Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76633 

Dated: November 30, 2010. 

Eric A. Washburn, 

Bridge Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30928 Filed 12–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2010–0947; FRL–9236–8] 

Oregon; Correction of Federal 

Authorization of the State’s Hazardous 

Waste Management Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 7, 2010, EPA 

published a final rule under docket 

EPA–R10–RCRA 2009–0766 granting 

final authorization for changes the State 

of Oregon made to its federally 

authorized RCRA Hazardous Waste 

Management Program. These authorized 

changes included, among others, the 

federal Recycled Used Oil Management 

Standards; Clarification rule, 

promulgated on July 30, 2003. During a 

post-authorization review of the State of 

Oregon’s regulations, EPA identified 

that the Oregon Administrative Rules 

(OAR), related to the federal used oil 

management requirements (OAR 340– 

100–0002), had not been updated to 

include the adoption of the federal 

Recycled Used Oil Management 

Standards; Clarification rule. Therefore, 

the State did not have an effective state 

rule and EPA inaccurately referenced 

this rule in the State’s Final 

Authorization Action published and 

effective on January 7, 2010. This action 

will correct the State of Oregon’s 

federally authorized program, by 

removing the inaccurate authorization 

reference to the Federal Recycled Used 

Oil Management Standards; 

Clarification rule. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 7, 

2011, unless the EPA receives adverse 

comment on this revision by the close 

of business January 10, 2011. If the EPA 

receives such comments, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2010–0947, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulation.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Kocourek.Nina@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Nina Kocourek, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & 

Toxics, Mail Stop AWT–122, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2010– 

0947. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & 

Toxics, Mailstop AWT–122, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 

98101, contact: Nina Kocourek, phone 

number: (206) 553–6502; or the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

811 SW. Sixth Avenue, Portland, 

Oregon, 97204, contact: Scott Latham, 

phone number: (503) 229–5953. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT–122), 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101, phone number: 

(206) 553–6502, e-mail: 

kocourek.nina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to state programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

changes. Changes to State programs may 

be necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations codified in 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 260 

through 268, 270, 273, and 279. 

B. What decisions have we made in this 

rule? 

This action will correct the State of 

Oregon’s federally authorized program 

by removing the inaccurate 

authorization reference to the Federal 

Recycled Used Oil Management 

Standards; Clarification rule 

promulgated on July 30, 2003 (68 FR 

44659) pursuant to the Final 

Authorization Rule promulgated and 

effective on January 7, 2010 (75 FR 918) 

under docket EPA–R10–RCRA–2009– 

0766. During a post-authorization 

review of the State of Oregon’s 

regulations, EPA identified that the 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), 

related to the federal used oil 

management requirements (OAR 340– 

100–0002), had not been updated to 

include the adoption of the Federal 

Recycled Used Oil Management 

Standards; Clarification rule. Therefore, 

the State did not have an effective state 

rule and EPA inaccurately referenced 

this rule in the State’s Final 

Authorization Action published and 

effective on January 7, 2010. 

The Federal Recycled Used Oil 

Management Standards; Clarification 

rule addresses three aspects of the used 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
76634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

oil management standards: (1) It 

clarifies when used oil contaminated 

with PCBs is regulated under RCRA 

used oil management standards and 

when it is not; (2) It explains that used 

oil mixed with Conditionally Exempt 

Small Quality Generators (CESQG) 

waste is subject to RCRA used oil 

management standards irrespective of 

how this mixture is to be recycled; 

(3) It explains that the initial marketer 

of on-specification used oil must keep a 

record of the shipment of used oil to the 

facility to which the initial marketer 

delivers the used oil. The Federal Used 

Oil Management Standards; 

Clarification rule (68 FR 44659, July 30, 

2003) is promulgated pursuant to nonHSWA authority and is no more 

stringent than the current Federal 

requirements. This federal rule is 

considered to be an optional rule which 

States are not required to adopt and seek 

authorization for this rule, although the 

State of Oregon intends to revise its 

OAR to adopt the Federal Recycled 

Used Oil Management Standards; 

Clarification rule (68 FR 44665) at a 

later date. 

With this correction to Oregon’s 

federally authorized RCRA Hazardous 

Waste Management Program, the State 

will continue to have responsibility for 

permitting Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its 

borders, except in Indian country (18 

U.S.C. 1151), and for carrying out the 

aspects of the RCRA program, subject to 

the limitations of the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA). New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA, and which are 

not less stringent than existing 

requirements, take effect in authorized 

States before the States are authorized 

for the requirements. Thus, EPA will 

implement those requirements and 

prohibitions in Oregon, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What is the effect of this 

authorization decision? 

This action will correct the State of 

Oregon’s federally authorized program 

by removing the inaccurate 

authorization reference to the Federal 

Recycled Used Oil Management 

Standards; Clarification rule 

promulgated on July 30, 2003 (68 FR 

44659), from the State of Oregon’s 

Federally Authorized Program 

Authorization Revision Final Rule, 

promulgated and effective on January 7, 

2010 (75 FR 918). The effect of this 

action is a facility in Oregon subject to 

RCRA will have to comply with the 

accurately identified authorized State 

requirements in order to comply with 

RCRA. Such persons will have to 

comply with any applicable Federal 

requirements, such as, for example, 

HSWA regulations issued by EPA for 

which the State has not received 

authorization, and RCRA requirements 

that are not supplanted by authorized 

State-issued requirements. Oregon 

continues to have enforcement 

responsibilities under its State 

hazardous waste management program 

for violations of this program, but EPA 

retains its authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 

which includes, among others, the 

authority to: 

• Conduct inspections; require 

monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements; 

suspend, terminate, modify or revoke 

permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the State has taken its own 

actions. 

This revision will not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community. 

D. Why wasn’t there a proposed rule 

before this rule? 

The EPA did not publish a proposal 

before today’s rule because we view this 

as a correction to the existing federally 

authorized program and do not expect 

comments that oppose this approval. 

We are providing an opportunity for 

public comment now. In addition to this 

rule, in the Proposed Rules section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a separate document that 

proposes to correct Oregon’s federally 

authorized program. If we receive 

comments, which oppose this 

authorization, that document will serve 

as a proposal to authorize these changes. 

E. What happens if EPA receives 

comments on this action? 

If EPA receives comments that oppose 

this action, EPA will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

withdrawing this rule before it takes 

effect. EPA will then address public 

comments in a later final rule based on 

the proposed rule in this Federal 

Register. You may not have another 

opportunity to comment. If you want to 

comment on this authorization, you 

must do so at this time. 

F. What has Oregon previously been 

authorized for? 

Oregon initially received final 

authorization on January 30, 1986, 

effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3779), 

to implement the RCRA hazardous 

waste management program. EPA 

granted authorization for changes to 

Oregon’s program on March 30, 1990, 

effective on May 29, 1990 (55 FR 

11909); August 5, 1994, effective 

October 4, 1994 (59 FR 39967); June 16, 

1995, effective August 15, 1995 (60 FR 

31642); October 10, 1995, effective 

December 7, 1995 (60 FR 52629); 

September 10, 2002, effective September 

10, 2002 (67 FR 57337); June 26, 2006, 

effective June 26, 2006 (71 FR 36216); 

and January 7, 2010, effective January 7, 

2010 (75 FR 918). 

G. What changes are we authorizing 

with this action? 

On January 7, 2010, EPA published a 

final rule under docket EPA–R10–RCRA 

2009–0766 granting final authorization 

for changes the State of Oregon made to 

its federally authorized RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Management Program. 

These authorized changes included, 

among others, the Federal Recycled 

Used Oil Management Standards; 

Clarification rule, promulgated on July 

30, 2003. This action will remove the 

inaccurate authorization reference to the 

Federal Recycled Used Oil Management 

Standards; Clarification rule, 

promulgation on July 30, 2003 (68 FR 

44659) from the State of Oregon’s 

federally authorized RCRA Hazardous 

Waste Management Program. 

H. Who handles permits after the 

authorization takes effect? 

This authorization does not affect the 

status of State permits and those permits 

issued by the EPA because no 

substantive requirements are a part of 

this correction. Oregon will continue to 

issue permits for all the provisions for 

which it is authorized and administer 

the permits it issues. If EPA issued 

permits prior to authorizing Oregon for 

these revisions, these permits would 

continue in force until the effective date 

of the State’s issuance or denial of a 

State hazardous waste permit, at which 

time EPA would modify the existing 

EPA permit to expire at an earlier date, 

terminate the existing EPA permit for 

cause, or allow the existing EPA permit 

to otherwise expire by its terms, except 

for those facilities located in Indian 

Country. EPA will not issue new 

permits or new portions of permits for 

provisions for which Oregon is 

authorized after the effective date of this 

authorization. EPA will continue to 

implement and issue permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Oregon is not 

yet authorized. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76635 

I. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying Oregon’s hazardous waste 

program as authorized in this proposed 

rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste program into the Code 

of Federal Regulations. This is done by 

referencing the authorized State rules in 

40 CFR part 272. EPA is reserving the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

MM for codification to a later date. 

J. How would authorizing Oregon for 

this correction affect Indian country (18 

U.S.C. 1151) in Oregon? 

Oregon is not authorized to carry out 

its hazardous waste program in Indian 

country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. 

Indian country includes: (1) All lands 

within the exterior boundaries of Indian 

reservations within or abutting the State 

of Oregon; (2) any land held in trust by 

the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and (3) any 

other land, whether on or off an Indian 

reservation, that qualifies as Indian 

country. Therefore, this action has no 

effect on Indian country. EPA will 

continue to implement and administer 

the RCRA program on these lands. 

K. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action corrects the State of 

Oregon’s federally authorized hazardous 

waste program pursuant to section 3006 

of RCRA and imposes no requirements 

other than those currently imposed by 

State law. This action complies with 

applicable executive orders and 

statutory provisions as follows: 

1. Executive Order 12866 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

does not establish or modify any 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements for the regulated 

community. EPA has determined that it 

is not subject to the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

generally requires Federal agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

direct final rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business, as codified in the Small 

Business Size Regulations at 13 CFR 

part 121; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. EPA has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant impact on small 

entities because the action will only 

have the effect of correcting pre-existing 

authorized requirements under State 

law. After considering the economic 

impacts of this action, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no new enforceable duty 

on any State, local or tribal governments 

or the private sector. This action 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small government entities. Thus, EPA 

has determined that the requirements of 

section 203 of the UMRA do not apply 

to this action. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action authorizes 

preexisting State rules. Therefore, EO 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

Although section 6 of EO 13132 does 

not apply to this action, because EPA 

did consult with officials of the State of 

Oregon, Department of Environmental 

Quality in developing this action. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action revises an 

existing authorized State hazardous 

waste program in Oregon. This action 

does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in EO 13175 because EPA 

retains its authority over Indian County. 

Thus, EPA has determined that EO 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the EO has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

because it corrects an approved state 

program. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined under EO 

12866. 

9. 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 EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do 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 bodies. The 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through the OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards bodies. 

EPA has determined that this action 

does not involve ‘‘technical standards’’ 

as defined by the NTTAA. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
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