[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 126 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34213-34224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16104]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 96]
RIN 2127-AF41


Anthropomorphic Test Dummy; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes modifications to the Hybrid III test 
dummy, which is specified by the agency for use in compliance testing 
under Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. The agency is 
proposing minor modifications to the femurs and ankles to improve 
biofidelity, and is considering specifying use of a neck shield. The 
changes would have practically no effect on Standard No. 208 test 
results, but would make the compliance test dummy more useful to 
vehicle manufacturers in the more severe impact conditions of some 
research and vehicle development programs. This rulemaking results from 
petitions submitted by Ford, Toyota, Honda and Nissan.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 29, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of 
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stanley Backaitis, Office of 
Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone: (202) 366-4912. Fax: (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 
currently permits the use of either the Hybrid III test dummy or the 
older Hybrid II dummy in compliance testing. Effective September 1, 
1997, however, the Standard will specify the use of only a single 
dummy, the Hybrid III dummy.
    NHTSA adopted the Hybrid III dummy as an alternative to the older 
dummy in a final rule published in the Federal Register (51 FR 26688) 
on July 25, 1986. That rulemaking resulted from a petition submitted by 
General Motors (GM). The specifications for the Hybrid III dummy appear 
in subpart E of 49 CFR part 572.
    The Hybrid III dummy is the most human like test dummy currently 
available and represents a number of advances over the earlier dummy. 
Among other things, the Hybrid III dummy has a more humanlike seated 
posture, head, neck, chest, and lumbar spine designs that meet 
biofidelic impact response requirements, and the capability of 
monitoring almost four times as many injury-indicating parameters as 
compared with the Hybrid II dummy. NHTSA decided to specify exclusive 
use of the Hybrid III dummy in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 59189) on November 8, 1993.
    The Hybrid III dummy has seen widespread use in recent years. A 
number of manufacturers have used that dummy for Standard No. 208 
certification purposes. Moreover, many manufacturers use this advanced 

[[Page 34214]]
dummy in their research and developmental testing. Finally, NHTSA uses 
the Hybrid III dummy in its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). This 
program involves testing new cars and trucks by crashing them into a 
fixed collision barrier at 35 mph, which is five mph faster and 36 
percent more severe than the crash test specified in Standard No. 208. 
NCAP results are made available to consumers as the tests are completed 
each model year, and insurance and consumer organizations use the 
results as the basis for information they publish.
    In using the Hybrid III dummy, vehicle manufacturers have 
identified three areas in which they believe the dummy should be 
improved. Two of these areas were identified by Ford in a petition for 
rulemaking submitted in March 1991, and the third was identified in 
petitions submitted by Toyota, Honda and Nissan between September 1993 
and April 1994.
    One of the requests in Ford's petition was for NHTSA to increase 
the ankle dorsiflexion motion of the Hybrid III dummy. That company 
argued that the current dummy's ankles have a lower rotation range 
compared to human ankles. Ford believes that this can cause unrealistic 
transfer of crash forces through the lower leg and knee to the femur, 
adversely affecting the femur response.
    Ford's other request was for the agency to specify the use of a 
soft foam neck shield for the Hybrid III dummy. That company believes 
that the dummy's neck is too small in cross section for air bag 
applications and that portions of a deploying air bag can get caught 
around the neck and in the concave sections of the bottom of the dummy 
head. According to Ford, when this occurs, the dummy's head snaps 
rearward in an unhumanlike manner, and unrealistic head and neck 
responses are measured by the dummy instrumentation. That manufacturer 
stated that this problem can be avoided by using a special purpose 
shield around the dummy's neck when testing with an air bag.
    Toyota, Honda and Nissan petitioned NHTSA to increase femur flexion 
ranges in the dummy. They argued that this change is needed to avoid 
unhumanlike femur-to-pelvic bone interaction, or hip lock. According to 
these petitioners, hip lock produces acceleration spikes throughout the 
dummy in general, and in the thorax in particular, resulting in overly 
high chest g's for the unrestrained (air bag only), passenger-side test 
condition. Several manufacturers, including Ford, Chrysler, Mazda and 
Mitsubishi, submitted letters supporting the basic intent of the 
Toyota/Honda/Nissan petitions, although not necessarily all of the 
specific arguments.
    NHTSA notes that, until it received these petitions, it was unaware 
that any manufacturers had these concerns about the Hybrid III dummy. 
These issues were not raised during the rulemaking to add the dummy as 
a compliance option for Standard No. 208. Moreover, the agency had not 
encountered any of the alleged problems during Standard No. 208 
compliance tests or evaluations of the dummy in sled tests.
    NHTSA also notes that, in evaluating the petitions, the agency was 
aware that manufacturers use the Hybrid III dummy in contexts other 
than the test conditions specified in Standard No. 208. To fully 
understand the problems alleged by the petitioners, the agency had to 
consider the test conditions under which the problems arise.
    The test conditions vary according to the purposes for which the 
dummy is used. For the agency to specify the Hybrid III dummy in 
Standard No. 208, it is only necessary for the dummy to be biofidelic 
and otherwise appropriate for the specific injury criteria and impact 
conditions specified in that standard. And, to the extent that the 
Hybrid III dummy is used for NCAP purposes, it is necessary for it to 
be appropriate for those test conditions. The agency understands, 
however, that manufacturers wish to be able to use the same dummy for a 
third purpose, for research and vehicle development. In these 
applications, the dummies are often exposed to much more severe 
conditions than specified in Standard No. 208 or experienced under 
NCAP.
    NHTSA granted each of the petitions for rulemaking and conducted 
extensive analysis, including a test program, of the issues raised in 
the petitions. Among other things, the agency consulted with the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Human Biomechanics and 
Simulations Committee concerning the hip lock issue.
    The agency has prepared a Technical Assessment which presents the 
agency's analysis of the issues raised by the petitioners. A copy of 
that document is being placed in the docket for this rulemaking. While 
the conclusions of that document are summarized below, persons who are 
interested in the details of the agency's analysis are encouraged to 
read the Technical Assessment.
    As discussed in the Technical Assessment, the agency's analysis 
shows that motion ranges of the Hybrid III hip joint and ankle have 
minor biomechanical shortcomings that can easily be improved with 
minimal design modifications.
    With respect to the hip joint, the current dummy design is within 
generally accepted biomechanical limits for femur free motion range. 
However, the hip joint design needs modification to assure the same 
motion range between the right and left femurs. Moreover, to the extent 
that the dummy is used in impact environments where the dummy will be 
forced to exceed these limits, i.e., environments more severe than that 
of the Standard No. 208 test procedure or the NCAP test procedure, it 
is desirable to prevent metal to metal contact from occurring between 
the femur and the pelvic bone. Such contact can cause spurious test 
results. An SAE Task Force has identified modifications in the design 
of the femurs that would address forced motion range needs of the 
dummy's hip joints and eliminate the possibility of either metal to 
metal or hard contact impacts at maximum femur flexion. Agency testing 
indicates that the dummy femur-hip joint modification will result in 
somewhat reduced chest responses for those test exposures in which the 
hip joint and the ankle are forced to exceed the available motion 
ranges, i.e., test exposures considerably more severe than Standard No. 
208 testing.
    With respect to the ankle, the agency's analysis shows that 
modifying the ankle to allow 45 degrees of dorsiflexion instead of the 
current 30 degrees would be anthropometrically in the correct 
direction.
    NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the specifications for the 
Hybrid III dummy should be changed to incorporate these minor femur and 
ankle modifications. As part of these changes, a calibration test would 
be added for hip joint-femur flexion.
    The proposed modifications would have practically no effect on the 
dummy impact responses for either Standard No. 208 or NCAP testing. The 
agency believes, however, that the modifications would provide a more 
realistic assessment of the effectiveness of occupant protection 
systems under more severe impact conditions. Changing the part 572 
specifications to incorporate these modifications would help ensure 
that manufacturers can use the same dummies for Standard No. 208 
certification testing and for research and vehicle development testing.
    NHTSA believes the evidence is less clear with respect to whether a 
neck shield should be specified for the Hybrid III dummy. The agency 
has evaluated the neck shield recommended by Ford. As discussed in the 
agency's 

[[Page 34215]]
Technical Assessment, the use of the neck shield generates responses of 
a slightly stiffer neck but does not appear to produce significant 
differences in the dummy's head kinematics or overall impact responses. 
The agency specifically requests comments on whether use of the neck 
shield should be specified. Commenters supporting use of a neck shield 
are requested to discuss why they believe such use would produce 
different results. Depending on the comments, the agency may or may not 
specify use of a neck shield. However, use of a neck shield is 
reflected in the proposed regulatory text.
    NHTSA notes that it contemplates either adding a neck shield to the 
Hybrid III dummy for purposes of all Standard No. 208 compliance 
testing or declining to add a neck shield and not providing a 
manufacturer option in this area. To ensure comparability of test 
results, the agency believes that all vehicles should, to the extent 
possible, be tested in the same manner.
    NHTSA is proposing to make the amendments effective 30 days after 
publication of a final rule. However, the agency is requesting comments 
on whether a later effective date would be more appropriate, and, if 
so, whether optional compliance should be permitted 30 days after 
publication of a final rule.
    The agency believes that the proposed dummy modifications are so 
minor that they would not have any significant effect on Standard No. 
208 test results, and that it may therefore be in the public interest 
to make the amendments effective 30 days after issuance of a final 
rule. Such an effective date would assume that manufacturers do not 
need to conduct any testing to recertify their vehicles using the 
modified dummy. The agency requests comments on this assumption and on 
whether there are any reasons to specify a later effective date, such 
as September 1, 1997.
    To the extent a later effective date were to be specified, the 
agency could permit optional compliance 30 days after publication of a 
final rule. Under this scenario, manufacturers could, for an interim 
period, certify their vehicles using either the earlier or modified 
Hybrid III dummy. NHTSA notes, however, that it would generally prefer 
to avoid multiple dummy options, to reduce the complexity and costs of 
compliance testing. In compliance testing, the agency would want to use 
the dummy option specified by the manufacturer, and would therefore 
need to maintain two versions of the Hybrid III dummy. This problem 
could be avoided by specifying a single date on which the dummy 
modifications would become effective. The agency requests comments, 
however, on whether other factors would outweigh this concern and 
should lead to the combination of a later effective date with optional 
compliance 30 days after publication of a final rule.
    As indicated earlier in this document, the specifications for the 
Hybrid III dummy appear in subpart E of 49 CFR part 572. The proposed 
regulatory text reflects the modifications to the dummy that are under 
consideration by the agency. However, many of the specifications for 
the Hybrid III dummy are set forth in drawings which are incorporated 
by reference. Copies of the new or revised drawings, including a 
revised User's Manual (referred to in Part 572.31(a)(4) as Disassembly, 
Inspection, Assembly and Limbs Adjustment Procedures for the Hybrid III 
Dummy), that would be incorporated by reference are being placed in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
    NHTSA notes that it has a policy of ensuring that the dummies 
specified in part 572 can be manufactured by any manufacturer wishing 
to do so. The agency is therefore considering whether any persons have 
proprietary rights in the dummy modifications proposed in this document 
and, if they do, how the agency can ensure that any manufacturer can 
produce the modified Hybrid III dummy. NHTSA specifically requests 
comments on this issue. With respect to the dummy drawings that are 
being placed in the docket in connection with this proposal, the agency 
has taken steps to ensure that, if incorporated by reference as part of 
a final rule, the drawings could be freely used by all persons. See 
letter dated June 1, 1995 to Mr. Muir Parker, President and CEO of 
First Technology Safety Systems, a copy of which is being placed in the 
docket.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been 
determined to be ``non-significant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The proposed 
amendments would not require any vehicle design changes but would 
instead only require minor modifications in the test dummies used to 
evaluate a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. The agency 
believes that the proposed femur and ankle modifications would not 
affect the cost of new dummies. The cost of modifying existing dummies 
would be about $4,400 per dummy for the femurs, and about $610 for the 
ankles. The cost of a neck shield is about $145. Therefore, the impacts 
of the proposed amendments would be so minimal that a full regulatory 
evaluation is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Modifications to dummy designs affect motor vehicle 
manufacturers, few of which are small entities. As described above, 
there would be no significant economic impact on those vehicle 
manufacturers that are small entities. Further, since no price 
increases would be associated with the proposed rule, small 
organizations and small governmental units would not be affected in 
their capacity as purchasers of new vehicles.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a 
significant impact on the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this 
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured 

[[Page 34216]]
for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for 
judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require 
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

Submission of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue 
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket 
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.
    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part 
572 be amended as follows:

PART 572--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 572 of Title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart E--Hybrid III Test Dummy

    2. Section 572.31 would be amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), 
(a)(3), (a)(4), (b) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 572.31  General description.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The Anthropomorphic Test Dummy Parts List, dated (a date would 
be inserted), and containing 13 pages, and a Parts List Index, dated (a 
date would be inserted), containing 8 pages.
* * * * *
    (3) A General Motors Drawing Package identified by GM Drawing No. 
78051-218, revision S, and subordinate drawings.
    (4) Disassembly, Inspection, Assembly and Limbs Adjustment 
Procedures for the Hybrid III dummy, dated (a date would be inserted).
* * * * *
    (b) The dummy is made up of the following component assemblies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Drawing No.                           Revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
78051-61 head assembly--complete..............................       (T)
78051-90 neck assembly--complete..............................       (A)
78051-89 upper torso assembly--complete.......................       (K)
78051-70 lower torso assembly--without pelvic instrumentation           
 assembly, drawing No. 78051-59...............................       (E)
86-5001-001 leg assembly--complete (LH).......................       (A)
86-5001-002 leg assembly--complete (RH).......................       (A)
78051-123 arm assembly--complete (LH).........................       (D)
78051-124 arm assembly--complete (RH).........................       (D)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) The weights, inertial properties and centers of gravity 
location of component assemblies shall conform to those listed in 
drawing 78051-338, revision T.
* * * * *
    3. Section 572.33 would be amended by moving Figures 20, 21 and 22 
to the end of the section and adding a heading preceding Figure 20, 
revising paragraph (b) introductory text, and revising Figures 20 and 
21, to read as follows:


Sec. 572.33  Neck.

* * * * *
    (b) When the neck and head assembly (consisting of the parts 78051-
61, revision T; -84; -90, revision A; -96; -98; -303, revision E; -305; 
-306; -307, revision X) which has a neck transducer (drawing 83-5001-
008) installed in conformance with Sec. 572.36(d) and a neck shield as 
shown in Figures 20 and 21, is tested in accordance with paragraph (c) 
of this section, it shall have the following characteristics:
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 34217]]


Figures to Sec. 572.33
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.055


[[Page 34218]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.056



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 34219]]

* * * * *
    4. Section 572.35 would be amended by moving Figure 24 to the end 
of the section and adding a heading preceding Figure 24; revising 
paragraphs (a) through (c); and adding Figures 25 through 27, to read 
as follows:


Sec. 572.35  Limbs.

    (a) The limbs consist of the following assemblies: leg assemblies 
86-5001-001, revision F and -002, revision F, and arm assemblies 78051-
123, revision D and -124, revision D, and shall conform to the drawings 
subtended therein.
    (b) Femur impact response. (1) When each knee of the leg assemblies 
is impacted in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, at 6.9 
ft/sec 0.10 ft/sec by the pendulum defined in Sec. 572.36(b), the peak 
knee impact force, which is a product of pendulum mass and 
acceleration, shall have a minimum value of not less than 1060 pounds 
and a maximum value of not more than 1300 pounds.
    (2) Test procedure. (i) The test material consists of leg 
assemblies (86-5001-001, revision A) left and (-002, revision A) right 
with upper leg assemblies (78051-46) left and (78051-47) right removed. 
The load cell simulator (78051-319, revision A) is used to secure the 
knee cap assemblies (79051-16, revision B) as shown in Figure 24).
    (ii) Soak the test material in a test environment at any 
temperature between 66 degrees F to 78 degrees F and at a relative 
humidity from 10% to 70% for a period of at least four hours prior to 
its application in a test.
    (iii) Mount the test material with the leg assembly secured through 
the load cell simulator to a rigid surface as shown in Figure 24. No 
contact is permitted between the foot and any other exterior surfaces.
    (iv) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test probe so that at 
contact with the knee it is collinear within 2 degrees with the 
longitudinal centerline of the femur load cell simulator.
    (v) Guide the pendulum so that there is no significant lateral, 
vertical or rotational movement at time zero.
    (vi) Impact the knee with the test probe so that the longitudinal 
centerline of the test probe at the instant of impact falls within .5 
degrees of a horizontal line parallel to the femur load cell simulator 
at time zero.
    (vii) Time zero is defined as the time of contact between the test 
probe and the knee.
    (c) Hip joint-femur flexion. (1) When each femur is rotated in the 
flexion direction in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 
the femur rotation from its initial horizontal orientation at an 
applied 50 lbs-ft of torque will not be less than 20 deg. and not more 
than 34 deg., and at 250 lbs-ft of torque not less than 44 deg. and not 
more than 52 deg.
    (2) Test procedure.
    (i) The test material consists of the assembled dummy, part No. 
78051-218 (rev. S) except that (1) leg assemblies (86-5001-001 and 002) 
are separated from the dummy by removing the \3/8\-16 Socket Head Cap 
Screw (SHCS) (78051-99) but retaining the structural assembly of the 
upper legs (78051-43 and -44), (2) the abdominal insert (78051-52) is 
removed and (3) the instrument cover plate (78051-13) in the pelvic 
bone is replaced by a rigid pelvic bone stabilizer insert (Figure 25a) 
and firmly secured.
    (ii) Seat the dummy on a rigid seat fixture (Figure 25) and firmly 
secure it to the seat back by bolting the stabilizer insert and the 
rigid support device (Figure 25b) to the seat back of the test fixture 
(Figures 26 and 27) while maintaining the pelvis (78051-58) ``B'' plane 
horizontal.
    (iii) Insert a suitable rod (lever arm) into femur shaft opening of 
the upper leg structure assembly (78051-43/44) and firmly secure it 
using the \3/8\-16 SHCS.
    (iv) Apply a suitable force to the lever arm to lift it parallel to 
the midsagittal plane at a rotation rate of 5 to 10 deg. per second 
while maintaining the \1/2\ in. shoulder bolt longitudinal centerline 
horizontal throughout the range of motion until the 250 lbs-ft torque 
level is reached. Record the applied force (torque) and angle of 
rotation of the femur with suitable sensors.
    (v) Operating environment and temperature are the same as specified 
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 34220]]


Figures to Sec. 572.35

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.057


[[Page 34221]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.058



[[Page 34222]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.059



[[Page 34223]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.060



[[Page 34224]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.061



    Issued on June 26, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-16104 Filed 6-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C