Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53987 

G. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of any written 

communications and comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

document (or signing the document, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477) or you may visit http:// 

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

H. International Trade Analysis 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. For 

purposes of these requirements, Federal 

agencies may participate in the 

establishment of international 

standards, so long as the standards have 

a legitimate domestic objective, such as 

providing for safety, and do not operate 

to exclude imports that meet this 

objective. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. PHMSA 

participates in the establishment of 

international standards in order to 

protect the safety of the American 

public, and we would assess the effects 

of any rule to ensure that it does not 

exclude imports that meet this objective. 

Accordingly, any proposals would be 

consistent with PHMSA’s obligations 

under the Trade Agreement Act, as 

amended. 

I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

1. 49 U.S.C. 5103(b) authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 

regulations for the safe transportation, 

including security, of hazardous 

materials in intrastate, interstate, and 

foreign commerce. Harmonization 

serves to facilitate international 

transportation; at the same time, 

harmonization promotes the safety of 

people, property, and the environment 

by reducing the potential for confusion 

and misunderstanding that could result 

if shippers and transporters were 

required to comply with two or more 

conflicting sets of regulatory 

requirements. While the intent of this 

rulemaking is to consider aligning the 

HMR with international standards, we 

review and consider each amendment 

on its own merit based on its overall 

impact on transportation safety and the 

economic implications associated with 

its adoption into the HMR. Our goal is 

to harmonize without sacrificing the 

current HMR level of safety and without 

imposing undue burdens on the 

regulated public. Thus, as explained in 

the corresponding sections above, we 

may not propose harmonization with 

certain specific provisions of the UN 

Recommendations, the IMDG Code, and 

the ICAO TI. Moreover, when proposing 

amendments to the HMR, consideration 

is given to providing exceptions for 

domestic transportation that minimizes 

compliance burden on the regulated 

community. 

2. 49 U.S.C. 5120(b) authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation to ensure 

that, to the extent practicable, 

regulations governing the transportation 

of hazardous materials in commerce are 

consistent with standards adopted by 

international authorities. This notice 

considers potential amendments to the 

HMR that would maintain alignment 

with international standards by 

incorporating various amendments. The 

continually increasing amount of 

hazardous materials transported in 

international commerce warrants the 

harmonization of domestic and 

international requirements to the 

greatest extent. The majority of 

amendments in any harmonization rule 

should result in cost savings and ease 

the regulatory compliance burden for 

shippers engaged in domestic and 

international commerce, including 

trans-border shipments within North 

America. 

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

A regulation identifier number (RIN) 

is assigned to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN contained in the heading 

of this document can be used to crossreference this action with the Unified 

Agenda. 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 15, 

2009 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 106. 

Magdy El-Sibaie, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Hazardous Materials Safety. 

[FR Doc. E9–25358 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

[Docket No. NHTSA–09–0166] 

RIN 2127–AK34 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid 

III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: Today’s NPRM proposes two 

changes to the agency’s specifications 

for the Hybrid III six-year-old child 

dummy. In Part 1 of this NPRM, to 

improve the durability of the dummy’s 

femurs, we propose changes to the 

design of and material used for the 

femur assembly. In Part 2, the drawing 

for the abdomen insert would be 

corrected so that the abdominal insert 

dimensions on the drawing reflect the 

actual part. Part 2 of this rulemaking 

commenced in response to a petition for 

rulemaking submitted by Denton ATD 

(Denton) and First Technology Safety 

Systems (FTSS). This document 

declines the petitioners’ suggestion to 

investigate tolerances for vinyl and 

rubber components of the dummy and 

to specify the expected time frame each 

part would meet the tolerances. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

they are received not later than 

December 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the Docket ID Number 

above) by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
53988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1Mandatory use of the HIII–6C by NHTSA in 

compliance tests will begin in 2010. Currently, 

manufacturers have the option of certifying their 

child restraints to FMVSS No. 213 using the HIII– 

6C or the Hybrid II six-year-old dummy. 

2As noted earlier, we propose changing the 

specifications and drawings of the HIII–6CW set 

forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S, consistent with 

the changes proposed for the HIII–6C dummy 

discussed in this preamble. 

3These are the manufacturers that produce the 

HIII–6C dummy. 

4 In particular, the machined femur of the HIII– 

10C had the same sharp corner, discussed in the 

next section of this preamble, between the ‘‘femur 

clamp’’ and the ‘‘connecting segment’’ regions. The 

machined femur of the HIII–10C that had been 

involved in the failures was redesigned before the 

initiation of the HIII–10C’s incorporation into 49 

CFR Part 572 and the redesigned HIII–10C femurs 

have not been failing. The redesign of the HIII–10C 

dummy femur added a 1⁄4-inch (6.35 mm) fillet to 

reduce stress at the intersection of the femur clamp 

and connecting segment. Additionally, the material 

of the HIII–10C machined femur and shaft was 

modified to be 4140 Steel, which has a significantly 

higher yield strength (92,000 psi) than the 

aluminum bronze used in the HIII–6C femur 

(48,000 psi). The shaft angle of the HIII–10C (77°) 

is also larger than that of the HIII–6C (55°). 

