Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 45355 

1These child restraints are recommended by their 

manufacturer for children weighing over 18 

kilograms (40 pounds (lb)) or whose height is 

greater than 1100 millimeters. 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

its Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com or 

by calling 1–800–378–3160. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). Document DA 

08–1589 also can be downloaded in 

Word or Portable Document Format 

(PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/ 

trs.html#orders. 

Synopsis 

There are several forms of TRS, 

including three that are Internet-based 

TRS: Video Relay Service (VRS), 

Internet Protocol (IP) Relay (IP Relay), 

and IP captioned telephone service (IP 

CTS). The Bureau has received requests 

for guidance concerning the 

transferability of Commission 

certification of Internet-based TRS 

providers as eligible for compensation 

from the Fund, pursuant to the provider 

certification rules contained in 47 CFR 

64.606 (as redesignated at 73 FR 21259, 

Apr. 21, 2008). The Bureau clarifies that 

such certification is not transferable. 

Therefore, in the event that an entity not 

certified pursuant to 47 CFR 64.606 

purchases, acquires, or merges with 

another TRS provider, the acquiring or 

surviving provider must be certified 

under 47 CFR 64.606 (or otherwise 

eligible for compensation from the 

Fund) before it can receive payments 

from the Fund. Because the Commission 

certifies providers based on the 

attestations of their owners or their 

representatives, who are ultimately 

responsible for compliance with the 

Commission’s rules, the certification of 

a provider does not automatically 

transfer to new owners. 

On the other hand, if an entity that is 

certified pursuant to 47 CFR 64.606 

purchases, acquires, or merges with 

another TRS provider, the acquiring or 

surviving provider need only notify the 

Commission of the change in its TRS 

program and provision of service within 

60 days pursuant to 47 CFR 64.606(f)(2). 

Under this rule, the acquiring or 

surviving company must notify the 

Commission of the changes to its 

program and provision of service that 

result from the acquisition and ‘‘must 

certify that the interstate TRS provider 

continues to meet federal minimum 

standards.’’ To meet the latter 

requirement, the provider may either 

certify that the responses provided in its 

initial certification application upon 

which the Commission based 

certification remain accurate, or 

describe any changes and certify their 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Nicole McGinnis, 

Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E8–17919 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. 08–0137] 

RIN 2127–AK36 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards, Child Restraint Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends a 

provision in Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 that 

specifies that child restraints 

manufactured on or after August 1, 2008 

are tested by NHTSA with the Hybrid III 

version of the 6-year-old child dummy. 

NHTSA is postponing the August 1, 

2008 date to August 1, 2010. The August 

1, 2010 date provides NHTSA time to 

consider comments on seating 

procedures proposed earlier this year for 

the dummy and to complete an 

evaluation of technical issues relating to 

the use of the Hybrid III dummy in 

FMVSS No. 213, and provides the 

public more time to become 

experienced with testing with the 

dummy. As a result of this final rule, 

FMVSS No. 213 will permit, at the 

manufacturer’s option, the use of either 

the Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old 

dummy in compliance tests of child 

restraints manufactured on or before 

August 1, 2010. Child restraints 

manufactured on or after August 1, 2010 

will be tested with the Hybrid III 6-yearold child test dummy. 

DATES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by September 

19, 2008. 

Effective date: This final rule is 

effective August 5, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

The petition will be placed in the 

docket. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all documents 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may call Shashi 

Kuppa, PhD, Office of Rulemaking 

(Telephone: 202–366–1740) (Fax: 202–

493–2990). For legal issues, you may 

call Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief 

Counsel (Telephone: 202–366–2992) 

(Fax: 202–366–3820). You may send 

mail to these officials at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule amends S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 213 

to permit, at the manufacturer’s option, 

the use of either the Hybrid II or Hybrid 

III 6-year-old dummy in compliance 

tests of child restraints manufactured 

before August 1, 2010. A notice of 

proposed rulemaking preceding this 

final rule was published January 23, 

2008 (73 FR 3901, Docket No. 2007–

0048). 

