[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10961-10977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-6940]
RIN 2127-AG66


Anthropomorphic Test Dummy; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and 
performance specifications for a new dummy whose height and weight are 
representative of a fifth percentile female adult. This new dummy, 
which is part of the family of Hybrid III test dummies, can be used to 
accurately assess the potential for injuries to small-statured adults 
and teenagers. The new dummy is especially needed both to ensure that 
air bags protect small-statured adults and teenagers in frontal crashes 
and to minimize the risk of injury from air bags during those crashes. 
The dummy will also provide a means of gathering useful information in 
a variety of crash environments to better evaluate vehicle safety.
    Adding the dummy to Part 572 is the first step toward using the 
dummy to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of air bags for small-
statured adults and teenagers. The issue of amending various safety 
standards to specify use of the dummy in determining compliance with 
the performance requirements of those standards, e.g., the agency's 
occupant protection standard, will be addressed in other rulemakings, 
particularly the agency's advanced air bag rulemaking for which a 
notice of proposed rulemaking was published in September 1998 and a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking was published in November 
1999.

DATES: Effective Date: This regulation becomes effective March 31, 
2000. The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 
31, 2000.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by April 
17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number of this rule and be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For non-legal issues, you may call Stan Backaitis, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-4912.
    For legal issues, you may call Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Decision

    Based on our use of the Hybrid-III 5th percentile female (H-III5F) 
dummy in calibration tests and in frontal impact tests involving 
restraints such as air bags and belts, and after consideration of the 
public comments on our September 3, 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) (63 FR 46981), we have concluded that this dummy is suitable for 
both research and safety compliance assessments. Depending on the 
intended injury assessment needs, the dummy has the necessary 
instrumentation to measure the potential for injuries to the head, the 
upper and lower ends of the neck, the chest, the lumbar spine, the 
pelvis, and the femurs, as well as the forces on the iliac crests \1\ 
caused by the lap belt. In extensive agency tests, the dummy exhibited 
excellent durability and robustness as a measuring test tool. Although 
other dummy users were invited to provide comments on their test 
experience with the H-III5F dummy, their responses to the NPRM were 
based primarily on data from calibration-type tests. Little of the data 
was from the dummy's response in systems tests. Accordingly, our 
judgment about the adequacy of the dummy in systems tests is based on 
our own test data. However, we believe that our conclusion is 
consistent with the calibration data submitted in response to the NPRM 
by other dummy users, since those data provide a reasonably good match 
with the agency data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ilium is the expansive-superior segment of the three 
bones composing the left or right half of the pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have decided to add the H-III5F dummy to Part 572 as Subpart O, 
and designate it as the alpha version of the dummy. This dummy is not 
significantly different from the one proposed in the NPRM. Further 
changes to the dummy will be designated as beta, gamma, etc., to assure 
that modifications can be easily tracked and identified. The new dummy 
is defined by a drawing and specification package; a new procedures 
document for disassembly, assembly, and inspection; and performance 
parameters including associated calibration procedures as noted in 
Subpart O.

II. Background

    Air bag-related fatalities and injuries to small female drivers 
seated close to the deploying air bag in low speed crashes have raised 
serious concerns about the safety of air bags for this portion of the 
population.\2\ One way to

[[Page 10962]]

evaluate the protection provided by and the risks associated with air 
bag systems is through the use of human mechanical surrogates with a 
high degree of biofidelity, such as the family of Hybrid III-type crash 
test dummies. The desirability of a second adult-sized crash dummy, 
such as the fifth percentile adult female, has been apparent for a 
number of years. During a March 1997 National Transportation Safety 
Board hearing on the safety of air bag systems, several industry 
commenters addressed the need to revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, by adopting new 
test procedures and test devices and by assessing the safety of the 
occupant protection systems with suitable injury assessment criteria. 
The commenters noted that the Hybrid III-type 5th percentile female 
dummy has been used by industry for research purposes for several years 
and supported its use in air bag certification programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Close proximity to the air bag is one of the primary factors 
leading to serious injury or fatality. Several factors can lead to 
an individual being too close to the air bag at the time of 
deployment, including failure to wear a safety belt. Nevertheless, 
very small-statured women appear to constitute the largest segment 
of the driver population that may not be able to sit a safe distance 
from the air bag, even when properly restrained. Additionally, 
differences in body size may lead to more severe injury for a small-
statured woman than for an unrestrained average-size male.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 5th percentile adult female dummy (H-III5F) is part of a family 
of Hybrid III-type dummies. The first Hybrid III dummy was a 50th 
percentile male dummy. NHTSA has specified use of that dummy for 
compliance testing under FMVSS No. 208 since 1986, initially on an 
optional basis, and more recently on a mandatory basis. The need for a 
family of Hybrid III-type dummies having considerably improved 
biofidelity and anthropometry was recognized by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1987 when it awarded a contract to Ohio 
State University under the title ``Development for Multi-Sized Hybrid 
III Based Dummy Family.'' Development of the H-III5F dummy, along with 
the development of other family members,\3\ has continued since then 
under the guidance of the Hybrid III Dummy Family Task Force of SAE.\4\ 
The task force invited experts from biomechanics, instrumentation, and 
dummy design to guide this development. In defining the specifications 
for a small adult female dummy, the task force selected key body 
lengths and weights based on anthropometry data for the smallest fifth 
percent of the United States adult female population. Geometric and 
mass scale factors were developed to assure that each body segment had 
the same or similar mass densities as the corresponding Hybrid III body 
segment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The second dummy, the six-year-old child, was the subject of 
an NPRM published on June 28, 1998 (63 FR 35170), and a Final Rule 
published on January 13, 2000 (65 FR 2059).
    \4\ Minutes of the meetings of the taskforce are located in 
NHTSA's docket, Room 5111, 400 Seventh St., SW, and are available 
for public inspection. The minutes address development of the entire 
family of Hybrid III dummies, including the six-year-old dummy that 
is the subject of a previous rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, we began an extensive test and evaluation program of the 
H-III5F dummy. The dummies were exposed to a variety of crash 
environments to determine their suitability and stability as measuring 
tools in the most severe crashes.
    Upon completion of its evaluation of the H-III5F dummy, the agency 
tentatively concluded that it was ready for incorporation into Part 
572. NHTSA placed in the docket a technical report entitled 
``Development and Evaluation of the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Adult 
Female Dummy,'' minutes of SAE Hybrid III dummy family task group 
meetings relating to the dummy, and drawings of the proposed dummy. 
These documents provide the technical information relevant to 
rulemaking on the H-III5F dummy. On September 3, 1998, we published an 
NPRM proposing to incorporate the H-III5F dummy into Part 572 as 
subpart O, and invited comments (63 FR 46981).
    We received comments from 14 organizations and one individual: 
First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS), Applied Safety Technology 
Corporation (ASTC), Robert A. Denton, Inc., Transportation Research 
Center, Inc. (TRC), International Electronic Engineering (IEE), TRW, 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), SAE Dummy Test 
Equipment Subcommittee (DTES), the American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association (AAMA), Florida International University (FIU), Toyota 
Motor Company (Toyota), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS), General Motors, North America (GM), DaimlerChrysler Corp. (DC), 
and Laurel Barker, a private citizen.
    The comments tended to fall into two groups. Commenters either 
simply supported the rulemaking generally without being specific as to 
any particular aspect of the proposal, or, in addition to indicating 
overall support, provided very technical comments on specific portions 
of the proposal. Often, the latter group of comments dealt with 
procedures on how the dummy is set up and positioned for calibration 
tests or with the sufficiency and clarity of the dummy drawings. These 
highly technical comments are addressed at greater length in the 
``Technical Analysis of Issues Report'' (TAIR-H-III5F) supporting this 
final rule. Where we have agreed with the comments, we have made 
appropriate changes in either the drawing package or the regulatory 
text. The TAIR-H-III5F is in the docket.

III. Dummy Drawings

    Several of the commenters, including ASTC, FTSS, and to a lesser 
extent Denton, raised questions about the specifications in the 
drawings. To simplify analysis of the large number of detailed issues 
related to design specifications, we divided the comments into four 
categories: design, performance, manufacturing, and other issues.
    Design Issues: This group of issues concerns those requested 
changes that, in our opinion, are essential to assure the dummy's 
structural consistency and its appropriate functioning. They involve a 
series of questions essential to dummy design, as well as missing or 
incomplete significant specifications. The issues involve dummy 
drawings that need to be changed either by adjusting existing 
specifications or adding further specifications to assure a correct fit 
and interface between components and their appropriate functioning in 
the impact environment. While these changes are important, they must be 
addressed with a degree of technical specificity that will likely be 
appreciated only by the two dummy manufacturers who commented on the 
NPRM. Accordingly, they are fully discussed in the TAIR-H-III5F .
    Performance Issues: This group of issues involves comments on 
drawings and specifications that we believe relate primarily to 
production decisions which dummy manufacturers need to address on their 
own. We believe further that the requested changes to the 
specifications falling in this category are of little consequence to 
the fit and function of the dummy. The performance issues primarily 
concern requests for the addition of new dimensions and specifications 
that have little, if any, functional significance for the part in 
question; expanding the specifications to include manufacturing 
processes and further details for material specifications; and 
assignment of dimensional and surface finish controls on parts that 
have no foreseeable effects to their fit and overall dummy performance.
    In general, we have found no reason to include the requested 
information in the drawing set of the final rule. The inclusion of such 
information would be of little value, if any, and would not assure 
better quality of the manufactured dummy. Indeed, the addition of the 
specifications may reduce a dummy manufacturer's

[[Page 10963]]

flexibility in selecting a superior production technique or process, 
and may inhibit competition.
    The one exception is a comment by ASTC that the damping material to 
the ribs is not specified in the drawings package. Although the damping 
material and the bonding-to-the-rib processes are generally known, the 
agency is reluctant to specify them. We do not wish to inhibit the 
development and use of improved materials and bonding techniques. 
However, to assist those manufacturers that may not be aware of the 
existing technology, we have decided to add a note to drawing 880105-
361 referencing the damping materials and bonding process used for the 
manufacture of ribs for the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy 
(H-III50M) (see drawings 78051-35 through -40). All comments addressing 
performance issues are fully discussed in the TAIR-H-III5F.
    Manufacturing Issues: ASTC commented that the proposed drawing set 
does not allow another manufacturer to produce this dummy because it 
lacks surface contour information. ASTC stated that the surface contour 
information affects not only outside vinyl skin pieces, but also many 
internal structures such as skull, clavicle, clavicle link, and pelvic 
bone. ASTC argued the lack of surface contour information would create 
problems in interchangeability and equivalency between dummies produced 
by different manufacturers, and could also affect dummy performance. 
ASTC requested that the agency provide opportunities for commenters to 
review the dummy to answer their questions and provide patterns or 
parts for the surface contour information.
    We gave careful consideration to these comments and examined 
several options for resolving ASTC's concerns. The drawing review 
option was impracticable for this dummy, since drawings were already 
released as part of the NPRM package. There was no way to assure that 
any contour definitions placed on the drawings would address all the 
concerns raised by the commenters. The availability of molds and 
patterns was also impracticable, since the agency does not own any 
molds and patterns for this dummy.
    The agency has therefore decided to adopt a third option, i.e., 
making a copy of the dummy available to interested manufacturers for 
non-destructive dimensional inspection and extraction of surface 
contour information. In order to provide all interested parties with 
the opportunity to inspect and measure the dummy, NHTSA will continue 
to make the dummy available to any interested party for a period of six 
months after the issuance of this final rule. Such access is subject to 
the following terms:

     All inspections are to take place at NHTSA's Vehicle 
Research and Testing Center (VRTC) and at VRTC's convenience, 
although reasonable attempts will be made to accommodate the 
interested party's schedule.
     An individual or company wishing to inspect the dummy 
will need to contract directly with TRC to make arrangements for an 
individual to oversee the measurement process. This oversight by TRC 
is necessary to ensure that the dummies are not damaged and are 
reassembled correctly without the undue expenditure of agency 
resources.

    ASTC has already availed itself of this opportunity, although it 
was advised that, prior to the issuance of this rule, the dummy was 
subject to changes.
    Other Issues: Some issues do not fall into any of the above 
categories. These issues relate to requests that the agency add new 
dimensions or specifications; incorporate a newly-developed ball 
bearing knee slider; specify a neck wrap for the dummy; specify a 
different hand design for the dummy; and adopt a dummy that is more 
representative of the overall adult female population than the H-III5F.
    We believe that the new addition of new dimensions and 
specifications to the drawing package would serve little value. We have 
evaluated the specific comments and related drawings and have 
determined that, with a few exceptions, the requested additions would 
be of little value and would not assure better quality of the 
manufactured dummy. To the extent we believe the additions would be 
useful, we have made those changes to the drawing package. A more 
detailed explanation of the agency's examination of the comments and 
their related drawings can be found in the TAIR-H-III5F.
    While the new ball bearing knee slider may be appropriate for 
future rulemaking, it has not been fully evaluated yet by either NHTSA 
or the SAE. Accordingly, we believe that incorporating it into Part 572 
at this time would be premature.
    VRTC, in cooperation with the SAE Hybrid-III Dummy Family Task 
Force, has developed a new head skin to prevent the air bag from 
becoming wedged into a small cavity between the chin and neck of the 
dummy during a crash test. This head skin incorporates a vinyl cover 
that provides a more realistic jaw line (temporomandibular joint (TMJ) 
design). Our tests indicated that the TMJ significantly reduces the 
likelihood that an air bag will become caught between the dummy's chin 
and neck. In contrast, tests on various neck wraps did not produce the 
expected improvements.\5\ Accordingly, the agency proposed in the NPRM 
incorporating the TMJ as part of the H-III5F head skin. The TMJ appears 
to adequately reduce the likelihood that the air bag will be caught in 
the dummy's head/neck junction. Accordingly, we have incorporated the 
TMJ as part of the final rule. We note that significant advances in 
neck wraps that will better control air bag wedging are still possible. 
If such an improved design becomes available, it could be added to the 
dummy in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A summary report of this evaluation has been placed in the 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Denton expressed concern that the proposed hand for the dummy was 
incapable of gripping, was too large for the dummy, and was subject to 
excessive wear. We believe that the change in the size of the hand 
proposed by Denton would have no significant impact on the performance 
of the dummy. The SNPRM for the FMVSS No. 208 advanced air bag 
rulemaking did not propose a requirement that the dummy be able to grip 
the steering wheel. Since the only rulemaking for which the use of the 
H-III5F is presently contemplated will not have a gripping requirement, 
we do not believe we need to incorporate a grippable hand at this time. 
We have also not experienced any problems with durability in the more 
than fifty tests that we have conducted using the H-III5F.
    Finally, the single private citizen who commented on the NPRM 
stated that she believed we should use a dummy that is more 
representative of adult females than the H-III5F dummy, i.e., one that 
is approximately 5'3" tall and 125 pounds. A dummy this size would be 
representative of a 50th percentile adult female. Since no one has 
developed such a dummy, we are unable to give consideration to 
incorporating one into Part 572 at this time. While numerous dummies of 
various sizes could be developed for test purposes, practical and 
financial concerns limit the agency to base the selection of 
representative dummies to those sizes that address the safety needs of 
the entire range of the population. By incorporating both the H-III5F, 
which is representative of the smaller end of the driving population, 
and the existing H-III50M, which is representative of a mid-size male, 
we believe the majority of the adult female population is adequately 
represented in the applicable crash tests.

[[Page 10964]]

IV. Calibration Procedures

    The agency proposed calibration tests involving head drop tests, 
neck pendulum tests, thorax and knee impacts, and torso flexion tests. 
AAMA, TRC, GM, TRW and Toyota were the principal commenters on test 
procedures.
    Discussion of the vast majority of these comments is left to the 
TAIR-H-III5F because they raise relatively minor issues related to 
adjustments in the test procedure. However, the comments raise an issue 
as to whether the proposed semi-static torso flexion test should be a 
calibration test or simply an initial, as received, inspection test. 
This distinction is important because inspection tests usually are 
performed at the time the dummy is received from the manufacturer and 
are not necessarily repeated to establish the dummy's suitability for 
vehicle or vehicle component testing. An additional concern, unrelated 
to the inspection test issue, was raised that the impact probes 
specified for the knee and thorax tests were unduly design restrictive.
    The semi-static torso flexion test (upper torso half relative to 
the lower half) was proposed as a calibration specification for this 
dummy. AAMA and TRC objected to characterizing this procedure as a 
calibration test, claiming it is not critical to the dummy's 
performance. Rather, they suggested it be retained as an inspection 
test as shown in the SAE User's Manual. Further, they claimed that the 
preflexion test is not needed and that the upper torso return angle 
upon release of the bending force should be eliminated.
    The commenters have not provided any factual support for the claim 
that flexion stiffness of the mid-torso is not critical to the dummy's 
performance, and that the occasional assessment of stiffness during the 
dummy's inspection is sufficient. They have argued that the SAE User's 
Manual lists this test as an ``inspection test'' which is supplemental 
to the calibration tests to ensure that a component meets its design 
intent. They note that inspection tests are performed by the dummy 
manufacturer on new parts, but that the dummy user may conduct 
inspection tests only after a part is damaged or replaced. The agency 
does not agree that the test should be limited to inspection. The 
dummy's torso midsection provides an important coupling and transfer of 
loads between the upper and lower torso halves. The lumbar spine and 
the pelvis bone cavity control the fit of the abdomen at the rear and 
bottom of the torso while the upper torso flesh and the ribcage control 
the fit of the upper torso half. Thus, the bottom of the ribcage as it 
glides around and pushes on internal surfaces of the abdomen has a 
substantial influence not only on the extent the torso will flex, but 
also on how the load transfer between the upper and lower torso halves 
will be distributed. We believe the flexion procedure is necessary as a 
calibration test to ensure that when the dummy is used, its torso 
flexion stiffness is consistent, provides consistent upper torso 
kinematics relative to the lower torso, and does not cause or 
contribute to the variability of dummy response measurements in other 
body segments. A procedure relegated to an inspection category would 
not serve these purposes. Without calibration tests, a user will not 
know if the dummy has the correct mid-section stiffness and if the 
responses of the other body segments were or were not affected by mid-
section variability.
    We also disagree with the suggestion that the return angle during 
the bending stiffness test of the lumbar spine/upper torso assembly is 
not needed. There will be a substantial difference in overall torso 
kinematics between a seated dummy that can and a seated dummy that 
cannot return its upper torso half from a flexed position to an upright 
posture, particularly after full flexion has occurred. Without return, 
the flexion is substantially plastic, while evidence of a specific 
return would be indicative of the torso mid-section having certain 
elastic, more human-like properties. Evidence of consistent return 
would indicate that the forces of restitution are intact, while no or 
indefinite return would indicate a substantial change within the 
internal mechanisms of the mid-torso structure, such as failure of the 
lumbar spine, abdomen, or a substantial shift between interfacing body 
segments within the abdominal cavity. Analysis of all of the test 
results indicate that the upper torso of a structurally intact dummy 
returns consistently within 8 degrees of the starting position, 
indicating the adequacy of the specified return angle.
    The commenters also suggested removal of the preflex provision, 
claiming such a provision is not needed and would interfere with the 
waiting time between tests recommended in the SAE User's Manual. A 
preflex provision was proposed to provide an opportunity for the mating 
parts to inter-align between themselves, so that the internal 
structures within the dummy's mid-torso are not sprung or misaligned at 
the time of testing. This would be of particular importance, for 
example, after either a severe test exposure or a lengthy period of 
non-use. The agency conducted preflexing in its tests, and found that 
the procedure developed a stabilized set-up posture. We see no reason 
to remove a provision that helps to assure a stabilized posture and 
better and more consistent measurements, including the integrity of the 
interconnection between the upper and the lower torso halves. In 
response to FTSS' comments about excessive flexing angle of the torso 
for stabilization purposes, the proposed provision for flexing the 
torso 3 times by 40 degrees from its initial vertical upright position 
is being reduced to a nominal 30 degrees in the forward direction. The 
agency found 30 degrees of flexion sufficient to achieve stabilized 
interalignment of parts within the dummy's abdominal area.
    The impact probes specified by the NPRM for knee and thorax tests 
were meant to be generally cylindrical in shape and of a certain 
diameter and mass. TRC stated that the type of test probe specified in 
the NPRM unnecessarily restricts the design of the probe and puts 
additional maintenance burden on test laboratories. TRC prefers the 
wording used in current drafts of the SAE User's Manuals. TRC states 
that the wording was chosen by committee consensus to allow a wide 
range of design options without affecting impact results. In the case 
of the SAE H-III6C manual, TRC claims, the wording for the knee probe 
is more correct and preferred.
    Up to now, all of the agency-specified dummy impact probes have 
been defined as rigid body cylinders of a specified diameter and mass. 
Similarly, with a few exceptions, most SAE User's Manuals, which are 
patterned after the agency's test procedures, also specify cylindrical 
impact probes, although in practice such probes may not be perfectly 
cylindrical. The addition of several new dummies to 49 CFR Part 572 may 
make it necessary for some dummy calibration laboratories to equip the 
existing test facilities with several new impact probes. Some of those 
probes, particularly those made of a light-weight material, may be 
difficult to design in a pure cylindrical form.
    We agree with TRC that more latitude in the selection of impact 
probes will allow the various laboratories greater flexibility in the 
use of existing impactors and/or in developing new ones. At the same 
time, it is essential that alternate impact probes do not create 
problems such as imprecision in the geometry of the impact face which 
could lead to inappropriate interface with dummy components at the time 
of impact, introduction of vibratory effects

[[Page 10965]]

due to potential resonances, inter-mass impacts within the impactor, 
and kinematic differences due to differences in shape and mass moments 
of inertia. Similarly, the measurement of impact force must be sensed 
by an accelerometer in a location whose signal is not distorted by 
insufficient rigidity and geometry of the structures on which it is 
mounted. It is also noted that while the current specification for 
impactors defines the general shape of the impactor the agency intends 
to use, that specification does not prohibit any test facility from 
using an impactor of its choice, as long as the user is confident that 
the alternate impactor will generate the same results under identical 
test conditions.
    While the agency believes that, for the sake of consistency and 
simplicity, it would be best if all impact probes for dummy testing 
were of cylindrical design as defined in the NPRM, we also believe that 
TRC's comments have merit and would provide the test laboratories with 
sufficient flexibility when selecting impactors. Accordingly, we have 
redefined the impact probes in generic terms and will accept other 
impactor configurations for compliance purposes, as long as they have 
the same (1) Mass, (2) Impact surface configuration, (3) Defined mass 
moment of inertia in yaw and pitch with respect to the principal axis, 
(4) Structural integrity, (5) An identically aligned accelerometer on 
the rear face of the impactor, (6) Free air resonant frequency of not 
less than 1000 Hz, and (7) Functionality and freedom of interference 
with the dummy's other body segments during the impact.

V. Calibration Response Corridors

    The agency proposed calibration corridors for the head, neck 
flexion/extension, thorax resistive force and deflection, knee load and 
torso-flexion. Comments on the response corridors were received from 
the following organizations: TRC, AAMA, GM, DC and TRW. During the 
agency's data analysis process, we contacted AAMA and SAE DTESC for 
further details and clarification of their comments. All comments are 
discussed in the TAIR-H-III5F.
    None of the commenters objected to the proposed head response 
corridor of 250 G to 300 G. All of the commenters either directly or 
indirectly agreed with the proposed response corridor for the head. 
Accordingly, the 250 G to 300 G impact response corridor is retained in 
the Final Rule as proposed in the NPRM.
    We proposed neck response corridors in flexion in terms of neck 
moments, maximum head flexion-rotation angle, and moment decay time. 
For flexion, we specified a deflection range of the D plane from 80-92 
degrees, a peak moment of 69 N-m to 83 N-m, and a positive moment decay 
for the first 10 N-m between 80 and 100 ms after time-zero. FTSS, AAMA, 
TRW, and TRC provided specific comments on neck flexion response 
corridors and a process for defining the measurement of the peak 
moment.
    The commenters recommended we set the D plane rotation value 
between 77 and 91 degrees, the same as the value contained in SAE 
Engineering Aid 25 (February, 1999). Our analysis of D plane rotation 
data pooled from TRW, TRC, GM, DC, FTSS, and NHTSA yielded a mean of 85 
degrees with a standard deviation of 4.78 based on a sample of n=76. 
The technical community agrees that the acceptable rate of variability 
could be as high as  8% from the mean but should not exceed 
10%. The 8% limit suggests a calibration corridor of 77-91 degrees. 
While this is a slightly broader corridor than the one proposed in the 
NPRM, we believe the specification, based on the 8% limit, makes it 
acceptable for the final rule.
    Commenters also recommended we adopt the SAE maximum value of 69-84 
N-m for flexion moment. Analysis of the pooled data yielded a mean of 
74.8 N-m with a standard deviation of 4.22 based on a sample of n=66. 
Allowing 8% variability, the pooled data-based response corridor would 
be between 69 and 81 N-m, slightly smaller than the range proposed in 
the NPRM. Inasmuch as the NPRM proposed a nearly identical moment 
corridor, we have chosen to retain the proposed range of 69-83 N-m, at 
approximately 9% variability level. The analysis of the pooled data 
vis-a-vis positive moment decay likewise supported the retention of the 
80-100 ms time range proposed in the NPRM.
    The agency proposed neck response corridors in extension in terms 
of neck moments, maximum head extension angle, and moment decay time. 
For extension, we specified a head deflection range from 97-109 
degrees, a peak negative moment corridor of -55 N-m to -69 N-m, and a 
negative moment decay for the first -10 N-m between 94 and 114 ms after 
time-zero. Commenters recommended a corridor of 99-114 degrees for neck 
extension, a corridor of -52 to -66 N-m for peak moment, and, for 
moment decay time, a corridor of 94-114 ms after time zero as a more 
reasonable fit to the existing data base, based largely on the SAE 
Engineering Aid 25.
    Upon review of the substantial neck extension data submitted in 
comments, we reevaluated the proposed corridors and found a substantial 
degree of agreement with the commenters' recommendations for revising 
the head rotation and decay time. For the peak moment corridors, we 
believe a range narrower than the SAE recommended corridor is 
appropriate. Based on an analysis of pooled data with a mean of 58.7 N-
m with a standard deviation of 3.6 N-m based on a sample of n=67, the 
SAE corridor would allow a variance of 11.86% from the mean. Since 
dummy neck performance at full extension is less important in the 
rebound mode than in a frontal impact, a variation in response range 
slightly larger than 8% is acceptable. Nevertheless, a variation of 10% 
is at the outer limits of an acceptable range. Accordingly, we have 
revised the neck extension corridor to center on the mean value at 107 
degrees for a range of head rotation between 99 and 114 degrees, with a 
decay time corridor value of 94-114 ms. We have also changed the peak 
moment corridor to a range between -53 N-m and -65 N-m to center better 
on the mean value of -59 N-m while staying within a 10% variability 
limit.
    The agency proposed thorax impact response corridors in terms of 
sternum to spine compression at 48-55 mm and peak force at 3900 N to 
4400 N. AAMA, FTSS, TRC, and TRW urged the agency to adopt the 50-58 mm 
compression corridor contained in SAE Engineering Aid 25. AAMA 
suggested the adoption of the peak force resistance corridor of 3900 N 
to 4400 N. Upon review of all available data, we agreed with the 
commenters' requests that the chest compression corridor be adjusted to 
50-58 mm and the peak force level be retained at 3900-4400 N as 
proposed in the NPRM
    Commenters also urged that the pertinent regulatory text regarding 
measurement of peak force ``at any time'' be changed to ``after 25 mm 
displacement and prior to reaching the minimum permissible sternum 
displacement'' to accommodate an inertial data spike at the beginning 
of the test that is an artifact of the test. Since this initial spike 
is neither biofidelic in nature nor an indicator of a bad rib set, we 
believe establishing limitations for the moment outside the required 
compression corridor is appropriate. We examined all of the available 
impactor force-chest deflection data traces and found that the first 
force peak occurs between 7-8 mm and drops down to a minimum value at 
around 15 mm of sternum displacement. A 25 mm displacement allowance 
would be far in

[[Page 10966]]

excess for any spike that would be an artifact and could discount 
spikes that are indicative of a bad chest. The data indicates that a 18 
mm sternum displacement will adequately discount artifacts and still 
account for deficiencies in the chest structure. Accordingly the peak 
force may be exceeded by five percent in a transition compression zone 
that is between 18 mm and 50 mm, i.e., prior to reaching the minimum 
required sternum displacement limit of 50 mm.
    The AAMA and TRC expressed concern over the torso flexion test and 
the knee response. TRW and FTSS expressed concern over the knee 
response as well. During the data analysis process, we contacted AAMA 
and SAE DTESC for further details and clarification of their 
recommendations for modifying the torso flexion and knee impact 
response corridors.
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed a semi-static torso resistance 
flexion force value of 289-378 N. Our analysis of the pooled data 
indicated that the torso flexion force should be adjusted to reflect 
the mean of the larger, pooled data and be set at 320-390 N when the 
torso flexion angle is 45 degrees.
    The NPRM proposed a knee impact response corridor of 3360 N to 4080 
N. Commenters recommended a corridor between 3400 N and 4200 N, based 
on the SAE corridor. Upon receipt of comments and supplemental data 
from TRW, DC, and FTSS, we recomputed the response corridor. The 
resultant average values were found to be very close to the proposed 
mean in the NPRM. A corridor of 3456-4057 N for that data would fall 
within an 8% variation. Inasmuch as the SAE recommended corridor is 
well beyond even a 10% variation and is not supported by available 
data, we have concluded that the range of the recomputed data should be 
rounded off and set at 3450 N to 4060 N.

VI. Instrumentation (Accelerometers and Load Cells)

    In the NPRM, the agency proposed ``generic'' specifications for 
dummy-based sensors. The generic specifications apply to the following 
sensors: (1) The accelerometer (SA572-S4), (2) Force and moment 
transducers for upper neck (SA572-S11) and lower neck (SA572-S26), 
lumbar spine (SA572-S12), anterior-superior iliac spine load cell 
(SA572-S13), single axis femur load cell (SA572-S10), and (3) The 
thorax based chest deflection potentiometer (SA572-S50). Of the 20 
comments received, only three addressed the generic specifications for 
transducers. They were: Robert A. Denton, Inc., GM, and AAMA. A full 
discussion of comments can be found in the TAIR-H-III5F.
    After analyzing the comments received, we have concluded that 
generic specifications for the transducers or sensors used in crash 
test dummies can be defined sufficiently and will provide a broader 
latitude for the user industry to select suitable sensors. The input 
from these comments is being incorporated into generic sensor 
specifications in the drawing set.

VII. Biofidelity, Pressure Distribution and Occupant Sensing 
Capability

    Biofidelity is a desirable and useful feature of this dummy which, 
because of the extended measuring capability, is largely endorsed by 
the commenters. However, IEE said there was a need to improve the 
dummy's proximity sensing and the pressure profile of the seated 
dummy's buttocks. Likewise, AAMA recommended we include a lower neck 
cell and an instrumented tibia as optional transducers.
    The IEE request for redesign of the dummy buttocks and for 
proximity sensing are technically premature and beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking. This dummy in its original design was not intended to 
have such sensing and pressure profile capabilities. The development of 
such capabilities are still in the early stages of research. 
Considerably more research, testing and evaluation will need to be done 
before such technologies mature and become acceptable for safety 
certification activities. Nevertheless, IEE's comment may indicate a 
direction for possible future research and development.
    Likewise, AAMA's comments on the lower neck load cell and 
instrumented tibia are worthy of consideration. The lower neck load 
cell and instrumented tibia have both been used by NHTSA in its 
research programs. However, their use in a compliance application is 
not anticipated for the near future. We have not evaluated their 
responses systematically for consistency and stability. Additionally, 
the instrumented tibia is currently patented by Denton.
    Based on our test experience with the upper neck load cell, we 
believe the lower neck load cell would provide stable and repeatable 
measurements. Accordingly, we are willing to incorporate it into Part 
572 as optional instrumentation. Unless the patent rights on the Denton 
tibia are freely licensed or expire, any incorporation into the CFR, 
even as optional instrumentation, would be inappropriate.

VIII. User's Manual--Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and 
Inspection (PADI)

    The NPRM noted in sections 572.130(a)(2) and 572.131(b) that the 
final rule package will contain a ``User's Manual for the Hybrid III 
5th Percentile Female Dummy.'' Responding to the NPRM, TRC recommended 
and DTES requested that the agency incorporate the SAE User's Manual by 
reference in the final rule. We acknowledge the DTES'' diligent 
development efforts and contribution toward clarifying several assembly 
and disassembly issues and in illustrating the importance of this 
document. NHTSA commends the DTES for their excellent work, and 
encourages the manual's further development as the test data begins to 
accumulate from the dummy's application in the field. Nevertheless, we 
have decided against incorporating the manual into part 572.
    During initial dummy assessment stages, the agency had to establish 
methods for an initial dummy inspection and assembly. Part of the 
agency test protocol was based on draft SAE user's manuals of December 
1994 and February 1998. Subsequent to the issuance of the NPRM, the SAE 
provided user's manual updates in February and July, 1999. The final 
manual consists basically of two parts: inspection/assembly and 
calibration.
    We have examined and worked with the SAE User's Manual. We found it 
to be well suited for research use. However, because of redundancies, 
ambiguities, and in some areas subjectivity, it is far less suitable 
for regulation and compliance purposes. If employed in its present 
form, it could become a source of different interpretations and 
misunderstandings, and as a result create difficulties for both the 
agency and dummy users in enforcement and compliance certification 
programs. Also, the SAE User's Manual is copyrighted by both SAE and 
FTSS. Until the copyright status of the document is resolved, its 
usefulness as a reference document would be highly limited, 
particularly for publication by the agency through the electronic 
media. Further, the recommended SAE User's Manual includes both 
inspection and calibration procedures, while the agency format requires 
only an inspection document involving the dummy's initial conformance 
to dimensional mass and fit-for-assembly specifications, as well as 
objective assembly and disassembly procedures.
    For these reasons, NHTSA has decided against adopting the SAE 
User's Manual and has developed a

[[Page 10967]]

publication, ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection 
(PADI) of the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test 
Dummy, Alpha Version'' (PADI-5F),\6\ dated January 2000, for the 
following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NHTSA believes that the name ``user's manual'' for this 
document is a misnomer given its intended purpose. As the name 
implies, the user's manual should provide instructions on how to use 
the dummy, rather than how to inspect it and perform its assembly/
disassembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
     The agency-developed procedure for disassembly, 
assembly and inspection provide unambiguous, direct and 
straightforward instructions;
     The document references only essential and updated 
drawings based on the final rule parts list;
     It includes important and detailed photographic views 
to facilitate the assembly-disassembly process, including the 
mounting of generic instrumentation;
     It provides specific information for calibration 
laboratories, particularly useful for disassembly of any single 
major component, checkout procedures for instrumentation polarity, 
and measurement of impactor moment of inertia;
     It provides recommendations for cable and connector 
routing and attachment based on lessons learned in the agency test 
program;
     It includes important torque specifications for all 
fasteners used in the dummy;
     It supports all elements of the final rule and will 
facilitate the dummy's use in agency required testing activities; 
and
     Its publication and copying are not hampered by 
copyright claims.

IX. Dummy Availability for Evaluation

    At the issuance of the NPRM, both FTSS and ASTC had been 
manufacturing the H-III5F dummy for several years. Numerous 
organizations possessed the dummy when the NPRM was published. Since 
the publication of the NPRM, the proposed dummies have been available 
through both FTSS and ASTC. We believe that over 100 post-NPRM dummies 
have been sold. Additionally, over a year has passed since the issuance 
of the NPRM. During this time, all interested parties have had ample 
time to procure and evaluate the dummy and provide additional comments. 
The agency expressly invites and routinely considers all comments 
submitted outside of the comment period, but prior to arriving at a 
final agency position. Also, during this period, considerable further 
discussions have taken place at the SAE DTES regarding the adequacy of 
the dummy in calibration and other test applications. In addition, the 
agency has made available the master dummy for review and inspection, 
as well as test data from this dummy developed in the advanced air bag 
crash test program. Interested parties have had sufficient opportunity 
to avail themselves of the information that is contained in the minutes 
of those meetings. Inasmuch as no comments were received regarding the 
availability of the dummy, it is assumed that dummy availability is not 
a problem.

X. Other Issues

    When we published the NPRM for the H-III5F dummy, we decided to 
specify that the dummy conform to this part in every respect before its 
use in any test, but not after. The NPRMs for the Hybrid III 3-year-old 
child test dummy (January 28, 1999; 64 FR 4385) and the 12-month-old 
infant dummy (CRABI) (March 8, 1999; 64 FR 10965) proposed the same 
specification as the one proposed for the small adult female dummy. A 
full explanation of the agency's rationale can be found in the NPRM for 
the H-III5F dummy. The AAMA argued that post-test dummy compliance 
information remains important, particularly if a noncompliance may be 
related to a failure of the test dummy.
    We continue to believe that a post-test calibration requirement is 
not in the public interest. Generally the post-test calibration 
provides an objective check of the validity of the electronic data 
acquired during the test, but this will not be true if the severity of 
the test damaged the dummy. The pre-test calibration should adequately 
address the suitability of the dummy for testing. Accordingly, we see 
no need to require post-test calibration checks.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.

    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rule is not considered a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866. 
Consequently, it was not reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be 
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
    This document amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and 
performance specifications for a new 5th percentile adult female dummy 
which the agency may later separately propose for use in the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards. This rule indirectly imposes 
requirements on only those businesses which choose to manufacture or 
test with the dummy, in that the agency will only use dummies for 
compliance testing that meet all of the criteria specified in this 
rule. It may indirectly affect vehicle and air bag manufacturers if it 
is incorporated by reference into the advanced air bag rulemaking.
    The cost of an uninstrumented H-III5F dummy is approximately 
$33,400. Instrumentation would add $29,000 to $99,100 to the cost, 
depending on the amount of instrumentation.
    Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no 
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

Executive Order 13132

    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 
(``Federalism''). We have determined that this rule does not have 
sufficient Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism assessment.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other

[[Page 10968]]

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It also does not 
involve decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect 
children.

Executive Order 12778

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this rule will have any retroactive effect. 
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. A petition for 
reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will not be a 
prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this rule. This 
rule does not preempt the states from adopting laws or regulations on 
the same subject, except that it does preempt a state regulation that 
is in actual conflict with the federal regulation or makes compliance 
with the Federal regulation impossible or interferes with the 
implementation of the federal statute.

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). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.) and certify that 
this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The rule does not impose or 
rescind any requirements for anyone. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 
does not, therefore, require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this amendment for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

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 OMB control number. This rule does not 
propose any new information collection requirements.

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 us 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 Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    The H-III5F dummy that is the subject of this document was 
developed under the auspices of the SAE. All relevant SAE standards 
were reviewed as part of the development process. The following 
voluntary consensus standards have been used in developing the dummy:
     SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar95 
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests''; and
     SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash 
Testing, Surface Vehicle Information Report''.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal 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 in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative 
was not adopted.
    This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rule does not meet the definition of 
a Federal mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone. 
Further, it will not result in costs of $100 million or more to either 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Incorporation by reference. Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as 
follows:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

    1. The authority citation for Part 572 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. 49 CFR Part 572 is amended by adding a new Subpart O consisting 
of 572.130-572.137 to read as follows:
Subpart O--Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Alpha Version
Sec.
572.130   Incorporation by reference.
572.131   General description.
572.132   Head assembly and test procedure.
572.133   Neck assembly and test procedure.
572.134   Thorax assembly and test procedure.
572.135   Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test 
procedure.

[[Page 10969]]

572.136   Knees and knee impact test procedure.
572.137   Test conditions and instrumentation.

Subpart O--Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Alpha 
Version


Sec. 572.130  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following materials are hereby incorporated into this 
Subpart by reference:
    (1) A drawings and specification package entitled ``Parts List and 
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Small Adult 
Female Crash Test Dummy (H-III5F, Alpha Version)'' (January 2000), 
incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.131, and consisting of:
    (i) Drawing No. 880105-100X, Head Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.131, 572.132, 572.133, 572.134, 572.135, and 
572.137;
    (ii) Drawing No. 880105-250, Neck Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.131, 572.133, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
    (iii) Drawing No. 880105-300, Upper Torso Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.131, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
    (iv) Drawing No. 880105-450, Lower Torso Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.131, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
    (v) Drawing No. 880105-560-1, Complete Leg Assembly--left, 
incorporated by reference in Secs. 572.131, 572.135, 572.136, and 
572.137;
    (vi) Drawing No. 880105-560-2, Complete Leg Assembly--right 
incorporated by reference in Secs. 572.131, 572.135, 572.136, and 
572.137;
    (vii) Drawing No. 880105-728-1, Complete Arm Assembly--left, 
incorporated by reference in Secs. 572.131, 572.134, and 572.135 as 
part of the complete dummy assembly;
    (viii) Drawing No. 880105-728-2, Complete Arm Assembly--right, 
incorporated by reference in Secs. 572.131, 572.134, and 572.135 as 
part of the complete dummy assembly;
    (ix) The Hybrid III 5th percentile small adult female crash test 
dummy parts list, incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.131;
    (2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 5th Percentile 
Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy, Alpha Version'' (January 2000), 
incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.132;
    (3) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, Rev. Mar 95 ``Instrumentation 
for Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation'', incorporated by 
reference in Sec. 572.137;
    (4) SAE Recommended Practice J211/2, Rev. Mar 95 ``Instrumentation 
for Impact Tests--Part 2--Photographic Instrumentation'' incorporated 
by reference in Sec. 572.137; and
    (5) SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash 
Testing'', incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.137.
    (b) The Director of the Federal Register approved the materials 
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at NHTSA's Technical 
Reference Library, 400 Seventh Street S.W., room 5109, Washington, DC, 
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, 
Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (c) The incorporated materials are available as follows:
    (1) The Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III 
Fifth Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy, (H-III5F, Alpha 
Version) (January 2000) referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
and the Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of 
the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy, 
Alpha Version referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, are 
available from Reprographic Technologies, 9000 Virginia Manor Road, 
Beltsville, MD 20705 (301) 419-5070.
    (2) The SAE materials referred to in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) 
of this section are available from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 
Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pa. 15096.


Sec. 572.131  General description.

    (a) The Hybrid III fifth percentile adult female crash test dummy 
is defined by drawings and specifications containing the following 
materials:
    (1) Technical drawings and specifications package P/N 880105-000 
(refer to Sec. 572.130(a)(1)), the titles of which are listed in Table 
A;
    (2) Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth 
Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (H-III5F, Alpha Version) 
(January 2000) (refer to Sec. 572.130(a)(1)(ix)).

                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Component assembly                      Drawing No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Assembly............................  880105-100X
Neck Assembly............................  880105-250
Upper Torso Assembly.....................  880105-300
Lower Torso Assembly.....................  880105-450
Complete Leg Assembly--left..............  880105-560-1
Complete Leg Assembly--right.............  880105-560-2
Complete Arm Assembly--left..............  880105-728-1
Complete Arm Assembly--right.............  880105-728-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such that, except for 
contacts existing under static conditions, there is no contact between 
metallic elements throughout the range of motion or under simulated 
crash impact conditions.
    (c) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy 
conforms to this Subpart in every respect before use in any test 
similar to those specified in Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection.


Sec. 572.132  Head assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The head assembly (refer to Sec. 572.130(a)(1)(i)) for this 
test consists of the complete head (drawing 880105-100X), a six-axis 
neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11) or its structural replacement 
(drawing 78051-383X), and 3 accelerometers (drawing SA572-S4).
    (b) When the head assembly is dropped from a height of 
376.01.0 mm (14.80.04 in) in accordance with 
subsection (c) of this section, the peak resultant acceleration at the 
location of the accelerometers at the head CG may not be less than 250 
G or more than 300 G. The resultant acceleration vs. time history curve 
shall be unimodal; oscillations occurring after the main pulse must be 
less than 10 percent of the peak resultant acceleration. The lateral 
acceleration shall not exceed 15 G (zero to peak).
    (c) Head test procedure. The test procedure for the head is as 
follows:
    (1) Soak the head assembly in a controlled environment at any 
temperature between 18.9 and 25.6  deg.C (66 and 78  deg.F) and a 
relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior 
to a test.
    (2) Prior to the test, clean the impact surface of the skin and the 
impact plate surface with isopropyl alcohol, trichloroethane, or an 
equivalent. The skin of the head must be clean and dry for testing.
    (3) Suspend and orient the head assembly as shown in Figure 19 of 
49 CFR 572. The lowest point on the forehead must be 
376.01.0 mm (14.80.04 in) from the impact 
surface. The 1.57 mm (0.062 in) diameter holes located on either side 
of the dummy's head shall be used to ensure that the head is level with 
respect to the impact surface.

[[Page 10970]]

    (4) Drop the head assembly from the specified height by means that 
ensure a smooth, instant release onto a rigidly supported flat 
horizontal steel plate which is 50.8 mm (2.0 in) thick and 610 mm (24.0 
in) square. The impact surface shall be clean, dry and have a micro 
finish of not less than 203.2. x 10-6 mm (8 micro inches) 
(RMS) and not more than 2032.0 x 10-6 mm (80 micro inches) 
(RMS).
    (5) Allow at least 2 hours between successive tests on the same 
head.


Sec. 572.133  Neck assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The neck assembly (refer to Sec. 572.130(a)(1)(ii)) for the 
purposes of this test consists of the assembly of components shown in 
drawing 880105-250.
    (b) When the head-neck assembly consisting of the head (drawing 
880105-100X), neck (drawing 880105-250), bib simulator (drawing 880105-
371), upper neck adjusting bracket (drawing 880105-207), lower neck 
adjusting bracket (drawing 880105-208), six-axis neck transducer 
(drawing SA572-S11), and either three accelerometers (drawing SA572-S4) 
or their mass equivalent installed in the head assembly as specified in 
drawing 880105-100X, is tested according to the test procedure in 
subsection (c) of this section, it shall have the following 
characteristics:
    (1) Flexion. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure O1, shall rotate in 
the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline between 77 degrees and 91 degrees. During the 
time interval while the rotation is within the specified corridor, the 
peak moment, measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA5572-311), 
about the occipital condyles may not be less than 69 N-m (51 ft-lbf) 
and not more than 83 N-m (61 ft-lbf). The positive moment shall decay 
for the first time to 10 N-m (7.4 ft-lbf ) between 80 ms and 100 ms 
after time zero.
    (ii) The moment shall be calculated by the following formula: 
Moment (N-m)= My-(0.01778m) x (Fx).
    (iii) My is the moment about the y-axis, Fx 
is the shear force measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11), 
and 0.01778m is the distance from force to occipital condyle.
    (2) Extension. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure O2, shall rotate 
in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline between 99 degrees and 114 degrees. During the 
time interval while the rotation is within the specified corridor, the 
peak moment, measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA5572-S11), 
about the occipital condyles shall be not more than -53 N-m (-39 ft-
lbf) and not less than -65 N-m (-48 ft-lbf). The negative moment shall 
decay for the first time to -10 N-m (-7.4 ft-lbf) between 94 ms and 114 
ms after time zero.
    (ii) The moment shall be calculated by the following formula: 
Moment (N-m) = My - (0.01778m) x (Fx).
    (iii) My is the moment about the y-axis, Fx 
is the shear force measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11), 
and 0.01778 m is the distance from force to occipital condyle.
    (3) Time-zero is defined as the time of initial contact between the 
pendulum striker plate and the honeycomb material. All data channels 
shall be at the zero level at this time.
    (c) Test Procedure. The test procedure for the neck assembly is as 
follows:
    (1) Soak the neck assembly in a controlled environment at any 
temperature between 20.6 and 22.2  deg.C (69 and 72  deg.F) and a 
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours 
prior to a test.
    (2) Torque the jam nut (drawing 9000018) on the neck cable (drawing 
880105-206) to 1.4  0.2 N-m (12.0  2.0 in-lb).
    (3) Mount the head-neck assembly, defined in subsection (b) of this 
section, on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that 
the midsagittal plane of the head is vertical and coincides with the 
plane of motion of the pendulum as shown in Figure O1 for flexion tests 
and Figure O2 for extension tests.
    (4)(i) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely from a 
height to achieve an impact velocity of 7.01  0.12 m/s 
(23.0  0.4 ft/s) for flexion tests and 6.07  
0.12 m/s (19.9  0.40 ft/s) for extension tests, measured by 
an accelerometer mounted on the pendulum as shown in Figure 22 of 49 
CFR 572 at the instant of contact with the honey comb.
    (ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an 
acceleration vs. time pulse which meets the velocity change as 
specified below. Integrate the pendulum acceleration data channel to 
obtain the velocity vs. time curve:

                                                     Table B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Pendulum pulse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Time                                       Extension                Flexion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               ms                                     m/s        ft/s         m/s        ft/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................................................     2.1-2.5     6.9-8.2     1.5-1.9     4.9-6.2
20..............................................................     4.0-5.0   13.1-16.4     3.1-3.9   10.2-12.8
30..............................................................     5.8-7.0   19.5-23.0     4.6-5.6   15.1-18.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 572.134  Thorax assembly and test procedure.

    (a) Thorax (Upper Torso) Assembly (refer to 
Sec. 572.130(a)(1)(iii)). The thorax consists of the part of the torso 
assembly shown in drawing 880105-300.
    (b) When the anterior surface of the thorax of a completely 
assembled dummy (drawing 880105-000) is impacted by a test probe 
conforming to section 572.137(a) at 6.71 0.12 m/s (22.0 
 0.4 ft/s) according to the test procedure in subsection 
(c) of this section:
    (1) Maximum sternum displacement (compression) relative to the 
spine, measured with chest deflection transducer (drawing SA572-S5), 
must be not less than 50.0 mm (1.97 in) and not more than 58.0 mm (2.30 
in). Within this specified compression corridor, the peak force, 
measured by the impact probe as defined in section 572.137 and 
calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, shall 
not be less than 3900 N (876 lbf) and not more than 4400 N (989 lbf). 
The peak force after 18.0 mm (0.71 in) of sternum displacement but 
before reaching the minimum required 50.0 mm (1.97 in) sternum 
displacement limit shall not exceed by more than five percent the value 
of the peak force measured within the required displacement limit.
    (2) The internal hysteresis of the ribcage in each impact as 
determined by the plot of force vs. deflection in paragraph (1) of this 
section shall be not

[[Page 10971]]

less than 69 percent but not more than 85 percent. The hysteresis shall 
be calculated by determining the ratio of the area between the loading 
and unloading portions of the force deflection curve to the area under 
the loading portion of the curve.
    (3) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor 
mass and its deceleration.
    (c) Test procedure. The test procedure for the thorax assembly is 
as follows:
    (1) The dummy is clothed in a form fitting cotton stretch above-
the-elbow sleeved shirt and above-the-knee pants. The weight of the 
shirt and pants shall not exceed 0.14 kg (0.30 lb) each.
    (2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature 
between 20.6 and 22.2  deg.C (69 and 72  deg.F) and a relative humidity 
between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
    (3) Seat and orient the dummy on a seating surface without back 
support as shown in Figure O3, with the limbs extended horizontally and 
forward, parallel to the midsagittal plane, the midsagittal plane 
vertical within 1 degree and the ribs level in the 
anterior-posterior and lateral directions within 0.5 
degrees.
    (4) Establish the impact point at the chest midsagittal plane so 
that the impact point of the longitudinal centerline of the probe 
coincides with the midsagittal plane of the dummy within 
2.5 mm (0.1 in) and is 12.7 1.1 mm 
(0.50.04 in) below the horizontal-peripheral centerline of 
the No. 3 rib and is within 0.5 degrees of a horizontal line in the 
dummy's midsagittal plane.
    (5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that at the moment of 
contact the probe's longitudinal center line falls within 2 degrees of 
a horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal plane.
    (6) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no 
significant lateral, vertical or rotational movement.


Sec. 572.135  Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test 
procedure.

    (a) Upper/lower torso assembly. The test objective is to determine 
the stiffness effects of the lumbar spine (drawing 880105-1096), and 
abdominal insert (drawing 880105-434), on resistance to articulation 
between the upper torso assembly (drawing 880105-300) and the lower 
torso assembly (drawing 880105-450) (refer to Sec. 572.130(a)(1)(iv)).
    (b)(1) When the upper torso assembly of a seated dummy is subjected 
to a force continuously applied at the head to neck pivot pin level 
through a rigidly attached adaptor bracket as shown in Figure O4 
according to the test procedure set out in subsection (c) of this 
section, the lumbar spine-abdomen assembly shall flex by an amount that 
permits the upper torso assembly to translate in angular motion 
relative to the vertical transverse plane 45  0.5 degrees 
at which time the force applied must be not less than 320 N (71.5 lbf) 
and not more than 390 N (87.4 lbf), and
    (2) Upon removal of the force, the torso assembly must return to 
within 8 degrees of its initial position.
    (c) Test procedure. The test procedure for the upper/lower torso 
assembly is as follows:
    (1) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature 
between 18.9 and 25.6  deg.C (66 and 78  deg.F) and a relative humidity 
between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
    (2) Assemble the complete dummy (with or without the legs below the 
femurs) and attach to the fixture in a seated posture as shown in 
Figure O4.
    (3) Secure the pelvis to the fixture at the pelvis instrument 
cavity rear face by threading four \1/4\ inch cap screws into the 
available threaded attachment holes. Tighten the mountings so that the 
test material is rigidly affixed to the test fixture and the pelvic-
lumbar joining surface is horizontal.
    (4) Attach the loading adapter bracket to the spine of the dummy as 
shown in Figure O4.
    (5) Inspect and adjust, if necessary, the seating of the abdominal 
insert within the pelvis cavity and with respect to the torso flesh, 
assuring that the torso flesh provides uniform fit and overlap with 
respect to the outside surface of the pelvis flesh.
    (6) Flex the dummy's upper torso three times between the vertical 
and until the torso reference plane, as shown in Figure O4, reaches 30 
degrees from the vertical transverse plane. Bring the torso to vertical 
orientation and wait for 30 minutes before conducting the test. During 
the 30 minute waiting period, the dummy's upper torso shall be 
externally supported at or near its vertical orientation to prevent it 
from drooping.
    (7) Remove all external support and wait two minutes. Measure the 
initial orientation angle of the torso reference plane of the seated, 
unsupported dummy as shown in Figure O4. The initial orientation angle 
may not exceed 20 degrees.
    (8) Attach the pull cable and the load cell as shown in Figure O4.
    (9) Apply a tension force in the midsagittal plane to the pull 
cable as shown in Figure O4 at any upper torso deflection rate between 
0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second, until the angle reference plane is at 
45  0.5 degrees of flexion relative to the vertical 
transverse plane.
    (9) Continue to apply a force sufficient to maintain 45 
 0.5 degrees of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the 
highest applied force during the 10-second period.
    (10) Release all force at the attachment bracket as rapidly as 
possible, and measure the return angle with respect to the initial 
angle reference plane as defined in paragraph (6) 3 minutes after the 
release.


Sec. 572.136  Knees and knee impact test procedure.

    (a) Knee assembly. The knee assembly (refer to 
Secs. 572.130(a)(1)(v) and (vi)) for the purpose of this test is the 
part of the leg assembly shown in drawing 880105-560.
    (b)(1) When the knee assembly, consisting of sliding knee assembly 
(drawing 880105-528R or -528L), lower leg structural replacement 
(drawing 880105-603), lower leg flesh (drawing 880105-601), ankle 
assembly (drawing 880105-660), foot assembly (drawing 880105-651 or 
650), and femur load transducer (drawing SA572-S14) or its structural 
replacement (drawing 78051-319) is tested according to the test 
procedure in subsection (c), the peak resistance force as measured with 
the test probe-mounted accelerometer must be not less than 3450 N (776 
lbf) and not more than 4060 N (913 lbf).
    (b)(2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor 
mass and its deceleration.
    (c) Test procedure. The test procedure for the knee assembly is as 
follows:
    (1) Soak the knee assembly in a controlled environment at any 
temperature between 18.9 and 25.6  deg.C (66 and 78  deg.F) and a 
relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior 
to a test.
    (2) Mount the test material and secure it to a rigid test fixture 
as shown in Figure O5. No part of the foot or tibia may contact any 
exterior surface.
    (3) Align the test probe so that throughout its stroke and at 
contact with the knee it is within 2 degrees of horizontal and 
collinear with the longitudinal centerline of the femur.
    (4) Guide the pendulum so that there is no significant lateral 
vertical or rotational movement at the time of initial contact between 
the impactor and the knee.
    (5) The test probe velocity at the time of contact shall be 2.1 
 0.03 m/s (6.9  0.1 ft/s).

[[Page 10972]]

Sec. 572.137  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    (a) The test probe for thoracic impacts shall be of rigid metallic 
construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal 
axis. It shall have a mass of 13.97  0.023 kg (30.8 
 0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 5492 kg-
cm2 (4.86 lbs-in-sec2) in yaw and pitch about the 
CG. \1/3\ of the weight of the suspension cables and their attachments 
to the impact probe must be included in the calculation of mass, and 
such components may not exceed three percent of the total weight of the 
test probe. The impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and 
concentric with the longitudinal axis, must be at least 25 mm (1.0 in) 
long, and have a flat, continuous, and non-deformable 152.4 
 0.25 mm (6.00  0.01 in) diameter face with a 
maximum edge radius of 12.7 mm (0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to 
the impact face must have provisions for mounting of an accelerometer 
with its sensitive axis collinear with the longitudinal axis of the 
probe. No concentric portions of the impact probe may exceed the 
diameter of the impact face. The impact probe shall have a free air 
resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz.
    (b) The test probe for knee impacts shall be of rigid metallic 
construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal 
axis. It shall have a mass of 2.99  0.01 kg (6.6 
 0.022 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 622 kg-
cm2 (0.55 lbs-in-sec2) in yaw and pitch about the 
CG. \1/3\ of the weight of the suspension cables and their attachments 
to the impact probe may be included in the calculation of mass, and 
such components may not exceed five percent of the total weight of the 
test probe. The impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and 
concentric with the longitudinal axis, must be at least 12.5 mm (0.5 
in) long, and have a flat, continuous, and non-deformable 76.2 
 0.2 mm (3.00  0.01 in) diameter face with a 
maximum edge radius of 12.7 mm (0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to 
the impact face must have provisions for mounting an accelerometer with 
its sensitive axis collinear with the longitudinal axis of the probe. 
No concentric portions of the impact probe may exceed the diameter of 
the impact face. The impact probe must have a free air resonant 
frequency of not less than 1000 Hz.
    (c) Head accelerometers shall have dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S4 and be mounted in the head as shown in drawing 880105-000 
sheet 3 of 6.
    (d) The upper neck force/moment transducer shall have the 
dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations 
specified in drawing SA572-S11 and be mounted in the head neck assembly 
as shown in drawing 880105-000, sheet 3 of 6.
    (e) The thorax accelerometers shall have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S4 and be mounted in the torso assembly in triaxial configuration 
within the spine box instrumentation cavity and as optional 
instrumentation in uniaxial for-and-aft oriented configuration arranged 
as corresponding pairs in three locations on the sternum on and at the 
spine box of the upper torso assembly as shown in drawing 880105-000 
sheet 3 of 6.
    (f) The optional lumbar spine force-moment transducer shall have 
the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations 
specified in drawing SA572-S15 and be mounted in the lower torso 
assembly as shown in drawing 880105-450.
    (g) The optional iliac spine force transducers shall have the 
dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S16 
and be mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 880105-450.
    (h) The pelvis accelerometers shall have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S4 and be mounted in the torso assembly in triaxial configuration 
in the pelvis bone as shown in drawing 880105-000 sheet 3.
    (i) The single axis femur force transducer (SA572-S14) or the 
optional multiple axis femur force/moment transducer (SA572-S29) shall 
have the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis 
locations specified in the appropriate drawing and be mounted in the 
femur assembly as shown in drawing 880105-500 sheet 3 of 6.
    (j) The chest deflection transducer shall have the dimensions and 
response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S51 and be mounted 
to the upper torso assembly as shown in drawings 880105-300 and 880105-
000 sheet 3 of 6.
    (k) The optional lower neck force/moment transducer shall have the 
dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations 
specified in drawing SA572-S27 and be mounted to the upper torso 
assembly as shown in drawing 880105-000 sheet 3 of 6.
    (l) The optional thoracic spine force/moment transducer shall have 
the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations 
specified in drawing SA572-S28 and be mounted in the upper torso 
assembly as shown in drawing 880105-000 sheet 3 of 6.
    (m) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing devices installed 
in the dummy and in the test apparatus specified by this part shall be 
recorded in individual data channels that conform to SAE Recommended 
Practice J211/10, Rev. Mar95 ``Instrumentation for Impact Impact 
Tests;--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation,'' and SAE Recommended 
Practice J211/2, Rev Mar95 ``Instrumentation for Impact Tests--Part 2--
Photographic Instrumentation'', (refer to Secs. 572.130(a)(3) and (4) 
respectively) except as noted, with channel classes as follows:
    (1) Head acceleration--Class 1000
    (2) Neck:
    (i) Forces--Class 1000
    (ii) Moments--Class 600
    (iii) Pendulum acceleration--Class 180
    (3) Thorax:
    (i) Rib acceleration--Class 1000
    (ii) Spine and pendulum accelerations--Class 1000
    (iii) Sternum deflection -Class 180
    (iv) Forces--Class 1000
    (v) Moments--Class 600
    (4) Lumbar:
    (i) Forces--Class 1000
    (ii) Moments--Class 600
    (iii) Torso flexion pulling force--Class 60 if data channel is used
    (5) Pelvis:
    (i) Accelerations--Class 1000
    (ii) Iliac wing forces--Class 180
    (6) Femur forces--Class 600
    (n) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity shall conform to 
the Sign Convention For Vehicle Crash Testing, Surface Vehicle 
Information Report, SAE J1733, 1994-12 (refer to section 
572.130(a)(4)).
    (o) The mountings for sensing devices shall have no resonance 
frequency less than 3 times the frequency range of the applicable 
channel class.
    (p) Limb joints must be set at one G, barely restraining the weight 
of the limb when it is extended horizontally. The force needed to move 
a limb segment shall not exceed 2G throughout the range of limb motion.
    (q) Performance tests of the same component, segment, assembly, or 
fully assembled dummy shall be separated in time by not less than 30 
minutes unless otherwise noted.
    (r) Surfaces of dummy components may not be painted except as 
specified in this subpart or in drawings subtended by this subpart.


    Issued: February 22, 2000
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-U

[[Page 10973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR00.000


[[Page 10974]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR00.001


[[Page 10975]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR00.002


[[Page 10976]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR00.003


[[Page 10977]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR00.004


    Issued: February 22, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-4590 Filed 2-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C