5Complete drawings for the HIII–6C femur can be 

found in Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12541. 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Lori 

Summers, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 

202–366–1740) (fax 202–493–2990). For 

legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre 

Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 

(telephone 202–366–2992) (fax 202– 

366–3820). You may send mail to these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

II. Part 1—Femur Improvements 

a. Introduction 

b. Description of the Femur; Failures 

c. Proposed Femur Design Changes 

d. Analysis of the New Femur Design 

1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect 

2. Dynamic Evaluation 

i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified 

HIII–6C Test in the Marathon, Boulevard, 

and Decathlon CRSs 

ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax 

Marathon Test of the Modified HIII–6C 

(Test H06337) to Those of a Test of the 

Original HIII–6C Where Femur Failure 

Occurred (H06120) 

A. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics 

B. Effect on Dummy Kinematics 

C. Dummy Response Biofidelity 

D. Hip Lock 

III. Part 2—Abdominal Insert 

IV. Proposed Effective Date 

V. Other Issues: Rubber and Foam Parts 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses And Notices 

VII. Public Participation 

I. Overview 

This NPRM proposes two changes to 

the agency’s specifications for the 

Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy 

(HIII–6C). In Part 1 of this NPRM, to 

improve the durability of the dummy’s 

femurs, we propose changes to the 

design of and material used for the 

femur assembly. The primary 

modifications include the addition of a 

1⁄4-inch (6.35 millimeter (mm)) fillet 

between the femur clamp and the 

connecting segment (as defined in 

section II.b of this preamble) of the 

machined femur, removal of material 

from the connecting segment, and a 

material change from aluminum bronze 

to 4340 steel. These changes would be 

made by changing the drawings for the 

femur in the drawing package specified 

in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N (‘‘Sixyear-old child test dummy’’), the parts 

list, and the ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection’’ (‘‘PADI’’) 

document of the Hybrid III 6-year-old 

child crash test dummy (June 2002) 

incorporated by reference into that 

regulation. In Part 2, the drawing for the 

HIII–6C abdomen insert would be 

corrected so that the abdominal insert 

dimensions on the drawing reflect the 

actual part. We also propose to make 

conforming changes to the 

specifications and drawings of the HIII– 

6CW weighted child test dummy (49 

CFR Part 572, Subpart S). 

II. Part 1—Femur Improvements 

a. Introduction 

The HIII–6C is used to represent a sixyear-old child in vehicle crash tests and 

equipment compliance tests. It is an 

enhanced, more biofidelic upgrade to its 

predecessor, the Hybrid II six-year-old 

dummy. The HIII–6C is used in multiple 

testing environments, including, but not 

limited to, out-of-position testing in 

FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant Crash 

Protection, 49 CFR 571.208), child 

restraint system (CRS) evaluation in 

FMVSS No. 213 (Child Restraint 

Systems, 49 CFR 571.213),1 and for 

research purposes in the New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP). 

The HIII–6C can be used in its normal 

configuration or it can be weighted to 

simulate heavier children (see 49 CFR 

Part 572, Subpart S). The standard HIII– 

6C weighs 52 pounds (lb) (23.6 

kilograms (kg)). The weighted version of 

the dummy (HIII–6CW) weighs ten 

pounds more at 62 lb (28.1 kg). The 

HIII–6CW was developed to represent 

larger children for purposes of testing 

booster seats to the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 213.2

NHTSA has become aware that femur 

failures, involving complete separation 

of the dummy leg(s) from the pelvis, 

have occurred in the test dummy in 

FMVSS No. 213 testing and in NCAP 

research testing. 

To improve the durability of the 

femur, NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and 

Test Center (VRTC), through an existing 

contract with dummy manufacturers 

First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) 

and Denton ATD (Denton),3 requested 

the manufacturers to consider new 

femur designs for the HIII–6C. NHTSA 

asked the dummy manufacturers to look 

into improving the femur design after 

learning of a femur failure. The agency 

began investigating the femur even 

though only a single failure had 

occurred because the same failure had 

been observed in a prototype version of 

the Hybrid III 10-year-old child dummy 

(HIII–10C) that had a femur design that 

was similar to the present HIII–6C 

femur.4 NHTSA was concerned that the 

HIII–6C’s femur was a vulnerable design 

and that more femur failures would 

occur as the dummy became more 

widely used in agency testing. 

FTSS and Denton separately 

developed different redesigns of the 

HIII–6C’s femur. NHTSA has assessed 

both approaches and has decided to 

propose design changes that are based 

on the approach developed by FTSS. 

NHTSA has prepared a technical report 

that discusses in detail the femur 

designs, the agency’s analysis of data 

relating to the proposed redesign of the 

femur, and other technical information 

supporting this NPRM. A copy of the 

report has been placed in the docket. 

b. Description of the Femur; Failures 

The present design of the HIII–6C 

femur is specified in 49 CFR Part 572, 

Subpart N.5 The machined femur, 

which is part of the femur assembly 

illustrated in Figure 1 below, consists of 

a large section that clamps onto the 

upper leg and a smaller section that 

contains the femur shaft. For ease of 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53989 

6Both manufacturers recommended a material 

change to increase the strength of the femur. In 

terms of design, FTSS reduced the effects of a 

stress-riser in the area of the failure, while Denton 

completed more extensive design changes to also 

address the alleged issue of ‘‘hip lock.’’ Hip lock is 

a condition where flexion of the dummy’s hip joint 

is mechanically limited due to contact between the 

femur and the retaining ring or other pelvis 

structure. Hip lock in the HIII-50th percentile male 

femur led to design modifications that prevented 

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

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

dummy, hard hip lock was characterized by spikes 

in the unfiltered pelvis and chest accelerometer 

readings, high and sharply-pointed chest z 

acceleration traces, non-unimodal chest x and 

resultant accelerations, and a high tension 

component in the lumbar z force (Klinich et al., 

‘‘Evaluation of a Proposed Hybrid III Hip 

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

discussion, these portions of the 

machined femur will be referred to as 

the ‘‘femur clamp’’ and the ‘‘connecting 

segment,’’ respectively, for the 

remainder of this preamble. The femur 

shaft, retaining flange, and femur ball 

connect the machined femur to the 

dummy’s pelvis. Similar to a human hip 

joint, the ball in the HIII–6C femur 

assembly allows for rotation of the 

dummy hip joint. The flange is used to 

attach the femur assembly to the pelvis. 

The entire femur assembly is found 

within the lower torso, and the material 

specification for this assembly, 

including the machined femur, shaft, 

flange and ball is Aluminum Bronze C– 

624 AMC0–18. The line drawn in the 

illustration shows the approximate 

location of the femur failure. (The femur 

load cell, the response of which is 

discussed in the ‘‘dynamic evaluation’’ 

section below, is located in the distal 

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

from the pelvis) and not in the area of 

the machined femur.) 

Failures of the HIII–6C femur appear 

to have initiated at a sharp corner 

between the femur clamp and 

connecting segment sections of the 

machined femur. The fracture was 

observed from this corner to the bolt 

hole within the femur clamp, at an angle 

of approximately 45°. The failure 

continued through the thin section of 

material directly beneath the bolt hole, 

causing complete separation of the 

machined femur. Additionally, in one 

failed component, small indents on the 

inner diameter of the retaining flange 

were observed, indicating potential 

contact between the flange and shaft. 

The location of the fracture is depicted 

in the Figure 1 illustration. Pictures of 

a fractured part can be found in the 

technical report accompanying this 

NPRM. 

c. Proposed Femur Design Changes 

The proposed modification to 

improve the femur’s durability is based 

on the approach developed by FTSS. 

The agency decided on that approach 

over Denton’s because the FTSS design 

was more straightforward and simpler 

than that of Denton,6 and a similar 

design change had demonstrated 

improvement in the HIII–10C. Rather 

than re-designing, FTSS increased the 

strength and durability of the femur 

assembly by fabricating the machined 

femur and shaft from 4340 steel, which 

has a higher yield strength than the 

original material, aluminum bronze C– 

624 AMC0–18, while keeping the ball 

and retaining flange as the original 

aluminum bronze material. A 1⁄4-inch 

(6.35 mm) circular fillet was added 

between the femur clamp and the 

connecting segment to eliminate stressrisers that were present on the original 

femur, and a portion of the connecting 

segment material near the femur clamp 

was removed. The weight of the new 

FTSS femur is only 0.002 lb (0.001 

kilograms (kg)) heavier than the original 

femur. Table 1 below compares the 

weights and material properties of the 

original femur, the FTSS-developed 

femur, and the Denton-developed 

femur. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.029</GPH>
53990 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

7The material specification on drawing 127– 

3021, ‘‘6 YR H3—FEMUR SHAFT,’’ would be 

changed from ‘‘Aluminum Bronze 3⁄8 Rnd C–624 

AMC0–18’’ to ‘‘4340 Steel 3⁄8 Rnd.’’ 

8The Boulevard and Decathlon models were each 

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

6CW with the modified femur design. No femur 

failure occurred in any of the tests. For simplicity 

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

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

HIII–6CW dummy are not generally discussed in 

this preamble. However, results for all tests of the 

HIII–6CW are discussed in the technical report, 

including test numbers, maximum head, chest and 

pelvis accelerations and left and right femur 

maximum moments and forces. 

TABLE 1—WEIGHT AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR THE ORIGINAL AND DEVELOPED HIII–6C FEMUR DESIGNS

Femur design Measured weight Material and yield strength 

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

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

Denton .................................................................. 0.606 lb (0.275 kg) .......................... 4140 Steel ........................................ 92,000 psi. 

To implement this change in femur 

design and material, the following 

changes would be made to the materials 

describing the HIII–6C in 49 CFR Part 

572. Drawings 127–3017–1&–2, ‘‘6 YR 

H3—FEMUR MACHINED’’ would be 

replaced with drawings 127–3017–1S&– 

2S, which show the proposed machined 

femur.7 The femur assembly drawings 

(127–3016–1&–2) would also be 

changed due to the new femur design, 

with new part numbers 127–3016–1S&– 

2S. Higher assembly drawings including 

127–3000, ‘‘LOWER TORSO 

ASSEMBLY,’’ and the complete 

assembly drawings (127–0000) would be 

amended to show the proposed part. 

These revisions would be noted on 

drawing SA572–127DRL–2. The PADI 

would also be updated so that it shows 

the proposed machined femur in figures 

and reports the proper lower torso 

assembly and total weight for the 

dummy. Finally, the part numbers for 

the machined femur and the femur 

assembly would be changed in the 

Parts/Drawings list, along with the 

revision letters for higher assembly 

drawings, as appropriate. Copies of the 

HIII–6C drawing package, PADI, and 

Parts/Drawings list that include the 

proposed change in femur design can be 

obtained online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, in the same 

docket as this NPRM. 

d. Analysis of the New Femur Design 

NHTSA has tentatively determined 

that the proposed changes to the femur 

would successfully prevent the femur 

from failing and would not compromise 

the utility of the test dummy. This 

determination is based on an analysis 

showing the stress is reduced by the 

addition of the fillet as proposed, and 

on an analysis of dynamic test results, 

as discussed below. 

1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect 

In the current HIII–6C machined 

femur, the change in dimension 

between the femur clamp and the 

connecting segment is nearly instant. 

This abrupt change can lead to high 

stresses in that area when the femur is 

loaded. The addition of a fillet in that 

area reduces these stresses. We have 

estimated that the proposed addition of 

the fillet between the femur clamp and 

the connecting segment of the HIII–6C 

machined femur will result in stresses 

approximately 1.6 to two times less than 

those in the femur without a fillet. 

However, it is noted that this is only an 

estimate, as the loading conditions 

present in the femur during a FMVSS 

No. 213 type sled test were highly 

simplified in order to provide a rough 

estimate of the fillet benefit. Details 

about the stress reduction 

approximation can be found in the 

technical report. Because the fillet 

design results in substantially reducing 

stress in the femur of the dummy, we 

tentatively conclude that adding the 

fillet and using the 4340 steel material 

will make the dummy sufficiently 

durable to avoid femur failure. 

2. Dynamic Evaluation 

NHTSA evaluated the FTSSdeveloped femur in April 2006 at the 

MGA testing facility. To assess the effect 

of the component modification, a HIII– 

6C with new femurs (which we refer to 

as a ‘‘modified HIII–6C’’ or ‘‘modified 

dummy’’) was tested in the Britax 

Marathon, Britax Boulevard and Britax 

Decathlon to the FMVSS No. 213 test 

conditions, and the results were 

compared.8 To obtain a greater 

understanding of the loading 

experienced by the femur assembly, 

instrumentation was added to the 

dummy to allow measurement of 

triaxial accelerations in the pelvis and 

forces and moments in the femurs. 

Additionally, to determine the effect of 

the new femur, we compared test results 

from a test in which the femur had 

failed to those of a test with a modified 

dummy, under conditions that had 

previously caused failure, i.e., the 

modified HIII–6C dummy was tested in 

the Britax Marathon to the FMVSS No. 

213 sled pulse. 

In all tests of the FTSS-developed 

femurs, there were no femur failures. In 

addition, test data relating to left and 

right femur maximum moments, 

measurement of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 

213 injury mechanisms, dummy 

kinematics, and other factors concerning 

the performance of the dummy raised 

no concerns about the new femur 

design. We tentatively conclude that the 

testing indicated that use of the new 

femur would not affect the utility of the 

modified HIII–6C and HIII–6CW 

dummies in FMVSS No. 208, FMVSS 

No. 213, and NCAP research tests, 

except to make the dummies more 

durable and, therefore, more acceptable 

as anthropomorphic test instruments 

used in agency testing. 

i. Comparing Test Results of the 

Modified HIII–6C Test in the Marathon, 

Boulevard, and Decathlon CRSs 

NHTSA measured and compared 

maximum forces and moments 

measured in the femur load cells (over 

both legs) of the modified HIII–6C 

dummy in the Britax Marathon, 

Boulevard, and Decathlon. The 

Marathon and Boulevard showed 

similar maximum forces, while the 

Decathlon had a higher maximum femur 

force. All maximum forces occurred 

along the Z-axis, and all maximum 

moments were about the Y-axis. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53991 

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

AN FMVSS NO. 213 COMPLIANCE TESTING ENVIRONMENT

Femur measure 

Britax 

Marathon* 

Britax 

Decathlon* 

Britax 

Boulevard 

6C 6C 6C 

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

Max Moment (N-m) ...................................................................................................................... ¥78 ¥63.9 ¥70 

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

At the time of maximum moment 

there are visible differences in the 

degree of knee extension (test video 

pictures are provided in the technical 

report). These visual differences in 

response are consistent with the 

differences in force and moment 

magnitude seen in the tests. 