Background 

On July 28, 2005, NHTSA issued an 

interim final rule (70 FR 44520) that 

amended a provision in FMVSS No. 213 

that had specified that child restraints 1

manufactured on or after August 1, 2005 

would be subject to compliance testing 

with a Hybrid III 6-year-old child test 

dummy (August 3, 2005, Docket No. 05–

22010). The Hybrid III 6-year-old child 

test dummy is specified in 49 CFR part 

572, subpart N. The agency had 

incorporated the Hybrid III test dummy 

in FMVSS No. 213 to replace its Hybrid 

II counterpart believing that the Hybrid 

III test dummy’s enhanced biofidelity 

and extensive instrumentation would 

lead to a more thorough and precise 

assessment of child restraint 

performance over that resulting from the 

Hybrid II dummy. However, a child 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
45356 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

2The SNPRM supplemented an August 31, 2005 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposed to expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 

213 to restraints recommended for children up to 

80 lb and to require booster seats and other 

restraints to meet performance criteria when tested 

with the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test dummy 

(70 FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245). 

restraint manufacturer (Dorel Juvenile 

Group (Dorel)) asked to delay the 

compliance date for the mandatory use 

of the Hybrid III dummy because of 

unexpectedly high Head Injury Criterion 

(HIC) measurements Dorel found when 

it tested its booster seats with the 

Hybrid III dummy. In the interim final 

rule, the agency agreed that the August 

2005 date should be postponed to 

August 1, 2008 to provide more time to 

work with the dummy and make needed 

adjustments to child restraints to enable 

them to meet FMVSS No. 213 

performance criteria. 

Supplemental Notice 

Following publication of the interim 

final rule, NHTSA developed FMVSS 

No. 213 test dummy seating procedures 

that could be used with Hybrid III test 

dummies in belt-positioning booster 

seats to better control variability of HIC 

measurements obtained by the test 

dummy. Seating procedures were 

developed and proposed for the Hybrid 

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

child test dummies in a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

published January 23, 2008 (73 FR 3901, 

Docket No. 2007–0048).2 The agency 

determined that a dummy that is set up 

to have a more reclined torso is more 

likely to submarine under the vehicle 

belt than a dummy that is more upright 

and well restrained, resulting in higher 

rotational velocity in the dummy’s head 

and a non-representative contact of the 

head with a relatively rigid portion of 

the dummy structure as compared to a 

test with the dummy in a more upright 

position. Thus, because dummy posture 

in booster seats was found to affect HIC 

measurements obtained by the dummy, 

the agency proposed a high degree of 

specificity in the dummy set-up 

procedure. Comments were requested 

on the proposed seating procedure for 

testing booster seats with the Hybrid III 

6-year-old dummy and on the need for 

the procedure for testing child restraints 

other than booster seats. 73 FR at 3909. 

In addition, because the August 1, 2008 

date that had been adopted by the 

interim final rule was approaching 

while issues related to the proposed 

seating procedure for the Hybrid III 6- 

year-old dummy were still under 

consideration, the SNPRM proposed to 

postpone the August 1, 2008 date for 

mandatory use of the dummy until 

August 1, 2010. 

In commenting on the issue of the 

proposed August 1, 2010 compliance 

date in the SNPRM, the Juvenile 

Products Manufacturers Association Inc. 

(JPMA) stated that its child restraint 

manufacturer members supported the 

proposed postponement of the August 1, 

2008 date to August 1, 2010. JPMA 

believed that testing with the Hybrid III 

6-year-old child test dummy 

‘‘continue[s] to provide erroneous 

results’’ and that ‘‘changes to address 

the design and performance issues have 

not been implemented to date.’’ (JPMA 

did not elaborate on its reference to 

‘‘design and performance issues’’ of the 

dummy.) Dorel commented also, 

indicating concurrence with the JPMA 

comment and concerns about the ‘‘nonbiofidelic behavior of the Hybrid 3 6yr 

dummy.’’ No comment opposed the 

postponement of the August 1, 2008 

date. 

Decision 

For the reasons stated in the SNPRM 

and after consideration of the comments 

on the proposed postponement of the 

August 1, 2008 date, NHTSA has 

decided to adopt the proposed 

amendment of S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 

213. The amendment allows, at the 

manufacturer’s option, the use of either 

the Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old 

test dummy in compliance tests of child 

restraints manufactured before August 

1, 2010. The extended time for optional 

use of the Hybrid III dummy provides 

NHTSA time to consider comments on 

the proposed seating procedure of the 

SNPRM for the dummy and provides 

the public more time to become 

experienced testing with the dummy. 

The extended time period also 

provides the agency a window of 

opportunity to complete an evaluation 

of two minor changes to the Hybrid III 

dummy’s design before the effective 

date for the mandatory use of the 

dummy in agency compliance tests. The 

first change relates to a petition for 

rulemaking submitted by test dummy 

manufacturers First Technology Safety 

Systems, Inc. and Denton ATD to 

correct an error in the drawing package 

incorporated by reference into 49 CFR 

part 572 for the abdominal insert for the 

dummy. These dummy manufacturers 

believe that the drawing for the 

abdominal insert does not match the 

mold used to manufacture the abdomen 

inserts in the dummies and should 

therefore be corrected. 

