No. 213 should expressly 

require that each child restraint system 

must be capable of fitting the test 

dummy that is specified in S7 of the 

standard to evaluate the CRS. NHTSA 

asked: ‘‘For example, if the CRS were 

recommended for use by children 

weighing more than 30 kg (65 lb), 

should the standard specify that the 

CRS must be capable of fitting and being 

tested with the HIII–10C dummy?’’ 73 

FR at 3908. 

NHTSA received only JPMA’s 

comment on this issue.39 In its 

comment, JPMA stated: ‘‘CRS 

Manufacturers agree that child restraints 

should be designed to accommodate the 

ATD with which they will be tested 

based on the use recommendations with 

respect to seat back height relative to 

head [center of gravity], internal width, 

and adjustments to the shoulder belt. 

However an explicit fit test is not 

required as the BPB absolutely must be 

capable of accommodating the ATDs set 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

forth in S7.1.2 of FMVSS 213.’’ 

(Emphasis in text.) 

Agency Response: We have decided 

not to propose amending FMVSS No. 

213 to expressly require each child 

restraint system be able to fit the test 

dummy specified in S7 of the standard 

that is used by NHTSA to test the CRS. 

As stated by JPMA, manufacturers 

conduct dynamic sled tests using the 

appropriate dummies based on their 

weight and height specifications in 

S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 213. Therefore, 

manufacturers are already ensuring that 

the CRSs accommodate/fit the 

appropriate child dummies, which 

makes the need for a fit requirement 

unnecessary. 

c. Housekeeping 

This SNPRM proposes to amend 

S10.2.1 of FMVSS No. 213 by removing 

reference to the 9-month-old dummy in 

that section. The 9-month-old test 

dummy is no longer used in the 

standard’s compliance tests. The section 

would also be amended to add reference 

to the 12-month-old test dummy in the 

heading of S10.2.1. 

VIII. Research Plans 

The agency has a three-phase research 

plan to improve the capability of the 

ATDs to assess BPB seats and other 

types of CRSs. 

Phase I: Enhancement of Current HIII– 

6C and 10C Dummies (2013 timeframe) 

NHTSA is planning near-term 

upgrades to the HIII–6C and HIII–10C 

dummies. NHTSA is working with the 

SAE Dummy Abdomen and Pelvis 

Round Robin task group to develop a 

HIII–6C dummy retrofit package, 

consisting of a more biofidelic 

instrumented abdominal insert, a pelvis 

with improved anthropometry, and a 

revised chest jacket. The agency 

believes there is potential for this type 

of retrofit package to be implemented 

into the HIII–10C dummy during this 

timeframe as well. In addition, NHTSA 

plans to implement updates which may 

include revisions to the shoulder, 

thoracic spine, and neck of the HIII–6C 

and HIII–10C dummies. The objective of 

the updates will be to improve the 

biofidelity of the kinematics for the 

restrained HIII–6C and HIII–10C 

dummies. Existing sled test and injury 

information together with modeling will 

be used to define the biofidelity/design 

requirements of the planned updates. 

Phase II: New Biofidelity Response Data 

(2012 timeframe) 

While Phase I is directed toward 

enhancements of the current HIII–6C 

and HIII–10C designs, Phase II 

encompasses research to generate 

improved response data from the head, 

neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis for 

future child dummies. A number of 

experimental and modeling studies 

funded by both NHTSA and nonNHTSA sources are in progress at a 

number of institutions to develop this 

information. These studies include: (a) 

component and whole body dynamic 

experiments to generate response targets 

and injury criteria; (b) investigations of 

static range of motion, anthropometry, 

and mass/inertial properties; and (c) use 

of finite element and multi-body 

modeling to develop biofidelity 

response requirements for new 

dummies. Some of the research will 

support both interim work to support 

incremental improvements of the HIII– 

6C and HIII–10C dummies (Phase I) and 

the development of all new child 

dummies (Phase III). 

Phase III: Prototype Evaluations of New 

Child Dummies (2015 timeframe) 

The final portion of this research plan 

includes design, development, and 

evaluation of new prototype 3-, 6-, and 

10-year-old frontal child dummies. 

NHTSA plans to collaborate with SAE 

and others in this effort. It is anticipated 

that conceptual designs of the new 

prototype dummies could be initiated 

shortly after biomechanical response 

data is available in the 2013–2015 

timeframe. 

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not 

considered to be significant under E.O. 

12866 or the Department’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979). The August 31, 2005 

NPRM provided a discussion of the 

costs associated with the proposed 

incorporation of the HIII–10C dummy 

into FMVSS No. 213. The agency stated 

in the NPRM that the costs are largely 

attributable to the expense of an 

instrumented HIII–10C dummy. The 

2004 price of an uninstrumented 10- 

year-old dummy is about $36,550. The 

specified instrumentation costs 

approximately $59,297. The NPRM and 

this SNPRM do not require 

manufacturers to use any test dummy in 

certifying their child restraints. Rather, 

this rulemaking proposes changes to 

how NHTSA would conduct 

compliance testing under FMVSS No. 

213. The minimal impacts of today’s 

proposal do not warrant preparation of 

a regulatory evaluation. 

We are unable to quantify the benefits 

of this rulemaking. However, the agency 

believes this rulemaking would enhance 

the safety of child restraint systems by 

facilitating the dynamic assessment of 

BPB and other CRSs for older children. 

The dummy positioning procedures 

proposed by this SNPRM are more 

lifelike than the procedures published 

in the January 23, 2008 SNPRM. The 

result of this proposed rule would be to 

provide better assurance that each child 

restraint fits and restrains the children 

for whom the restraint is recommended. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions), unless the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. I 

certify that this proposed rule, if 

adopted, would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The reasons 

underlying this certification are 

discussed in the August 31, 2005 

NPRM. This SNPRM would not increase 

the testing that NHTSA conducts of 

child restraints. The SNPRM addresses 

dummy positioning procedures and 

generally would not have any 

significant impact on the testing 

performed on child restraints. 

Manufacturers currently must certify 

their products to the dynamic test of 

Standard No. 213. They typically 

provide the basis for those certifications 

by dynamically testing their products 

using child test dummies. The effect of 

this SNPRM on most child restraints 

would be to specify procedures that 

NHTSA would take in positioning the 

HIII 6-year-old and HIII–10C dummies. 

Testing child restraints using the 

procedures is not expected to affect the 

pass/fail rate of the restraints 

significantly. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed 

rule for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71661 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s 

proposal pursuant to Executive Order 

13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) 

and concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The proposed rule would not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: ‘‘When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. 

The express preemption provision set 

forth above is subject to a savings clause 

under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with a 

motor vehicle safety standard prescribed 

under this chapter does not exempt a 

person from liability at common law.’’ 

49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this 

provision, State common law tort causes 

of action against motor vehicle 

manufacturers that might otherwise be 

preempted by the express preemption 

provision are generally preserved. 

However, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility, in some 

instances, of implied preemption of 

such State common law tort causes of 

action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even 

if not expressly preempted. This second 

way that NHTSA rules can preempt is 

dependent upon there being an actual 

conflict between an FMVSS and the 

higher standard that would effectively 

be imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers if someone obtained a 

State common law tort judgment against 

the manufacturer, notwithstanding the 

manufacturer’s compliance with the 

NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA 

standards established by an FMVSS are 

minimum standards, a State common 

law tort cause of action that seeks to 

impose a higher standard on motor 

vehicle manufacturers will generally not 

be preempted. However, if and when 

such a conflict does exist—for example, 

when the standard at issue is both a 

minimum and a maximum standard— 

the State common law tort cause of 

action is impliedly preempted. See 

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 

529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this proposal could or should 

preempt State common law causes of 

action. The agency’s ability to announce 

its conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (e.g., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of today’s proposal and finds 

that this proposal, like many NHTSA 

rules, prescribes only a minimum safety 

standard. As such, NHTSA does not 

intend that this proposal preempt state 

tort law that would effectively impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers than that established by 

today’s proposal. Establishment of a 

higher standard by means of State tort 

law would not conflict with the 

minimum standard proposed here. 

Without any conflict, there could not be 

any implied preemption of a State 

common law tort cause of action. 

We solicit the comments of the States 

and other interested parties on this 

assessment of issues relevant to E.O. 

13132. 

Civil Justice Reform 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The issue of preemption is 

discussed above in connection with E.O. 

13132. NHTSA notes further that there 

is no requirement that individuals 

submit a petition for reconsideration or 

pursue other administrative proceeding 

before they may file suit in court. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid control 

number from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule 

would not establish any requirements 

that are considered to be information 

collection requirements as defined by 

the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, such as the SAE. The 

NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The agency did not find any voluntary 

consensus standards applicable to this 

proposed rulemaking. However, we note 

that the dummy positioning procedures 

proposed by this SNPRM were 

developed by a research organization to 

use in testing CRSs and appear to be 

supported by commenters from the 

child restraint manufacturing industry. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, Federal requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted for inflation 

with base year of 1995). (Adjusting this 

amount by the implicit gross domestic 

product price deflator for the year 2000 

increases it to $109 million.) This 

SNPRM would not result in a cost of 

$109 million or more to either State, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, 

this SNPRM is not subject to the 

requirements of section 202 of the 

UMRA. 

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: 

• Have we 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 isn’t 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 we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

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. 

X. Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are filed correctly in the 

docket, please include the docket 

identification number of this document 

in your comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21) 

NHTSA established this limit to 

encourage you to write your primary 

comments in a concise fashion. 

However, you may attach necessary 

additional documents to your 

comments. There is no limit on the 

length of the attachments. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit a copy, from which you have 

deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to the docket at 

the address given above under 

ADDRESSES. When you send a comment 

containing information claimed to be 

confidential business information, you 

should include a cover letter setting 

forth the information specified in 

NHTSA’s confidential business 

information regulation (49 CFR part 

512). 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, the agency will also consider 

comments that the docket receives after 

that date. If the docket receives a 

comment too late for the agency to 

consider it in developing a final rule 

(assuming that one is issued), the 

agency will consider that comment as 

an informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by the docket at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. The hours of the 

docket are indicated above in the same 

location. You may also read the 

comments on the internet. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, NHTSA will 

continue to file relevant information in 

the docket as it becomes available. 

Further, some people may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, the agency 

recommends that you periodically 

check the docket for new material. You 

can arrange with the docket to be 

notified when others file comments in 

the docket. See http:// 

www.regulations.gov for more 

information. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

571 as set forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.213 is amended by: 

a. Adding S5(e); 

b. Revising S5.3.2 (and the table for 

S5.3.2); 

c. Revising S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii); 

d. Adding S5.6.1.12; 

e. Revising S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii), 

S6.1.2(d)(2)(i) and (ii), S7.1.3, the 

heading and the introductory text of 

S10.2.1; 

f. Removing and reserving S9.1(b), 

S10.2.1(a) and S10.2.1(b)(1); 

g. Revising the first sentence of 

S10.2.1(b)(2), the introductory text of 

S10.2.1(c)(1)(i), and the heading and the 

introductory text of S10.2.2; and, 

h. Adding S10.2.3 and Figure 13. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S5 * * * 

(e) Each child restraint system tested 

with a part 572 subpart T dummy need 

not meet S5.1.2.1(a). 

* * * * * 

S5.3.2 Means of installation. 

S5.3.2.1 Except as provided in 

S5.3.2.2, each add-on child restraint 

system shall be capable of meeting the 

requirements of this standard when 

installed solely by each of the means 

indicated in the following table for the 

particular type of child restraint system: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71663 

TABLE FOR S5.3.2.1 

Type of add-on child restraint system 

Means of installation 

Type 1 

seat belt 

assembly 

Type 1 

seat belt 

assembly 

plus a tether 

anchorage, 

if needed 

Child 

restraint anchorage 

system 

Type II 

seat belt assembly 

Seat back 

mount 

Harnesses labeled per S5.3.1(b)(1) through S5.3.1(b)(3) and Figure 12 .................... .................... .................... .................... X 

Other harnesses ...................................................................................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

Car beds .................................................................................................. X .................... .................... .................... ....................

Rear-facing restraints ............................................................................... X .................... X .................... ....................

Belt-positioning seats ............................................................................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

All other child restraints ........................................................................... X X X .................... ....................

S5.3.2.2 A child restraint system 

tested with the part 572 subpart T 

(Hybrid III 10-year-old child) dummy is 

excluded from the requirement in 

S5.3.2.1 to meet the requirements of this 

standard when installed by means of a 

child restraint anchorage system. 

* * * * * 

S5.5.2 * * * 

(g)(1) * * * 

(ii) ‘‘Secure this child restraint with 

the vehicle’s child restraint anchorage 

system (LATCH system) (except when 

used with a child weighing more than 

65 lb), or with a vehicle belt.’’ [For car 

beds, harnesses, and belt-positioning 

boosters, the first part of the statement 

regarding attachment by the child 

restraint anchorage system is optional. 

For belt positioning boosters, the second 

part of the statement regarding 

attachment by the vehicle belt does not 

apply.] Child restraint systems equipped 

with components to attach to a child 

restraint anchorage system and 

recommended for children of a weight 

range that includes children weighing 

over 65 lb (29.5 kg) must be labeled with 

the following statement: ‘‘Do not use the 

child restraint anchorage system 

(LATCH system) to attach this child 

restraint when restraining a child 

weighing more than 65 pounds.’’ 

* * * * * 

S5.6.1.12 The instructions for child 

restraint systems equipped with 

components to attach to a child restraint 

anchorage system and recommended for 

children of a weight range that includes 

children weighing over 65 pounds (29.5 

kg) must include the following 

statement: ‘‘Do not use the child 

restraint anchorage system (LATCH 

system) to attach this child restraint 

when restraining a child weighing more 

than 65 pounds.’’ 

* * * * * 

S6.1.2 * * * 

(a)(1) * * * 

(ii) Belt-positioning seats. A beltpositioning seat is attached to either 

outboard seating position of the 

standard seat assembly in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions 

provided with the system pursuant to 

S5.6.1 using only the standard vehicle 

lap and shoulder belt and no tether (or 

any other supplemental device). Place 

the belt-positioning seat on the standard 

seat assembly such that the center plane 

of the belt-positioning seat is parallel 

and aligned to the center plane of the 

outboard seating positions on the 

standard seat assembly and the base of 

the belt-positioning seat is flat on the 

standard seat assembly cushion. Move 

the belt-positioning seat rearward on the 

standard seat assembly until some part 

of the belt-positioning seat touches the 

standard seat assembly back. Keep the 

belt-positioning seat and the seating 

position center plane aligned as much 

as possible. Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of 

force to the front of the belt-positioning 

seat rearward into the standard seat 

assembly. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.2 * * * 

(d)(2) * * * 

(i) The lap portion of Type II belt 

systems used restrain the dummy is 

tightened to a tension of not less than 

9 N (2 pounds) and not more than 18 N 

(4 pounds). 

(ii) The shoulder portion of Type II 

belt systems used to restrain the dummy 

is tightened to a tension of not less than 

9 N (2 pounds) and not more than 18 N 

(4 pounds). 

* * * * * 

S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative 

dummies. At the manufacturer’s option 

(with said option irrevocably selected 

prior to, or at the time of, certification 

of the restraint), when this section 

specifies use of the 49 CFR part 572, 

subpart N test dummy (Hybrid III 6- 

year-old dummy), the test dummy 

specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart I 

(Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy) may be 

used in place of the subpart N test 

dummy. 

* * * * * 

S10.2.1 Newborn dummy and 12- 

month-old dummy. Position the test 

dummy according to the instructions for 

child positioning that the manufacturer 

provided with the system under S5.6.1 

or S5.6.2, while conforming to the 

following: 

* * * * * 

(2) When testing rear-facing child 

restraint systems, place the newborn or 

12-month-old dummy in the child 

restraint system so that the back of the 

dummy torso contacts the back support 

surface of the system. * * * 

(c)(1)(i) When testing forward-facing 

child restraint systems, extend the arms 

of the 12-month-old test dummy as far 

as possible in the upward vertical 

direction. Extend the legs of the 12- 

month-old test dummy as far as possible 

in the forward horizontal direction, with 

the dummy feet perpendicular to the 

centerline of the lower legs. Using a flat 

square surface with an area of 2,580 

square mm, apply a force of 178 N, 

perpendicular to: 

* * * * * 

S10.2.2 Other dummies generally. 

When using the: Hybrid III 3-year-old 

(part 572, subpart P), Hybrid II 6-yearold (part 572, subpart I), Hybrid III 6- 

year-old (part 572, subpart N) in child 

restraints other than belt-positioning 

seats, the Hybrid III weighted 6-year-old 

(part 572, subpart S), or the Hybrid III 

10-year-old (part 572, subpart T) in 

child restraints other than beltpositioning seats, position the dummy 

in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, 

while conforming to the following: 

* * * * * 

S10.2.3 Hybrid III 6-year-old in beltpositioning seats and Hybrid III 10-yearold in belt-positioning seats. When 

using the Hybrid III 6-year-old (part 572, 

subpart N) or the Hybrid III 10-year-old 

(part 572, subpart T) in belt-positioning 

seats, position the dummy in 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while 

conforming to the following: 

(a) Prepare the dummy with pelvis 

positioning pad and lap form. 

(1) Create an external horizontal 

coordinate system. Position the dummy 

such that the front and side of the 

lumbar adapter, or the square piece 

above the lumbar load cell if used, are 

parallel to the lateral (Y) and 

longitudinal (X) axes of the external 

coordinate system. 

(2) If necessary, adjust the limb joints 

to 1–2 g while the torso is in the seated 

position. 

(3) Apply double-sided tape to the 

surface of a lap form, which is a piece 

of translucent silicone rubber 3 mm 

thick (50A Durometer) cut to the pattern 

in Figure 13. Place the lap form on the 

pelvis of the dummy. Align the top of 

the lap form with the superior anterior 

edge of the pelvis skin. Attach the lap 

form to the dummy. 

(4) Apply double-sided tape to one 

side of a pelvis positioning pad, which 

is a 125 × 95 × 20 mm piece of foam or 

rubber with the following specifications: 

compression resistance between 13 to 

17 psi in a compression-deflection test 

specified in ASTM D–1056–07, a 

maximum compression set of 25 percent 

after a 24 hour recovery time in a 

compression set test for a Type 2— 

Grade 4 material specified in ASTM D– 

1056–07, and a density of 9.5 to 12.5 lb/ 

ft3. Center the long axis of the pad on 

the posterior of the pelvis with the top 

edge of the foam aligned with the 

superior edge of the pelvis skin. Attach 

the pelvis positioning pad to the 

dummy. 

(5) Dress and prepare the dummy 

according to S9. 

(b) Position the belt-positioning seat 

according to S6.1.2 (a)(1)(ii). 

(c) Position the dummy in the beltpositioning seat. 

(1) Place the dummy on the seat 

cushion of the belt-positioning seat such 

that the plane of the posterior pelvis is 

parallel to the plane of the seat back of 

the belt-positioning seat, standard seat 

assembly or vehicle seat back, but not 

touching. Pick up and move the dummy 

rearward, maintaining the parallel 

planes, until the pelvis positioning pad 

and the back of the belt-positioning seat 

or test buck seat back, are in minimal 

contact. 

(2) Straighten and align the arm 

segments horizontally, then rotate the 

arms upward at the shoulder as far as 

possible without contacting the beltpositioning seat. Straighten and align 

the legs horizontally and extend the 

lower legs as far as possible in the 

forward horizontal direction, with the 

feet perpendicular to the centerline of 

the lower legs. 

(3) Using a flat square surface with an 

area of 2580 square millimeters, apply a 

force of 178 N (40 lb) perpendicular to: 

(i) The plane of the back of the beltpositioning seat, in the case of a beltpositioning seat with a back, or, 

(ii) The plane of the back of the 

standard seat assembly or vehicle seat, 

in the case of a backless belt-positioning 

seat or built-in booster. 

(iii) Apply the force first against the 

dummy crotch and then at the dummy 

thorax on the midsagittal plane of the 

dummy. 

(4) Rotate the arms of the dummy 

down so that they are perpendicular to 

the torso. 

(5) Bend the knees until the back of 

the lower legs are in minimal contact 

with the belt-positioning seat, standard 

seat assembly or vehicle seat. Position 

the legs such that the outer edges of the 

knees are 180 +/¥ 10 mm apart for the 

Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and 220 

+/¥ 10 mm apart for the Hybrid III 10- 

year-old dummy. Position the feet such 

that the soles are perpendicular to the 

centerline of the lower legs. In the case 

of a belt-positioning seat with a back, 

adjust the dummy so that the shoulders 

are parallel to a line connecting the 

shoulder guides. This can be 

accomplished by leaning the torso such 

that the dummy’s head and neck are 

centered on the backrest components of 

the belt-positioning seat. In case of a 

backless child restraint, adjust the 

dummy’s torso so that the head is 

laterally level, or as close to level as 

possible. 

(d) Apply the belt. 

(1) Pull the lap belt webbing in a 

motion across the front of the dummy 

and belt-positioning seat to the area 

above the dummy’s inboard foot, 

located on the inboard side of the beltpositioning seat. 

(2) Loosely route the lap and shoulder 

belts in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instruction using the 

belt-positioning guides and attachments, 

if available. 

(3) Adjust the belt between the 

inboard and outboard attachments or 

lower belt guides, if available, to hold 

the lap belt 15 centimeters (cm) out 

from the midsagittal line of the pelvis. 

(4) While holding the slack portion of 

the lap belt between the lower belt 

guides, pull the lap belt forward along 

the midsagittal plane of the pelvis to a 

position 20 +/¥ 10 mm above the top 

surface of the thighs, grasp the torso 

portion of the belt above the inboard 

belt attachment and slowly pull upward 

in the direction of the shoulder belt path 

until the lap belt has no slack. 

(5) Apply lap belt tension according 

to S6.1.2(d)(2)(i). 

(6) Feed the excess belt into the 

shoulder belt attachment or retractor 

and position the section of the shoulder 

belt between the upper attachment/ 

guide and the lower attachment/guide 

so that the belt routes through the 

shortest path between the two locations. 

(7) Apply shoulder belt tension 

according to S6.1.2(d)(2)(ii). 

(e) Dummy final positioning. 

(1) Check the leg, feet, thorax and 

head positions and make any necessary 

adjustments to achieve the positions 

described in S10.2.3(c)(5). Position the 

legs, if necessary, so that the leg 

placement does not inhibit thorax 

movement in tests conducted under S6. 

(2) Rotate each dummy arm 

downwards in the plane parallel to the 

dummy’s midsagittal plane until the 

arm contacts a surface of the child 

restraint system or the standard seat 

assembly, in the case of an add-on 

system, or the specific vehicle shell or 

specific vehicle, in the case of a buildin system, as appropriate. Position the 

arms, if necessary, so that the arm 

placement does not inhibit torso or head 

movement in tests conducted under S6. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71665 

Issued on: November 12, 2010. 

Nathaniel Beuse, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29545 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP24NO10.389</GPH>