[Federal Register: August 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 148)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44520-44523]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03au05-27]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 05-22010]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 24, 2003, the agency published a final rule mandating,
in part, the use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in compliance
testing under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,
Child restraint systems, beginning August 1, 2005. That same rule
permitted optional use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy for
compliance testing prior to August 1, 2005. A child restraint
manufacturer filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the date
for mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy be delayed.
The manufacturer stated that such a delay was necessary because of
technical issues that have arisen through the use of this new test
dummy.
In response to this petition, we are permitting use of the Hybrid
III 6-year-old test dummy or the Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy for
compliance testing under FMVSS No. 213 until August 1, 2008.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendment made in this rule is effective
August 1, 2005.
Comments: Comments must be received by NHTSA not later than October
3, 2005, and should refer to the docket and notice number of this
document.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by the DOT DMS Docket
Number above] by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the Request for Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under
Regulatory Analyses and Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
[[Page 44521]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Dr.
George Mouchahoir, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-
4919, facsimile (202) 493-2739.
For legal issues, you may call Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of the
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to any of these officials at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2003, the agency published a
final rule making a number of revisions to FMVSS No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) (68 FR 37620). The revisions
incorporated four elements into the standard: (a) An updated bench seat
used to dynamically test add-on child restraint systems; (b) a sled
pulse that provides a wider test corridor; (c) expanded applicability
to child restraint systems recommended for use by children weighing up
to 65 pounds; and (d) improved child test dummies. The newly
incorporated test dummies included the Hybrid III 6-year-old test
dummy, conforming to 49 CFR part 572 subpart N. Under the June 2003
final rule, use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in compliance
testing under FMVSS No. 213 is required beginning August 1, 2005.
The agency incorporated the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy
because we believe that the performance of child restraint systems will
be more thoroughly and precisely assessed by use of this test dummy's
enhanced biofidelity and extensive instrumentation. Since the Hybrid
III is more biomechanically based, we believe that it provides a more
humanlike response than the Hybrid II version of the dummy.
On June 14, 2005, the agency received a petition from Dorel
Juvenile Group (Dorel), a child restraint manufacturer, seeking to
delay the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-
year-old test dummy. Although the final rule incorporating the Hybrid
III 6-year-old test dummy was finalized in June 2003, Dorel stated that
it had anticipated continued compliance of its belt positioning booster
seats when tested with the new test dummy. However, Dorel submitted
data in support of its petition demonstrating that testing of its belt
positioning boosters with the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy yielded
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) measurements approximately double that when
the same seats were tested with the Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy. As
such, Dorel stated that some of its belt positioning booster seats
would fail to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 as of
August 1, 2005. Dorel stated that the high HIC values were a result of
chin to chest contact experienced by the Hybrid III 6-year-old test
dummy, which was the result of elongation of the Hybrid III neck.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dorel's petition and the accompanying data have been placed
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a June 20, 2005 meeting with the agency, Dorel stated that it
would be able to redesign its child restraint systems so that they
would comply with testing using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, but
that they would be unable to do so by August 1, 2005.
In response to this petition, we are making a change to the June
2003 final rule. We are delaying the date for mandatory use of the
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy until August 1, 2008. Prior to August 1,
2008, a manufacturer may comply with testing using the Hybrid II 6-
year-old test dummy. Although manufacturers were originally provided
two years of lead time for the use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test
dummy, it was an insufficient period for manufacturers to optimize
their product designs to the requirements of the standard when tested
with this new test dummy.
The agency continues to believe that the Hybrid III 6-year-old test
dummy provides a better assessment of a child restraint system's
performance. However, the agency is aware of the need to allow
manufacturers to obtain and gain experience with using the Hybrid III
6-year-old test dummy for child restraint system compliance purposes.
We previously determined that two years should be allowed for
manufacturers to gain this experience, but this now appears to have
been insufficient.
As previously stated, we incorporated the Hybrid III 6-year-old
test dummy because it is considerably more biofidelic than its
predecessor, the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy conforming to 49 CFR part
572 subpart I, and has considerably more extensive instrumentation to
measure impact responses such as forces, accelerations, moments, and
deflections in conducting tests to evaluate vehicle occupant protection
system. Under today's final rule, if a manufacturer does not certify to
the testing requirements using the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, it
must still certify to testing requirements using the Hybrid II 6-year-
old test dummy. Given that restraints currently certified using the
Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy have performed well in the real world,
we believe that temporarily delaying the compliance date for mandatory
use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old will not impact safety.
Because the August 1, 2005 compliance date is fast approaching,
NHTSA finds good cause to issue this interim final rule effectively
delaying the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-
year-old test dummy until August 1, 2008. Further we find good cause to
make it effective on August 1, 2005, in order to prevent a reduction in
the number of belt positioning booster seats available to consumers. We
are accepting comments on this interim final rule. See, Request for
Comments section below.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. 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. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
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.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the
impacts of
[[Page 44522]]
this rulemaking action will have on small entities (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601
et seq.). I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a
significant economic impact 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 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. A
majority of child restraint manufacturers would be classified as a
small business under this standard. However, the final rule does not
impose any new requirements on manufacturers that produce child
restraint systems. This final extends a compliance date in response to
a petition from Dorel, a child restraint manufacturer. Accordingly, we
have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
C. 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.
D. The 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.
E. 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.
F. 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.
F. 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) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
G. 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.
Request for Comments
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 two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to
Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. Comments
may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the
Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on
``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for
filing the document electronically. If you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents
submitted be scanned using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process,
thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your
submissions.\2\ Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in
order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it
must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and
DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to
consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may
be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://.
[[Page 44523]]
dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
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 two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management 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 Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management 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 Docket Management 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, take the following
steps:
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
(3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``Search.''
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded
comments are not word searchable.
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 571
Motor vehicle safety, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
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.
0
2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S7.1.2 introductory text and
S7.1.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S7.1.2 Child restraints that are manufactured on or after August 1,
2005, are subject to the following provisions and S7.1.3.
* * * * *
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), child restraint systems
manufactured before August 1, 2005 may be tested to the requirements of
S5 while using the test dummies specified in S7.1.2 according to the
criteria for selecting test dummies specified in that paragraph. At the
manufacturer's option (with said option irrevocably selected prior to,
or at the time of, certification of the restraint), child restraints
manufactured on or after August 1, 2005, and before August 1, 2008,
that are recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for
use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any
children having a mass greater than 18 kg, or by children in a
specified height range that includes any children whose height is
greater than 1100 mm may be tested to the requirements of S5 while
using the test dummy specified in S7.1.1(d). Child restraints
manufactured on or after August 1, 2008, must be tested using the test
dummies specified in S7.1.2.
* * * * *
Issued: July 28, 2005.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-15268 Filed 7-29-05; 10:39 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P