Maximum left and right femur forces 

from the tests of the HIII–6C dummy are 

displayed in Figure 2, while Figure 3 

shows the maximum moments 

measured in the left and right legs 

during each test. In general, force and 

moment measurements made in the left 

and right femurs were similar, though 

not identical. This may give some 

insight into why failures were observed 

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

any given test. We believe that the 

failures were caused by stresses 

exceeding the material strength of the 

femur, so the occurrence of one femur 

failure, rather than both, may be due to 

the fact that the forces present during 

the test were unevenly distributed. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.030</GPH>
53992 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

9Both tests were performed using the same 

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

213 does not require measurement of femoral loads, 

no femoral force data was available for test H06120 

with the original femurs. Therefore, comparisons 

were made between pre- and post-test positioning, 

head and chest measurements, and dummy position 

throughout the test, as indicated by the test videos. 

This is discussed in detail in the technical report. 

10We note that in test H06337 (modified dummy), 

the child seat had multiple cracks in its base 

following the test, and during the test the restraint 

position shifted from upright to reclined. However, 

these issues are not likely linked to the performance 

of the new femur. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax 

Marathon Test of the Modified HIII–6C 

(Test H06337) to Those of a Test of the 

Original HIII–6C Where Femur Failure 

Occurred (H06120) 

Both tests were performed using the 

same dummy (S/N 158).9 In test H06120 

(with the original femurs), the left femur 

failed and detached completely. The 

right knee of this dummy was in a fully 

extended position, which could have 

resulted from the change in kinematics 

due to loss of one leg. In test H06337 

(modified dummy), there were no femur 

failures and both legs remained attached 

to the dummy.10

A. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury 

Metrics 

In these two tests, we compared the 

maximum head and chest accelerations. 

As seen in Figure 4, these measures 

were similar for both tests, suggesting 

that the new femur does not affect the 

dummy head or chest response 

significantly. Specifically, peak chest 

resultant acceleration, an FMVSS No. 

213 injury criterion, increased only 2.42 

percent from 41.4 g with the current 

Part 572 femur to 42.4 g with the 

proposed femur. However, we note that 

the maximum head Z and resultant 

accelerations occurred after the time of 

femur failure in test H06120. Therefore, 

it is possible that the acceleration 

magnitude or response in time was 

affected by the loss of one limb. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53993 

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] 

Measure 

H06120: Femur 

failure w/current 

part 572 design 

H06337: 

Proposed femur 

HIC 36 .............................................................................................................................................................. 723.3 682.4 

Peak Chest Acceleration (g) ............................................................................................................................ 41.4 42.4 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.032</GPH>
53994 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53995 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

B. Effect on Dummy Kinematics 

Because the FTSS-developed femur 

design only involves a material change, 

removal of material, and the addition of 

a fillet at a high-stress location, we do 

not expect that use of the new femur 

would change the dummy’s kinematic 

response. This expectation is borne out 

by an analysis of test video comparing 

the kinematics of the dummy in tests 

H06337 (modified dummy) and H06120 

(femur failure). (Photographs from the 

video are presented in the technical 

report.) Until the time of maximum 

femur force, in the test with new 

femurs, the position of the dummy in 

each test is fairly similar. At maximum 

force, the dummy’s knees in H06337 

(modified dummy) are slightly more 

extended and lower than the knees in 

H06120 (femur failure). At the 

approximate time of femur failure in test 

H06120, the positions of the two 

dummies are noticeably different. The 

fully extended left knee of the dummy 

in test H06120 (femur failure) and the 

additional excursion of the leg (as noted 

by the position of the knee marker) may 

be indicative of the failing femur 

component. After femur failure at 100 

ms, slight differences in dummy 

position could be attributable to the loss 

of one leg in the test H06120. Since the 

dummies’ positions before femur failure 

were very similar, and because the new 

femur design is so similar to the current 

design, we believe that the new femur 

would not significantly alter dummy 

response. 

C. Dummy Response Biofidelity 

Since the FTSS-developed femur has 

the same geometry as the original 

femurs where it interfaces with the 

pelvis, the new femur is not expected to 

behave any differently than the original 

femur. As discussed in the previous 

sections, little difference in head and 

chest measurements and dummy 

kinematics was observed in the dummy 

with the new versus the current Part 572 

femur. Therefore, the slight 

modification in femur design and 

material is not expected to have an 

effect on dummy biofidelity. 

D. Hip Lock 

Because the Denton-developed femur 

was designed specifically to address the 

potential issue of hip lock, after being 

tested, the FTSS-developed femur was 

inspected for indications of 

susceptibility to this condition. There 

was no evidence of excessive wear near 

the retaining ring/ball joint of the new 

FTSS-developed femurs. Some wear 

was noticed on the upper leg of dummy 

S/N 155 where the femur clamp is 

fastened to the upper leg weldment. 

However, because this wear is located at 

a fastening site, metal-to-metal contact 

is inevitable and is not indicative of hip 

lock. 

III. Part 2—Abdominal Insert 

FTSS and Denton petitioned NHTSA 

to change Drawing No. 127–8210 of the 

HIII–6C drawing package, which 

specifies the abdominal insert for the 

dummy. The petitioners stated that 

FTSS owns the original mold for the 

abdominal insert that was part of the 

dummies used by NHTSA to develop 

the 49 CFR Part 572 specifications for 

the dummy, and that the mold is still 

being used to manufacture the HIII–6C 

dummies. The petitioners stated that 

they have measured the mold to 

compare its dimensions to those of the 

drawing and have ‘‘a number of 

discrepancies between the mold and the 

drawing.’’ The petitioners stated that 

Denton has also measured its abdominal 

insert mold, and has found it to match 

the FTSS mold dimensions. Both 

manufacturers stated their belief that 

Drawing No. 127–8210 is in error 

because of these discrepancies, and 

have asked NHTSA to revise the 

abdomen insert drawing to match the 

part mold dimensions. The petitioners 

submitted a revised drawing as part of 

their petition for rulemaking which 

provided new dimensions for the ledge 

height, depth, and taper angle of cone. 

Agency Response: 

NHTSA is granting this request, with 

slight modification. 

During 2006 and in early 2007, the 

agency investigated the subject 

dimensional discrepancies of the 

abdominal insert at NHTSA’s VRTC. 

Five abdominal inserts were measured 

to obtain the dimensions listed in Table 

4; four of these were manufactured by 

FTSS and ranged in age from 5–12 years 

old. The fifth abdominal insert was new 

and purchased from Denton, ATD. The 

results of this investigation showed (see 

Table 4 and Figure 7) that the 

abdominal insert as manufactured did 

not always meet the ledge height (items 

2&3 in Figure 7), depth (items 4&5), 

notch half width (item 8), notch depth 

(item 9) and taper of cone specifications 

(items 6&7). 

We note that we measured the actual 

manufactured part, and not the mold. 

Because the drawing package specifies 

dimensions for the part, not the mold, 

it is logical to correct drawing 

dimensions based on the measured 

dimensions of parts. Thus, while we 

considered the petitioners’ 

recommendations from measurements 

of the mold, we have developed a 

revised set of specifications for the 

abdomen using the set of measured 

dimensions from available parts as the 

base. We believe that the dimensions 

derived from this set of measurements 

will represent a wide range of parts. 

TABLE 4—HIII–6C KEY ABDOMEN DIMENSIONS

[Fig. Ref numbers in the table refer to Figure 7. For full table, including individual dummy responses and matching pelvis opening measurements, 

see the Technical Report] 

Description Fig. ref Dim spec. 

(in.) 

Min/Max 

(in.) 

Mean 

(in.) 

SD 

(in.) 

M+/¥2SD 

(in.) 

Petition 

(in.) 

Proposed 

spec. (in.) 

Overall height ............................ 1 3.81+/.20 3.73/3.79 3 .77 0.03 3.82/3.71 3 .81 3.81+/.20 

Ledge height ............................. 2lt 2.10+/.20 1.46/1.63 1 .55 0.07 1.69/1.41 1 .53 1.53+/.20 

3rt 2.10+/.20 1.48/1.66 1 .61 0.08 1.77/1.46 1 .53 1.53+/.20 

Depth excl. plug ........................ 4 2.50+/.20 2.60/2.82 2 .72 0.08 2.88/2.56 2 .80 2.80+/.20 

Depth incl. plug ......................... 5 2.50+/.20 2.86/3.03 2 .94 .07 3.08/2.80 2 .80 2.80+/.20 

Taper angle of cone .................. 6lt 123.4 +/¥0.5 123/128 125 .4 2.41 130/121 122 .4 121/129 

7rt 123.4 +/¥0.5 123/128 124 .6 1.95 128/121 122 .4 121/129 

Notch Half Width ....................... 8 1.45+/.20 1.56/1.69 1 .62 0.05 1.72/1.52 1 .45 1.50+/¥.20 

Notch Depth .............................. 9 1.40+/¥.20 1.16/1.34 1 .24 0.07 1.38/1.11 1 .40 1.40+/¥.20 

Width Bottom of Cone ............... 10 5.40+/¥.40 ...................... ........................ ...................... ...................... ........................ 5.40+/¥.40 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
53996 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

We tentatively agree with the 

petitioners that several dimensions of 

the abdomen should be revised. 

Although the recommended 

dimensional changes are mostly based 

on agency measurements of physical 

parts, nearly all changes are in 

agreement with the petitioners’ moldbased dimensions. The recommended 

action would incorporate the petitionerrecommended changes in dimension to 

the ledge height and overall depth. The 

taper angle of the cone dimension 

would also be changed to include the 

range of angle requested by the 

petitioner, but have a nominal value of 

125° rather than 122.4°, and an 

increased tolerance of ±4° to account for 

the range of angles measured in the 

available parts. 

However, there are two small 

dimensional discrepancies between the 

part and drawing that were not 

addressed in the petition: The notch 

half width and notch depth dimensions. 

We are adjusting the notch half width 

dimension based on measurements of 

abdominal inserts at VRTC. The notch 

half width measurements were all larger 

than the specified nominal dimension of 

1.45 inches, and one measurement fell 

outside the allowed tolerance. 

Therefore, a slight increase in this 

dimension to 1.50 inches is proposed. 

The suggested changes to the abdominal 

insert drawing are reflected in Table 4 

under ‘‘Proposed Spec.’’ We have 

decided not to adjust the notch depth 

dimension based on part measurements, 

because only one out of five 

measurements did not meet the 

specification, and the age of this part 

may have affected this dimension. This 

decision is discussed more fully in the 

technical report. 

IV. Proposed Effective Date 

We propose that the changes to the 

femur design of the HIII–6C and HIII– 

6CW be effective 180 days after 

publication of a final rule. With regard 

to the changes proposed in Part 2, 

because the changes are more corrective 

in nature, we propose that the changes 

to the drawing for the abdomen be 

effective 45 days after publication of a 

final rule. 

V. Other Issues—Rubber and Foam 

Parts 

FTSS and Denton also suggested that 

NHTSA undertake a project to 

investigate tolerances for vinyl and 

rubber components, develop a detailed 

procedure on how to measure the 

dimensions used to define vinyl flesh 

parts, and work with the manufacturers 

to ‘‘determine proper values and the 

expected time frame each part would 

normally comply with the tolerances, 

given that these parts can change 

dimensionally over time.’’ 

Agency Response: We decline this 

request. The lifetime of foam parts will 

be highly dependent on the part’s age, 

the test situations the dummy is 

exposed to (i.e., FMVSS No. 213 

compliance tests, vehicle compliance 

tests, research and development tests, 

etc.), as well as the conditions in which 

it is stored, the frequency of use, etc. We 

encourage the dummy manufacturers to 

investigate part lifetimes to provide 

replacement time frames for their 

customers; the agency lacks the 

resources to investigate this type of part 

specification. Moreover, the agency does 

not have reason to conclude the lifetime 

of foam parts raises problems that 

NHTSA needs to address, and the 

petitioners did not provide data to 

sufficiently quantify the extent to which 

this may be a problem. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

This proposed rulemaking action was 

not considered a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.034</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53997 

11 65 FR 2059; January 13, 2000; Docket NHTSA– 

99–6714. 

12With respect to the safety standards, the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemptive provision: ‘‘When 

a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a 

State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard 

applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if 

the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 

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

the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of 

implied preemption: State requirements imposed 

on motor vehicle manufacturers, including 

sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of 

a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is 

discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the 

Constitution makes their State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor 

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

This proposed rulemaking action was 

also determined not to be significant 

under the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT’s) regulatory 

policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, 

February 26, 1979). 

We stated in the final rule 11 that 

adopted the HIII–6C into 49 CFR Part 

572 that the cost of an uninstrumented 

HIII–6C dummy is approximately 

$30,000 and that instrumentation will 

add approximately $25,000 to $40,000 

to the cost, depending on the number of 

data channels the user chooses to 

collect. This proposed rule would only 

affect the test dummy by adding a 1⁄4- 

inch fillet between the femur clamp and 

the connecting segment of the machined 

femur, removing material from the 

connecting segment, and changing the 

material from aluminum bronze C–624 

AMC0–18 to 4340 steel. We do not 

expect these changes to significantly 

affect the cost of the dummy. Further, if 

this proposed Part 572 rule becomes 

final, it would not impose any 

requirements on anyone. Businesses 

would be affected only if they choose to 

manufacture or test with the dummy. 

This proposed rule would indirectly 

impose requirements on only those 

businesses which choose to 

manufacture or test with the dummy, in 

that the agency will only use dummies 

for compliance testing that meet all of 

the criteria specified in this proposed 

rule. Because the economic impacts of 

this proposal are so minimal, no further 

regulatory evaluation is necessary. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a proposed or final rule, it 

must prepare and make available for 

public comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions), 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, 

in part, as a business entity ‘‘which 

operates primarily within the United 

States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

We have considered the effects of this 

rulemaking under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the 

proposed rulemaking action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because 

changing the femur design would not 

impose any requirements on anyone. 

NHTSA would not require anyone to 

manufacture or redesign the dummy or 

to test vehicles or CRSs with it. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s 

proposed rule pursuant to Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications because the 

proposed rule does not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This proposed 

rule would not impose any 

requirements on anyone. Businesses 

would be affected only if they choose to 

manufacture or test with the dummy. 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

proposed rule. NHTSA’s safety 

standards can have preemptive effect in 

at least two ways. This proposed rule 

would amend 49 CFR Part 572 and is 

not a safety standard.12 If this proposed 

Part 572 rule becomes final, it would 

not impose any requirements on 

anyone. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule would not have 

any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30103, whenever a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

State may not adopt or maintain a safety 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance which is not identical to 

the Federal standard, except to the 

extent that the state requirement 

imposes a higher level of performance 

and applies only to vehicles procured 

for the state’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 

forth a procedure for judicial review of 

final rules establishing, amending, or 

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid control 

number from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule 

would not have any requirements that 

are considered to be information 

collection requirements as defined by 

the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

NHTSA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. There are no voluntary 

consensus standards relevant to this 

proposed rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, Federal requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
53998 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted for inflation 

with base year of 1995). Before 

promulgating a NHTSA rule for which 

a written statement is needed, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires the 

agency to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. This proposed rule would 

not impose any unfunded mandates 

under the UMRA. This proposed rule 

would not meet the definition of a 

Federal mandate because it would not 

impose requirements on anyone. It 

would amend 49 CFR Part 572 by 

changing an aspect of a test dummy that 

the agency uses. If this proposed rule 

becomes final, it would affect only those 

businesses that choose to manufacture 

or test with the dummy. It would not 

result in costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

—Has the agency organized the material 

to suit the public’s needs? 

—Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

—Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

—Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

—Would more (but shorter) sections be 

better? 

—Could the agency improve clarity by 

adding tables, lists, or diagrams? 

—What else could the agency do to 

make this rulemaking easier to 

understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this NPRM. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

VII. Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit your comments by any 

of the methods provided above under 

ADDRESSES. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. 

Further, note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit a copy from which you have 

deleted the claimed confidential 

business information to the Docket 

using any of the methods given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (49 CFR Part 

512.) 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

the Docket receives before the close of 

business on the comment closing date 

indicated above under DATES. To the 

extent possible, we will also consider 

comments that the Docket receives after 

that date. If the Docket receives a 

comment too late for us to consider in 

developing a final rule (assuming that 

one is issued), we will consider that 

comment as an informal suggestion for 

future rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by the Docket at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. The hours of the 

Docket are indicated above in the same 

location. You may also see the 

comments on the Internet. To read the 

comments on the Internet, go to 

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

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572 

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by 

reference. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR 

Part 572 as follows: 

PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC 

TEST DUMMIES 

1. The authority citation for Part 572 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Subpart N—Six-Year-Old Child Test 

Dummy, Beta Version 

2. Section 572.120 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory 

text, (a)(1)(vii), (a)(2), (b), and (c)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 572.120 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) * * * 

(1) A drawings and inspection 

package entitled, ‘‘Parts List and 

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart N, Hybrid III 

Six-Year Old Child Crash Test Dummy 

(HIII6C, Beta Version), June 2009,’’ 

consisting of: 

* * * * * 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53999 

(vii) The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old 

Child Parts/Drawing List, dated June 1, 

2009. 

(2) A procedures manual entitled, 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, 

and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 

6-Year-Old Child Crash Test Dummy 

(H–III6C), Beta Version, June 1, 2009’’; 

* * * * * 

(b) The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the materials 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

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

Copies of the materials may be 

inspected at the Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

telephone (202) 366–9826, and at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), and in 

electronic format through 

Regulations.gov. For information on the 

availability and inspection of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: 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 test dummy, 

Alpha version, dated June 1, 2009. 

Issued: October 15, 2009. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E9–25241 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062; 92210–1117–0000– 

B4] 

[RIN 1018–AW85] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

revise our designation of critical habitat 

for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex 

ornatus relictus) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

Our proposal is the same as the 

proposed critical habitat we published 

on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51417). In 

total, approximately 4,649 acres (ac) 

(1,881 hectares (ha)) occur within the 

boundaries of the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation. The 

proposed revised critical habitat is 

located in the Central Valley floor of 

Kern County, California. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before 

December 21, 2009. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

December 7, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket no. 

FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 

22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Russell, Acting Listing 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, 

Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone (916) 

414–6600; facsimile (916) 414–6712. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal to revise 

critical habitat will be as accurate and 

as effective as possible. Therefore, we 

request comments or suggestions on this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons we should or should 

not revise the designation of habitat as 

‘‘critical habitat’’ under section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

including whether there are threats to 

the species from human activity, the 

degree of which can be expected to 

increase due to the designation, and 

whether that increase in threat 

outweighs the benefit of designation 

such that the designation of critical 

habitat is not prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

• Areas that provide habitat for the 

Buena Vista Lake shrew (herein after 

referred to as the shrew) that we did not 

discuss in our August 19, 2004 (69 FR 

51417) proposed critical habitat rule, 

• Areas containing the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

shrew that we should include in the 

revised designation and why, 

• Areas proposed that do not contain 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species and why, and 

• Areas not occupied at the time of 

listing that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Land-use designations and current 

or planned activities in the areas 

proposed as revised critical habitat, as 

well as their possible effects on 

proposed revised critical habitat. 

(4) Comments or information that may 

assist us in identifying or clarifying the 

physical and biological features. 

(5) How the proposed revised critical 

habitat boundaries could be refined to 

more closely circumscribe the 

landscapes identified as containing the 

features essential to the species’ 

conservation. 

(6) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities or families, 

and the benefits of including or 

excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts. 

(7) Whether any specific areas being 

proposed as revised critical habitat 

should be excluded under section 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS