[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15254-15271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-6253]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7051]
RIN 2127-AG 77


Anthropomorphic Test Devices; 3-Year-Old Child Crash Test Dummy

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends our regulation for Anthropomorphic Test 
Devices by adding a new, more advanced 3-year-old child dummy. The new 
dummy, part of the family of Hybrid III test dummies, is more 
representative of humans than the existing Subpart C 3-year-old child 
dummy in our regulation. Adding the dummy to our regulation is a step 
toward using the dummy in the tests we conduct to determine compliance 
with our safety standards. The use of the dummy in our compliance tests 
will be addressed in separate rulemaking proceedings.

DATES: The amendment is effective on May 22, 2000. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 22, 2000.
    Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must be received by 
May 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Stan Backaitis, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-4912). For 
legal issues: Deirdre R. Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (202-366-
2992). Both can be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends our regulation for 
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (49 CFR part 572) by adding a new, more 
advanced 3-year-old child dummy. The new dummy, part of the family of 
Hybrid III test dummies, is more representative of humans than the 
existing 3-year-old child test dummy in part 572, and allows the 
assessment of the potential for more types of injuries in automotive 
crashes. The new dummy can be used to evaluate the effects of air bag 
deployment on out-of-position children, and can provide a fuller 
evaluation of the performance of child restraint systems in protecting 
young children.
    NHTSA has already specified a number of child test dummies in part 
572, including a 3-year-old child dummy (the specifications for which 
are set forth in subpart C of part 572). That dummy, along with dummies 
representing a newborn infant, a 9-month-old and a 6-year-old child, 
are used to test child restraint systems to the requirements of Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213). These test 
devices enable NHTSA to evaluate motor vehicle safety systems 
dynamically, in a manner that is both measurable and repeatable.
    Today's final rule is part of NHTSA's effort to add improved child 
test dummies in part 572. We recently amended part 572 to add a new, 
more advanced, Hybrid III type 6-year-old child test dummy. We will 
soon issue a final rule adding a 12-month-old (CRABI 12) child test 
dummy. Together with the dummy adopted today, the new child test 
dummies would be used in tests we have proposed in our occupant crash 
protection standard (49 CFR 571.208) to assess the risks of air bag 
deployment for children, particularly unrestrained or improperly 
restrained children. The new child test dummies could also be 
incorporated into Standard No. 213 for use in compliance testing of 
child restraint systems. (Today's final rule only concerns adding the 
new 3-year-old test dummy to part 572. Issues relating to whether this 
or the other new dummies

[[Page 15255]]

should be incorporated into the compliance tests for Standards Nos. 208 
or 213, or into other standards, will be decided in separate rulemaking 
actions.)

Summary of Final Rule

    The specifications for the Hybrid III type 3-year-old test dummy 
(hereinafter referred to as the H-III3C dummy) consist of a drawing 
package that shows the component parts, the subassemblies, and the 
assembly of the complete dummy. The drawing package also defines 
materials and material treatment processes for all the dummy's 
component parts, and specifies the dummy's instrumentation and 
instrument installation methods. In addition, there is a manual 
containing disassembly, inspection, and assembly procedures, and a 
dummy parts list. These drawings and specifications ensure that the 
dummies will vary little from each other in their construction and are 
capable of consistent and repeatable response in the impact 
environment. The parts list and drawings are available for inspection 
in NHTSA's docket (room 5220, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590, telephone (202) 366-4949). (We are using NHTSA's docket because 
the drawings cannot be electronically scanned into the DOT Docket 
Management System.) Copies may also be obtained from Reprographic 
Technologies, 9000 Virginia Manor Road, Beltsville, MD 20705; 
Telephone: (301) 210-5600.
    NHTSA is specifying impact performance criteria to serve as 
calibration checks and to further assure the kinematic uniformity of 
the dummy and the absence of structural damage and functional 
deficiency from previous use. The tests address head, neck, and thorax 
impact responses and assess the resistance of the lumbar spine-abdomen 
region to upper torso flexion motion.
    The agency has adopted generic specifications for all of the dummy-
based sensors. For most earlier dummies, the agency specified sensors 
by make and model. However, we believe that approach is unnecessarily 
restrictive and limits innovation and competition. Accordingly, the 
specifications adopted today reflect performance characteristics of the 
sensors used in our evaluation tests of the dummy, that are identified 
by make and model in a NHTSA technical report ``Development and 
Evaluation of the Hybrid III 3-year-old Child Dummy'' (December 1998). 
A copy of this report is in the docket for the notice of proposed 
rulemaking that we published for this final rule (Docket No. 99-5032). 
Those sensor characteristics were also the basis for our discussions 
with a special task force of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
J-211 Instrumentation Committee concerning our work on the dummy.

Background

    The need for the H-III3C dummy arose as it became evident that air 
bags posed risks for out-of-position children. Experience in using the 
existing 3-year-old dummy in part 572 (Subpart C) showed it to be 
adequate for the purpose of evaluating the ability of child restraints 
to protect against the risk of injury under the test conditions 
specified by Standard No. 213. However, that dummy's injury assessment 
is limited to head and chest measurements; it is not adequate for 
evaluating the safety of an air bag environment.
    For example, neck injury is one of the primary causes of air bag-
related fatalities to out-of-position children. Thus, to evaluate the 
effects of air bag deployment, a dummy must have a high degree of 
biofidelity in kinematics and impact responses during neck flexion and 
extension. However, because the neck of the existing dummy does not 
have a multi-segment design, it has limited biofidelity in these areas.
    By contrast, the more advanced H-III3C dummy provides a more human-
like impact response than the existing 3-year-old child dummy, as well 
as a broader selection of instruments to assess the injury potential to 
child occupants. Of particular significance are the multi-segmented 
neck, multi-rib thorax, and the ability to monitor submarining 
tendencies that could be related to abdominal loading. Because of the 
greater biofidelity and extended measurement capability of the H-III3C 
dummy, it can be used to evaluate the safety of children in a much 
wider array of environments than the existing dummy, including 
assessing the effects of air bag deployment on out-of-position 
children.
    The H-III3C dummy 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 this dummy for compliance testing under Standard No. 
208, Occupant Crash Protection, since 1986, initially for optional use, 
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.'' At that time, the funding covered only the 
development of dummies representing a small female adult and a large 
male adult. Development of a Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy began in 1992 
when the SAE Small Female, Large Male and Six-Year-Old Child Dummies 
Task Group \1\ identified a need for a new dummy equipped with 
sufficient instrumentation capable of assessing a child's interaction 
with both air bags and child restraints. The task group noted that the 
dummy should be suitable for use in sitting, kneeling and standing 
postures. After a preliminary design was conceived and reviewed, a 
prototype dummy was developed and evaluated by the task group from 1995 
to 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The task group has been renamed the ``Hybrid III Dummy 
Family Task Group''. Minutes of the task groups meetings are 
available for review in the NHTS docket (Docket no. NHTSA98-4283)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 1997, NHTSA initiated a thorough test and evaluation program 
of the dummy. On completion of our evaluation in the fall of 1998, we 
tentatively concluded that it was ready for incorporation into part 
572. On January 28, 1999, we published an NPRM proposing to incorporate 
the H-III3C dummy into part 572 as subpart P, and invited comments (64 
FR 4385).

Comments on the NPRM

    We received comments from eight organizations: Robert A. Denton, 
Inc. (Denton), General Motors North America (GM), Advocates for Highway 
and Auto Safety (Advocates), Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota), 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Mitsubishi Motors R & D of 
America, Inc. (Mitsubishi), the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
(Alliance), and the SAE Dummy Testing Equipment Subcommittee (SAE).
    No commenter opposed adding the H-III3C dummy to part 572. 
Advocates, Toyota and NTSB expressly supported the incorporation of the 
H-III3C test dummy. GM, based on its experience with the H-III3C dummy, 
believes the test dummy is generally suitable for use in crash testing. 
GM supported the proposal with suggested changes to correct or clarify 
various specifications in the NPRM for the dummy.\2\ Denton (which 
manufactures load cells used in crash dummies), Mitsubishi and Toyota 
also had technical comments on various aspects of the proposal. In 
general, commenters addressed the following issues: calibration 
procedures and

[[Page 15256]]

specifications for the head, neck flexion and extension, thorax, and 
torso flexion; instrumentation specifications; dimensional changes to 
dummy drawings; and the dummy's user's manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Alliance's comment consisted of a letter fully endorsing 
the docket comments submitted by GM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calibration Procedures and Specifications

Head

    For calibration, the agency proposed a head drop test in which the 
head response must not be less than 250 g or more than 280 g. The only 
comment we received on the proposed corridor was from GM, which agrees 
with it. The commenter states that the corridor is consistent with 
available data reviewed by the SAE. In view of the comment received, we 
have adopted the corridor as proposed in the NPRM.
    In the proposed head drop test, the head assembly is suspended for 
forehead impact from a specified height at an angle of 621 
degrees between plane D (i.e., the reference surface plane of the head) 
and the plane of the impact surface. Mitsubishi said that the H-III3C 
dummy's head is smaller than that of the 50th percentile dummy and thus 
the surface defining plane D on the neck load mass simulator is too 
small to correctly insert an angle meter. The commenter states that 
this makes it very difficult to set up the angle between the lower 
surface plane of the neck load mass simulator and the plane of impact 
surface to the required 621 degrees. Mitsubishi feels that 
the angle for the head drop test can be more easily determined and set 
if an angle of 28 degrees is taken from the transverse plane of the 
skull cap to skull interface with the skull cap removed. Mitsubishi 
also recommends using a concave shaped setting jig to hold the dummy 
head when the angle is measured.
    We agree with Mitsubishi's observation that in the head test 
procedure, it would be easier to set the head orientation relative to 
the skull/skull cap interface. However, we believe it would be more 
convenient for test purposes to establish a reference ``D plane'' 
perpendicular to the skull/skull cap interface. This is because we 
could use the same ``D plane'' definition for head drop tests and neck 
pendulum tests in which a headform is used. Further, it is the same D 
plane definition as used for Hybrid III 6-year-old child and 5th 
percentile female adult test dummies. As the ``D plane'' is defined to 
be perpendicular to the skull/skull cap interface, there would not be a 
need to remove the skull cap or to use a setting jig. With respect to 
Mitsubishi's suggestion to use a concave-shaped setting jig to hold the 
head while the angle is set, we do not see a need for requiring such a 
tool. However, we would not object to its use as long as the final 
setup of the head orientation does not change once the jig is removed 
and the skull cap is reattached.

Neck Flexion and Extension

    For calibration, the agency proposed a pendulum-mounted headform-
neck assembly impact test and corresponding neck flexion and extension 
performance requirements.
    For flexion:
    (1) Plane D of the headform must rotate in the direction of 
preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's longitudinal centerline 
not less than 70 degrees and not more than 82 degrees occurring between 
45 milliseconds (ms) and 60 ms from time zero, and (2) the peak moment 
about the occipital condyles must not be less than 44 Newton meters (N-
m) and not more than 56 N-m occurring within the minimum and maximum 
rotation interval and (3) the positive moment shall decay for the first 
time to 10 N-m in the time frame between 60 ms and 80 ms.
    For extension:
    (1) Plane D of the headform must rotate in the direction of 
preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's longitudinal centerline 
not less than 80 degrees and not more than 90 degrees occurring between 
50 ms and 65 ms from time zero, and (2) the peak negative moment about 
the occipital condyles must have a value not less than -42 N-m and not 
more than -53 N-m occurring within the minimum and maximum rotation 
interval and the negative moment shall decay for the first time to -10 
N-m in the time frame between 60 and 80 ms.
    The regulatory text proposed for the H-III3C dummy states in 
Sec. 572.143(c)(3)(i), ``The moment and rotation data channels are 
defined to be zero when the longitudinal centerline of the neck and 
pendulum are parallel.'' Section 572.143(c)(4)(i) states that time-zero 
is defined as the time of initial contact between the pendulum striker 
plate and the honeycomb material. The pendulum accelerometer data 
channel shall be at the zero level at this time.
    Toyota suggests that all data channels for the neck extension and 
flexion tests be at the zero level at time zero, rather than only the 
pendulum accelerometer data channel. We disagree. Our tests indicate 
that the H-III3C dummy neck is much more flexible than those of the 
Hybrid III 6-year-old and 5th percentile female adult dummies. As a 
result, the head-neck complex of the H-III3C dummy experiences some 
pre-impact kinematic lag as the inclined pendulum accelerates downward 
towards the vertical. If all data channels, including rotation and 
moment channels, were made zero at impact, as Toyota suggests, the pre-
impact neck rotation lag would not be accounted for in the total 
rotation of the neck, which would not be in line with the method by 
which biomechanical corridors were established.
    The neck biomechanical response corridors were based on ``flexion'' 
and ``extension,'' or forward and backward bending of the neck, 
respectively, due to inertial forces of the head from its neutral 
position. In order to measure true flexion and extension during 
calibration tests, the zero level of the data channels must be 
established prior to initiation of the drop test, when the longitudinal 
centerline of the neck and pendulum are parallel with respect to each 
other, i.e., when the pendulum hangs down in a vertical position. With 
regard to the pendulum accelerometer data channel, that channel must be 
zeroed at time zero in order to get the correct integrated velocity 
curve from which the velocity pulse readings are taken at specific time 
intervals. Accordingly, as proposed in the NPRM, the final rule will 
retain the time zero setting procedure for the pendulum data channel, 
but not for the neck channels.

Neck Flexion

    GM states that according to SAE-compiled data from necks produced 
by First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS), a dummy manufacturer, we 
should adjust the peak moment corridor from the proposed 44-56 N-m 
range to 40-53 N-m. The proposed range was based on an average of 50 N-
m, while the suggested adjusted corridor is based on an average of 46.5 
N-m. GM agrees with the rest of the neck flexion performance 
requirements and the pendulum pulse specifications in NPRM.
    We agree that the corridor should be adjusted, but not to the 
extent suggested by GM. Our analysis of the recommended corridor for 
the neck flexion moment, based on a complete database consisting of all 
data submitted by the SAE and additional test data from NHTSA's Vehicle 
Research and Test Center, indicates that the average peak moment is at 
46.6 N-m with a standard deviation (s.d.) of 3.3. Two standard 
deviations about the mean yield a corridor width of 14.2%. 
While GM is correct that narrowed calibration corridors reduce the 
probability that a complying test dummy can be produced, a wide 
corridor of this magnitude could permit the

[[Page 15257]]

manufacture of necks with a degree of variability that could complicate 
enforcement efforts. It is accepted practice in the biomechanics 
community to judge the adequacy of a component's variability in 
subsystems tests as 0-5% being in the excellent range, 5-8% good, 8-10 
% marginally acceptable and above 10% not acceptable. The values 
proposed by GM would lie outside the acceptable range of variability. 
Using the 10% value as the maximum allowable variability, we are 
revising the corridor for neck flexion to a value of 42 N-m minimum and 
53 N-m maximum. The above specification will have minimal effects on 
dummy users, but dummy manufacturers will have to produce necks to 
lower levels of variability than is indicated in test data generated by 
dummy manufacturer FTSS. Because FTSS has produced necks with a lower 
variability, achieving the range is practicable.

Neck Extension

    GM notes that SAE compiled data suggest a need to shift the peak 
rotation corridor in extension from 80-90 degrees to 83-93 degrees. 
This suggested revision does not increase the width of the corridor 
proposed in the NPRM, but raises the mean value from 85 degrees to 88 
degrees. Also, GM believes that the data indicate a need to widen the 
peak negative extension moment corridor from the range of -42 N-m to 
-53 N-m to a range of -41
N-m to -56 N-m as a reflection of a slightly larger spread of the SAE 
data base. The revised peak moment corridor has nearly the same average 
(-48 N-m), but is 4% larger in spread than that proposed in the NPRM 
(15.5% vs. 11.5%). GM agrees with the rest of the neck extension 
performance corridor requirements and pendulum pulse specifications in 
NPRM.
    We have examined all of the available extension calibration data. 
The data indicate that the mean peak rotation is 88 degrees with a s.d. 
at 2.2. degrees. Accordingly, we agree with GM that the 
peak rotation corridor should be adjusted to the recommended 83-93 
degrees range. As for peak negative moment, we agree with GM's 
recommended mean value of -48.5 N-m but do not agree with the 
recommended corridor range of 15.5%. The available data 
yields a s.d. of 3.7 which corresponds to the 15% response 
corridor at 2 s.d. As explained above in the discussion of neck flexion 
requirements, the desirable dispersion range for consistency in 
repeatability should be below 8%, but should not exceed 10%. Applying 
the 10% limit value yields a peak force response corridor between -43.7 
N-m and -53.3 N-m. The revised range is particularly important to 
assure that the variability of the critical extension moment is not the 
cause of contention in vehicle compliance tests. As noted in the above 
discussion, improvements in quality control of necks in production 
would achieve the desired repeatability in response.

Neck-Headform Flexion/Extension Rotation

    The NPRM proposed headform rotation versus time requirements in 
flexion and extension, in 572.143(b)(1)(i) and 572.143(b)(2)(i), that 
were identical to the requirements for the existing 3-year-old child 
dummy specified in subpart C. When the Subpart C dummy was adopted into 
part 572 in 1979, a means of measuring the peak moment of the neck was 
not available, so the rotation-displacement specifications were needed. 
Since 1979, however, the moment-measuring load cell became available 
for this purpose. With the use of a six-axis load cell on the H-III3C 
dummy, the timing of the peak moment can be measured and more precisely 
expressed than when using a headform rotation plot. We believe that 
specifying a minimum-maximum peak moment within a maximum headform 
rotation window is sufficient to control the dynamic properties of the 
neck (to control head kinematics) without having also headform rotation 
in time requirements. A six-axis load cell simplifies the procedure and 
removes the need for a redundant requirement for measuring head 
translation/rotation versus time characteristics.
    Accordingly, this final rule does not adopt proposed sections 
572.143(b)(1)(i) and 572.143(b)(2)(i) of the NPRM.

Thorax

    For calibration, the agency proposed the following impactor probe 
test and performance requirements: (1) The maximum sternum displacement 
relative to the spine must be not less than 32 mm and not more than 38 
mm, and (2) during this displacement interval, the peak force measured 
by the probe must be not less than 600 N and not more than 800 N.
    Mitsubishi is concerned about the NPRM's lack of dimensional 
tolerance for the 50.8 mm diameter of the thorax impact test probe. The 
commenter recommends the probe diameter at 50.80.25 mm. We 
have added the suggested dimensional tolerance along with other 
modifications involving the development of generic specifications for 
all impactors.
    GM indicates agreement with most of the thorax performance 
requirements and probe specifications in the NPRM, with the exception 
of the peak force corridor. GM suggests, based on SAE data, that the 
corridor should be shifted upward from the proposed range of 600-800 N 
to 650-850 N. GM's suggested corridor is based on an average of 750 N, 
and therefore its percentage is slightly lower in width (by 
approximately 1% (13 % vs. 14%)).
    We examined all of the thorax impact data available to us, which 
includes the SAE data supplied in docket comments and our data 
generated at VRTC. The combined data sets yield an average impact 
response of 746 N with s.d. of 32 N, indicating that the NPRM corridor 
needs adjustment in both the mean response value and the corridor's 
width. The data suggest that the response corridor's width can be set 
at 2 s.d. while remaining just above the 8% good to 
marginal acceptability norm. Accordingly, this final rule adjusts the 
thorax response corridor to a new range between 680 N minimum and 810 N 
maximum, which is within but slightly narrower than the response range 
recommended by GM.
    This final rule also adjusts the limit in Sec. 572.144(b)(1) of the 
NPRM that the peak force measured during the sternum-to-spine 
displacement interval must not be more than 800 N at any time. In its 
comment on the NPRM for the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy, TRC 
suggested that an inertial data spike at the beginning of the test 
should not be subject to this limit. The agency determined that the 
initial force spike is an artifact of the inertial mass interaction 
between the impactor and the dummy, has no biomechanical significance, 
and is not an indicator of a bad rib set. The final rule for the 5th 
percentile female adult dummy accommodated the existence of the initial 
data spike by limiting peak force measurements only to a specified 
sternum displacement after the initial force spike has occurred. 
Today's final rule for the Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy uses the 
same approach in accommodating the initial data spike, and accordingly 
excludes force data from the first 12.5 mm of sternum compression.
    Thus, this final rule limits peak forces that occur in what we term 
a ``transition compression zone'' prior to reaching the specified 
sternum compression corridor limit. The transition compression zone 
starts at 12.5 mm and ends at 32 mm. We selected 12.5 mm as the 
beginning of the zone based on available force-compression data which 
indicate that the initial inertial force spikes occur

[[Page 15258]]

between 6 to 8 mm of compression. Thereafter, the force diminishes and 
does not begin to rise again well after the sternum reaches 12.5 mm of 
compression.
    Unlike the initial force spikes, forces within the transition 
compression zone should be limited because excessively large force 
spikes are indicative of deficiencies in the chest structure. 
Biomechanical response corridors indicate that high peaks in the 
transition compression zone would not be humanlike and not likely to 
occur in a well functioning physical spring-mass system, which is 
representative of the dummy's rib cage. An excessively high peak force 
occurring in the transition compression zone would indicate a 
mechanical deficiency within the rib cage structure, even though the 
peak force requirement within the specified compression corridor is 
met. Accordingly, an additional upper force peak limit prior to the 
specified displacement corridor would provide significant assurance 
that the dummy's rib cage has human-like response and adequate 
structural integrity. Limiting force peaks in the transition zone is 
consistent with the specifications for the Hybrid III 6-year-old child 
and 5th percentile female adult dummies.
    We have analyzed the H-III3C dummy's thorax response and found that 
statistically the peak force of a well-functioning dummy in the 
transition compression zone could be as high as 860 N. Accordingly, we 
are including in Sec. 572.144 (b)(1) a 860 N peak force limit for a 
compression zone bounded between 12.5 mm and 32 mm.
    We have also expanded Sec. 572.144(b)(2) to include an explanation 
of how internal hysteresis of the rib cage is to be measured and 
included in subsection (c) a more precise description of the clothing 
that is used on this dummy during the thorax impact test.

Torso

    For calibration, the agency proposed the following torso flexion 
test and performance requirements: (1) When the torso is flexed 45 
degrees from vertical by an applied force vector at 62 degrees to 65 
degrees from horizontal, the resistance force must not be less than 130 
N and not more than 180 N, and (2) upon removal of the force, the upper 
torso assembly returns to within 10 degrees of its initial position.
    Mitsubishi believes the 0.75 kg mass for the loading adapter 
bracket that holds the torso is proportionally too large considering 
the dummy's relatively small mass and its soft spine with respect to 
the larger size Hybrid III dummies. The commenter also believes that a 
better definition of the loading adapter bracket is needed to avoid 
possible interference with the dummy during this test. Mitsubishi 
recommends specifying a 0.02 kg tolerance to the 0.75 kg 
weight of the loading adapter bracket.
    We agree with Mitsubishi that the mass of the loading bracket 
should be reduced. In light of the comment, we have reviewed the masses 
involved in the system that flexes the dummy. As a result of this 
review, we are revising the specification of mass associated with the 
pull test to a maximum of 0.70 kg. This mass includes all of the dummy-
based attachments and hardware, \1/3\ of the pulling wire, and the load 
cell that is used to measure the pull load. Inasmuch as the same load 
cell is being used for tests of other size dummies, there is little 
flexibility to reduce its weight short of designing a new one, which 
would unnecessarily delay this rulemaking. Because we are specifying a 
maximum weight for the entire system, test facilities will have some 
flexibility in selecting the weight of individual components of the 
system, such as the loading adaptor bracket. Thus, a weight tolerance 
for the loading adaptor bracket is not needed.
    We have clarified section S572.145(c), which specifies the 
installation of the loading bracket, its design, the attachment of the 
pulling mechanism and the sequence of applying and releasing of the 
pull forces. Figure P5 contains considerable additional detail 
regarding the loading bracket, its installation on the dummy, and 
alignment of the point of load application with respect to the 
occipital condyle.
    Toyota suggests removal of the upper and lower arms for the 
calibration test, which is consistent with the procedure for the 50th 
percentile male dummy in subpart B of part 572. Toyota believes that 
the applied load will vary due to interference between the lower arm 
and femur and a flat rigid seating surface. As the mass-moment of the 
upper body of the dummy will be reduced by the removal of the upper and 
lower arms, Toyota requests the agency to review the test condition for 
the load application.
    We have reviewed data from our tests and found that the procedure 
specified in our calibration tests has not generated any interference 
problems by the arms as Toyota suggests. We do not believe our test 
procedure will cause the problem described by the commenter. 
Accordingly, this aspect of the proposed test procedure is unchanged.
    Toyota requests that the pull force angle be applied perpendicular 
to the posterior surface of the spine box, i.e., 45 degrees from the 
horizontal, rather than at an angle of 62-65 degrees from horizontal. 
Toyota believes that the applied pull force at the 62-65 degree angle 
produces not only a flexion moment, but also a compression force on the 
lumbar spine. Toyota states that applying the force perpendicular to 
the posterior surface of the spine box is a more reasonable method to 
evaluate flexion characteristics of the lumbar spine, since it will 
minimize compression. Toyota notes that the lumbar flexion procedure 
for the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy specifies the applied force angle 
perpendicular to the thoracic spine box instrumentation cavity mating 
surface.
    We do not share Toyota's concern about compression forces on the 
lumbar spine during the flexion test. The compressive force on the 
lumbar spine is of little consequence since it is always of the same 
magnitude from test to test if the dummy conforms to specified pull 
force requirements. We also note that in any flexion test, compression 
forces within the lumbar spine are unavoidable. However, in line with 
Toyota's suggestion, the H-III3C torso flexion calibration procedure 
has been revised to be consistent with the new Hybrid III 6-year-old 
child dummy and 5th percentile adult female adult dummy, in that the 
pulling force is applied perpendicularly to the thoracic spine box 
instrumentation cavities' rearmost surface. This location does not 
remove the vertical forces on the lumbar spine as Toyota has suggested, 
but it does clarify the orientation of the pull force relative to the 
torso.
    Toyota recommends specification of recovery time between repeated 
tests to enable the dummy skin to recover and thereby increase the 
likelihood of repeatable calibration tests. The commenter suggests a 
thirty-minute waiting (recovery) period, to be consistent with 
specifications in part 572 for the Hybrid III 50th percentile male 
dummy. We had included a thirty-minute period in the NPRM, see proposed 
Sec. 572.146(p), and have adopted it in this final rule.
    GM objects to the proposed requirement of the torso flexion test as 
a calibration test. The commenter believes that the dummy's torso 
flexion performance can be adequately controlled by specifying lumbar 
spine and abdominal insert designs, and that periodic inspections would 
be adequate to assure dummy performance rather than a calibration test. 
GM also states that the proposed injury measurements from out-of-
position (OOP) tests with air bags are not expected to be affected by

[[Page 15259]]

the lumbar spine-abdomen region of the dummy, because typically in OOP 
tests maximum loading of the dummy occurs well before gross motion of 
the upper torso. The commenter also believes that with regard to the 
use of the dummy in testing child restraint systems, the dummy would be 
expected to be reasonably well restrained, which would limit the 
flexion of the upper torso. For these reasons, GM believes the 
calibration test is not critical for incorporation of the dummy into 
part 572 and should not be required. Alternatively, GM suggests, if we 
were to mandate this test, the 10-degree torso return angle requirement 
should be removed because GM believes it is not needed to evaluate the 
bending stiffness of the lumbar spine/upper torso assembly.
    We disagree with GM that the torso flexion calibration tests should 
not be required. During a crash test, the dummy's parts interact with 
each other as a system. This type of interaction can be best controlled 
or verified by a test that exercises all of the interacting parts. 
Further, we believe that the dummy's torso flexion stiffness also 
affects the kinematics of the head, neck, and upper torso with respect 
to the lower torso. The torso stiffness will thus influence, for 
example, how far and at what velocity the dummy's head or other parts 
will move, and will partly determine the orientation of the dummy's 
upper body half when encountering a deploying air bag. Accordingly, it 
is important that the torso flexion calibration test for this dummy be 
included to validate the dummy prior to a dynamic test.
    Inasmuch as there were no comments opposing the proposed 
requirement that the torso's resistance force must be from 130 N to 180 
N force when flexed 45 degrees from vertical, we are adopting the 
proposed specification. We are also adopting the 10-degree torso return 
angle requirement, as proposed in the NPRM. GM suggests in its comment 
that ``* * * the proposed torso return angle requirement 
(Sec. 572.145(b)(2)) (should) be removed, because it is not needed to 
evaluate the bending stiffness of the lumbar spine/upper torso 
assembly.'' We believe 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.

Other Issues Relating to Calibration Requirements and Procedures

    GM suggests that the specifications for the H-III3C dummy should 
include a requirement that the dummy must meet calibration 
specifications following a NHTSA compliance test. The commenter states 
that part 572 has such a requirement for dummies adopted previously, 
while the rulemaking proposals on the new Hybrid III 6-year-old, 5th 
percentile female adult, and on the CRABI 12-month-old infant have not 
included such a requirement. GM believes that the post-test dummy state 
of compliance is very important because non-complying compliance test 
results may be dummy-related. Without post-test dummy verification 
(calibration), GM claims, no one can determine with reasonable 
certainty whether a non-compliance is due to a test dummy anomaly or to 
a real vehicle issue.
    We disagree. The pre-test calibration should adequately address the 
suitability of the dummy for testing. We are concerned that the post-
test calibration requirement could handicap and delay our ability to 
resolve a potential vehicle or motor vehicle equipment test failure 
solely because the post-test dummy might have experienced a component 
failure and might no longer conform to all of the specifications. On 
several occasions during the past few years, a dummy has been damaged 
during a compliance test such that it could not satisfy all of the 
post-test calibration requirements. Yet the damage to the dummy at the 
time it occurred did not affect the dummy's ability to accurately 
measure the performance requirements of the standard. We are also 
concerned that the interaction between the vehicle or equipment and the 
dummy could be directly responsible for the dummy's inability to meet 
calibration requirements. In such an instance, the failure of the test 
dummy should not preclude the agency from seeking compliance action. 
Thus, we conclude that a post-calibration requirement would not be in 
the public interest, since it could impede our proceeding with a 
compliance investigation in those cases where the test data indicate 
that the dummy measurements were not markedly affected by the dummy 
damage or that some aspect of vehicle or equipment design was 
responsible for the dummy failure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We issued our final rules on the Hybrid III-type 6-year-old 
child and 5th percentile adult female dummies since the date of the 
Alliance's comment. Consistent with today's rule, those final rules 
do not include a post-test calibration requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instrumentation

    The agency proposed generic specifications for all of the dummy-
based sensors, which included--

(1) The accelerometer designated as SA572-S4;
(2) Force and/or moment transducers:
(a) Anterior-superior iliac spine load cell SA572-S17,
(b) Pubic load cell SA572-S18,
(c) Neck SA572-S19,
(d) Lumbar spine SA572-S20,
(e) Shoulder load cell SA572-S21, and
(f) Acetabulum load cell SA572-S22; and
(3) The thorax based chest deflection potentiometer SA572-S50.

Comments on proposed generic sensors were received from Denton and GM.

Load Cell Sensitivity (Output)

    Denton notes that the load cell sensitivity specification was 
unnecessarily restrictive without notable benefit. Denton argues that 
input/output specifications were not needed because future technology 
may produce systems that could change their definition. Accordingly, 
Denton requests that all references to the type of output be removed 
from drawings SA572-S17, -S18, -S19, -S20, -S21, and -S22.
    We do not agree with Denton that output specifications are not 
needed. A sensor is only good if it is capable of generating some kind 
of a controlled output for a given input. Accordingly, we are retaining 
input/output requirements for all of the specified generic sensors.

Bridge Resistance Specifications

    Denton suggests that bridge resistance specifications, shown in 
drawings SA572-S18, -S19 and -S21, are not needed and should be 
removed. The commenter believes that some test facilities may prefer 
using other bridge resistances than those shown on the draft drawings 
due to their particular data acquisition systems. However, their 
ability to use those transducers would be necessarily curtailed because 
of the restrictive specification in the drawings, even though different 
bridge resistances may give identical performance. We agree with this 
suggestion and have removed the bridge resistance

[[Page 15260]]

specifications from the revised generic sensor drawings.

Load Cell Free Air Resonant Frequency and Weight Specifications

    Denton suggests that the assignment of free air resonant 
frequencies (the first order ringing frequency of a freely suspended 
load cell) should be consistent with those for the new 6-year-old dummy 
and a new 5th percentile female adult dummy. Denton also believes that 
several drawings should indicate a maximum weight, and not a nominal 
weight. We concur with these suggestions. While we would prefer to 
establish nominal weights for the load cells,\4\ there is no acceptable 
method of weighing the load cells, particularly those containing 
integral cables. Because of this, weight tolerances for the load cells 
could not be established. Until an acceptable weighing procedure is 
developed, dummy manufacturers must take into account the variabilities 
of load cell weights to assure that each subsystem weight 
specification, as shown in sheet 6 of drawing 210-0000, is met. 
Accordingly, we have specified in the sensor drawings only maximum 
weights and minimum free air resonant frequencies. They are as follows:

    \4\ Load cell weights with only ``maximum'' weight designations 
could vary considerably. While not specifying a minimum load cell 
weight may not matter much for larger adult test dummies, lack of 
such a specification poses a potentially larger problem for the 
smaller child test dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Drawing SA572-S17 (ASIS)--0.20 kg (0.44 lb) maximum each side and 
2000 Hz minimum free air resonant frequency;
--Drawing SA572-S18 (pubic load cell)--0.24 kg (0.53 lb) maximum and 
2000 Hz minimum free air resonant frequency;
--Drawing SA572-S19 (neck load cell)--0.24 kg (0.52 lb) maximum and 
3000 Hz minimum free air resonant frequency;
--Drawing SA572-S20 (lumbar load cell)--0.26 kg (0.58 lb) maximum and 
3000 Hz minimum free air resonant frequency;
--Drawing SA572-S21 (shoulder load cell)--0.09 kg (0.19 lb) maximum and 
2000 Hz minimum free air resonant frequency; and
--Drawing SA572-S22 (acetabulum load cell)--0.19 kg (0.42 lb) maximum 
and 5000 Hz minimum free air resonant frequency.
    Denton also suggests that the load cell weight specifications 
should clarify that the specified weight does not include any cable or 
mounting hardware, except as noted. The commenter states that drawing 
S19 should indicate that the weight includes the head washer and four 
10-24  x  \3/4\" flat head cap screws. All of the agency specifications 
for accelerometers and load cells indicate what is considered as part 
of the load cell. We have modified drawing S19 to include the head 
washer and four 10-24  x  \3/4\" head cap screws.

Accelerometer Specifications

    GM supports generic specification for sensors to reduce the 
restrictive nature of instrumentation specifications seen in the past. 
However, GM believes that the sensor specifications included in the 
NPRM are not sufficiently generic. GM notes that the accelerometer 
specified in drawing SA572-S4 limits the users to only two models, 
based on ability to meet the seismic mass and hole pattern 
requirements. The commenter states that other accelerometers might be 
acceptable but can not be used under the proposed specification. GM 
feels a more functional description is needed that would define, by 
dimensions and tolerances, an intersection location of the triaxial 
accelerometer sensing masses.
    We are aware of at least two manufacturers that have in the past or 
are now marketing accelerometers that match the specifications listed 
in drawing SA572-S4. As to the specific hole patterns and associated 
mounting platforms, they are needed for mounting the accelerometers. 
Since the same accelerometer specifications apply to all other dummies, 
the accelerometer must be attachable to the new Hybrid III 6-year-old 
and the 5th percentile female adult as well as to the CRABI 12-month-
old dummies, all of which use the common hole pattern for attachment. 
Although the sensing mass of each accelerometer is defined relative to 
reference surfaces of the accelerometer structure, hole patterns and 
mounting platforms need also to be known to assure existence and 
compatibility of space and mating surfaces and methods of attachment in 
the areas that they are to be mounted. In addition, the mounting 
surfaces and attachments must have appropriate structural integrity for 
vibration control purposes. The defined structure and methods of 
attachment assure that this is met. The concept, as GM suggests, of 
defining a location in space for the intersection center of seismic 
masses of several accelerometers rather than specifying it in design 
parameters is an attractive concept and warrants further consideration, 
as this approach could allow greater use of equivalent alternatives. 
However, none of the commenters offered a model to further this concept 
and not enough is known at this time on the consequences of the 
suggested approach were it to be adopted in this final rule.

Accelerometer Frequency Response

    GM requested clarification as to what it means for a piece of 
instrumentation to meet SAE J211 CFC 1000 specifications. GM stated 
that most accelerometers do not fully meet the roll-off specification 
and no damped accelerometers can meet any of the roll-off requirements. 
Denton, in its comments on frequency response for the 5th percentile 
dummy (Docket No NHTSA-1998-4283-10), suggested adding a note on each 
of the sensor drawings indicating ``* * * what CFC channel class should 
be used for recording data with that type of transducer.'' This is a 
reasonable suggestion, since the SAE J211 clearly deals with the entire 
data channel and not with a particular sensor within the data channel. 
Accordingly, a note has been added to the SA572-S4 drawing saying that 
``Signal output must be compatible with and recordable in the data 
channel defined by SAE J211.''

Optional Transducers

    GM believes pelvis accelerometers should be optional as they are 
not required for any proposed injury measurement requirement. GM 
suggests changing the NPRM language from ``(these accelerometers) are 
to be mounted'' to ``(these accelerometers) are allowed to be mounted * 
* *'' We agree with the GM comment and have revised Sec. 572.146(k) to 
indicate optional use of pelvis accelerometers and Sec. 572.146(c) to 
indicate optional use of the neck load cell at the lower neck 
transducer location.

Dimensional Changes to Dummy Drawings

    Denton requests that drawing 210-4512 be revised to correct the 
location of the 1.880 inch dimension. Denton also noted that additional 
specifications are needed in drawing 210-4510 to assure a fit of the 
load cell on the mounting surfaces. Denton suggests adding further 
dimensions on drawing 210-4512 to allow for machining after welding, 
and a specification to drawing 210-4510 to require that a region at 
least 1.300 inch from center on each side of the part (total width 
2.600 inch) must be flat within 0.005 in. We agree with the recommended 
changes and have revised the drawings as suggested.

Title and Features of the Users Manual

    The NPRM noted in Secs. 572.140(a)(2) and 572.141(a)(2) that the 
final rule package will contain a ``User's Manual''

[[Page 15261]]

for the H-III3C dummy. The manual would contain identified procedures 
on how to inspect, assemble and disassemble the dummy, similar to 
procedures published for other part 572 dummies. Responding to the 
NPRM, the SAE notes that it has developed a User's Manual for this 
dummy and suggests its incorporation by reference into part 572. We 
have reviewed its content, but decline to reference it for several 
reasons.
    Our review found the SAE's manual containing, besides inspection 
and assembly procedures, several calibration procedures and response 
requirements. Calibration procedures and response requirements are set 
forth by this final rule in part 572. It is not advisable to establish 
requirements in a separate document, which could contain calibration 
procedures and response requirements that are inconsistent or in 
conflict with the part 572 requirements. Further, while the SAE manual 
appears to be reasonably well developed and well suited for research 
use, it has a number of redundancies and ambiguities which render it 
less suited for regulation and compliance testing purposes. Further, 
the SAE User's Manual is copyrighted by both the SAE and FTSS, which 
restrict its use and distribution as a public document.
    Because we concluded that the SAE manual should not be incorporated 
into part 572, we generated and incorporated into part 572 our own 
document addressing procedures for inspection, assembly and disassembly 
of the H-III3C dummy. We have titled the document Procedures for 
Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI), subpart P, Hybrid III 3-
year-old Child Crash Test Dummy (H-III3C, Alpha version), February 
2000. Our incorporation of the PADI does not in itself prohibit anyone 
from using the procedures contained in the SAE User's Manual. However, 
persons using the SAE document in tests assuring compliance with our 
safety standards are responsible for ensuring that the test dummies 
they use meet the specifications adopted today and are suitable for 
compliance testing.

Nomenclature

    The H-III3C dummy is incorporated into part 572 as subpart P. 
Today's final rule designates the dummy adopted today as alpha version. 
Further notable changes to the dummy will be designated as beta, gamma, 
etc., to assure that modifications can be easily tracked and 
identified.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``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 3-year-old child dummy that the 
agency may later incorporate into 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 affect vehicle and air 
bag manufacturers if it is incorporated by reference into the advanced 
air bag rulemaking, and may affect child restraint manufacturers if it 
is incorporated into the child restraint system standard.
    The cost of an uninstrumented 3-year-old dummy is approximately 
$30,000. Instrumentation would add $15,000 to $50,000 to the cost, 
depending on the amount of instrumentation the user chooses to add.
    Because the economic impacts of this final rule are 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 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. 601 et seq.) and certify that this 
rule 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.

[[Page 15262]]

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 
have 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 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-III3C 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.''

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.
    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

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

    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 P consisting 
of Secs. 572.140-572.146, to read as follows:

Subpart P--Hybrid III 3-Year-Old Child Crash Test Dummy, Alpha Version
Sec.
572.140   Incorporation by reference.
572.141   General description.
572.142   Head assembly and test procedure.
572.143   Neck-headform assembly and test procedure.
572.144   Thorax assembly and test procedure.
572.145   Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test 
procedure.
572.146   Test condition and instrumentation.

Subpart P--3-year-Old Child Crash Test Dummy, Alpha Version


Sec. 572.140  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following materials are hereby incorporated in this subpart 
P by reference:
    (1) A drawings and specifications package entitled ``Parts List and 
Drawings, Subpart P Hybrid III 3-year-old child crash test dummy, (H-
III3C, Alpha version) February 2000'', incorporated by reference in 
Sec. 572.141 and consisting of :
    (i) Drawing No. 210-1000, Head Assembly, incorporated by reference 
in Secs. 572.141, 572.142, 572.144, 572.145, and 572.146;
    (ii) Drawing No. 210-2001, Neck Assembly, incorporated by reference 
in Secs. 572.141, 572.143, 572.144, 572.145, and 572.146;
    (iii) Drawing No. TE-208-000, Headform, incorporated by reference 
in Secs. 572.141, and 572.143;
    (iv) Drawing No. 210-3000, Upper/Lower Torso Assembly, incorporated 
by reference in Secs. 572.141, 572.144, 572.145, and 572.146;
    (v) Drawing No. 210-5000-1(L), -2(R), Leg Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.141, 572.144, 572.145 as part of a complete 
dummy assembly;
    (vi) Drawing No. 210-6000-1(L), -2(R), Arm Assembly, incorporated 
by reference in Secs. 572.141, 572.144, and 572.145 as part of the 
complete dummy assembly;
    (2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI), Subpart P, Hybrid III 3-year-old 
Child Crash Test Dummy, (H-III3C, Alpha Version) February 2000'', 
incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.141;
    (3) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, Rev. Mar 95 ``Instrumentation 
for Impact Tests--Part 1-Electronic Instrumentation'', incorporated by 
reference in Sec. 572.146;
    (4) SAE J1733 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing'' 
incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.146.
    (5) The Director of the Federal Register approved those 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 Docket 
Section, 400 Seventh Street SW, room 5109, Washington, DC, or at the 
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 
700, Washington, DC.
    (b) The incorporated materials are available as follows:
    (1) The drawings and specifications package referred to in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the PADI document 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

[[Page 15263]]

Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.


Sec. 572.141  General description

    (a) The Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy is described by the 
following materials:
    (1) Technical drawings and specifications package 210-0000 (refer 
to Sec. 572.140(a)(1)), the titles of which are listed in Table A of 
this section;
    (2) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection document 
(PADI) (refer to Sec. 572.140(a)(2)).
    (b) The dummy is made up of the component assemblies set out in the 
following Table A of this section:

                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Component assembly                      Drawing No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Assembly............................  210-1000
Neck Assembly (complete).................  210-2001
Upper/Lower Torso Assembly...............  210-3000
Leg Assembly.............................  210-5000-1(L), -2(R)
Arm Assembly.............................  210-6000-1(L), -2(R)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) 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.
    (d) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy 
conforms to this part in every respect only before use in any test 
similar to those specified in Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 
and Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems.


Sec. 572.142  Head assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The head assembly (refer to Sec. 572.140(a)(1)(i)) for this 
test consists of the head (drawing 210-1000), adapter plate (drawing 
ATD 6259), accelerometer mounting block (drawing SA 572-S80), 
structural replacement of \1/2\ mass of the neck load transducer 
(drawing TE-107-001), head mounting washer (drawing ATD 6262), one \1/
2\-20x1" flat head cap screw (FHCS) (drawing 9000150), and 3 
accelerometers (drawing SA-572-S4).
    (b) When the head assembly in paragraph (a) of this section is 
dropped from a height of 376.0+/-1.0 mm (14.8+/-0.04 in) in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section, the peak resultant acceleration at 
the location of the accelerometers at the head CG shall not be less 
than 250 g or more than 280 g. The resultant acceleration versus time 
history curve shall be unimodal, and the oscillations occurring after 
the main pulse shall 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 at any 
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours 
prior to a test.
    (2) Prior to the test, clean the impact surface of the head skin 
and the steel impact plate surface with isopropyl alcohol, 
trichlorethane, or an equivalent. Both impact surfaces must be clean 
and dry for testing.
    (3) Suspend the head assembly with its midsagittal plane in 
vertical orientation as shown in Figure P1 of this subpart. The lowest 
point on the forehead is 376.01.0 mm (14.760.04 
in) from the steel impact surface. The 3.3 mm (0.13 in) diameter holes, 
located on either side of the dummy's head in transverse alignment with 
the CG, shall be used to ensure that the head transverse plane is level 
with respect to the impact surface.
    (4) Drop the head assembly from the specified height by a means 
that ensures a smooth, instant release onto a rigidly supported flat 
horizontal steel plate which is 50.8 mm (2 in) thick and 610 mm (24 in) 
square. The impact surface shall be clean, dry and have a 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. 572.143  Neck-headform assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The neck and headform assembly (refer to 
Secs. 572.140(a)(1)(ii) and 572.140(a)(1)(iii)) for the purposes of 
this test, as shown in Figures P2 and P3 of this subpart, consists of 
the neck molded assembly (drawing 210-2015), neck cable (drawing 210-
2040), nylon shoulder bushing (drawing 9001373), upper mount plate 
insert (drawing 910420-048), bib simulator (drawing TE-208-050), 
urethane washer (drawing 210-2050), neck mounting plate (drawing TE-
250-021), two jam nuts (drawing 9001336), load-moment transducer 
(drawing SA 572-S19), and headform (drawing TE-208-000).
    (b) When the neck and headform assembly, as defined in 
Sec. 572.143(a), is tested according to the test procedure in paragraph 
(c) of this section, it shall have the following characteristics:
    (1) Flexion.
    (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure P2 of this subpart, shall rotate 
in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline between 70 degrees and 82 degrees. Within this 
specified rotation corridor, the peak moment about the occipital 
condyle may not be less than 42 N-m and not more than 53 N-m.
    (ii) The positive moment shall decay for the first time to 10 N-m 
between 60 ms and 80 ms after time zero.
    (iii) The moment and rotation data channels are defined to be zero 
when the longitudinal centerline of the neck and pendulum are parallel.
    (2) Extension.
    (i) Plane D referenced in Figure P3 of this subpart shall rotate in 
the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline between 83 degrees and 93 degrees. Within this 
specified rotation corridor, the peak moment about the occipital 
condyle may be not more than -43.7 N-m and not less than -53.3 N-m.
    (ii) The negative moment shall decay for the first time to -10 N-m 
between 60 and 80 ms after time zero.
    (iii) The moment and rotation data channels are defined to be zero 
when the longitudinal centerline of the neck and pendulum are parallel.
    (c) Test Procedure
    (1) Soak the neck assembly in a controlled environment at any 
temperature between 20.6 and 22.2  deg.C (69 and 72 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 9001336) on the neck cable (drawing 
210-2040) between 0.2 N-m and 0.3 N-m.
    (3) Mount the neck-headform assembly, defined in paragraph (a) of 
this section, on the pendulum so the midsagittal plane of the headform 
is vertical and coincides with the plane of motion of the pendulum as 
shown in Figure P2 of this subpart for flexion and Figure P3 of this 
subpart for extension tests.
    (4) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely to achieve an 
impact velocity of 5.500.10 m/s (18.05 + 0.40 ft/s) for 
flexion and 3.650.1 m/s (11.980.40 ft/s) for 
extension tests, measured by an accelerometer mounted on the pendulum 
as shown in Figure 22 of this part 572 at time zero.
    (i) The test shall be conducted without inducing any torsion 
twisting of the neck.
    (ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an 
acceleration vs. time pulse which meets the velocity change as 
specified in Table B of this section. Integrate the pendulum 
acceleration data channel to obtain the velocity vs. time curve as 
indicated in Table B of this section.

[[Page 15264]]

    (iii) Time-zero is defined as the time of initial contact between 
the pendulum striker plate and the honeycomb material. The pendulum 
data channel shall be zero at this time.

                                            Table B.--Pendulum Pulse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Time                                Flexion              Time             Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       ms                            m/s          ft/s          ms          m/s          ft/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.............................................      2.0-2.7      6.6-8.9            6      1.0-1.4      3.3-4.6
15.............................................      3.0-4.0     9.8-13.1           10      1.9-2.5      6.2-8.2
20.............................................      4.0-5.1    13.1-16.7           14      2.8-3.5     9.2-11.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 572.144  Thorax assembly and test procedure.

    (a) Thorax (Upper Torso) Assembly (refer to 
Sec. 572.140(a)(1)(iv)). The thorax consists of the upper part of the 
torso assembly shown in drawing 210-3000.
    (b) When the anterior surface of the thorax of a completely 
assembled dummy (drawing 210-0000) is impacted by a test probe 
conforming to Sec. 572.146(a) at 6.00.1 m/s 
(19.70.3 ft/s) according to the test procedure in paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (1) Maximum sternum displacement (compression) relative to the 
spine, measured with the chest deflection transducer (SA-572-S50), must 
not be less than 32mm (1.3 in) and not more than 38mm (1.5 in). Within 
this specified compression corridor, the peak force, measured by the 
probe-mounted accelerometer as defined in paragraph Sec. 572.146(a) and 
calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, shall 
be not less than 680 N and not more than 810 N. The peak force after 
12.5 mm of sternum compression but before reaching the minimum required 
32.0 mm sternum compression shall not exceed 860 N.
    (2) The internal hysteresis of the ribcage in each impact, as 
determined from the force vs. deflection curve, shall be not less than 
65 percent and 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 test dummy is clothed in cotton-polyester-based tight-
fitting shirt with long sleeves and ankle-length pants whose combined 
weight is not more than 0.25 kg (0.55 lbs)
    (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 at any 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 P4, with the lower limbs extended 
horizontally and forward, the upper arms parallel to the torso and the 
lower arms extended horizontally and forward, parallel to the 
midsagittal plane, the midsagittal plane being 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 dummy's mid-sagittal plane and is centered on the 
center of No. 2 rib within 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) and 0.5 degrees 
of a horizontal plane.
    (5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that at the moment of 
contact the probe's longitudinal center line is 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. 572.145  Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test 
procedure.

    (a) The test objective is to determine the resistance of the lumbar 
spine and abdomen of a fully assembled dummy (drawing 210-0000) to 
flexion articulation between upper and lower halves of the torso 
assembly (refer to Sec. 572.140(a)(1)(iv)).
    (b)(1) When the upper half of the torso assembly of a seated dummy 
is subjected to a force continuously applied at the occipital condyle 
level through the rigidly attached adaptor bracket in accordance with 
the test procedure set out in paragraph (c) of this section, the lumbar 
spine-abdomen assembly shall flex by an amount that permits the upper 
half of the torso, as measured at the posterior surface of the torso 
reference plane shown in Figure P5 of this subpart, to translate in 
angular motion in the midsagittal plane 450.5 degrees 
relative to the vertical transverse plane, at which time the pulling 
force applied must not be less than 130 N (28.8 lbf) and not more than 
180 N (41.2 lbf), and
    (2) Upon removal of the force, the upper torso assembly returns to 
within 10 degrees of its initial position.
    (c) Test procedure. The test procedure is as follows:
    (1) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature 
between 18.9 deg. and 25.6  deg.C (66 and 78  deg.F) and at any 
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least 4 hours prior 
to a test.
    (2) Assemble the complete dummy (with or without the lower legs) 
and seat it on a rigid flat-surface table, as shown in Figure P5 of 
this subpart.
    (i) Unzip the torso jacket and remove the four \1/4\-20 x \3/4\" 
bolts which attach the lumbar load transducer or its structural 
replacement to the pelvis weldment (drawing 210-4510) as shown in 
Figure P5 of this subpart.
    (ii) Position the matching end of the rigid pelvis attachment 
fixture around the lumbar spine and align it over the four bolt holes.
    (iii) Secure the fixture to the dummy with the four \1/4\-20 x \3/
4\" bolts and attach the fixture to the table. Tighten the mountings so 
that the pelvis-lumbar joining surface is horizontal within 
1 deg and the buttocks and upper legs of the seated dummy 
are in contact with the test surface.
    (iv) Attach the loading adapter bracket to the upper part of the 
torso as shown in Figure P5 of this subpart and zip up the torso 
jacket.
    (v) Point the upper arms vertically downward and the lower arms 
forward. (3)(i) Flex the thorax forward three times from vertical until 
the torso reference plane reaches 302 degrees from 
vertical. The torso reference plane, as shown in figure P5 of this 
subpart, is defined by the transverse plane tangent to the posterior 
surface of the upper backplate of the spine box weldment (drawing 210-
8020).
    (ii) Remove all externally applied flexion forces and support the 
upper

[[Page 15265]]

torso half in a vertical orientation for 30 minutes to prevent it from 
drooping.
    (4) Remove the external support and after two minutes measure the 
initial orientation angle of the upper torso reference plane of the 
seated, unsupported dummy as shown in Figure P5 of this subpart. The 
initial orientation of the torso reference plane may not exceed 15 
degrees.
    (5) Attach the pull cable at the point of load application on the 
adaptor bracket while maintaining the initial torso orientation. Apply 
a pulling force in the midsagittal plane, as shown in Figure P5 of this 
subpart, at any upper torso flexion rate between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees 
per second, until the torso reference plane reaches 450.5 
degrees of flexion relative to the vertical transverse plane.
    (6) Continue to apply a force sufficient to maintain 
450.5 degrees of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the 
highest applied force during the 10-second period.
    (8) Release all force at the loading adaptor bracket as rapidly as 
possible and measure the return angle with respect to the initial angle 
reference plane as defined in paragraph (c)(4) of this section 3 to 4 
minutes after the release.


572.146  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 1.70.01 kg 
(3.750.02 lb) and a minimum mass moment of inertia 283 kg-
cm*2 (0.25 lb-in-sec*2) in yaw and pitch about the CG of the probe. \1/
3\ of the weight of suspension cables and their attachments to the 
impact probe must 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, is at least 25 mm (1.0 in) in length, has a 
flat, continuous, and non-deformable 50.80.2 mm 
(2.000.01 inch) diameter face with a maximum edge radius of 
12.7 mm (0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to the impact face has 
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 has a free air resonant frequency not less than 
1000 Hz.
    (b) Head accelerometers shall have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA 
572-S4 and be mounted in the head as shown in drawing 210-0000.
    (c) The neck force-moment transducer shall have the dimensions, 
response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in 
drawing SA 572-S19 and be mounted at the upper neck transducer location 
as shown in drawing 210-0000. A lower neck transducer as specified in 
drawing SA 572-S19 is allowed to be mounted as optional instrumentation 
in place of part No. ATD6204, as shown in drawing 210-0000.
    (d) The shoulder force transducers shall have the dimensions and 
response characteristics specified in drawing SA 572-S21 and be allowed 
to be mounted as optional instrumentation in place of part No. 210-3800 
in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 210-0000.
    (e) The thorax accelerometers shall have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA 
572-S4 and be mounted in the torso assembly in triaxial configuration 
at the T4 location, as shown in drawing 210-0000. Triaxial 
accelerometers may be mounted as optional instrumentation at T1, and 
T12, and in uniaxial configuration on the sternum at the midpoint level 
of ribs No. 1 and No. 3 and on the spine coinciding with the midpoint 
level of No. 3 rib, as shown in drawing 210-0000. If used, the 
accelerometers must conform to SA-572-S4.
    (f) The chest deflection potentiometer shall have the dimensions 
and response characteristics specified in drawing SA-572-S50 and be 
mounted in the torso assembly as shown drawing 210-0000.
    (g) The lumbar spine force/moment transducer may be mounted in the 
torso assembly as shown in drawing 210-0000 as optional instrumentation 
in place of part No. 210-4150. If used, the transducer shall have the 
dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA-572-
S20.
    (h) The pubic force transducer may be mounted in the torso assembly 
as shown in drawing 210-0000 as optional instrumentation in place of 
part No. 921-0022-036. If used, the transducer shall have the 
dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA-572-
S18.
    (i) The acetabulum force transducers may be mounted in the torso 
assembly as shown in drawing 210-0000 as optional instrumentation in 
place of part No. 210-4522. If used, the transducer shall have the 
dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA-572-
S22.

[[Page 15266]]

    (j) The anterior-superior iliac spine transducers may be mounted in 
the torso assembly as shown in drawing 210-0000 as optional 
instrumentation in place of part No. 210-4540-1, -2. If used, the 
transducers shall have the dimensions and response characteristics 
specified in drawing SA-572-S17.
    (k) The pelvis accelerometers may be mounted in the pelvis in 
triaxial configuration as shown in drawing 210-0000 as optional 
instrumentation. If used, the accelerometers shall have the dimensions 
and response characteristics specified in drawing SA-572-S4.
    (l) 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 the requirements 
of SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, Rev. Mar 95 ``Instrumentation for 
Impact Tests--Part 1-Electronic Instrumentation'' (refer to 
Sec. 572.140(a)(3)), with channel classes as follows:
(1) Head acceleration--Class 1000
(2) Neck
(i) force--Class 1000
(ii) moments--Class 600
(iii) pendulum acceleration--Class 180
(3) Thorax:
    (i) rib/sternum acceleration--Class 1000
    (ii) spine and pendulum accelerations--Class 180
    (iii) sternum deflection--Class 600
    (iv) shoulder force--Class 180
(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) acetabulum, pubic symphysis--Class 1000,
    (iii) iliac wing forces--Class 180
    (m) 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 Sec. 572.140(a)(4)).
    (n) The mountings for sensing devices shall have no resonance 
frequency less than 3 times the frequency range of the applicable 
channel class.
    (o) Limb joints shall be set at lG, barely restraining the weight 
of the limbs when they are extended horizontally. The force required to 
move a limb segment shall not exceed 2G throughout the range of limb 
motion.
    (p) Performance tests of the same component, segment, assembly, or 
fully assembled dummy shall be separated in time by a period of not 
less than 30 minutes unless otherwise noted.
    (q) Surfaces of dummy components are not painted except as 
specified in this part or in drawings subtended by this part.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 15267]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22MR00.000


[[Page 15268]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22MR00.001


[[Page 15269]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22MR00.002


[[Page 15270]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22MR00.003


[[Page 15271]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22MR00.004

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C


    Issued: March 7, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-6253 Filed 3-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P