The second change relates to the 

femur design of the Hybrid III 6-year-old 

child dummy. When using the dummy 

in FMVSS No. 213 tests and in vehicle 

crash tests conducted under NHTSA’s 

consumer information New Car 

Assessment Program, the agency 

observed failures of the femur involving 

complete separation of the dummy 

leg(s) from the pelvis. Failures occurred 

across a variety of test facilities and test 

conditions and also when testing a 

variety of child restraints, while the 

failure mode appeared the same for all 

cases. Failure appears to have occurred 

at a sharp corner between two sections 

of the machined femur: The larger 

section that clamps onto the upper leg 

and the smaller section that contains the 

femur shaft. Fracturing of this area has 

caused the complete separation of the 

machined femur. NHTSA is initiating 

rulemaking to propose a femur design 

for the dummy that would enable the 

femur to withstand the stresses of 

dynamic testing without failure. 

Postponement of NHTSA’s mandatory 

use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old child 

dummy until August 1, 2010 will 

provide the agency time to address the 

dummy’s abdomen drawing and femur 

design prior to use of the dummy in 

FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests. 

The January 23, 2008 SNPRM and 

August 31, 2005 NPRM addressed many 

issues other than the August 1, 2010 

date for testing with the Hybrid III 6- 

year-old dummy. NHTSA will address 

these other issues in a subsequent 

document. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order, 12866 Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 

It is not significant within the meaning 

of the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. It does not impose any 

burden on manufacturers, and only 

extends the compliance date for 

certification to testing with the Hybrid 

III 6-year-old test dummy. The agency 

believes that this impact is so minimal 

as to not warrant the preparation of a 

full regulatory evaluation. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, we have considered the impacts of 

this rulemaking action will have on 

small entities (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I 

certify that this rulemaking action will 

not have a significant economic impact 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 45357 

upon a substantial number of small 

entities within the context of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

following is the agency’s statement 

providing the factual basis for the 

certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This final 

rule affects child restraint 

manufacturers. According to the size 

standards of the Small Business 

Association (at 13 CFR Part 121.601), 

the small business size standard for 

manufacturers of ‘‘Motor Vehicle 

Seating and Interior Trim 

Manufacturing’’ (NAICS Code 336360) 

is 500 employees or fewer. Many child 

restraint manufacturers would be 

classified as small businesses under this 

standard. However, the final rule does 

not impose any new requirements on 

manufacturers that produce child 

restraint systems, but only extends a 

compliance date. Accordingly, we have 

not prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ E.O. 

13132 defines the term ‘‘Policies that 

have federalism implications’’ to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under E.O. 

13132, NHTSA may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or NHTSA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This final rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government as specified in E.O. 

13132. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually. This action will not 

result in additional expenditures by 

state, local or tribal governments or by 

any members of the private sector. 

Therefore, the agency has not prepared 

an economic assessment pursuant to the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), 

a person is not required to respond to 

a collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. This final 

rule does not impose any new collection 

of information requirements for which a 

5 CFR part 1320 clearance must be 

obtained. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule does not have any 

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b), whenever a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

state or political subdivision may 

prescribe or continue in effect a 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance of a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard only if the 

standard is identical to the Federal 

standard. However, the United States 

Government, a state, or political 

subdivision of a state, may prescribe a 

standard for a motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment obtained for its own 

use that imposes a higher performance 

requirement than that required by the 

Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 

forth a procedure for judicial review of 

final rules establishing, amending, or 

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. A petition for reconsideration 

or other administrative proceedings are 

not required before parties file suit in 

court. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Environmental Impacts 

We have considered the impacts of 

this final rule under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. This 

rulemaking action only extends the 

compliance date for certification of 

child restraint systems using the Hybrid 

III 6-year-old test dummy. This 

rulemaking does not require any change 

that would have any environmental 

impacts. Accordingly, no environmental 

assessment is required. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 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 

revising S7.1.3 to read as follows: 

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative 

dummies. At the manufacturer’s option 

(with said option irrevocably selected 

prior to, or at the time of, certification 

of the restraint), with regard to testing 

a child restraint manufactured before 

August 1, 2010, when this section 

specifies use of the 49 CFR part 572, 

subpart N (Hybrid III 6-year-old 

dummy) test dummy, the test dummy 

specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart I 

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

used in place of the subpart N test 

dummy. 

Issued: July 31, 2008. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–17932 Filed 7–31–08:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES