Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems; Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
|
Nathaniel Beuse
November 24, 2010
[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71648-71665]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24no10-51]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0158
Regulation Identifier No. (RIN) 2127-AJ44
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems;
Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, regarding a Hybrid
III 10-year-old child test dummy that the agency seeks to use in the
compliance test procedures of the standard. This document supplements a
2005 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and a 2008 SNPRM previously
published in this rulemaking (RIN 2127-AJ44) regarding this test dummy.
In the 2005 NPRM, in response to Anton's Law, NHTSA proposed to adopt
the 10-year-old child test dummy into FMVSS No. 213 to test child
restraints for older children. Subsequently, to address variation that
was found in dummy readings due to chin-to-chest contact, NHTSA
published the 2008 SNPRM to propose a NHTSA-developed procedure for
positioning the test dummy in belt-positioning seats. Comments on the
SNPRM objected to the positioning procedure, and some suggested an
alternative procedure developed by the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). Today's SNPRM proposes to
use the UMTRI procedure to position the test dummy rather than the
NHTSA-developed procedure. We note that the 10-year-old child dummy may
sometimes experience stiff contact between its chin and upper sternal
bib region which may result in an unrealistically high value of the
head injury criterion (HIC) \1\ referenced in the standard.
Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that the dummy's HIC measurement will not
be used to assess the compliance of the tested child restraint. This
SNPRM also proposes other amendments to FMVSS No. 213, including a
proposal to permit NHTSA to use, at the manufacturer's option, the
[[Page 71649]]
Hybrid II or Hybrid III versions of the 6-year-old test dummy, and a
proposal to use the UMTRI procedure to position the Hybrid III 6-year-
old and 10-year-old dummies when testing belt-positioning seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Throughout this document, HIC refers to the head injury
criterion computed using a 36 millisecond (msec) time interval.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the
docket receives them not later than January 24, 2011. However, comments
on our reinstating a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that permitted NHTSA to
use, at the manufacturer's option, the Hybrid II or Hybrid III versions
of the 6-year-old dummy in compliance testing should be received no
later than 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT 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 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 technical issues, you may call Ms.
Cristina Echemendia (Telephone: 202-366-6345) (Fax: 202-493-2990). For
legal issues, you may call Ms. 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:
Table of Contents
I. Background
a. August 31, 2005 NPRM
b. January 23, 2008 SNPRM
c. Overview of Today's SNPRM
II. UMTRI Positioning Procedure for the HIII-10C
III. HIC and the Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy
IV. Optional Use of Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Test Dummy
V. UMTRI Positioning Procedure for the HIII-6C
VI. Other Applications of the UMTRI Procedure
VII. Other Proposals
a. Using the HIII-10C to Test a CRS on LATCH
b. CRSs Must Be Capable of Fitting the ATD
c. Housekeeping
VIII. Research Plans
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
X. Public Participation
I. Background
a. August 31, 2005 NPRM
On August 31, 2005, NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to amend
FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), to adopt into
the standard's compliance test an instrumented 78 pound (lb) (35
kilogram (kg)) Hybrid III test dummy representing a 10-year-old
child.\2\ NHTSA proposed, among other matters, to use this dummy
(referred to as the ``HIII-10C'') to test belt-positioning seats and
other child restraint systems recommended for children weighing more
than 50 lb (22.7 kg), and to incorporate with this dummy the injury
criteria and other performance measures specified in S5 of FMVSS No.
213 for evaluating child restraint systems (CRSs) with current test
dummies. (Belt-positioning seats are a type of booster seat, see, S4 of
FMVSS No. 213, and are commonly referred to as ``belt-positioning
booster seats'' (BPB).) The NPRM proposed expanding the definition of
``child restraint system'' in FMVSS No. 213 to include any device,
except Type I or Type II seat belts,\3\ designed for use in a motor
vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh
80 lb (36 kg) or less, thus expanding the applicability of FMVSS No.
213 to CRSs recommended for children weighing up to 80 lb (36 kg) from
the current threshold of 65 lb (29.5 kg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NPRM for FMVSS No. 213, 70 FR 51720, August 31, 2005, Docket
No. NHTSA-2005-21245.
\3\ A Type I (or Type 1) seat belt is defined in FMVSS No. 209
as a lap belt for pelvic restraint. A Type II (or Type 2) seat belt
is defined in FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies,'' as a
combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints, which is commonly
referred to as a lap/shoulder or three-point belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rulemaking proposal was part of an on-going agency initiative
to enhance the safety of children in motor vehicle crashes. It also
implemented Section 4(b) of Public Law 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772
(``Anton's Law''), which required the initiation of a rulemaking
proceeding for the adoption of an anthropomorphic test device (ATD)
that simulates a 10-year-old child. Section 4 of Anton's Law, signed on
December 4, 2002, stated that not later than 24 months after the date
of the enactment of that Act, the Secretary shall develop and evaluate
an ATD that simulates a 10-year-old child for use in testing child
restraints used in passenger motor vehicles, and that within one year
following such development and evaluation, the Secretary shall initiate
a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of an ATD so developed.
In accordance with Anton's Law, NHTSA completed its evaluation of
the suitability of the HIII-10C dummy in September 2004. Following the
evaluation, NHTSA issued an NPRM to initiate rulemaking to adopt
specifications and performance requirements for the test dummy into 49
CFR Part 572, the agency's regulation for anthropomorphic test
devices.\4\ That July 13, 2005 proposal was followed by the August 31,
2005 NPRM on FMVSS No. 213 initiating rulemaking to adopt the dummy
into FMVSS No. 213 as a compliance test device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NPRM for 49 CFR part 572, July 13, 2005, 70 FR 40281; Docket
No. NHTSA 2004-2005-21247, RIN 2127-AJ49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. January 23, 2008 SNPRM
The comments on the August 31, 2005 NPRM supported extending the
applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to child restraints recommended for
children up to 80 lb (36 kg), and supported having a 10-year-old dummy
to test higher weight-rated child restraints. However, commenters
raised concerns about the biofidelity of the HIII-10C dummy,
particularly with regard to the interaction of the dummy's chin with
the upper sternal bib region covering the upper portion of a metal
``spine box.'' Commenters said that the dummy
[[Page 71650]]
exhibited ``chin-to-chest'' contacts resulting in high HIC scores and
high HIC variability when tested multiple times under the same
conditions.
In response to these comments, the agency launched a series of
tests to investigate the factors that influenced chin-to-chest contact.
Results revealed that dummy posture was the primary factor contributing
to HIC variation observed in testing of BPB seats. A consistent posture
of the dummy in repeated tests with the same BPB revealed significant
decreases in HIC variation. A more upright dummy posture minimized the
chin-to-chest contact, which resulted in more repeatable and generally
lower HIC values. In response to the comments, the agency developed a
new dummy positioning procedure which established dummy posture (14
degree torso angle \5\) and a belt positioned at specific landmarks of
the dummy's body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the January 23, 2008 SNPRM, infra, torso angle was
defined as the angle between the line joining the center of gravity
of the dummy's head to its H-point and a vertical plane (73 FR 3901,
3907).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 23, 2008 the agency published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) \6\ proposing the new dummy positioning
procedure for the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy and the Hybrid III 6-
year-old dummy (HIII-6C) in BPB seats. The SNPRM supplemented the
proposals of the August 31, 2005 NPRM in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ SNPRM for FMVSS No. 213, 73 FR 3901, Docket No. NHTSA-2007-
0048; reopening of comment period, 73 FR 15963, March 26, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The agency proposed dummy positioning procedures that establish
dummy posture (torso angle at 14 degrees) and seat belt positions based
on specific landmarks of the dummy's body. It was proposed that the
dummy positioning procedures would be used when using the HIII-10C and
the HIII-6C dummies to test BPB.
2. In response to comments on a proposal in the August 31, 2005
NPRM regarding which CRSs would be tested with the HIII-10C dummy,
NHTSA revised the earlier proposal which had envisioned using the HIII-
10C to test child restraints for children weighing over 50 lb (22.7
kg). The SNPRM proposed that child restraints recommended for children
weighing 50 to 65 lb (22.7 to 29.5 kg) be tested with the HIII-6C dummy
for performance, and with the weighted HIII-6C dummy for structural
integrity, rather than with the HIII-10C. The HIII-10C dummy would be
used to test CRSs recommended for children weighing more than 65 lb
(29.5 kg).
3. The SNPRM proposed to maintain the exclusion of belt-positioning
seats from the seat back requirement by specifying that the HIII-10C
dummy would not be used to determine the applicability of the head
support surface requirements.
4. To allow sufficient time for manufacturers to incorporate the
SNPRM's seating procedure into their certification testing with the
HIII-6C dummy, the SNPRM proposed to postpone, until August 1, 2010, an
August 1, 2008 compliance date that had been specified for the
mandatory use of the HIII-6C dummy. The proposal was to allow use of
the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy at the manufacturers' option, in lieu of
the HIII-6C, until August 1, 2010.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This proposal was subsequently adopted by a final rule
published August 5, 2008 (73 FR 45355, Docket No. 2008-0137).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency received comments on the January 23, 2008 SNPRM from the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), CRS
manufacturers (Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, Inc.
(JPMA), Dorel), automobile manufacturers (Chrysler, the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance)), and a private individual.\8\
All commenters that directly addressed the proposed dummy positioning
procedure opposed it, finding the procedure to be complicated,
cumbersome and difficult to use. Some found they could not position the
dummy's torso angle in some BPB seats as specified in the SNPRM. Many
commenters believed that the dummy's posture using the SNPRM-proposed
method does not position the dummy as a child would sit on a particular
BPB seat, and so dynamic tests using the proposed positioning procedure
would not evaluate the true performance of BPB seat designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The private individual worked for a baby product retailer
and was in favor of using the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test
dummy for testing child restraints rated for children weighing 60
pounds and greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMTRI espoused the strengths of the dummy positioning procedure it
developed and urged NHTSA to adopt those procedures.\9\ UMTRI stated
that tests conducted at its facility show that children sit with a wide
range of torso angles that depend on the BPB seat characteristics.
UMTRI stated: ``We recommend a seating procedure that allows the ATD to
sit against the back of the booster like a child, rather than being
placed in a single posture regardless of the booster design, a practice
that can result in a gap between the ATD and the back of the booster.''
The commenter stated that its procedures position the test dummies in
postures that are more representative of how children similar in size
to the ATD sit in different BPB seats, and would produce more
meaningful assessments of BPB performance. The commenter also noted
that its testing has demonstrated that the SNPRM's procedure, which was
developed to reduce HIC variability, may in fact ``adversely affect
child safety by creating incentives to produce poorer rather than
better belt routing.'' That is, the commenter believed that HIC can be
lowered by repositioning the torso belt further off of the dummy's
shoulder, placing it in a position that could result in a child
rotating out of the belt in a frontal crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The SNPRM referred briefly to the UMTRI seating procedure.
