76636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This action addresses a 

revision of the authorized hazardous 

waste program in the State of Oregon. 

EPA has determined that the action is 

not subject to EO 12898. 

11. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this document and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication in the Federal Register. A 

major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

action will be effective February 7, 

2011. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Indians—lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). 

Dated: December 1, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31012 Filed 12–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0147] 

RIN 2127–AK34 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid 

III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, 

Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Weighted Child 

Test Dummy 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule makes two 

changes to the agency’s specifications 

for the Hybrid III six-year-old child 

dummy, and the Hybrid III six-year-old 

weighted child test dummy. First, to 

improve the durability of the dummies’ 

femurs we are changing the design of 

and material used for the femur 

assembly. Second, we correct the 

drawings for the abdomen insert so that 

the abdominal insert dimensions on the 

drawings reflect actual parts in the field. 

The correction responds to a petition for 

rulemaking submitted by Denton ATD 

and First Technology Safety Systems. 

DATES: The effective date of this final 

rule is June 7, 2011. The incorporation 

by reference of certain publications 

listed in the regulations is approved by 

the Director of the Federal Register as of 

June 7, 2011. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received not later than January 

24, 2011. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all submissions 

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). 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of this final rule must refer to the docket 

and notice number set forth above and 

be submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. (A 

copy of the petition will be placed in 

the docket.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Peter 

Martin, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 

202–366–5668) (fax 202–493–2990). For 

legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, 

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 

(telephone 202–366–2992) (fax 202– 

366–3820). The mailing address for 

these officials is the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

II. Femur Improvements 

a. Femur Design Changes 

b. Analysis of the New Femur Design 

1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect 

2. Dynamic Evaluation 

i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified 

HIII–6C Test in the Marathon, Boulevard, 

and Decathlon Child Restraint Systems 

ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax 

Marathon Test of the Modified HIII–6C 

(test H06337) to Those of a Test of an 

Original HIII–6C Where Femur Failure 

Occurred (test H06120) 

iii. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics 

iv. Effect on Dummy Kinematics 

v. Dummy Response Biofidelity 

vi. Hip Lock 

III. Abdominal Insert 

IV. Effective Date 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Overview 

This final rule makes two changes to 

the agency’s specifications for the 

Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy 

(HIII–6C) set forth in 49 CFR part 572, 

Subpart N, and for the Hybrid III sixyear-old weighted child test dummy 

(HIII–6CW) in 49 CFR part 572, Subpart 

S. The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) upon which this final rule is 

based was published October 21, 2009, 

74 FR 53987, Docket No. NHTSA–09– 

0166. 

First, to improve the durability of the 

dummies’ femurs, we are changing the 

design of and material used for the 

femur assembly. The primary 

modifications include the addition of a 

@-inch (6.35 millimeter (mm)) fillet 

between the femur clamp and the 

connecting segment (these components 

are described in detail in section II.b of 

the NPRM preamble) of the machined 

femur, removal of material from the 

connecting segment, and a material 

change from aluminum bronze to 4340 

steel. These changes are made by 

replacing the drawings of the femur in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76637 

1Complete drawings for the current HIII–6C 

femur can be found in Docket No. NHTSA–2002– 

12541. 

2The HIII–6CW is based on the HIII–6C, with 

weight added (10 pounds) to represent larger 

children. The femur assembly is the same for both 

the HIII–6CW and the HIII–6C dummies. The 

discussion set forth in this section applies to the 

HIII–6CW as well, unless otherwise noted. 

the drawing package specified in 49 

CFR part 572, Subpart N (‘‘Six-year-old 

child test dummy’’) and in Subpart S 

(‘‘Six-year-old weighted child test 

dummy’’), the parts lists, and the 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, 

and Inspection’’ (‘‘PADI’’) documents 

incorporated by reference into those 

regulations. 

The second change corrects the 

drawings for the abdomen insert so that 

the abdominal insert dimensions on the 

drawings reflect actual parts in the field. 