NHTSA's view, which was disputed by some commenters, was that the
UMTRI procedure was similar to the procedure proposed by the SNPRM.
73 FR at 3907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UMTRI procedure results in unrealistically high HIC values
measured by the dummy due to the more slouched positioning of the
dummy. UMTRI suggested that NHTSA suspend use of HIC in the testing of
BPB seats with the HIII-10C until the biofidelity of the test dummy is
improved. UMTRI suggested that instead of HIC, NHTSA should use other
measures to assess BPB seat performance, such as how the BPB seat
affects seat belt placement and limits head excursion and
submarining.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As used in the August 5, 2008 NPRM, ``submarining'' is a
term describing the kinematics occurring when a child occupant's
pelvis becomes unrestrained by the lap belt portion of a seat belt
assembly and then slides under the lap belt in a frontal impact. As
a result, the belt can enter the abdominal region and cause injury
to the unprotected internal organs and lumbar spine. Submarining
frequently involves the child's knees sliding forward and the torso
reclining rearward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPMA stated that the CRS manufacturers support including the HIII-
10C dummy into FMVSS No. 213 but do not support the implementation of
the proposed dummy positioning procedure. JPMA suggested that the
procedure appears to be compensating for ``a dummy design issue'' and
results in the dummy being ``artificially positioned'' in the BPB seat
with the lap and shoulder belt set in a predetermined position on the
dummy. JPMA expressed particular concern about using the SNPRM-proposed
positioning procedure for testing high back BPB seats that have more
than one recline adjustment position. The commenter stated that with
some BPB seats, the shoulders of the dummy could be positioned as much
as two inches
[[Page 71651]]
forward of the seat back when the torso angle is set to 14 degrees.
JPMA stated that since the use of the proposed dummy positioning
procedure does not represent how children sit in BPB seats, it does not
allow proper evaluation of these seats as intended for use. JPMA stated
that the proposed seating procedure would increase the total test time
and cost, due to the repeated adjustments and measurements and
measuring tools that are required. JPMA expressed support for the UMTRI
seating procedure and suggested that NHTSA delay implementation of the
HIC requirement until such time that the design/biofidelity issue with
the ATD has been addressed.
Dorel expressed concern that the proposed dummy positioning
procedure does not address the root cause of the chin-to-chest contact
and that the proposed procedure will result in adoption of the HIII 10-
year-old and 6-year-old dummies in spite of the ATDs' non-biofidelic
necks and torsos.
The concerns outlined above were echoed by Chrysler as well, which
stated that the SNPRM's positioning procedure creates an artificial
unrealistic testing condition for the dummy that is not representative
of a real world 10-year-old child. Chrysler stated that this artificial
position seems to have been created in order to reduce the potential
for submarining and chin-to-chest contact; the commenter believed that
it would be better to correct the design of the dummy rather than
establish unnatural seating positions. Chrysler stated that the HIII-
10C dummy submarines more frequently in FMVSS No. 213 type sled tests
than has been observed in the field for the 8- to 12-year-old age
group. Chrysler also stated there were ``frequently occurring noise
spikes in the dummy chest responses (chest and sternum accelerations)
[that] lead to uncertainty in the measurements obtained from the
dummy.''
The Alliance opposed the SNPRM's dummy positioning procedures as
overly complex, impracticable, or otherwise inappropriate. The
commenter stated that setting up the dummy torso angle to 14 degrees
and leveling the head are likely to require several iterations and
expensive measurement tools that make this procedure onerous and
unnecessarily burdensome. The commenter noted that the HIII-6C dummy
does not have an adjustable neck, and that neither dummy has an
orientation marking on the head to use when setting the neck to
``level,'' so it is impractical to achieve the level head requirement
for some vehicle seats. Further, some Alliance members found that they
had to place shims of varying thicknesses behind the dummy to achieve a
torso angle of 14 degrees, or had a gap between the dummy and the seat
back. Further, the commenter found that the procedure specified placing
the shoulder belt lower on the dummies than where the belt normally
would be placed, resulting in sub-optimal belt fit. The Alliance
recommended that NHTSA should limit the calculation of HIC to periods
prior to chin-to-chest contact. The commenter also suggested that,
``until NHTSA and the industry can confirm that the use of LATCH
anchorages with heavier children does not create an unsafe situation,
the Alliance urges the agency to clarify that it will not use the LATCH
anchorages when conducting compliance tests of harness equipped CRSs
using the 10-year-old dummy.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ LATCH refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, a
term that was developed by industry to refer to the child restraint
anchorage system required to be installed in vehicles by FMVSS No.
225. FMVSS No. 213 requires harness-equipped conventional child
safety seats to be able to be installed in a vehicle by both a
vehicle's LATCH system, and the vehicle's seat belt. (Footnote
added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Overview of Today's SNPRM
Based on an analysis of the comments to the January 23, 2008 SNPRM
and other information, including the results of additional testing by
NHTSA of BPB seats using the UMTRI positioning procedure, NHTSA is
issuing this SNPRM that supplements the August 31, 2005 NPRM and the
January 31, 2008 SNPRM, with the following proposals.\12\ Today's SNPRM
adds to or supplements the previous documents by proposing to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Proposals made in the 2005 NPRM and the 2008 SNPRM that are
not discussed in today's SNPRM are still being considered by NHTSA.
Today's proposed regulatory text mainly reflects the proposals
discussed in today's SNPRM and does not reflect all of the earlier
proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 213, even though those proposals
are still part of this proposed rulemaking. It is not necessary for
a commenter to resubmit views on proposals made in the 2005 NPRM and
the 2008 SNPRM that the commenter has expressed in previous comments
on the earlier NPRMs. The agency will respond to all relevant
comments in a final rule or other document following on today's
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Adopt a procedure for positioning the HIII-10C dummy in BPB
seats based on the procedure developed by UMTRI, instead of the
procedure described in the January 23, 2008 SNPRM. The procedure
includes specifications for positioning the BPB seat on the standard
seat assembly.
2. Suspend the HIC criterion for the HIII-10C dummy in all child
restraints, including BPB seats, until problems with the dummy that
have resulted in unacceptable chin-to-chest contact in FMVSS No. 213
testing have been resolved.
3. Specify that a child restraint system recommended for children
weighing over 65 lb (29.5 kg) will not be subject to testing with the
HIII-10C when attached to the standard seat assembly using the LATCH
system. These CRSs would be tested with the HIII-10C while attached to
the standard seat assembly with the seat belt system. To reduce the
likelihood that a consumer may mistakenly use this type of CRS with
LATCH, this SNPRM proposes to require harness-equipped CRSs recommended
for children of a weight range that includes children weighing over 65
lb (29.5 kg), to be labeled with an instruction to the consumer not to
use the vehicle LATCH system with a child weighing more than 65 lb
(29.5 kg).
4. Reinstate a provision that expired on August 1, 2010 that
permitted NHTSA to use, at the manufacturer's option, the Hybrid II 6-
year old (H2-6C) dummy or the HIII-6C dummy for testing child
restraints and BPB seats. This SNPRM also proposes using the UMTRI
procedure to position the HIII-6C dummy in BPB seats.
II. UMTRI Positioning Procedure for the HIII-10C
We propose adopting a procedure that is based on UMTRI's
positioning procedure for positioning the HIII-10C dummy in BPB seats.
UMTRI describes the procedure in its May 12, 2008 comment to the docket
for the January 23, 2008 SNPRM.\13\ We propose adopting the procedure
as we have set forth in the proposed regulatory text of this SNPRM.\14\
NHTSA is proposing to adopt the UMTRI-based procedure because the
agency has found it simple to use, and because the procedure results in
a positioning of the ATD that is substantially more representative of
how a child would be positioned in a BPB seat than the procedure of the
January 23, 2008 SNPRM. (As noted
[[Page 71652]]
below in this preamble, the UMTRI procedure is very similar to the
procedure NHTSA currently uses to position ATDs in child restraints for
the FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests.) With the UMTRI procedure, no gaps
result between the ATD's back and the back of the BPB seat. Moreover,
in our evaluation, we have tentatively determined that the HIII-10C
dummy positioned according to the UMTRI procedure would yield
repeatable ATD readings for determining compliance with FMVSS No. 213's
requirements.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0048-0010.
\14\ There are a few aspects of the UMTRI procedure that we have
modified or that we do not propose to include. For example, we
eliminated the ``hip offset'' tool and all the steps involving the
tool. (See UMTRI May 12, 2008 comment, p. 7.) The measurements done
with the tool are unnecessary for our purposes, so we eliminated its
use from our procedure. We followed the instruction on how to apply
the belt, but we eliminated any steps that involved ``belt fit''
measures as we are not including this in our procedure. We do not
specify performing three static installations of the ATD and that
the mean posture and belt locations obtained in these installations
would be the ``design'' targets when positioning the ATD for the
sled test. (UMTRI comment, p. 6.) We found the three static
installations to be unnecessary.
\15\ With the exception of the HIII-10C's measurement of HIC.
However, as explained below, we are proposing that HIC would not be
measured by the HIII-10C using the UMTRI procedure in the FMVSS No.
213 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally described, the UMTRI procedure first involves centering
the BPB seat on the seating position of the test bench seat. A 30 lb
(133 Newton (N)) force is then applied to push the BPB seat rearward
into the test bench seat. The dummy is prepared with a lap form and a
pelvis positioning pad before being positioned on the BPB seat. The lap
form is placed on the ATD's lap to keep the lap belt from intruding
into a gap that the Hybrid-III ATDs have between the pelvis flesh and
thigh flesh. The pelvis positioning pad, placed behind the dummy, is
used to help position the dummy with a slight slouch, which allows the
dummy to adopt a posture similar to a child seated in a relaxed
position. The dummy is positioned and centered on the BPB seat and is
pushed rearward by applying a 40 lb (177 N) force on the dummy's lower
pelvis and the thorax. The dummy's knees are placed pelvis width apart.
These steps help the dummy achieve a ``natural'' seating position on
the BPB seat.
To restrain the dummy, the three-point (lap/shoulder) belt is
pulled out of the shoulder belt attachment or retractor. The shoulder
belt and the lap belt are routed through any guides, if available,
according to the CRS manufacturer's instructions. The slack of the belt
is removed by feeding the excess webbing into the shoulder belt
attachment or retractor. The lap and shoulder belt sections are
tightened to 2-4 lb (9-18 N) of tension. The lap belt tension is lower
than the one currently specified in the FMVSS No. 213 test (12-15 lb)
(53-67 N); however, according to UMTRI's comment, a 2-4 lb (9-18 N)
tension is representative of a tension applied by a child in the real
world. Accordingly, we are proposing a lap belt tension of 2-4 lb (9-18
N).
To provide readers an idea of the differences between the January
23, 2008 SNPRM and the UMTRI-based procedures proposed today, Table 1
below highlights the significant differences between the two
procedures.
Table 1--Comparison of 2008 SNPRM and Today's UMTRI-Based Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 SNPRM procedure UMTRI-based procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPB Seat Positioning.................... Centered and pushed rearward.... Centered and pushed rearward
applying 30 lb (133 N) of force.
Dummy Preparation....................... ................................ Install lap form and pelvis
positioning pad.
Dummy Positioning....................... Centered on BPB seat and torso Centered on BPB seat, torso aligned
angle at 14.5 degrees from with BPB's back or vehicle's seat
vertical. back then pushed rearward by
applying 40 lb (177 N) on chest and
pelvis.
Belt Routing (Belt Guides).............. According to manufacturer's According to manufacturer's
instructions. instructions.
Lap Belt Tension........................ 12-15 lb (53-67 N).............. 2-4 lb (9-18 N).
Shoulder Belt Tension................... 2-4 lb (9-18N).................. 2-4 lb (9-18N).
Shoulder Belt-Positioning............... (1) Outer edge of belt on outer Shoulder belt positioned through the
edge of jacket, (2) distance shortest path between the buckle
between bottom of dummy's chin and the shoulder belt attachment.
and the center of the shoulder
belt/middle of the sternum
should be 6.1 +/- 0.19 inches
(in) (15.5 +/-0.5 cm), and (3)
angle of the shoulder belt
relative to horizontal should
be 50 degrees +/- 10 degrees.
Lap Belt-Positioning.................... Top of belt is 1 in (2.54 cm) or Hold the lap belt 6 in (15.24 cm)
more below the top rim of the above the midsagittal line of the
pelvis molded skin. dummy pelvis, then tighten lap belt
by pulling on the shoulder portion
of the belt towards the shoulder
belt attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After receiving the comments on the January 23, 2008 SNPRM, NHTSA
evaluated the UMTRI positioning procedure to assess its potential use
in FMVSS No. 213. The main objective of this evaluation was to assess
the repeatability of the UMTRI procedure when used to position ATDs in
CRSs in 48 kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per hour (mph)) sled
tests. We also compared the test results with those from previously-
conducted tests using the SNPRM-proposed procedure.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In these tests, NHTSA did not use the lap form recommended
by UMTRI to prevent the lap belt from getting caught between the
pelvis and thigh of the dummy. In these tests, the lap belt did not
get caught in the gap between the pelvis and thigh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the UMTRI procedure in positioning the HIII-10C dummy, we
tested four different models of BPB seats using the UMTRI positioning
procedure and the HIII-10C dummy. Each of the four BPB seat designs was
tested three times. We also conducted one test with a fifth BPB seat.
Results of this repeatability assessment are shown below in Table 2,
below. These data show that the chest acceleration and head and knee
excursion of the ATD had good repeatability, with coefficient of
variation (C.V.) values lower than 10 percent. The only measure showing
a C.V. higher than 10 percent was HIC caused by the chin-to-chest
contact interaction present.
Table 2 also compares the average computed torso angles, HIC, chest
acceleration, head excursion and knee excursion of the HIII-10C dummy
for each BPB design tested multiple times using the UMTRI procedure and
the SNPRM procedure with 14 degree torso angle. All tests were
performed at a speed differential of 48 km/h (30 mph).
[[Page 71653]]
Table 2--NHTSA Sled Tests Results for HIII-10C 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC 36 ms 3 ms. Chest Head Knee
Computed -------------- acc. (g) excursion excursion
Restraint Test No. Seating proc. torso angle -------------- (mm) (mm)
method (deg) 1000 ---------------------------
60 813 915
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety 1st Apex 65................... UMTRI.................. Avg. 24.1 1200 41.4 562 890
S.D. 0.6 112.9 3.35 3.6 32.3
C.V. 2.59% 9.41% 8.09% 0.64% 3.63%
SNPRM 14 deg........... Avg. 13.8 802 53.4 620 805
S.D. 0.2 107.8 2.30 14.6 13.2
C.V. 1.10% 13.44% 4.31% 2.35% 1.64%
Britax Parkway....................... UMTRI.................. Avg. 20.1 1052 48.2 541 763
S.D. 1.4 229.2 2.66 19.6 20.5
C.V. 6.96% 21.79% 5.51% 3.62% 2.69%
SNPRM 14 deg........... Avg. 14.0 467 48.1 602 718
S.D. 0.1 43.8 1.03 24.0 14.0
C.V. 0.82% 9.40% 2.13% 3.99% 1.95%
Graco Turbo (No Back)................ UMTRI.................. Avg. 16.6 885 48.7 491 700
S.D. 1.8 91.8 3.91 8.8 21.4
C.V. 10.56% 10.38% 8.04% 1.80% 3.05%
SNPRM 14 deg........... Avg. 14.1 650 49.6 563 691
S.D. 0.1 45.9 2.41 20.3 7.0
C.V. 0.71% 7.07% 4.86% 3.60% 1.02%
Recaro Young Style................... UMTRI.................. Avg. 20.5 1346 50.1 538 739
S.D. 0.6 60.0 1.9 13.1 14.8
C.V. 2.99% 4.45% 3.83% 2.44% 2.00%
SNPRM 14 deg........... Avg. 14.1 760 49.6 673 766
S.D. 0.2 79.0 2.94 49.0 10.2
C.V. 1.08% 10.39% 5.92% 7.28% 1.33%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Results from tests using SNPRM procedure reported in Stammen, J., Sullivan, L. ``Development of a Hybrid III 6 Yr. Old and 10 Yr. Old Dummy Seating
Procedure for Booster Seat Testing,'' January 2008, Docket NHTSA 2007-0048.
Not surprisingly, the test results showed that the January 23, 2008
SNPRM positioning procedure consistently yielded the lowest HIC values
in all models of BPB seats, while the UMTRI procedure yielded the
highest ones. These results illustrate how HIC values were affected--
generally reduced--by the dummy upright posture produced by the 2008
SNPRM procedure. UMTRI's dummy positioning procedure resulted in the
highest torso angles (i.e., a more slouched dummy) when compared to the
2008 SNPRM procedure using the same BPB seat model, which resulted in
the higher HIC values.
As noted above, the UMTRI procedure specifies that the dummy is
prepared with a lap form and a pelvis positioning pad before being
positioned on the BPB seat. In our tests, NHTSA did not use the lap
form recommended by UMTRI to prevent the lap belt from getting caught
between the pelvis and thigh of the dummy. In none of our tests did the
lap belt get caught in the gap between the pelvis and thigh. However,
we tentatively conclude that the lap form should be specified for use
in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test to avoid the possibility that the
lap belt could get caught in the thigh/pelvis gap. Thus, in the
regulatory text proposed by today's SNPRM, we specify use of the lap
form and pelvis positioning pad.
We describe the lap form and pelvis positioning pad in the proposed
regulatory text as follows. ``Lap form'' is described as a piece of
translucent silicone rubber 3 millimeter (mm) thick (50A Durometer) cut
to a certain pattern that would be specified in a new figure (proposed
Figure 13) added to FMVSS No. 213. ``Pelvis positioning pad'' is
described as: a 125 x 95 x 20 mm piece of foam or rubber with a
compression resistance between 13 to 17 pounds per square inch (psi) in
a compression-deflection test specified in ASTM D-1056-07, a maximum
compression set of 25 percent after a 24 hour recovery time in a
compression set test for a Type 2--Grade 4 material specified in ASTM
D-1056-07, and with a density of 9.5 to 12.5 lb/ft3.\18\ The
pelvis positioning pad used during NHTSA's testing was made from
Ensolite IE4 foam (Armacell Inc.). NHTSA seeks to avoid material- or
manufacturer-specific references in the regulatory text. Comments are
requested on these specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1056-07,
Standard Specification for Flexible Cellular Materials--Sponge or
Expanded Rubber, http://www.astm.org/Standards/D1056.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments are requested on the proposed dummy positioning procedure.
The proposed positioning procedure would apply when the HIII-10C dummy
is used to test BPB seats and not when the dummy is used to test child
restraints other than BPB seats (``non-booster seats'').\19\ NHTSA
tentatively concludes that the procedure is not needed to test non-
booster seats because those child restraints have an internal harness
to help position the dummy. For those restraints, there is already a
methodology set forth in FMVSS No. 213 and in the agency's Laboratory
Test Procedures for the standard \20\ for positioning test dummies in
the restraint systems. The methodology specifies applying a certain
load to the dummy's pelvic/lower torso area to ensure the dummy is as
far back in the restraint as possible, and tightening the internal
harness to specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ There are only a few non-booster seats recommended for
children weighing over 29.5 kg (65 lb) (e.g., Britax Regent and
Sunshine Kids Radian 80).
\20\ http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/
Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP213-9a.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We tentatively conclude that the current FMVSS No. 213 procedures
reasonably assure that the ATD is properly positioned in the non-
booster seat. We note also that this Laboratory Test Procedure is quite
similar to the UMTRI procedure.
[[Page 71654]]
However, although the current positioning procedure and the UMTRI
procedure are very similar, the UMTRI procedure includes additional
steps throughout the procedure that facilitate more control of the BPB
seat, dummy, and belt positioning. The UMTRI procedure includes a step
to center the BPB on the sled seat and apply a 30 lb (133 N) force
rearward. This step ensures the proper position of the BPB on the test
seat. As previously mentioned, the UMTRI procedure also includes a lap
form to prevent the lap belt from being caught between the leg and the
pelvis, and pelvis positioning pad to allow a slightly slouched seated
position of the dummy. The UMTRI procedure uses a tension of 2-4 lb (9-
18 N) in the lap belt while the current position uses a 12-15 lb (53-67
N) tension. The UMTRI procedure describes how to install and tighten
the seat belt, while the current position does not have any specific
steps for doing so. For these reasons, we believe that the UMTRI
procedure is a more desirable procedure over the current FMVSS No. 213
positioning procedure and should be used to position the HIII-10C on
BPB seats. Comments are requested on the advantages of the UMTRI
procedure over the current NHTSA procedure for testing BPB seats.
III. HIC and the Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy
We propose suspending the HIC criterion when using the HIII-10C
test dummy to test BPB seats and other child restraints until we have
resolved the problems with the dummy that have resulted in the chin-to-
chest interaction that have caused unrealistically high HIC values in
FMVSS No. 213 tests.
In the January 23, 2008 SNPRM, we explained the chin-to-chest
contact in the HIII-10C ATD and how the HIC values were affected (73 FR
at 3904-3905):
A[n] [HIII-10C] dummy that is set up to have a more reclined
torso (high torso angle) is more likely to submarine under the
vehicle belt. The motion of the head is much different in a
submarining case than in a situation where the dummy is well
restrained. When the dummy is restrained effectively (shoulder belt
centered on the sternum, lap belt on the pelvis), the head moves
forward in unison with the upper torso as the belt tension
increases. Then, as the belt reaches its spooling limit, the head
rotates in a wide arc and late in the event contacts a location
either on the ribcage or into a portion of the bib \21\ having a
large clearance to the spine box. Since the ribcage is compliant,
the bib-to-spine box clearance is high, and the contact occurs very
late in the event, the resulting head acceleration due to chin
contact is low. Thus its contribution to the HIC calculation is
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The bib is a piece of thin plastic on the front of the
dummy that serves as an interface between the ribs and the sternum
plate. It extends over each shoulder and covers the cavity between
the top rib and the lower neck region of the spine box. The chest
jacket covers the bib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, in a submarining case, the head does not translate
forward much at all because the shoulder belt engages the neck
instead of restraining the upper torso. Therefore the upper torso
steadily becomes more horizontal and reclined because the
overwhelming majority of the dummy's mass is below the shoulder
belt. The head is pulled downward by the weight of the dummy through
the neck, and the forward inertia of the head mass causes severe
rotation about the shoulder belt at the bottom of the neck. As a
result, the head arc is much tighter and chin contact occurs sooner
in the event, before a significant amount of kinetic energy is
dissipated through the belt. This motion causes the chin to contact
the low-clearance portion of the bib overlaying the top part of the
spine box housing the lower neck load cell. The bib does not provide
much resistance to the head's increased rotational energy and the
chin essentially ``bottoms out'' on the spine box, causing a large
spike in head acceleration and increased HIC.
While the UMTRI procedure produces a more lifelike positioning of
the test dummy, such positioning results in anomalies in HIC values
measured by the dummy due to the more slouched positioning of the
dummy.\22\ The slouched positioning produces higher rotational velocity
in the dummy's head compared to an upright dummy, putting the head/chin
in non-representative contact with a more rigid and non-lifelike
portion of the dummy structure (the upper sternal bib region covering
the upper spine box in the ATD's chest). CRSs tested with the HIII-10C
ATD in the slouched position are more likely to produce HIC values in
the ATD indicating an unacceptable risk of head injury, even though
head injury due to chin-to-chest impacts are not occurring in the real
world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Hybrid III-10C dummy incorporates more pelvic slouch
than other dummies in the Hybrid III family. Slouch was introduced
in the design of this dummy because children not in booster seats
tend to slouch to keep their knees bent over the vehicle seat. This
slouching characteristic increases the risk of submarining for the
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy resulting in a more severe chin-to-
chest contact (higher HIC values). In addition to this, the neck of
the Hybrid 10-year-old dummy has a segmented neck with aluminum
intervertebral disks which results in higher excursion and more
flexion than the Hybrid III-6C. The higher HIC values (chin-to-chest
contact) are more pronounced in the HIII-10C than the HIII-6C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA analyzed the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) data files for the years 1999 to 2008
to better understand real world injuries among children in different
restraint conditions. The risk and source of injury to different body
regions was also determined. The sampled data consisted of children, 5-
12 years of age, in rear seats of light passenger vehicles that were
involved in non-rollover frontal towaway crashes. Weighting factors in
NASS/CDS were applied to the sample data to represent national
estimates of towaway crashes. The weighted data consisted of 910,308
(1940 unweighted sample) children of which 49 percent were 5-7-year-
olds and 51 percent were 8-12-year-olds. Among the 5-7-year-olds, 69
percent were using vehicle seat belts, 22 percent were in harness CRS
or BPB, and 9 percent were unrestrained. Among the 8-12-year-olds, 90
percent were using the vehicle belts, 1 percent was in harness CRS or
BPB, and 9 percent were unrestrained.
The risk of AIS 2+ injury for children 5-7 years old was 5.2
percent for unbelted children, 1.2 percent for belted children and 0.9
percent for children in CRSs. The AIS2+ injury risk for children 8-12
years old was 8.1 percent for unbelted children and 1.3 percent for
belted children. There were no cases of children 8-12 years old in
CRSs. Both age groups showed a decrease of injury risk when using
restraints (belt or CRS).
The most common AIS 2+ injuries among children restrained (vehicle
seat belt or CRS) in rear seats were to the head and face (48 percent),
followed by upper extremities (19 percent), torso (17 percent) and
lower extremities (16 percent). The most-common known contacts for
AIS2+ head injuries to 5-12 year-old-children restrained by vehicle
seat belts or CRS/BPB was the seat back (50 percent). There was only
one case in this sample of restrained children where an AIS 2+ head
injury occurred due to self-contact. Further examination of this
particular case indicated that it involved a 7-year-old child
restrained with a vehicle seat belt. The child's head contacted its
knee resulting in an AIS 2-severity concussion.
The results of this real world data analysis indicates that the
injury risk is substantially reduced when the child is restrained by
vehicle seat belts or in child restraints. The results show that most
head injuries in restrained children are caused by contact with the
seat back. Only one head injury case was associated with self contact
(head contact with knee) but no cases were reported where there was
chin-to-chest contact that resulted in a head injury.
Thus, the high HIC values measured by the HIII-10C dummy in
laboratory sled tests due to chin-to-chest contact do not seem to be
replicating a real world injury mechanism. Children are
[[Page 71655]]
not being injured by chin-to-chest contact.
To see if the HIC values measured by the dummy in the FMVSS No. 213
could be made more meaningful and relevant, we investigated the
possibility of improving the dummy's biofidelity. In 2008, Ash et
al.\23\ published results of a study comparing the responses of a
pediatric cadaver restrained by a three-point belt with that of a HIII-
10C dummy in frontal sled tests. The cadaver sled test was replicated
using the HIII-10C dummy, and the kinematics of the dummy and cadaver
were compared, along with the accelerations of the head, shoulder and
lap belt loads of the cadaver and dummy. (Due to anthropometric and
age-equivalent differences between the cadaver and the dummy, geometric
scaling was performed on the signals based on the seated height and
material properties.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Ash, JH, Sherwood, CP, Abdelilah, Y, Crandall, JR, Parent,
DP, Kallieris, D., ``Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Dummies with
a Pediatric Cadaver Restrained by a Three-point Belt in Frontal Sled
Tests,'' Proceedings of the 21st ESV Conference, June 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study showed similarities in the shoulder belt and lap belt
forces and head excursions of HIII-10C and the scaled pediatric
cadaver. However, test data revealed differences in the maximum
shoulder excursions and translation and rotation at the cervical and
thoracic spine junction. The head excursions between the ATD and the
scaled cadaver were similar but there were differences in how the head
reached its maximum excursion point. The T1 vertebra (base of the neck)
of the cadaver had greater forward travel than that of the dummy while
the dummy experienced greater rotation at the base of the neck than the
cadaver. These differences in kinematics were attributed to the rigid
thoracic spine of the dummy, along with extensive bending at the
cervical and thoracic spine junction. The greater neck rotation at the
base of the neck of the dummy compared to the cadaver led to greater
angular velocity of the head. This greater head velocity, coupled with
the stiff chin-to-chest interaction reported by Stammen,\24\ resulted
in significantly higher HIC values for the dummy than that expected
based on field injury risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Stammen, J., Sullivan, L., ``Development of a Hybrid III 6-
Yr.-Old and 10-Yr.-Old Dummy Seating Procedure for Booster Seat
Testing,'' January 2008, Docket NHTSA-2007-0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we evaluated the suitability of the HIII-10C dummy, we found
that the individual components of the HIII-10C dummy exhibited
excellent performance with respect to the Hybrid III Dummy Family Task
Group (HIII DFTG) certification requirements.\25\ However, as explained
in Ash (2008), the rigid stiff spine of the dummy and the extensive
bending at the cervical and thoracic spine junction affected the
kinematics of the dummy, particularly chin-to-chest contact. In section
VIII of this preamble to this SNPRM, we discuss our plans to improve
the biofidelity of the HIII-10C as a complete system. We have
tentatively decided that until the biofidelity of the dummy is improved
to address the chin-to-chest interaction in the FMVSS No. 213
environment, HIC should not be measured by the HIII-10C dummy in FMVSS
No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Stammen, J., ``Technical Evaluation of the Hybrid III Ten-
Year-Old Dummy (HIII-10C),'' September 2004, Docket NHTSA-2005-
21247-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reason we propose not to use HIC as a criterion when using
the HIII-10C dummy to test BPB seats is UMTRI's information
demonstrating that HIC can be reduced by poor shoulder belt
placement.\26\ UMTRI found in sled tests that when the shoulder belt
slips off the HIII-10C dummy shoulder, the chin-to-chest contact did
not occur because the dummy rolls out of the shoulder belt and moves
forward. As a result, the HIC value was low but head excursion
increased as the dummy's upper torso was not restrained by the shoulder
belt. Although head excursion increased in situations where the
shoulder belt slipped off the dummy, the values were still
substantially within compliance limits, therefore giving a ``passing''
value to the BPB seat. These data demonstrated that using HIC as an
injury measure may encourage poor belt routing designs that place the
shoulder belt more outboard, which could allow the dummy to roll out of
the belt in a sled test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Klinich, K.D., Reed, M.P., Ritchie, N.L., Manary, M.A.,
Schneider, L.W., Rupp, J.D., ``Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume II:
Effect of Restraint Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, Seating
Procedure, and Belt Fit on the Dynamic Response of the Hybrid III 10
YO ATD in Sled Tests,'' September 2008, UMTRI-2008-49-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we continue to believe that the HIII-10C would be an
important test instrument to add to FMVSS No. 213 to assess the
performance of CRSs recommended for use by children weighing 65 lb
(29.5 kg) or more. The ways in which we would use the ATD in the
standard to assess the performance of child restraints for larger
children is discussed in the next section below. Incorporating the ATD
would fulfill the aspirations of Anton's Law to develop and evaluate a
test dummy that represents a 10-year-old child to evaluate the
performance of child restraints for older children. Further, without
the HIII-10C, little if anything would be gained by extending the
applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to CRSs for children weighing 65 lb
(29.5 kg) or more, as the performance of the CRSs to protect larger
children would not be dynamically tested with an ATD representative of
children weighing more than 65 lb (29.5 kg).
We disagree with a point Chrysler made in its comments to the 2008
SNPRM, that the HIII-10C submarines more frequently in FMVSS No. 213
type sled tests than has been observed in the field for the 8- to 12-
year-old age group. (The commenter noted that the consequence from
submarining was severe chin-to-chest contact which results in increased
HIC values.) The agency reviewed the publications referenced by
Chrysler \27\ in its comment on this point and found that those field
observations were based on insurance claims data and involved crashes
of significantly lower severity than the FMVSS No. 213 sled test, which
represents a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal crash. Thus, it is understandable
that the children in the field studies did not submarine at the same
frequency as the HIII-10C in the FMVSS No. 213 test environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Arbogast, K B, et al., ``Predictors of Pediatric Abdominal
Injury Risk,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 48, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, we are aware that UMTRI \28\ conducted a series of sled
tests to investigate the HIII-10C response to variations in shoulder
and lap belt configurations and found that the dummy submarined in lap
belt configurations that did not engage the child's pelvis while it did
not submarine in belt configurations which engaged the pelvis of a
child of similar size as the dummy. Therefore, we believe that the
HIII-10C dummy correctly submarines in severe crash environments such
as the FMVSS No. 213 sled test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Reed, M.P., Ebert-Hamilton, S.M., Klinich, K.D., Manary,
M.A., Rupp, J.D., ``Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume II: Effects of
Restraint Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, Seating Procedure,
and Belt Fit on the Dynamic Response of the Hybrid III 10 YO ATD in
Sled Tests,'' September 2008, UMTRI-2008-49-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proceeding with our proposal to add specifications for the
HIII-10C to NHTSA's regulation for Anthropomorphic Test Devices, 49 CFR
part 572, as proposed in the July 13, 2005 NPRM (RIN 2127-AJ49). We
will respond to the comments submitted to that NPRM when we publish our
rulemaking document following on that NPRM.
[[Page 71656]]
We note that in that July 13, 2005 NPRM, we proposed a head drop
calibration test (proposed 49 CFR 572.172) to assess the response of
the accelerometer in the ATD's head (70 FR at 40289, 40293). Even if
HIC is not used as a pass-fail criterion in FMVSS No. 213 with the
HIII-10C, we believe that the head drop specification should be
included in 49 CFR 572.172, since we plan to obtain HIC data for
research purposes when using the HIII-10C in dynamic tests. Comments
are requested on this issue.
Other Measures of Injury Risk
Although the HIC criterion would not apply to CRSs tested with the
HIII-10C, we continue to believe that head and knee excursion and chest
acceleration criteria should be adopted. We generally concur with
UMTRI's comment to the SNPRM that NHTSA should ``use other measures
[besides HIC] that assess belt placement, limit head excursion, and
evaluate the likelihood of submarining when assessing booster
performance'' when using the UMTRI procedure.
We believe that the HIII-10C is suitable for measuring head and
knee excursion and chest acceleration. As discussed earlier in this
preamble, Ash et al., supra, published results of a study comparing the
responses of a pediatric cadaver restrained by a three-point belt with
that of a HIII-10C dummy in frontal sled tests. The study showed
similarities in the shoulder belt and lap belt forces and head
excursions of the HIII-10C and the scaled pediatric cadaver. While
there were differences in the maximum shoulder excursions and
translation and in the rotation at the cervical and thoracic spine
junction affecting how the head reached its maximum excursion point,
the head excursions between the HIII-10C and the scaled cadaver were
similar.
In its comment, Chrysler noted noise spikes associated with the
HIII-10C dummy chest and sternum acceleration responses without chin-
to-chest contact, which were initially observed in a Transport Canada
research paper.\29\ Chrysler also referred to a second paper \30\ where
28 full-scale (56 km/h) (35 mph) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
tests were analyzed. Chrysler indicated that occurrence of chest
acceleration noise spikes were seen primarily in the lateral direction,
and occasionally in the longitudinal and vertical directions and were
observed in 80 percent of the tests (22 out of 28 tests). In addition,
Chrysler stated that a third paper \31\ showed that noise spikes in the
chest data were observed in 75 percent of the 30 sled tests NHTSA
conducted in evaluating the HIII-10C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Tylko, S., ``Protection of Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal
Crashes,'' The 19th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference
Proceedings, (2005), Paper number: 05-258.
\30\ Hong, S., Park, C.K. Morgan, R.M., Kan, C.D., Park, S.,
Bae, H., ``A Study of the Rear Seat Occupant Safety Using a 10-Year-
Old Child Dummy in the New Car Assessment Program,'' SAE 2008 World
Congress, 2008-01-0511.
\31\ Stammen, J., ``Technical Evaluation of the Hybrid III Ten
Year Old Dummy (HIII-10C),'' September 2004, Docket: NHTSA-2005-
21247-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler hypothesized that a possible source of the acceleration
spikes is the shoulder, since the shoulder design for the HIII-10C
dummy is more complex and potentially more susceptible to mechanical
noise/metal contacts than is seen with the other Hybrid III child
dummies. Chrysler conducted some internal investigations on this
potential noise issue. Quasi-static testing was attempted by loosening
the shoulder joint in order to allow full rotation range of motion.
Chrysler stated that tests revealed an internal mechanical clicking
noise emanating from the shoulder components which may suggest that a
potential source of metal-to-metal contact exists within the dummy.
Chrysler hypothesized that if this is the cause of the acceleration
noise spikes, then it is possible that the acceleration spike could be
greater with significant lateral loading, such as that produced by side
air bags. Chrysler suggested further dynamic testing to verify this
hypothesis.
Chrysler recognized that in most cases, the noise spikes were
removed by applying the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Channel
Frequency Class (CFC) 180 filtering, but stated that filtering does not
eliminate this effect for all cases. Therefore, Chrysler considers it
necessary to check for potential influences from these spikes on the 3
millisecond (ms) clip chest resultant acceleration.
The agency reviewed the acceleration data from the agency's tests
referenced by Chrysler and found that the noise spikes were removed or
attenuated by processing the data using an SAE CFC 180 filter, and
determined that these acceleration spikes were of no consequence to
injury assessment using the HIII-10C dummy. Further, since the HIII-10C
dummy is proposed for use in frontal sled tests where there is little
lateral loading, the noise spikes observed by Chrysler in lateral chest
accelerations will have negligible effect on the dummy responses.
For the aforementioned reasons, the agency believes that the
dummy's chest instrumentation is correctly measuring the acceleration
experienced by the dummy, and the chest acceleration injury criterion
is not compromised when standard filtering techniques are applied.
Therefore, NHTSA is proposing that the HIII-10C is suitable for use in
FMVSS No. 213 to measure chest acceleration and that no changes are
needed in the dummy regarding the acceleration spikes identified by
Chrysler.
Belt Fit
We are not proposing belt fit criteria at this time. UMTRI
developed belt fit criteria and target values and ranges corresponding
to ``good'' lap and shoulder belt fit.\32\ NHTSA conducted a series of
tests to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of UMTRI's
positioning procedure, which also included measurements taken at
specific landmarks to evaluate belt fit. These measurements were used
to develop belt fit scores for the ``lap belt score'' (LBS) and the
``shoulder belt score'' (SBS). The results of these tests are discussed
in detail in a memorandum submitted to the docket and are summarized
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Reed, M.P., Ebert-Hamilton, S.M., Klinich, K.D., Manary,
M.A., Rupp, J.D., ``Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume I: Effects of
Vehicle Seat and Belt Geometry on Belt Fit for Children with and
without BPB Seats,'' September 2008, UMTRI- 2008-49-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Briefly, the belt fit criteria developed by UMTRI was intended as
an objective method for assessing lap and shoulder belt fit for
different BPBs. In NHTSA's evaluation of the belt fit criteria, we
evaluated four BPBs, taking the belt fit measures three times per BPB.
The variance and range in repeated measurements, especially for the
shoulder belt fit, was unacceptably high. In NHTSA's evaluation, the
range of lap and shoulder belt fit scores from repeated measurements
for the HIII-6C dummy were 11.1 mm and 11.5 mm (0.43 in and 0.45 in),
respectively, and the range for the HIII-10C dummy were 9.5 mm and 7.4
mm (0.37 in and 0.29 in), respectively. The results indicate poor
repeatability of belt fit measures. The results also showed
inconsistencies in the LBS and SBS measurements on the same BPB models
at different laboratories. The results also suggested that the belt
positioning procedure can be influenced by the operator. In short, the
repeatability and reproducibility of the belt fit procedure does not
seem robust enough to implement in the FMVSS No. 213 at this time.
NHTSA believes that future improvements to the procedure may improve
its reproducibility. NHTSA is currently assessing the repeatability and
reproducibility of a booster seat belt fit evaluation protocol
developed by
[[Page 71657]]
UMTRI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) for booster
seat belt fit rating.
We note that although we believe that the belt fit procedure is not
sufficiently robust at this time, we consider the UMTRI dummy
positioning procedure proposed in this SNPRM to be otherwise
acceptable. As previously noted, the current FMVSS No. 213 and the
UMTRI positioning procedure are very similar, with the UMTRI procedure
including additional steps to facilitate control of the BPB seat,
dummy, and belt positioning. The repeatability and reproducibility
issues regarding belt fit were not attributed to the positioning
procedure, but were instead associated with differences in HIII-6C
child dummy jackets and friction issues between the belt and the
dummy's chest or clothes.
IV. Optional Use of Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Test Dummy
For child restraints manufactured before August 1, 2010, CRS
manufacturers had the option to specify that NHTSA test their child
restraints with either the Hybrid II or the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy
(S7.1.3, FMVSS No. 213). Under current FMVSS No. 213 specifications,
NHTSA must test child restraint systems manufactured on or after August
1, 2010 with the Hybrid III ATD. This SNPRM proposes to reinstate the
option of allowing manufacturers to specify the use of either ATD in
the compliance test, until such time FMVSS No. 213 is further amended
to specify otherwise.
The agency adopted the HIII-6C into FMVSS No. 213 in a final
rule\33\ published in response to a mandate in the Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act (the TREAD
Act) (November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800) that required
NHTSA undertake rulemaking on child restraint systems. Section 14 of
the TREAD Act directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for the purpose
of improving the safety of child restraints by November 1, 2001, and to
complete it by issuing a final rule or taking other action by November
1, 2002. Section 14 specified nine elements for consideration by NHTSA
in improving child restraint safety, including considering whether to
require the use of the HIII-6C and other Hybrid III ATDs in FMVSS No.
213 compliance tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ June 24, 2003, 68 FR 37620, Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the TREAD Act, NHTSA decided in that rulemaking to
adopt the HIII-6C into FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA considered the dummy to be
``considerably more biofidelic'' than its predecessor, the H2-6C dummy,
and with unsurpassed potential to measure an array of impact responses
never before measured by a child ATD, such as neck moments and chest
deflections.
However, the agency acknowledged there was mixed acceptance by the
commenters of the HIII-6C dummy. Some commenters believed that the
HIII-6C exhibited large neck elongation in the FMVSS No. 213 test
environment resulting in chin-to-chest and head-to-knee contact and
correspondingly high HICs. In evaluating those comments, NHTSA
carefully analyzed its test data of sled testing conducted with the
HIII-6C, but found no data indicating that head-to-chest or head-to-
knee impacts were an issue or were typical. 68 FR at 37644.
Accordingly, the HIII-6C was adopted into the standard, with what was
then considered to be sufficient lead time to enable manufacturers to
become familiar with the dummy. As noted earlier, the compliance date
for the mandatory use of the HIII-6C dummy was originally August 1,
2005. It had since been extended to August 1, 2010.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 73 FR 45355, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency has again closely examined the performance of the HIII-
6C in the FMVSS No. 213 environment, in light of the testing NHTSA
conducted in response to Anton's Law and the agency's current efforts
to develop dummy positioning procedures for the Hybrid III ATDs in
FMVSS No. 213. We continue to believe that the HIII-6C dummy is more
biofidelic in its components than its predecessor the H2-6C, and that
the HIII-6C also has more extensive instrumentation to measure impact
responses such as forces, accelerations, moments and deflections, which
are crucial in evaluating vehicle occupant protection systems.\35\ Some
CRS manufacturers have found the HIII-6C to be a satisfactory test
instrument and are using the dummy to certify the compliance of their
CRSs to FMVSS No. 213. These manufacturers are positioning the ATD and
measuring HIC as currently required by FMVSS No. 213, while positioning
the ATD in accordance with FMVSS No. 213 (whose positioning procedure
is similar to the UMTRI procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' uses Hybrid
III dummies, including the HIII-6C dummy, in its compliance tests.
The HIII-6C has been suitable for FMVSS No. 208 testing because the
test environment for that standard is different than the FMVSS No.
213 environment, due to the presence of the air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the HIII-6C is being used to an extent today, NHTSA believes
it would be prudent to undertake efforts to improve the HIII-6C dummy
to make it more useful as an FMVSS No. 213 test device before testing
child restraints solely with this ATD. The Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy
has a softer neck than the H2-6C, which results in slightly greater
head excursion results and larger HIC values (chin-to-chest contact)
than the H2-6C. This, coupled with the stiff thorax of the HIII-6C
dummy, accentuates the HIC values recorded by the dummy. Several
measures are underway to improve the Hybrid III dummy (see discussion
later in this preamble). Until such time the HIII-6C is improved, we
believe that FMVSS No. 213 should permit NHTSA to allow manufacturers
the option of specifying that NHTSA use either the H2-6C or the HIII-6C
dummy to test their child restraints.
This proposal seeks to change little if any of the current
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 that specify testing with the HIII-6C
dummy. When the HIII-6C is used, it would be used to measure the injury
criteria and other performance measures currently specified in S5 of
FMVSS No. 213 for evaluating child restraint systems as it is used
today. As explained below, we are proposing using the UMTRI positioning
procedure for the HIII-6C in belt-positioning seats rather than the
procedure proposed by the January 23, 2008 SNPRM. We emphasize that the
UMTRI procedure is very similar to the current FMVSS No. 213 procedure
used for the HIII-6C. As such, the agency intends to make no
substantive change to the FMVSS No. 213 requirements now applicable to
CRSs tested with the HIII-6C.
Because there is an August 1, 2010 date specified in S7.1.3 of
FMVSS No. 213 for the mandatory use of the HIII-6C, NHTSA is providing
a 30-day comment period for this aspect of the proposal.
V. UMTRI Positioning Procedure for the HIII-6C
We are proposing to adopt the UMTRI positioning procedure for the
HIII-6C dummy in BPB seats rather than the procedure proposed by the
January 23, 2008 SNPRM for many of the reasons explained above for the
HIII-10C dummy. That is, the UMTRI procedure results in the HIII-6C
being positioned in a posture that is substantially more representative
of how a child would be positioned in the BPB seat than the procedure
of the 2008 SNPRM. Our test data, discussed below, indicates that the
HIII-6C dummy positioned according to the UMTRI procedure would yield
[[Page 71658]]
repeatable ATD readings for determining compliance with FMVSS No. 213's
requirements.
To assess the UMTRI procedure with the HIII-6C dummy, we tested two
different BPB models using the UMTRI procedure and the HIII-6C dummy.
Each of the two BPB seats was tested three times. A third BPB seat was
evaluated with one test. The BPBs seats were selected so as to enable
comparison with previously-conducted tests using the January 23, 2008
SNPRM-proposed procedure.
Results of this repeatability assessment are shown below in Table
3. These data show that the chest acceleration and head and knee
excursions of the ATD had good repeatability, with coefficient of
variation (C.V.) values lower than 10 percent. The only measure showing
a C.V. higher than 10 percent was HIC caused by the chin-to-chest
contact interaction. Table 3 also compares the average computed torso
angles, HIC, chest acceleration, head excursion and knee excursion of
the HIII-6C dummy for each BPB design tested multiple times using the
UMTRI procedure and the SNPRM procedure with a 14 degree torso angle.
All tests were performed at a speed differential of 48 km/h (30 mph).
Table 3--NHTSA Sled Tests Results for HIII-6C 36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC ms 3 ms. chest Head Knee
Computed ------------- acc. (g) excursion excursion
Restraint Test No. Seating proc. method torso angle (mm) (mm)
(deg) 1000 --------------------------------------
60 813 915
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety 1st Apex 65.................... UMTRI.................... Avg. 24.9 834 45.5 562 755
S.D. 0.9 89.7 1.87 11.3 18.4
C.V. 3.7% 10.8% 4.1% 2.0% 2.4%
SNPRM 14 deg............. Avg. 14.6 525 48.1 527 667
S.D. 0.6 65.1 1.00 12.7 24.0
C.V. 4.2% 12.4% 2.1% 2.4% 3.6%
Britax Parkway........................ UMTRI.................... Avg. 20.6 1144 52.9 501 689
S.D. 2.5 87.0 2.87 15.4 8.5
C.V. 12.3% 7.6% 5.4% 3.1% 1.2%
SNPRM 14 deg............. Avg. 14.2 463 55.7 546 661
S.D. 0.3 52.9 2.42 7.2 12.9
C.V. 2.1% 11.4% 4.3% 1.3% 1.9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, the UMTRI procedure is very similar to the
current procedure now used in FMVSS No. 213 to position the HIII-6C. In
the agency's view, this SNPRM would make no notable change to any
substantive provision in the standard relating to the HIII-6C ATD. We
believe there is insufficient need to undertake such a change.
Manufacturers now using the ATD to certify compliance with FMVSS No.
213 are measuring and assessing HIC. They should continue to do so
without change. NHTSA believes that the HIC criterion should not be
suspended for CRSs tested with the HIII-6C, since NHTSA does not
believe there is good reason to reduce the stringency of the current
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 for CRSs tested with the HIII-6C test
dummy. Comments are requested on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Results from tests using SNPRM procedure reported in
Stammen, J., Sullivan, L., ``Development of a Hybrid III 6 Yr. Old
and 10 Yr. Old Dummy Seating Procedure for Booster Seat Testing,''
January 2008, Docket NHTSA-2007-0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Other Applications of the UMTRI Procedure
NHTSA also seeks comment on whether the UMTRI procedure should be
used in FMVSS No. 213 to position other ATDs used in the standard.
Would having a single dummy positioning procedure simplify the test
procedures and make the standard easier to understand? The proposed
regulatory text does not specify that the UMTRI procedure is used to
position the H2-6C dummy in BPB seats. We have not used the UMTRI
procedure with the Hybrid II dummy. However, we tentatively believe the
UMTRI procedure could be used with the H2-6C dummy, since the procedure
is very similar to the current dummy positioning procedure used with
the H2-6C. For the sake of simplicity, it appears advantageous to use
the same procedure for all BPB, no matter what dummy is used.
The proposed regulatory text specifies that the current FMVSS No.
213 dummy positioning procedure (set forth in S10.2.2) would be used
for the H2-6C, the HIII weighted 6-year-old, the HIII-6C in child
restraints other than BPB seats, and the HIII-10C in child restraints
other than BPB seats. The UMTRI-based positioning procedure is set
forth in proposed S10.2.3. For the convenience of the reader, the
following Table 4 shows which positioning procedure would apply in
tests of CRSs with the ATDs:
Table 4--Applicable Positioning Procedure (Proposed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child restraint Position dummy in
Dummy tested accordance with:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid III 3-year-old (Subpart All child S10.2.2
P*). restraints.
Hybrid II 6-year-old (Subpart All child S10.2.2
I). restraints.
Hybrid III 6-year-old (Subpart Belt-positioning S10.2.3
N). seats.
All other child S10.2.2
restraints.
Hybrid III Weighted 6-year-old All child S10.2.2
(Subpart S). restraints.
Hybrid III 10-year-old Belt-positioning S10.2.3
(Proposed Subpart T). seats.
[[Page 71659]]
All other child S10.2.2
restraints.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All subparts in this table are to 49 CFR part 572.
VII. Other Proposals
a. Using the HIII-10C To Test a CRS on LATCH
In its comment,\37\ the Alliance requested that ``NHTSA should make
it clear that it will not use the LATCH anchorages when conducting
compliance tests of CRSs using the 10-year-old dummy.'' The commenter
explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0048-0008, page 7.
When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage
systems,'' and made corresponding changes to FMVSS No. 213 to
require CRSs to comply with that standard when tested utilizing
Lower Anchorage and Tethers for Children (LATCH) anchorages, the
LATCH systems in vehicles were intended for use by children up to 48
pounds. No vehicle manufacturer recommends the use of LATCH anchors
with children that even approach the weight of the 10-year-old
dummy. And although some CRS manufacturers are offering harness-
equipped CRSs that are recommended for use by children that weigh up
to 65 pounds, it is the Alliance's understanding that they
explicitly instruct parents and caregivers to use the vehicle belts
rather than the LATCH anchorages when using such a CRS with a child
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that weighs more than 50 pounds.
The Alliance was concerned that under the SNPRM's proposed changes,
the agency could test, using LATCH attachments and an HIII-10C dummy, a
harness-equipped CRS recommended for use with children weighing more
than 65 lb (29.5 kg). The Alliance stated:
The consequences of using LATCH anchorages to restrain harnessed
children who weigh up to 65 pounds is the subject of a study
currently being conducted by a Working Group consisting of members
of the Alliance, the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM), and the Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (JPMA). Unless and until NHTSA and the industry can
confirm that the use of LATCH anchorages with heavier children does
not create an unsafe situation, the Alliance urges the agency to
clarify that it will not use the LATCH anchorages when conducting
compliance tests of harness equipped CRSs using the 10-year-old
dummy.
Agency Response: We agree that this point has merit. In specifying
the strength requirement of FMVSS No. 225 (the LATCH standard), NHTSA
based the requirement on a calculation of the forces that the agency
believed the LATCH system should reasonably be required to withstand in
a crash.\38\ The calculation assumed a child mass of 65 lb (29.5 kg)
(68 FR at 38218). NHTSA also noted its belief that LATCH systems ``can
best be optimized by focusing on the masses generated by children in
child restraints and not by adding to the burden of the LATCH system
the goal of restraining older passengers as well.'' 68 FR at 38220. We
also confirm that our understanding is that CRS manufacturers generally
instruct consumers to use the vehicle seat belt system rather than the
LATCH anchorages when using their harness-equipped CRSs with a child
weighing more than 65 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration of
LATCH final rule, 68 FR 38208, June 27, 2003, Docket NHTSA-2003-
15438-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we propose specifying in FMVSS No. 213 that a CRS
tested with the HIII-10C test dummy would not be tested with the LATCH
system. However, to reduce the likelihood that a consumer may use this
type of CRS with LATCH when restraining a heavier child, this SNPRM
proposes to require CRSs recommended for children of a weight range
that includes children weighing over 65 lb (29.5 kg), to be labeled
with an instruction to the consumer to use the vehicle's seat belts to
attach the CRS, and not the LATCH system, when restraining a child
weighing more than 65 lb (29.5 kg). NHTSA tentatively believes that
this warning is needed since the performance of the CRS with LATCH
would not be assessed under FMVSS No. 213 with the HIII-10C test dummy
under this proposal. CRS manufacturers would be prohibited from stating
that the CRS can be used with LATCH when restraining children weighing
more than 65 lb (29.5 kg).
While we acknowledge that a label may not mitigate all misuse
situations due to caregivers not reading the CRS labels and instruction
manuals, we believe this proposal is better than having the CRS
manufacturer recommend LATCH use for children weighing more than 65 lb
(29.5 kg), as is currently permitted. However, we are seeking comment
on this issue. Specifically, we request information on:
Would the proposed label be effective at preventing
misuse? Are there better strategies?
Is it feasible to design CRSs such that LATCH could only
be used less when using the CRS with children weighing less than 65 lb
(29.5 kg)?
We note that with regard to CRSs recommended for children weighing
less than 65 lb (29.5 kg), under FMVSS No. 213, such CRSs may be tested
by NHTSA with the LATCH system or with the belt system, at NHTSA's
option. NHTSA may select the ATDs used to test the child restraint in
accordance with S7 of the standard, and may choose to use LATCH or the
belt system, notwithstanding any statements by the CRS manufacturer as
to the children for whom the CRS is recommended or how the CRS should
be attached to the vehicle seat. Comments are requested on the label's
reference to the 65 lb (29.5 kg) threshold.
b. CRSs Must Be Capable of Fitting the ATD
The January 23, 2008 SNPRM requested comments on whether FMVSS No.
213 should expressly require that each child restraint system must be
capable of fitting the test dummy that is specified in S7 of the
standard to evaluate the CRS. NHTSA asked: ``For example, if the CRS
were recommended for use by children weighing more than 30 kg (65 lb),
should the standard specify that the CRS must be capable of fitting and
being tested with the HIII-10C dummy?'' 73 FR at 3908.
NHTSA received only JPMA's comment on this issue.\39\ In its
comment, JPMA stated: ``CRS Manufacturers agree that child restraints
should be designed to accommodate the ATD with which they will be
tested based on the use recommendations with respect to seat back
height relative to head [center of gravity], internal width, and
adjustments to the shoulder belt. However an explicit fit test is not
required as the BPB absolutely must be capable of accommodating the
ATDs set
[[Page 71660]]
forth in S7.1.2 of FMVSS 213.'' (Emphasis in text.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0048-0012, page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response: We have decided not to propose amending FMVSS No.
213 to expressly require each child restraint system be able to fit the
test dummy specified in S7 of the standard that is used by NHTSA to
test the CRS. As stated by JPMA, manufacturers conduct dynamic sled
tests using the appropriate dummies based on their weight and height
specifications in S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 213. Therefore, manufacturers are
already ensuring that the CRSs accommodate/fit the appropriate child
dummies, which makes the need for a fit requirement unnecessary.
c. Housekeeping
This SNPRM proposes to amend S10.2.1 of FMVSS No. 213 by removing
reference to the 9-month-old dummy in that section. The 9-month-old
test dummy is no longer used in the standard's compliance tests. The
section would also be amended to add reference to the 12-month-old test
dummy in the heading of S10.2.1.
VIII. Research Plans
The agency has a three-phase research plan to improve the
capability of the ATDs to assess BPB seats and other types of CRSs.
Phase I: Enhancement of Current HIII-6C and 10C Dummies (2013
timeframe)
NHTSA is planning near-term upgrades to the HIII-6C and HIII-10C
dummies. NHTSA is working with the SAE Dummy Abdomen and Pelvis Round
Robin task group to develop a HIII-6C dummy retrofit package,
consisting of a more biofidelic instrumented abdominal insert, a pelvis
with improved anthropometry, and a revised chest jacket. The agency
believes there is potential for this type of retrofit package to be
implemented into the HIII-10C dummy during this timeframe as well. In
addition, NHTSA plans to implement updates which may include revisions
to the shoulder, thoracic spine, and neck of the HIII-6C and HIII-10C
dummies. The objective of the updates will be to improve the
biofidelity of the kinematics for the restrained HIII-6C and HIII-10C
dummies. Existing sled test and injury information together with
modeling will be used to define the biofidelity/design requirements of
the planned updates.
Phase II: New Biofidelity Response Data (2012 timeframe)
While Phase I is directed toward enhancements of the current HIII-
6C and HIII-10C designs, Phase II encompasses research to generate
improved response data from the head, neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis
for future child dummies. A number of experimental and modeling studies
funded by both NHTSA and non-NHTSA sources are in progress at a number
of institutions to develop this information. These studies include: (a)
component and whole body dynamic experiments to generate response
targets and injury criteria; (b) investigations of static range of
motion, anthropometry, and mass/inertial properties; and (c) use of
finite element and multi-body modeling to develop biofidelity response
requirements for new dummies. Some of the research will support both
interim work to support incremental improvements of the HIII-6C and
HIII-10C dummies (Phase I) and the development of all new child dummies
(Phase III).
Phase III: Prototype Evaluations of New Child Dummies (2015 timeframe)
The final portion of this research plan includes design,
development, and evaluation of new prototype 3-, 6-, and 10-year-old
frontal child dummies. NHTSA plans to collaborate with SAE and others
in this effort. It is anticipated that conceptual designs of the new
prototype dummies could be initiated shortly after biomechanical
response data is available in the 2013-2015 timeframe.
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The August 31, 2005
NPRM provided a discussion of the costs associated with the proposed
incorporation of the HIII-10C dummy into FMVSS No. 213. The agency
stated in the NPRM that the costs are largely attributable to the
expense of an instrumented HIII-10C dummy. The 2004 price of an
uninstrumented 10-year-old dummy is about $36,550. The specified
instrumentation costs approximately $59,297. The NPRM and this SNPRM do
not require manufacturers to use any test dummy in certifying their
child restraints. Rather, this rulemaking proposes changes to how NHTSA
would conduct compliance testing under FMVSS No. 213. The minimal
impacts of today's proposal do not warrant preparation of a regulatory
evaluation.
We are unable to quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. However,
the agency believes this rulemaking would enhance the safety of child
restraint systems by facilitating the dynamic assessment of BPB and
other CRSs for older children. The dummy positioning procedures
proposed by this SNPRM are more lifelike than the procedures published
in the January 23, 2008 SNPRM. The result of this proposed rule would
be to provide better assurance that each child restraint fits and
restrains the children for whom the restraint is recommended.
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 notice of
rulemaking for any 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 an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
I certify that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The reasons underlying this certification are discussed in the August
31, 2005 NPRM. This SNPRM would not increase the testing that NHTSA
conducts of child restraints. The SNPRM addresses dummy positioning
procedures and generally would not have any significant impact on the
testing performed on child restraints. Manufacturers currently must
certify their products to the dynamic test of Standard No. 213. They
typically provide the basis for those certifications by dynamically
testing their products using child test dummies. The effect of this
SNPRM on most child restraints would be to specify procedures that
NHTSA would take in positioning the HIII 6-year-old and HIII-10C
dummies. Testing child restraints using the procedures is not expected
to affect the pass/fail rate of the restraints significantly.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
[[Page 71661]]
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's proposal 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 rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule would 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.''
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption 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). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision set forth above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposal could or should preempt State common law causes
of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding
the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
proposal and finds that this proposal, like many NHTSA rules,
prescribes only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposal preempt state tort law that would effectively
impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that
established by today's proposal. Establishment of a higher standard by
means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard
proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
We solicit the comments of the States and other interested parties
on this assessment of issues relevant to E.O. 13132.
Civil Justice Reform
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA
notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding
before they may file suit in court.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule would not establish 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, such as the SAE. The NTTAA
directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The agency did not find any voluntary consensus standards
applicable to this proposed rulemaking. However, we note that the dummy
positioning procedures proposed by this SNPRM were developed by a
research organization to use in testing CRSs and appear to be supported
by commenters from the child restraint manufacturing industry.
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 governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). (Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2000
increases it to $109 million.) This SNPRM would not result in a cost of
$109 million or more to either State,
[[Page 71662]]
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector.
Thus, this SNPRM is not subject to the requirements of section 202 of
the UMRA.
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:
Have we 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
isn't 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 we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
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.
X. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket
identification number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21)
NHTSA 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 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.
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 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 NHTSA's confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
Will the agency consider late comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments that the
docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too
late for the agency to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming
that one is issued), the agency 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 read the comments on the
internet.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others
file comments in the docket. See http://www.regulations.gov for more
information.
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).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 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:
a. Adding S5(e);
b. Revising S5.3.2 (and the table for S5.3.2);
c. Revising S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii);
d. Adding S5.6.1.12;
e. Revising S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii), S6.1.2(d)(2)(i) and (ii), S7.1.3, the
heading and the introductory text of S10.2.1;
f. Removing and reserving S9.1(b), S10.2.1(a) and S10.2.1(b)(1);
g. Revising the first sentence of S10.2.1(b)(2), the introductory
text of S10.2.1(c)(1)(i), and the heading and the introductory text of
S10.2.2; and,
h. Adding S10.2.3 and Figure 13.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S5 * * *
(e) Each child restraint system tested with a part 572 subpart T
dummy need not meet S5.1.2.1(a).
* * * * *
S5.3.2 Means of installation.
S5.3.2.1 Except as provided in S5.3.2.2, each add-on child
restraint system shall be capable of meeting the requirements of this
standard when installed solely by each of the means indicated in the
following table for the particular type of child restraint system:
[[Page 71663]]
Table for S5.3.2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means of installation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 1 seat
belt
Type of add-on child restraint system Type 1 seat assembly Child Type II
belt plus a restraint seat belt Seat back
assembly tether anchorage assembly mount
anchorage, system
if needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harnesses labeled per S5.3.1(b)(1) through ............ ............ ............ ............ X
S5.3.1(b)(3) and Figure 12...............
Other harnesses........................... ............ X ............ ............ ............
Car beds.................................. X ............ ............ ............ ............
Rear-facing restraints.................... X ............ X ............ ............
Belt-positioning seats.................... ............ ............ ............ X ............
All other child restraints................ X X X ............ ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S5.3.2.2 A child restraint system tested with the part 572 subpart
T (Hybrid III 10-year-old child) dummy is excluded from the requirement
in S5.3.2.1 to meet the requirements of this standard when installed by
means of a child restraint anchorage system.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(g)(1) * * *
(ii) ``Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child
restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) (except when used with a
child weighing more than 65 lb), or with a vehicle belt.'' [For car
beds, harnesses, and belt-positioning boosters, the first part of the
statement regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system
is optional. For belt positioning boosters, the second part of the
statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt does not apply.]
Child restraint systems equipped with components to attach to a child
restraint anchorage system and recommended for children of a weight
range that includes children weighing over 65 lb (29.5 kg) must be
labeled with the following statement: ``Do not use the child restraint
anchorage system (LATCH system) to attach this child restraint when
restraining a child weighing more than 65 pounds.''
* * * * *
S5.6.1.12 The instructions for child restraint systems equipped
with components to attach to a child restraint anchorage system and
recommended for children of a weight range that includes children
weighing over 65 pounds (29.5 kg) must include the following statement:
``Do not use the child restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to
attach this child restraint when restraining a child weighing more than
65 pounds.''
* * * * *
S6.1.2 * * *
(a)(1) * * *
(ii) Belt-positioning seats. A belt-positioning seat is attached to
either outboard seating position of the standard seat assembly in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the
system pursuant to S5.6.1 using only the standard vehicle lap and
shoulder belt and no tether (or any other supplemental device). Place
the belt-positioning seat on the standard seat assembly such that the
center plane of the belt-positioning seat is parallel and aligned to
the center plane of the outboard seating positions on the standard seat
assembly and the base of the belt-positioning seat is flat on the
standard seat assembly cushion. Move the belt-positioning seat rearward
on the standard seat assembly until some part of the belt-positioning
seat touches the standard seat assembly back. Keep the belt-positioning
seat and the seating position center plane aligned as much as possible.
Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of force to the front of the belt-positioning
seat rearward into the standard seat assembly.
* * * * *
S6.1.2 * * *
(d)(2) * * *
(i) The lap portion of Type II belt systems used restrain the dummy
is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N (2 pounds) and not more
than 18 N (4 pounds).
(ii) The shoulder portion of Type II belt systems used to restrain
the dummy is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N (2 pounds) and
not more than 18 N (4 pounds).
* * * * *
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), when this section specifies use of
the 49 CFR part 572, subpart N test dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old
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.
* * * * *
S10.2.1 Newborn dummy and 12-month-old dummy. Position the test
dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the
manufacturer provided with the system under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while
conforming to the following:
* * * * *
(2) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the
newborn or 12-month-old dummy in the child restraint system so that the
back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the
system. * * *
(c)(1)(i) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems,
extend the arms of the 12-month-old test dummy as far as possible in
the upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the 12-month-old test
dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the
dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs. Using a
flat square surface with an area of 2,580 square mm, apply a force of
178 N, perpendicular to:
* * * * *
S10.2.2 Other dummies generally. When using the: Hybrid III 3-year-
old (part 572, subpart P), Hybrid II 6-year-old (part 572, subpart I),
Hybrid III 6-year-old (part 572, subpart N) in child restraints other
than belt-positioning seats, the Hybrid III weighted 6-year-old (part
572, subpart S), or the Hybrid III 10-year-old (part 572, subpart T) in
child restraints other than belt-positioning seats, position the dummy
in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to the following:
* * * * *
S10.2.3 Hybrid III 6-year-old in belt-positioning seats and Hybrid
III 10-year-old in belt-positioning seats. When using the Hybrid III 6-
year-old (part 572, subpart N) or the Hybrid III 10-year-old (part 572,
subpart T) in belt-positioning seats, position the dummy in
[[Page 71664]]
accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to the following:
(a) Prepare the dummy with pelvis positioning pad and lap form.
(1) Create an external horizontal coordinate system. Position the
dummy such that the front and side of the lumbar adapter, or the square
piece above the lumbar load cell if used, are parallel to the lateral
(Y) and longitudinal (X) axes of the external coordinate system.
(2) If necessary, adjust the limb joints to 1-2 g while the torso
is in the seated position.
(3) Apply double-sided tape to the surface of a lap form, which is
a piece of translucent silicone rubber 3 mm thick (50A Durometer) cut
to the pattern in Figure 13. Place the lap form on the pelvis of the
dummy. Align the top of the lap form with the superior anterior edge of
the pelvis skin. Attach the lap form to the dummy.
(4) Apply double-sided tape to one side of a pelvis positioning
pad, which is a 125 x 95 x 20 mm piece of foam or rubber with the
following specifications: compression resistance between 13 to 17 psi
in a compression-deflection test specified in ASTM D-1056-07, a maximum
compression set of 25 percent after a 24 hour recovery time in a
compression set test for a Type 2--Grade 4 material specified in ASTM
D-1056-07, and a density of 9.5 to 12.5 lb/ft3. Center the long axis of
the pad on the posterior of the pelvis with the top edge of the foam
aligned with the superior edge of the pelvis skin. Attach the pelvis
positioning pad to the dummy.
(5) Dress and prepare the dummy according to S9.
(b) Position the belt-positioning seat according to S6.1.2
(a)(1)(ii).
(c) Position the dummy in the belt-positioning seat.
(1) Place the dummy on the seat cushion of the belt-positioning
seat such that the plane of the posterior pelvis is parallel to the
plane of the seat back of the belt-positioning seat, standard seat
assembly or vehicle seat back, but not touching. Pick up and move the
dummy rearward, maintaining the parallel planes, until the pelvis
positioning pad and the back of the belt-positioning seat or test buck
seat back, are in minimal contact.
(2) Straighten and align the arm segments horizontally, then rotate
the arms upward at the shoulder as far as possible without contacting
the belt-positioning seat. Straighten and align the legs horizontally
and extend the lower legs as far as possible in the forward horizontal
direction, with the feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower
legs.
(3) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square
millimeters, apply a force of 178 N (40 lb) perpendicular to:
(i) The plane of the back of the belt-positioning seat, in the case
of a belt-positioning seat with a back, or,
(ii) The plane of the back of the standard seat assembly or vehicle
seat, in the case of a backless belt-positioning seat or built-in
booster.
(iii) Apply the force first against the dummy crotch and then at
the dummy thorax on the midsagittal plane of the dummy.
(4) Rotate the arms of the dummy down so that they are
perpendicular to the torso.
(5) Bend the knees until the back of the lower legs are in minimal
contact with the belt-positioning seat, standard seat assembly or
vehicle seat. Position the legs such that the outer edges of the knees
are 180 +/- 10 mm apart for the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and 220 +/-
10 mm apart for the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy. Position the feet
such that the soles are perpendicular to the centerline of the lower
legs. In the case of a belt-positioning seat with a back, adjust the
dummy so that the shoulders are parallel to a line connecting the
shoulder guides. This can be accomplished by leaning the torso such
that the dummy's head and neck are centered on the backrest components
of the belt-positioning seat. In case of a backless child restraint,
adjust the dummy's torso so that the head is laterally level, or as
close to level as possible.
(d) Apply the belt.
(1) Pull the lap belt webbing in a motion across the front of the
dummy and belt-positioning seat to the area above the dummy's inboard
foot, located on the inboard side of the belt-positioning seat.
(2) Loosely route the lap and shoulder belts in accordance with the
manufacturer's instruction using the belt-positioning guides and
attachments, if available.
(3) Adjust the belt between the inboard and outboard attachments or
lower belt guides, if available, to hold the lap belt 15 centimeters
(cm) out from the midsagittal line of the pelvis.
(4) While holding the slack portion of the lap belt between the
lower belt guides, pull the lap belt forward along the midsagittal
plane of the pelvis to a position 20 +/- 10 mm above the top surface of
the thighs, grasp the torso portion of the belt above the inboard belt
attachment and slowly pull upward in the direction of the shoulder belt
path until the lap belt has no slack.
(5) Apply lap belt tension according to S6.1.2(d)(2)(i).
(6) Feed the excess belt into the shoulder belt attachment or
retractor and position the section of the shoulder belt between the
upper attachment/guide and the lower attachment/guide so that the belt
routes through the shortest path between the two locations.
(7) Apply shoulder belt tension according to S6.1.2(d)(2)(ii).
(e) Dummy final positioning.
(1) Check the leg, feet, thorax and head positions and make any
necessary adjustments to achieve the positions described in
S10.2.3(c)(5). Position the legs, if necessary, so that the leg
placement does not inhibit thorax movement in tests conducted under S6.
(2) Rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the
dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm contacts a surface of the child
restraint system or the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-
on system, or the specific vehicle shell or specific vehicle, in the
case of a build-in system, as appropriate. Position the arms, if
necessary, so that the arm placement does not inhibit torso or head
movement in tests conducted under S6.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 71665]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24NO10.389
Issued on: November 12, 2010.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-29545 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C