The October 21, 2009 NPRM provided 

a detailed discussion of the femur 

failures that were occurring with the 

HIII–6C dummy, the proposed solution 

to those failures, and how the agency 

proposed to amend the specifications 

for the HIII–6C and the HIII–6CW 

dummies. 

NHTSA received no comments on the 

October 21, 2009 NPRM. We are 

adopting the changes proposed in the 

NPRM for the reasons discussed in that 

document. 

II. Femur Improvements 

The present design of the HIII–6C 

femur is specified in 49 CFR part 572, 

Subpart N.1 2 The HIII–6C machined 

femur, which is one of the femur 

assembly parts, is illustrated in Figure 1 

below. This one-piece part is machined 

from bar stock and serves to couple the 

main femur shaft to a smaller shaft 

protruding from the femur ball (a 

representation of a human femur head). 

The portion of the part that is attached 

to the femur shaft is referred to as the 

‘‘femur clamp’’ and the portion that is 

attached to the ball shaft is referred to 

as the ‘‘connecting segment.’’ The femur 

ball shaft, retaining flange, and femur 

ball connect the machined femur to the 

dummy’s pelvis. Similar to a human hip 

joint, the ball in the HIII–6C femur 

assembly allows for rotation of the 

dummy hip joint. The flange is used to 

attach the femur assembly to the pelvis. 

The entire femur assembly is found 

within the lower torso, and the material 

specification for this assembly, 

including the machined femur, shaft, 

flange and ball was originally 

Aluminum Bronze C–624 AMC0–18. 

(The femur load cell, the response of 

which is discussed in the ‘‘dynamic 

evaluation’’ section below, is located in 

the distal portion of the upper leg (i.e., 

farther from the pelvis) and not in the 

area of the machined femur.) 

Failures of the HIII–6C femur appear 

to have initiated at a sharp corner 

between the femur clamp and 

connecting segment sections of the 

machined femur. The approximate 

location of the femur failure is depicted 

in Figure 1. The fracture was observed 

from this corner to the bolt hole within 

the femur clamp, at an angle of 

approximately 45°. The failure 

continued through the thin section of 

material directly beneath the bolt hole, 

causing complete separation of the 

machined femur. Additionally, in one 

failed component, small indents on the 

inner diameter of the retaining flange 

were observed, indicating potential 

contact between the flange and shaft. 

Pictures of a fractured part can be found 

in the technical report docketed with 

the NPRM (Docket NHTSA–09–0166– 

0007.1). 

a. Femur Design Changes 

The modification made today to 

improve the femur’s durability increases 

the strength and durability of the femur 

assembly by fabricating the machined 

femur and shaft from 4340 steel, which 

has a higher yield strength than the 

original material, Aluminum Bronze C– 

624 AMC0–18, while keeping the ball 

and retaining flange as the original 

aluminum bronze material. A 1⁄4-inch 

(6.35 mm) fillet is added between the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER09DE10.031</GPH>
76638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

3The femur shaft, drawing 127–3021, with 

material specification Aluminum Bronze 3/8 rnd C– 

624 AMC0–18, is replaced with drawing 127–3021S 

with material specification 4340 Steel. 4The Boulevard and Decathlon models were each 

tested with a modified HIII–6C and with a HIII– 

6CW with the modified femur design. No femur 

failure occurred in any of the tests. For simplicity 

and because the test results of the HIII–6CW are not 

comparable to those of the HIII–6C, tests of the 

HIII–6CW dummy are not generally discussed in 

this preamble. However, results for all tests of the 

HIII–6CW are discussed in the technical report 

accompanying the NPRM (Docket NHTSA–09– 

0166–0007.1), including test numbers, maximum 

head, chest and pelvis accelerations and left and 

right femur maximum moments and forces. 

femur clamp and the connecting 

segment to eliminate stress risers that 

were present on the original femur, and 

a portion of the connecting segment 

material near the femur clamp is 

removed. The weight of the modified 

femur is only 0.002 lb (0.001 kilograms 

(kg)) heavier than the original femur. 

Table 1 below compares the weights and 

material properties of the original femur 

and the new femur. 

TABLE 1—WEIGHT AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR THE ORIGINAL AND NEW HIII–6C FEMUR DESIGN

Femur design measured weight Material and yield strength 

Original .......................... 0.532 lb (0.241 kg) ................................................. Aluminum Bronze C–624 AMC0–18 ...................... 48,000 psi 

New ................................ 0.534 lb (0.242 kg) ................................................. 4340 Steel .............................................................. 114,000 psi 

To implement this change in femur 

design and material, the following 

changes are made to the materials 

describing the HIII–6C in 49 CFR part 

572. Drawings 127–3017–1&–2, ‘‘6 YR 

H3–FEMUR MACHINED’’ is replaced 

with drawings 127–3017–1S&–2S, 

which show the new machined femur.3

The femur assembly drawings (127– 

3016–1&–2) are also replaced due to the 

new femur design, with new part 

numbers 127–3016–1S&–2S. Higher 

assembly drawings including 127–3000, 

‘‘LOWER TORSO ASSEMBLY’’ and the 

complete assembly drawings (127–0000) 

are amended to show the modified part. 

These revisions are noted on drawing 

SA572–127DRL–2. The PADI is also 

updated so that it shows the new 

machined femur in figures, and reports 

the proper lower torso assembly and 

total weight for the dummy. Finally, the 

part numbers for the machined femur 

and the femur assembly are changed in 

the Parts/Drawings list, along with the 

revision letters for higher assembly 

drawings, as appropriate. 

Copies of the HIII–6C drawing 

package, PADI, and Parts/Drawings list 

that include the change in femur design 

can be obtained online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, in the same 

docket as this final rule. 

b. Analysis of the New Femur Design 

NHTSA has determined that the 

changes to the femur prevent the femur 

from failing and do not compromise the 

utility of the test dummy. This 

determination is based on an analysis 

showing the stress is reduced by the 

addition of the fillet, and on an analysis 

of dynamic test results, as discussed 

below. 

1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect 

The one-piece HIII–6C machined 

femur—which couples the main femur 

shaft to the femur ball shaft—forms a 

ninety-degree angle where the femur 

clamp intersects the connecting 

segment. Originally, the corner radius at 

this intersection was very sharp. This 

sharp corner led to high stresses when 

the femur was loaded. We have 

estimated that adding a fillet to increase 

the corner radius will reduce stresses by 

approximately 1.6 to two times those in 

the femur without the fillet. It is noted 

that this is only an estimate, as the 

loading conditions present in the femur 

during a FMVSS No. 213 type sled test 

were highly simplified in order to 

provide a rough estimate of the fillet 

benefit. Details about the stress 

reduction approximation can be found 

in the technical report accompanying 

the NPRM (Docket NHTSA–09–0166– 

0007.1). Because the fillet design results 

in substantially reduced stress in the 

femur of the dummy, we believe that 

adding the fillet and using the 4340 

steel material will avoid femur failure. 

2. Dynamic Evaluation 

NHTSA evaluated the new femur in 

April 2006 at the MGA testing facility. 

To assess the effect of the component 

modification, we tested a HIII–6C with 

the new femurs (which we refer to as a 

‘‘modified HIII–6C’’ or ‘‘modified 

dummy’’) in a Britax Marathon child 

restraint, Britax Boulevard and Britax 

Decathlon to the FMVSS No. 213 test 

conditions, and compared the results.4

To obtain a greater understanding of the 

loading experienced by the femur 

assembly, instrumentation was added to 

the dummy to allow measurement of 

triaxial accelerations in the pelvis and 

forces and moments in the femurs. 

Additionally, to determine the effect of 

the new femur, we compared test results 

from a test in which the femur had 

failed to those of a test with a modified 

dummy, under conditions that had 

previously caused failure, i.e., the 

modified HIII–6C dummy was tested in 

the Britax Marathon to the FMVSS No. 

213 sled pulse. 

In all tests of the new femurs, there 

were no femur failures. In addition, test 

data relating to left and right femur 

moments, FMVSS No. 213 injury 

measures, dummy kinematics, and other 

factors concerning the performance of 

the dummy raised no concerns about 

the new femur design. The testing 

indicated that use of the new femur in 

the HIII–6C and the HIII–6CW will not 

affect FMVSS testing, except to make 

the dummies more durable. 

i. Comparing Test Results of the 

Modified HIII–6C Test in the Marathon, 

Boulevard, and Decathlon Child 

Restraint Systems 

NHTSA measured and compared 

maximum forces and moments 

measured in the femur load cells (over 

both legs) of the modified HIII–6C 

dummy in the Britax Marathon, 

Boulevard, and Decathlon. The 

Marathon and Boulevard showed 

similar maximum forces, while the 

Decathlon had a higher maximum femur 

force. All maximum forces occurred 

along the Z-axis, and all maximum 

moments were about the Y-axis. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76639 

TABLE 2—MAXIMUM FORCES AND MOMENTS MEASURED IN THE FEMUR LOAD CELLS OF MODIFIED HIII–6C DUMMIES IN A

FMVSS NO. 213 COMPLIANCE TESTING ENVIRONMENT

Femur measure Britax 

Marathon * 

Britax 

Decathlon * 

Britax 

Boulevard 

Max Force (N) .......................................................................................................................................... 1492.9 2264.7 1578.4 

Max Moment (Nm) ................................................................................................................................... ¥78 ¥63.9 ¥70 

* Marathon: Restraint changed from upright to reclined during test. Decathlon: Top tether webbing separated at the attachment clip and the restraint changed position from upright to reclined. 

At the time of maximum moment 

there were visible differences in the 

degree of knee extension (test video 

pictures are provided in the technical 

report accompanying the NPRM, Docket 

NHTSA–09–0166–0007.1). These visual 

differences in response are consistent 

with the differences in force and 

moment magnitude seen in the tests. 

Maximum left and right femur forces 

from the tests of the modified HIII–6C 

dummy with the new femur are 

displayed in Figure 2, while Figure 3 

shows the maximum moments 

measured in the left and right legs 

during each test. In general, force and 

moment measurements made in the left 

and right femurs were similar, though 

not identical. This may give some 

insight into why failures were observed 

in the left leg, right leg, or both legs in 

any given test. We believe that the 

failures were caused by stresses 

exceeding the material strength of the 

femur, so the occurrence of one femur 

failure, rather than both, may be due to 

the fact that the forces present during 

the test were unevenly distributed. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
76640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5Both tests were performed using the same 

dummy (S/N 158). However, because FMVSS No. 

213 does not require measurement of femoral loads, 

no femoral force data was available for test H06120 

with the original femurs. Therefore, comparisons 

were made between pre- and post-test positioning, 

head and chest measurements, and dummy position 

throughout the test, as indicated by the test videos. 

This is discussed in the technical report 

accompanying the NPRM. 

6We note that in test H06337 (modified dummy), 

the child restraint had multiple cracks in its base 

following the test, and during the test the restraint 

position shifted from upright to reclined. However, 

these factors are not likely linked to the 

performance of the new femur. 

ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax 

Marathon Test of the Modified HIII–6C 

(test H06337) to Those of a Test of an 

Original HIII–6C Where Femur Failure 

Occurred (test H06120) 

Both tests were performed using the 

same dummy (S/N 158).5 In test H06120 

(with the original femurs), the left femur 

failed and detached completely. The 

right knee of this dummy was in a fully 

extended position, which could have 

resulted from the change in kinematics 

due to loss of one leg. In test H06337 

(modified dummy), there were no femur 

failures and both legs remained attached 

to the dummy.6

iii. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury 

Metrics 

In these two tests, we compared the 

maximum head and chest accelerations. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER09DE10.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76641 

As seen in Figure 4, these measures 

were similar for both tests, suggesting 

that the new femur does not affect the 

dummy head or chest response 

significantly. Specifically, peak chest 

resultant acceleration, an FMVSS No. 

213 injury criterion, increased only 2.42 

percent from 41.4 g with the current 

Part 572 femur to 42.4 g with the new 

femur. However, we note that the 

maximum head Z and resultant 

accelerations occurred after the time of 

femur failure in test H06120. Therefore, 

it is possible that the acceleration 

magnitude or response in time was 

affected by the loss of one limb. 

We also compared the 36 millisecond 

(ms) head injury criterion (HIC) values. 

These values are displayed in Table 3 

and Figure 5, along with the previouslydiscussed peak chest accelerations 

(Figure 6). The response measured in 

the modified HIII–6C resulted in a 5.65 

percent decrease in HIC over the 

response of the original HIII–6C. These 

relatively low changes in response 

suggest that HIC and chest g’s are not 

significantly altered by the femur 

replacement. 

Table 3: HIC 36 and peak chest 

acceleration values for matched FMVSS 

No. 213 tests. (These results are 

presented in Figures 5 and 6, below.) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER09DE10.033</GPH> ER09DE10.034</GPH>
76642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

7Hip lock in the HIII–50th percentile male femur 

led to design modifications that prevented ‘‘hard’’ 

(i.e., metal-to-metal contact) hip lock from 

occurring (61 FR 67953, Dec. 26, 1996). In that adult 

dummy, hard hip lock was characterized by spikes 

in the unfiltered pelvis and chest accelerometer 

readings, high and sharply-pointed chest z 

acceleration traces, non-unimodal chest x and 

resultant accelerations, and a high tension 

component in the lumbar z force (Klinich et al, 

‘‘Evaluation of a Proposed Hybrid III Hip 

Modification,’’ Stapp Paper No. 952730, 1995). 

8The HIII–6CW is the HIII–6C with weight added 

(10 pounds) to represent larger children. The 

abdominal insert drawing is the same for both the 

HIII–6CW and the HIII–6C dummies. Thus, the 

discussion set forth in this section applies to the 

HIII–6CW as well. 

iv. Effect on Dummy Kinematics 

We have determined that use of the 

new femur does not change the 

dummy’s kinematic response. We 

analyzed test video comparing the 

kinematics of the dummy in tests 

H06337 (modified dummy) and H06120 

(femur failure). (Photographs from the 

video are presented in the technical 

report accompanying the NPRM, Docket 

NHTSA–09–0166–0007.1.) Until the 

time of maximum femur force, the 

position of the dummy in each test is 

fairly similar. At maximum force, the 

dummy’s knees in H06337 (modified 

dummy) are only slightly more 

extended and lower than the knees in 

H06120 (femur failure). Although at the 

approximate time of femur failure in test 

H06120 the positions of the two 

dummies are different, they are only 

slightly so, and the fully extended left 

knee of the dummy in test H06120 

(femur failure) and the additional 

excursion of the leg (as noted by the 

position of the knee marker) may be 

indicative of the failing femur 

component. Similarly, after femur 

failure at 100 ms, there are slight 

differences in dummy position which 

could be attributable to the loss of one 

leg in the test H06120. All in all, there 

is no indication that the new femur 

significantly alters dummy response. 

v. Dummy Response Biofidelity 

Since the new femur has the same 

geometry as the original femurs where it 

interfaces with the pelvis, the new 

femur does not behave any differently 

than the original femur. As discussed in 

the previous sections, little difference in 

head and chest measurements and 

dummy kinematics was observed in the 

dummy with the new versus the current 

Part 572 femur. There is no indication 

that the slight modification in femur 

design and material affects dummy 

biofidelity. 

vi. Hip Lock 

The new femur was inspected for 

indications of susceptibility to hip lock. 

Hip lock is a condition where flexion of 

the dummy’s hip joint is mechanically 

limited due to contact between the 

femur and the retaining ring or other 

pelvis structure.7 There was no 

evidence of excessive wear near the 

retaining ring/ball joint of the new 

femurs. Some wear was noticed on the 

upper leg of dummy S/N 155 where the 

femur clamp was fastened to the upper 

leg weldment. However, because this 

wear is located at a fastening site, metalto-metal contact is inevitable and is not 

indicative of hip lock. 

III. Abdominal Insert 

This final rule changes Drawing No. 

127–8210 of the HIII–6C drawing 

package, which depicts the abdominal 

insert for the dummy. It makes a similar 

change to the HIII–6CW drawing 

package.8 This change responds to a 

petition from FTSS and Denton. Both 

manufacturers sought to revise the 

abdomen insert drawing to match the 

part mold dimensions. 

In the NPRM, the agency granted the 

request but proposed to revise the 

drawing of the abdominal insert based 

on dimensions of actual abdominal 

inserts, rather than dimensions of the 

mold for the inserts. Nearly all changes 

were in agreement with the petitioners’ 

mold-based dimensions. 

Table 4 shows the changes this final 

rule makes to key abdomen dimensions. 

‘‘Fig. Ref’’ numbers in the table refer to 

Figure 7, which shows the original 

dimensions. 

TABLE 4—HIII–6C KEY ABDOMEN DIMENSIONS

Description Fig. ref. Adopted 

spec. 

Overall height (in.) ............................................................................................................................. 1 ............................................... 3.81 +/¥.20 

Ledge height (in.) ............................................................................................................................... 2lt ............................................. 1.53 +/¥.20 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER09DE10.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76643 

TABLE 4—HIII–6C KEY ABDOMEN DIMENSIONS—Continued 

Description Fig. ref. Adopted 

spec. 

3rt ............................................ 1.53 +/¥.20 

Depth excl.plug (in.) ........................................................................................................................... 4 ............................................... 2.80 +/¥.20 

Depth incl. plug (in.) .......................................................................................................................... 5 ............................................... 2.80 +/¥.20 

Taper angle of cone (degrees) .......................................................................................................... 6lt ............................................. 121/129 

7rt ............................................ 121/129 

Notch Half Width (in.) ........................................................................................................................ 8 ............................................... 1.50 +/¥.20 

Notch Depth (in.) ............................................................................................................................... 9 ............................................... 1.40 +/¥.20 

Width Bottom of Cone (in.) ................................................................................................................ 10 ............................................. 5.40 +/¥.40 

IV. Effective Date 

The changes to the femur design of 

the HIII–6C and HIII–6CW are effective 

180 days after publication of this final 

rule. The changes to the abdomen insert 

drawing are effective on the same date. 

Although the NPRM proposed that the 

corrections to the abdomen insert 

drawing be effective 45 days after 

publication of a final rule, the agency 

has decided to make all the changes to 

the drawing package effective on the 

same date to simplify the incorporation 

by reference of the changed drawings in 

the drawing package. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER09DE10.036</GPH>
76644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9 65 FR 2059; January 13, 2000; Docket NHTSA– 

99–6714. 

10With respect to the safety standards, the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemptive provision: ‘‘When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this 

chapter, a State or a political subdivison of a State 

may prescribe or continue in effect a standard 

applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if 

the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second, 

the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of 

implied preemption: State requirements imposed 

on motor vehicle manufacturers, including 

sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of 

a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict 

exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes the conflicting State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor 

Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

V. Rulemaking Analyses And Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking action is not 

considered a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 or 

the Department of Transportation’s 

(DOT’s) regulatory policies and 

procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979). 

This rule will only affect the HIII–6C 

and HIII–6CW test dummies by adding 

a 1⁄4-inch fillet between the femur clamp 

and the connecting segment of the 

machined femur, removing material 

from the connecting segment, and 

changing the material from Aluminum 

Bronze C–624 AMC0–18 to 4340 steel. 

We stated in the final rule 9 that adopted 

the HIII–6C into 49 CFR part 572 that 

the cost of an uninstrumented HIII–6C 

dummy is approximately $30,000 and 

that instrumentation will add 

approximately $25,000 to $40,000 to the 

cost, depending on the number of data 

channels the user chooses to collect. We 

do not expect the amendments of this 

final rule to significantly affect the cost 

of the dummy. 

Further, this final rule does not 

impose any requirements on anyone. 

NHTSA will only use HIII–6C and HIII– 

6CW dummies for compliance testing 

that meet all of the criteria specified in 

this rule, but the agency does not 

require manufacturers to test with the 

Part 572 test dummies. Businesses will 

only be indirectly affected by this final 

rule, to the extent that they choose to 

manufacture or test with the dummy. 

Because the economic impacts of this 

final rule are so minimal, no further 

regulatory evaluation is necessary. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a proposed or final rule, it 

must prepare and make available for 

public comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions), 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR part 121 define a small business, 

in part, as a business entity ‘‘which 

operates primarily within the United 

States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

We have considered the effects of this 

rulemaking under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Changing the 

femur design and correcting the 

abdominal insert drawing will not 

impose any requirements on anyone. 

NHTSA does not require anyone to 

manufacture or redesign the HIII–6C or 

HIII–6CW or to test vehicles or child 

restraints with the devices. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and has 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the final rule does not have federalism 

implications because the rule does not 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This rule does 

not impose any requirements on 

anyone. Businesses will be affected only 

if they choose to manufacture or test 

with the HIII–6C or HIII–6CW dummies. 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

final rule. NHTSA’s safety standards can 

have preemptive effect in two ways. 

This final rule would amend 49 CFR 

part 572 and is not a safety standard.10

This Part 572 final rule does not impose 

any requirements on anyone. 

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 final rule does 

not have any requirements that are 

considered to be information collection 

requirements as defined by the OMB in 

5 CFR part 1320. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

NHTSA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. There are no voluntary 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76645 

consensus standards relevant to this 

final rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Pub. L. 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). Before 

promulgating a NHTSA rule for which 

a written statement is needed, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires the 

agency to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

This final rule would not impose any 

unfunded mandates under the UMRA. 

This final rule does not meet the 

definition of a Federal mandate because 

it does not impose requirements on 

anyone. It amends 49 CFR part 572 by 

changing the femur design of two test 

dummies that the agency uses, and 

corrects a drawing of an abdominal 

insert for the dummies. This final rule 

affects only those businesses that choose 

to manufacture or test with the 

dummies. It does not result in costs of 

$100 million or more to either State, 

local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

—Has the agency organized the material 

to suit the public’s needs? 

—Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

—Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

—Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

—Would more (but shorter) sections be 

better? 

—Could the agency improve clarity by 

adding tables, lists, or diagrams? 

—What else could the agency do to 

make this rulemaking easier to 

understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please send them to NHTSA. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572 

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by 

reference. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as 

follows: 

PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC 

TEST DUMMIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 572 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Subpart N—Six-Year-Old Child Test 

Dummy, Beta Version 

■ 2. Section 572.120 is amended by 

revising the introductory paragraph of 

(a)(1), paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4), 

and paragraphs (b) and (c)(1), to read as 

follows: 

§ 572.120 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) * * * 

(1) A drawings and inspection 

package entitled, ‘‘Parts List and 

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart N, Hybrid III 

Six-Year Old Child Crash Test Dummy 

(H–III6C, Beta Version), June 2009,’’ 

consisting of: 

(i) Drawing No. 127–1000, 6-year H3 

Head Complete, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.122, 

(ii) Drawing No. 127–1015, Neck 

Assembly, incorporated by reference in 

§ 572.123, 

(iii) Drawing No. 127–2000, Upper 

Torso Assembly, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.124, 

(iv) Drawing No. 127–3000, Lower 

Torso Assembly, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.125, 

(v) Drawing No. 127–4000–1 and 

4000–2, Leg Assembly, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.126, 

(vi) Drawing No. 127–5000–1 and 

5000–2, Arm Assembly, incorporated by 

reference in §§ 572.121, 572.124, and 

572.125 as part of a complete dummy 

assembly, and, 

(vii) Parts List and Drawings, Hybrid 

III Six-year-old Child Test Dummy (H– 

III6C, Beta Version), dated June 1, 2009, 

incorporated by reference in § 572.121; 

(2) A procedures manual entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, 

and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 

6-year-old Child Crash Test Dummy (H– 

III6C), Beta Version, June 1, 2009,’’ 

incorporated by reference in § 572.121; 

(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211– 

1995, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact 

Tests—Parts 1 and 2, dated March, 

1995,’’ incorporated by reference in 

§ 572.127; 

(4) SAE J1733 Information Report, 

titled ‘‘Sign Convention for Vehicle 

Crash Testing,’’ dated December 1994, 

incorporated by reference in § 572.127. 

(b) The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the materials 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Copies of the materials may be 

inspected at the Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

telephone (202) 366–9826, and at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), and in 

electronic format through 

Regulations.gov. For information on the 

availability and inspection of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. For 

information on the availability and 

inspection of this material at 

Regulations.gov, call 1–877–378–5457, 

or go to: http://www.regulations.gov. 

(c) * * * 

(1) The drawings and specifications 

package, the parts list, and the PADI 

document referred to in paragraphs 

(a)(1), and (a)(2) of this section, are 

available in electronic format through 

www.Regulations.gov and in paper 

format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of 

New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20879, (301) 670– 

0090. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 572.121 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory 

text (the table is not amended) to read 

as follows: 

§ 572.121 General description. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of 

the Hybrid III 6-year-old child crash test 

dummy (H–III6C), Beta version, dated 

June 1, 2009, incorporated by reference 

in § 572.120. 

* * * * * 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
76646 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart S—Hybrid III Six-Year-Old 

Weighted Child Test Dummy 

■ 4. Section 572.160 is amended by 

revising the introductory paragraph of 

(a)(1), paragraph (a)(1)(iii), paragraph 

(a)(1)(v), (a)(2), and (a)(3), to read as 

follows: 

§ 572.160 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) * * * 

(1) A drawings and specifications 

package entitled, ‘‘Parts List and 

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III 

6–Year-Old Child Weighted Crash Test 

Dummy (H–III6CW),’’ dated June 2009, 

incorporated by reference in § 572.161 

and consisting of: 

* * * * * 

(iii) Drawing No. 167–2020, Revision 

A, Spine Box Weight, incorporated by 

reference in §§ 572.161, 572.164, and 

572.165 as part of a complete dummy 

assembly; 

* * * * * 

(v) Drawing No. 167–3010, Revision 

A, Lumbar Weight Base, incorporated by 

reference in §§ 572.161 and 572.165 as 

part of a complete dummy assembly; 

and 

* * * * * 

(2) A procedures manual entitled, 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, 

And Inspection (PADI) of the Part 572 

Subpart S, Hybrid III 6–Year-Old Child 

Weighted Crash Test Dummy (H– 

III6CW), revised June 2009,’’ 

incorporated by reference in § 572.161; 

(3) The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the materials 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Copies of the materials may be 

inspected at the Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

telephone (202) 366–9826, and at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), and in 

electronic format through 

Regulations.gov. For information on the 

availability and inspection of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. For 

information on the availability and 

inspection of this material at 

Regulations.gov, call 1–877–378–5457, 

or go to: http://www.regulations.gov. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 572.161 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph 

(a)(3) introductory text (the table is not 

amended), to read as follows: 

§ 572.161 General description. 

(a) * * * 

(1) ‘‘Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 

Subpart S, Hybrid III 6–Year-Old Child 

Weighted Crash Test Dummy (H– 

III6CW),’’ dated June 2009 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 572.160); 

* * * * * 

(3) ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly, And Inspection (PADI) of 

the Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III 6– 

Year-Old Child Weighted Crash Test 

Dummy (H–III6CW), revised June 2009’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.160). 

* * * * * 

Issued: November 26, 2010. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30357 Filed 12–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES