[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 63 (Friday, March 31, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17180-17196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7955]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-00-7052]
RIN 2127-AG78


Anthropomorphic Test Devices; 12-Month-Old Child Dummy

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts design and performance specifications for 
a new 12-month-old infant dummy. The new dummy is especially needed to 
evaluate the effects of air bag deployment on children who are in rear-
facing child restraints installed in the front passenger seat of 
vehicles. It will also provide greater and more useful information in a 
variety of crash environments to evaluate child safety. Adopting the 
dummy is a step toward using it in the tests we conduct to determine 
compliance with our safety standards. The use of the dummy in our 
compliance tests is being addressed in separate rulemaking proceedings.

DATES: The amendment is effective on May 30, 2000. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 30, 2000.
    Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must be received by 
May 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number and notice number of the notice 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., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends our regulation for 
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (49 CFR Part 572) by adding Subpart R, 
containing specifications for a new, more advanced 12-month-old infant 
test dummy. The new dummy is more representative of humans than the 
dummies representing younger infants 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 children in rear-facing child restraints and potentially 
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 dummies representing a newborn, a 6-month-old and a 9-
month-old child (subparts K, D and J, respectively). The dummies have 
been 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 to and improve 
the child dummies specified in Part 572. We recently amended Part 572 
to add new, more advanced, Hybrid III-type test dummies representing a 
6-year-old and a 3-year-old child. Together with the dummy adopted 
today, the new child test dummies will be used in tests we are 
specifying in our occupant crash protection standard (49 CFR 571.208) 
to assess the risks of air bag deployment for children, particularly 
unrestrained,

[[Page 17181]]

improperly restrained, and improperly located children. The new child 
test dummies may also be incorporated into Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 
571.213) for use in compliance testing of child restraint systems. 
Today's final rule only concerns adding the new 12-month-old dummy to 
Part 572. Issues relating to whether this and the other new dummies 
should be incorporated into the compliance tests for the motor vehicle 
safety standards are being addressed in separate rulemaking actions.

Summary of Final Rule

    The 12-month-old dummy was developed as a child restraint air bag 
interaction dummy (hereinafter referred to as the CRABI 12 dummy). Its 
specifications consist of a drawing package that shows the component 
parts, the subassemblies, and the assembly of the complete dummy. It 
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 drawings 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 responses in the impact 
environment. The parts list and drawings are available for inspection 
in NHTSA's docket (room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 
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.
    In addition to the drawings and specifications, we are establishing 
impact performance criteria for the CRABI 12 dummy. These criteria will 
serve as calibration checks and further assure the kinematic uniformity 
of the dummy and the absence of structural damage and functional 
deficiency from previous use. The criteria address head, neck, and 
thorax impact responses. This rule does not adopt the torso flexion 
requirements that we had proposed.
    We have adopted generic specifications for all of the dummy-based 
sensors. For dummies incorporated into Part 572 in years past, the 
agency specified sensors by make and model. However, we believe that 
approach is unnecessarily restrictive and limits innovation and 
competition. Accordingly, consistent with the new approach taken for 
the sensors for the new Hybrid III-type 3-year-old, 6-year-old child 
and 5th percentile female adult dummies, we are adopting generic 
specifications for the sensors. These generic specifications reflect 
performance characteristics of sensors used in our evaluation tests of 
the dummy, which are identified by make and model in a NHTSA technical 
report ``Development and Evaluation of the CRABI 12-month-old Infant 
Dummy.'' A copy of this report is in the docket for the notice of 
proposed rulemaking that we published for this final rule (Docket No. 
99-5156). Those sensor characteristics were also the basis for our 
discussions with a special task force of the SAE J211 Instrumentation 
Committee concerning the dummy.

Background

    Air bag fatalities of children have raised serious concerns about 
how best to evaluate the safety of children in a variety of crash 
environments. We have been working with the automotive industry to 
assure greater safety in motor vehicles through the development, 
evaluation and application of significantly improved occupant 
protection technologies. As part of our overall program to achieve 
greater safety, we have sought to evaluate, for possible inclusion into 
our safety standards, new and improved test devices to evaluate the 
relationship between observed injuries and the forces causing them. One 
of the new test devices is a 12-month-old infant dummy.
    The dummy was developed through the efforts of the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) 
Task Force. The CRABI Task Force had determined that a new infant dummy 
was needed for testing and evaluating the effects of child restraints 
and air bags, as well as their interaction, on infants. The new dummy 
had to be capable of evaluating both rear facing and forward facing 
child restraints, as well as the injury potential of air bags on out-
of-position children.
    The SAE subsequently developed a 12-month-old infant dummy. The 
dummy's initial configuration and biomechanical response corridors were 
based on anthropometry and mass distribution of 12-month-old infants 
and on scaling techniques from the larger size Hybrid III-type dummies. 
The scaling reflected differences in geometry and dimensional 
characteristics of particular body segments and their elastic 
properties. Our initial evaluation of the dummy in 1996 revealed some 
structural and performance deficiencies which the SAE later remedied 
with substantial modifications to the dummy. The dummy continued to be 
modified until September 1998.
    In the latter part of 1998, based on the results of an agency test 
program evaluating the 12-month-old dummy, we tentatively concluded 
that the dummy was ready for incorporation into Part 572. On March 8, 
1999, we published an NPRM proposing to incorporate the CRABI 12 dummy 
into Part 572 as Subpart R, and invited comments (64 FR 10965)(Docket 
NHTSA-99-5156). The original 45-day comment period was extended on 
April 22, 1999, to June 22, 1999 (64 FR 19742), in response to a 
request for an extension of the comment period.

Comments on the NPRM

    We received comments from seven organizations and one individual: 
Robert A. Denton, Inc. (Denton), TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc. (TRW), 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Toyota Technical 
Center, USA, Inc. (Toyota), Transportation Research Center, Inc. (TRC), 
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), the SAE Dummy 
Testing Equipment Subcommittee (DTES), and Gelsys Perez, a private 
citizen. General Motors (GM) submitted test data to the docket for this 
rulemaking on January 25, 2000.
    Advocates and Gelsys Perez expressly supported the incorporation of 
the CRABI 12 dummy into our regulations. The Alliance, Toyota, and 
Denton (a manufacturer of load cells used in crash dummies) generally 
supported the proposal with technical comments to correct or clarify 
various specifications in the regulatory text proposed for the dummy. 
TRC and TRW commented on technical aspects of the proposal. GM 
submitted neck calibration test data to supplement data provided by the 
Alliance. In general, the comments addressed the following issues: 
calibration requirements and procedures, instrumentation 
specifications, dimensional changes to dummy drawings, and the dummy's 
user's manual.
    In addition to comments on specific aspects of the proposal, TRW 
suggested that it is premature for the agency to proceed with 
rulemaking and suggested ``a delay of at least 12 months to allow the 
industry time to test the dummy * * * to assess the appropriateness of 
the dummy as a compliance tool.'' TRW believes that the industry has 
had insufficient time to test the CRABI 12 to ascertain performance and 
reliability

[[Page 17182]]

due to the unavailability of the latest dummy configuration from the 
manufacturer. The commenter contends that it has been unable to test 
the dummy under the requirements proposed in the agency's advanced air 
bag rulemaking (Docket NHTSA 98-4405, Notice 1) and therefore cannot 
make judgments as to the suitability of the CRABI 12 dummy for these 
test conditions.
    We do not agree that this rulemaking should be delayed a year. 
Since the issuance of the NPRM, TRW has had sufficient time to procure 
a dummy and conduct enough tests to assess the dummy's appropriateness 
as a compliance tool. The dummy specified today differs very little 
from the dummy specified in the NPRM. There has been an ample supply of 
the dummy for parties to test and a sufficient amount of time to test. 
Since publication of the NPRM, GM has tested two dummies and has 
submitted its data to the docket (see 99-5156-14). Delaying this 
rulemaking would postpone use of the dummy in our compliance tests 
evaluating the injury causing potential of air bags on infants. Because 
the dummy has been shown to be a reliable test instrument time after 
time in rigorous testing, as discussed in a technical report cited in 
the NPRM,\1\ we believe that delays in using the dummy for evaluating 
the safety of air bags cannot be justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Development and Evaluation of the CRABI 12-Month-Old 
Infant Crash Test Dummy (January, 1999 version).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calibration Requirements and Procedures

Head

    To calibrate the dummy's head, the agency proposed requirements for 
the head's response in drops onto the forehead and onto the rear of the 
head (Sec. 572.152). The head response on the forehead was proposed to 
be unimodal (i.e., consisting of an acceleration-time curve which has 
only one prominent peak) and not less than 100 g or more than 120 g; 
the response on the back of the head was proposed to be not less than 
55 g or not more than 71 g. The regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 
12 dummy stated that the resultant acceleration versus time history 
curve shall be unimodal, and the oscillations occurring after the main 
pulse must be less than 10 percent of the peak resultant acceleration.
    In its comments, TRW states that results from head drop tests 
indicate that a 10 percent limit on subsequent peaks after the first 
peak resultant acceleration is not sufficient for the dummy. TRW 
believes that none of the data presented by the agency, except for one 
rear impact test, met the 10 percent oscillation limit of the peak 
resultant head acceleration. The commenter suggests that a 15 to 20 
percent oscillation limit of subsequent peaks would be more 
appropriate.
    Similarly, TRC (a test facility that uses and calibrates test 
dummies) notes that the oscillation requirement should be changed 
because the 10 percent-of-peak definition does not fit the data beyond 
the primary peak. The commenter further states that truncating the time 
frame does not seem advisable. The commenter provided test data 
consisting of two head drop resultant acceleration plots, one front and 
one rear, that illustrate typical curves which have second or third 
peaks exceeding 10 percent of the first peak. The commenter states that 
the DTES has determined that 17 percent for front and 16 percent for 
rear would be more appropriate and suggests changing the requirement to 
reflect these values.
    The Alliance also believes that the 10 percent limit on subsequent 
oscillations cannot be met. The commenter suggests that a limit of 20 
percent is appropriate.
    We agree that the 10 percent oscillation limit should be widened 
for this dummy. We proposed the 10 percent unimodal requirement based 
on our experience with dummies having metallic skulls. However, the 
CRABI 12 dummy's head has a non-metallic skull which responds in drop 
tests with a lower natural frequency and with less structural damping 
than heads with aluminum skulls,\2\ which makes it more difficult to 
meet the 10 percent limit on oscillatory responses. Upon reevaluation 
of our test data, we agree that oscillatory head accelerations 
following the primary response peak could be as high as 14.5 percent in 
frontal impacts and 13.6 percent in rear impacts, as compared to an 
aluminum skull (with a vinyl skin cover) at less than 10 percent. 
Considering the head drop test data on a statistical basis, values of 
subsequent accelerations at 2 standard deviations (s.d.) could result 
in oscillation peaks as high as 16.4 percent in frontal impacts and 
15.4 percent in rear impacts. Accordingly, this final rule specifies 
that for both frontal and rear head drop tests, oscillations occurring 
after the main pulse must be less than 17 percent of the peak resultant 
acceleration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We do not believe the lower natural frequency of this 
dummy's head has any significant consequences on the test results, 
unless the dummy's head was going to impact rigid objects. Test 
results in a variety of child restraints with and without head 
impact as well as in air bag out-of-position deployments did not 
indicate any resonance-associated problems that would have affected 
the impact measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 12 dummy specifies in 
section 572.152(c)(5) a two-hour wait between successive tests on the 
same head. TRC suggests that the waiting period should be changed to 
apply only to successive tests on the same side of the head (front or 
rear). We agree that the two-hour waiting time need apply to only head 
drops on the same side. The skin on the head needs a recovery period 
between tests, but a recovery time is not needed if the test is 
conducted on the opposite sides of the head. Thus, to allow testing of 
the head to proceed more expeditiously, this rule specifies that the 
two-hour waiting period applies to successive tests of the head 
assembly ``at the same impact point.''

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 (Sec. 572.153).
Neck Flexion Calibration Requirements
    For flexion, the regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 12 dummy 
stated that:
    (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 75 degrees and not more than 89 degrees occurring between 
42 milliseconds (ms) and 56 ms from time zero; (2) the peak moment 
about the occipital condyles must not be less than 37 Newton meters (N-
m) and not more than 45 N-m occurring within the minimum and maximum 
rotation interval; and (3) the positive moment shall decay for the 
first time to 5 N-m in the time frame between 60 ms and 80 ms.
    TRW, TRC and the Alliance suggest that according to DTES-compiled 
data, some of the proposed calibration corridors need to be adjusted to 
incorporate a larger sampling of tested necks. The commenters recommend 
the following adjustments: Maximum rotation between 75 and 86 degrees; 
time at peak rotation between 49 and 57 ms; peak moment during the 
specified rotation interval not less than 34 and not more than 47 Nm; 
and moment decay time to 5 N-m (from time zero) not less than 66 and 
not more than 78 ms. The commenters state that these corridors are 
based on the statistical average of the DTES data  two 
standard deviations.
    Maximum rotation. We are lowering the upper limit of the headform 
peak rotation corridor by three degrees from

[[Page 17183]]

the proposal of 89 degrees to 86 degrees while retaining the lower 
limit at 75 degrees. The suggested narrower rotation range is based on 
a statistical analysis of a much larger data base than that available 
to the agency at the time the NPRM was published and thus is likely to 
be more representative of actual performance. Further, it limits 
variability to approximately 7 percent which is in the ``good'' 
performance range. It also is in agreement with the range proposed by 
the commenters.
    Time at peak rotation. The regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 
12 dummy specified headform rotation versus time requirements in 
Sec. 572.153(b)(1)(i) that were identical in concept to the 
requirements for the 3-year-old child dummy specified in Subpart C of 
Part 572. TRW, TRC and the Alliance suggested changes to the 
requirements. Upon further consideration, we have decided to delete the 
headform rotation versus time requirement altogether. When the Subpart 
C dummy was added to Part 572 in 1979, a means of measuring bending 
moments in the neck and combining them with the motion of the head was 
not available. However, in 1991 a moment-measuring load cell became 
available for this dummy. With the availability of a six-axis load cell 
for the CRABI 12 dummy, it became possible to measure the peak moment 
and to relate it to the rotation of the headform. This made the 
headform displacement-rotation versus time requirement redundant. 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), and that headform 
rotation in time requirement would serve no purpose. Accordingly, this 
final rule does not adopt the proposed headform rotation versus time 
requirements.
    Peak moment during rotation interval. TRW, TRC and the Alliance 
suggested that the proposed peak moment of 37-45 N-m within the maximum 
headform rotation corridor should be revised to a range between 34 and 
47 N-m. The commenters indicate that the recommendation of the wider 
peak moment corridor is based on DTES-compiled data  2 s.d. 
However, they do not indicate if the moments listed by DTES were peak 
moments at the maximum headform rotation or peak moments within the 
allowed time corridor. Upon receiving these comments, we reviewed the 
DTES reported data summary in Attachment 11 of the DTES meeting minutes 
of April 14, 1999 (a copy of which is in the docket for the NPRM, 
Docket 99-5156). The data indicate that the average performance for 23 
necks was 40.19 N-m  a 2.31 s.d., leading to a response 
range of 35.56 N-m to 44.81 N-m. 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. 
Using the 10% value as the maximum allowable variability and rounding 
the values to the lowest and the highest next numbers, we believe that 
the existing data support neck performance at 36 N-m at the lower limit 
and 45 N-m at the upper limit. We are accordingly specifying that 
range.
    Moment decay time to 5 N-m (from time zero). TRW, TRC and the 
Alliance suggested reducing the time corridor for the positive moment 
decay at the first 5 N-m from the proposed range of 60-80 ms to 66-78 
ms. While these test value recommendations are supported by the test 
data, we believe the data sample is still too small to justify the 
adoption of narrower corridor limits. Also, we do not know how 
narrowing the corridor might affect the rejection rate of manufactured 
necks. Further, we see no evidence that narrowing the corridor would 
lead to better performing necks. Accordingly, we are adopting the time 
duration for moment decay as proposed in the NPRM.
    TRC suggested that the requirements be clarified to specify that 
the peak moment occurs during the time the angle is between the 
``passing'' head displacement-rotation limits, rather than time limits. 
The commenter also suggested it would be clearer to specify that the 
moment of interest is not the Y-axis moment which reads directly from 
the load cell, but is a calculated moment reflecting its correction to 
the occipital condyle. TRC suggested including the actual equation for 
moment calculation.
    The regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 12 dummy specifies in 
section 572.153(b)(1)(ii) that the moment is to be calculated about the 
occipital condyle. While the proposed regulatory text does not 
expressly provide the equation to be used, the proposed text 
incorporates by reference SAE J1733 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash 
Testing,'' which includes the equation for moment calculation. The 
document also defines the proper polarities of the signal measured in a 
crash test which are critical to the calculation of the moment about 
the occipital condyle. Nonetheless, because the regulatory text for the 
Hybrid III-type 6-year-old child and 5th percentile female adult 
dummies include an equation for moment calculation, we have added the 
equation to the text for the CRABI 12 dummy. Accordingly this final 
rule adopts the following language in new Sec. 572.153(b)(1)(iii): 
``The moment shall be calculated by the following formula: Moment (Nm) 
= My-(0.005842m) x (Fx), where My is the moment about the y-axis, Fx is 
the shear force measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572-S23) and 
0.005842m is the distance from the point at which the load cell 
measures the force to the occipital condyle.''
Neck Extension Calibration Requirements
    For extension, the regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 12 dummy 
specified that: (1) Plane D of the head must rotate in the direction of 
preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's longitudinal centerline 
not less than 78 degrees and not more than 90 degrees occurring between 
58 ms and 66 ms from time zero; (2) the peak negative moment about the 
occipital condyles must have a value not more than -11 N-m and not less 
than -23 N-m occurring within the minimum and maximum rotation 
interval; the negative moment shall decay for the first time to -5 N-m 
in the time frame between 78 and 90 ms after time zero.
    TRW, TRC and the Alliance, referring to DTES data, indicate that 
some of the calibration corridors need to be adjusted to reflect a 
larger sampling of tested necks. These commenters believe that the neck 
extension calibration corridors be based on DTES-developed values as 
follows: Maximum rotation should be 81-92 degrees; time at peak 
rotation should be 67-78 ms; peak moment during the specified rotation 
interval should be -12 to -23 Nm; and moment decay time to -5 N-m (from 
time zero) should be 76-84 ms. The commenters state that these 
corridors are based on the statistical average of the DTES data 
2 s.d.
    Maximum rotation. The three commenters recommended adjusting the 
headform peak rotation corridor from the proposed 78-90 degree range to 
81-92 degrees. Our review of the furnished additional data support an 
upward shift of the proposed range. However, the data also show that 
the lower limit should be set at 80 degrees rather than at 81 degrees. 
Setting the limit at 81 degrees would fail a greater number of necks, 
even though those necks would be considered satisfactory on a 
statistical basis. Accordingly, the new rotation corridor is set at 80-
92 degrees.
    Time at peak rotation. The regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 
12 dummy specified headform extension rotation versus time requirements 
in

[[Page 17184]]

Sec. 572.153(b)(2)(i) that were identical in concept to the 
requirements for the 3-year-old child dummy specified in Subpart C of 
Part 572. As discussed in the previous section on neck flexion 
requirements, 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 of head kinematics) without 
the need to establish redundant specifications for headform rotation 
versus time. Accordingly, this final rule does not adopt the proposed 
headform rotation versus time requirements.
    Peak moment during rotation interval. The three commenters 
suggested that the NPRM's proposed peak moment of -11(-)-23 N-m within 
the maximum headform rotation corridor should be revised to -12(-)-23 
N-m. Based on our analysis of all of the available test data, we agree 
with the suggestion to reduce the width of the peak moment corridor, 
and accordingly adopt acorridor of -12(-)-23 N-m.
    Moment decay time to 5 N-m (from time zero). TRW, TRC and the 
Alliance suggested that we reduce the time corridor for the negative 
moment decay at the first -5 N-m from 78-90 ms to 76-84 ms. We agree 
that the data show that the lower limit of the time corridor should be 
lowered to 76 ms. However, we see no benefit in narrowing its range. 
Narrowing the range would fail a greater number of necks, even though 
those necks perform satisfactorily in all other respects. The 
commenters have not provided nor do we have any evidence that a 
narrower corridor at 76-84 ms would lead to better performing necks. 
Accordingly, this final rule reduces the lower limit to 76 ms while 
retaining the upper time limit at 90 ms.
    In response to TRC's comment, as we did with regard to the neck 
flexion requirements, this final rule adopts new section 
572.153(b)(2)(iii) to set forth the equation for calculating the 
moment. The reason for adding the equation is to clarify how the moment 
is calculated.

Issues Relating to Neck-Headform Test Procedure

    The proposed regulatory text for the CRABI 12 dummy stated in 
Sec. 572.153(c)(4)(i) 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 should be at the zero 
level at this time.''
    Toyota suggests that all data channels for the neck extension and 
flexion tests be set at the zero level at time zero, rather than only 
the pendulum accelerometer data channel, as was done for the Hybrid 
III-type 6-year-old and 5th percentile adult female dummies. We 
disagree. The CRABI 12 dummy neck is considerably more flexible than 
those of the 6-year-old and 5th percentile female adult dummies. As a 
result, the head-neck complex of the CRABI 12 dummy experiences 
considerable pre-impact kinematic lag as the 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 moment-rotation corridors were established.
    The neck biomechanical response corridors were based on ``flexion'' 
and ``extension'' kinematics, or forward and backward bending of the 
neck from its neutral position, respectively, due to inertial forces of 
the head. In order to measure true flexion and extension of the dummy 
during calibration tests, the zero level of the data channels must be 
established prior to initiation of the drop test, when the longitudinal 
centerlines of the neck and pendulum are parallel to each other, i.e., 
when the pendulum hangs down in a vertical position. The pendulum 
accelerometer data channel, on the other hand, must be zeroed at time 
zero (the instant the pendulum engages the hexcell) in order to get the 
correct integrated velocity curve from which the velocity readings are 
taken at specific time intervals. Accordingly, as proposed in the NPRM, 
the final rule retains the time zero setting procedure for the pendulum 
data channel, but not for the neck data channels.
    Toyota requested that the regulatory text specify a 30-minute 
recovery time between successive neck tests. The proposed regulatory 
text in Sec. S572.156(m) specified a separation of 30 minutes between 
performance tests of the same component, segment, or assembly, which 
includes the neck. Accordingly, no change is needed to meet Toyota's 
concerns and the text is adopted as proposed.
Thorax
    For calibration, we proposed a thorax response corridor in terms of 
peak resistance force exerted by the dummy's sternum on the penetrating 
impactor. The regulatory text proposed a peak force response corridor 
between 1600 N and 1700 N.
    TRW, TRC and the Alliance believe that there is no need for this 
test. TRW states that the thorax consists of a rigid steel substructure 
with a foam pad attached to it. ``Since there are no moving parts 
within the chest area as well as no method by which chest displacement 
can be measured, a dynamic calibration test would seem inappropriate.'' 
TRW suggests that if NHTSA believes that a test is needed to check the 
foam pad, a standard ASTM compression test would be more appropriate. 
Further, TRW states that the proposed corridor of 1600 to 1700 N is not 
accurate because it was developed based on only four tests conducted on 
a single dummy. TRW's tests of its own dummy found that the average 
peak resistive force was 1830 N.
    TRC states that the dummy was designed with no deflecting rib 
components and that a ``torso impact test when there is no chest 
deflection to measure gives little data; the compression 
characteristics of the foam can be determined without a dynamic test or 
by simply spelling them out as a manufacturer's specification of foam 
density/compression characteristics.'' The Alliance states ``It is our 
belief that the performance of the thorax in impact is best assured by 
specifying the ratio of the reactants for the foam from which the 
insert is molded, the method used by the manufacturer of the dummy. The 
foam-in-place reactant ratio is adjusted until a test block of the 
material exhibits the required compression force-deflection 
characteristic. The insert is then molded from the same mix of 
reactants.''
    We do not agree with the suggestion to abolish the proposed thorax 
impact response requirement. In each of the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards that use test dummies in compliance tests, one of the 
key injury assessment parameters is the thorax acceleration response. 
The suggestion that a periodic inspection test can be used in place of 
the proposed thorax impact test provides no assurance that the 
available material in conjunction with the supporting thorax structure 
will be capable of consistent and repeatable impact response. This 
assurance is particularly needed for thorax impacts because foams 
degrade with the number of test applications, different loading levels, 
and time. We do not know of any ASTM load-deflection tests for foams 
that would consistently correlate with dynamic-impact responses as 
installed and used on the dummy over time, and no information on that 
issue has been provided by the commenters. Accordingly, we are adopting 
a dynamic impact response requirement in the regulatory text for the 
CRABI 12 dummy.
    The Alliance and TRW disagree with the peak force measurements 
proposed

[[Page 17185]]

in the regulatory text for the dummy. The Alliance suggests revising 
the thorax impact specification from the proposed 1600-1700 N level to 
1526-1880 N. While TRW states that it ran impact tests on its own dummy 
and found the average peak resistance force to be 1830 N, TRW did not 
provide data to support this claim. Data in the minutes of the DTES 
meeting of June 2, 1999, provide a compilation of impact test results 
from three groups of dummies tested at three different facilities. The 
average response value for those test was 1695 N with a s.d. of 89 N, 
suggesting a response corridor, based on 2 s.d., between 1517 N and 
1872 N. The majority of the data (16 dummies) were from FTSS, and three 
were from other users.
    An indication of what can be expected from a reasonably controlled 
batch of foams is found in early data from the combined NHTSA and FTSS 
tests, as reported in DTES minutes of April 14, 1999. NHTSA tested one 
dummy and FTSS tested three. These tests yielded an average response of 
1670 N with a s.d. of 63. Subsequently reported data from General 
Motors (DTES minutes of June 2, 1999), based on two dummies, yielded an 
average response 1622 N with an s.d. of 54. The latter two test series 
suggest corridor widths based on 2 s.d. at 1544-1796 N for the former 
and 1514-1730 for the latter. Based on these two test series, we 
believe that with some controls at the dummy manufacturer level, the 
dummies can meet a response range of 1514-1796 N. This suggested 
corridor would be larger than that proposed in the regulatory text, but 
it would reflect a more realistic data base, and it would be in the 
good to marginal acceptance range at 8.5 percent.
    TRC states that the pendulum used in the thorax impact test should 
be specified in ``generic'' terms. We agree. In response to similar 
comments in our rulemakings on the Hybrid III-type 3-year-old, 6-year-
old and 5th percentile adult female dummies, we have developed generic 
impactor specifications for those new dummies. Similar to what we have 
done with respect to the impactor specifications in those rulemakings, 
this final rule describes the thorax impactor using generic 
specifications.
    TRC suggests that the positioning of the dummy in the thorax 
assembly test procedure needs to be modified to match the placement 
shown in proposed Figure R5. The proposed regulatory text 
(Sec. 572.154(c)(3)) stated that the dummy is positioned with fingers 
barely touching the seating surface plane. However, Figure R5 showed 
the dummy's fingers as well above the seating surface. We agree that 
the dummy's arms are too short for the fingers to touch the seating 
surface plane and have made the necessary corrections to 
Sec. 572.154(c)(3).
    The regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 12 dummy specifies that 
the dummy is dressed in a light-weight cotton stretch short-sleeve 
shirt and above-the-knee pants for the thorax impact test 
(Sec. 572.154(c)(2)). TRC states that these specifications for the 
clothing do not match the drawing package for the dummy. The commenter 
also states that it believes that all tests of the dummy have been run 
with the dummy in long-sleeved and ankle length clothing. Upon 
reviewing our testing experience with the dummy, we agree that the 
clothing that has been used consisted of long-sleeved shirt and long-
legged pants. We have revised the paragraph in question to refer to 
such clothing, and have included a limit on how much the clothing may 
weigh. That specification more precisely describes the clothing that is 
used on this dummy.
Torso
    The regulatory text proposed for the CRABI 12 dummy specified in 
Sec. 572.155 the following torso flexion test and performance 
requirements: (1) When the torso is flexed 45 degrees from vertical, 
the resistance force must not be less than 90 N and not more than 120 
N, and (2) upon removal of the force, the upper torso assembly returns 
to within 10 degrees of its initial position.
    TRW, TRC and the Alliance question the need for this procedure in 
view of the anticipated use of the CRABI 12 test dummy in compliance 
tests. These commenters believe that the dummy will likely be used only 
when restrained in a rear-facing child restraint system, and thus there 
is no need to determine the flexion articulation between upper and 
lower halves of the torso assembly. The commenters suggest that 
periodic inspections would be adequate to assure the dummy's 
performance instead of a calibration test.
    While we agree with the commenters that the dummy in crash tests 
will likely be restrained in a rear-facing child restraint, we had 
proposed the torso flexion test primarily to address an overall 
variability problem. At the time the NPRM was issued, we believed that 
a dummy's torso flexion stiffness could substantially influence the 
variability of the dummy's impact response when the dummy's upper torso 
moved considerably with respect to the lower half of the torso. In 
response to the comments received on this issue, we conducted 
additional sled tests in January 2000 and found that the dummy's 
response variability we had initially observed was caused by 
insufficient support of the child restraint seat back on the standard 
seat assembly. Once the child restraint was provided sufficient 
support, there was a substantial reduction in the dummy's impact 
response variability. (We have placed a report of this testing in the 
docket for this final rule.) Accordingly, we agree with the commenters 
that the torso flexion stiffness test is not needed, and that periodic 
inspections will be adequate to assure the dummy's structural integrity 
and performance consistency. Such inspection will be included in the 
Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) document 
(see discussion below on the PADI). Accordingly, we have not adopted 
the torso flexion requirement as proposed in Sec. 572.155.

Other Issues Relating to Calibration Requirements and Procedures

Post-Test Calibration Requirement

    The Alliance suggests that the specifications for the CRABI 12 
dummy should include a requirement that the dummy meet calibration 
specifications following a NHTSA compliance test. The commenter states 
that Part 572 has such a requirement for dummies adopted in years past, 
while recent rulemakings on the new Hybrid III-type 3-year-old, 6-year-
old, and 5th percentile female adult have not included such a 
requirement. The Alliance believes that the post-test dummy state of 
compliance is very important because test results indicating a 
noncompliance may be dummy-related. Without post-test dummy 
verification (calibration), the commenter claims, no one can determine 
with reasonable certainty whether a non-compliance is due to a test 
dummy anomaly or to the vehicle's safety deficiency.
    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

[[Page 17186]]

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 a compliance investigation. 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 the 
vehicle or its equipment design were responsible for the dummy failure.
    TRC also asks that a provision be added to the test procedure to 
specify that a light coat of talcum powder is applied to the headform 
skin to reduce the tackiness of the urethane. The agency has addressed 
the powdering question during the formulation of the Part 572 Subpart B 
rulemaking (50th percentile male) and has evaluated its merits in this 
rulemaking. We rejected the powdering issue on the basis of 
subjectivity of the procedure, which could unnecessarily complicate 
compliance tests in which the CRABI 12 dummy is used. Additionally, we 
believe that powder is neither needed nor helps to assure consistent 
head performance. We found no benefits or advantages in using the 
powder. Accordingly, we have not adopted the suggested change.

Instrumentation

    The agency proposed generic specifications for all of the dummy-
based sensors, which included--
    (1) head, thorax, and pelvis accelerometers designated in drawing 
SA572-S4 and shown in drawing 921022-000;
    (2) force and/or moment transducers:
    (a) pubic load cell SA572-S24,
    (b) lumbar spine and neck force moment transducer SA572-S23, and
    (c) shoulder load cell SA572-S25.
    Comments on proposed generic sensors were received from the 
Alliance and Denton. The Alliance supports the intent of the agency in 
proposing generic specifications, but finds the specifications not 
sufficiently generic. Denton commented on the need to revise 
specifications in drawings SA572-S23, -S24, -25, and 921022-35 (pelvis 
structure weldment).

Weight Specifications

    Denton recommends changing the weights of the specified load cells 
in SA572-S23, -S24 and -S25. Denton also believes that several drawings 
should indicate a maximum weight, and not a nominal weight. We concur 
with this suggestion. While we would prefer to establish nominal 
weights for the load cells,\3\ 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 5 of drawing 921022-000, is met. Accordingly, we have specified 
in the sensor drawings only maximum weights, as follows:

    \3\ 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 SA572-23 (neck and lumbar spine)--0.34 lb maximum (each);
--Drawing SA572-24 (pubic)--0.58 lb maximum; and
--Drawing SA572-25 (shoulder)--0.14 lb maximum.

    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. We disagree with this suggestion. 
All of the load cells specified by the agency include weights 
associated with 8 in. of cable length.

Accelerometer Specifications

    The Alliance supports our intent to propose generic specifications 
for sensors to reduce the restrictive nature of instrumentation 
specifications seen in the past. However, the commenter believes that 
the proposed sensor specifications are not sufficiently generic. The 
commenter states that the generic specifications would require the use 
of a certain model made by a specific manufacturer, having a particular 
seismic mass and mounting hole configuration. The commenter notes that 
other accelerometers might be acceptable but can not be used under the 
proposed specification. The Alliance suggests that the agency develop a 
more functional description.
    We are aware of at least two manufacturers that have in the past or 
are now marketing accelerometers that match the specifications listed 
in the drawings. The specific hole patterns are needed for mounting the 
accelerometers in several locations in this dummy as well as all of the 
other Part 572 dummies. Although the sensing mass of the accelerometer 
is defined relative to its attachment surface, hole patterns and 
mounting platform dimensions need to be known to assure the existence 
of compatible space, mating surfaces and methods of attachment in the 
areas where the accelerometers are to be mounted. In addition, shock 
and vibration standards require that matching mounting surfaces and 
attachments have structural integrity for vibration control purposes 
which we believe are sufficiently defined in the drawing package. While 
the Alliance's suggestion that the agency develop a ``more functional 
description'' of the sensors is attractive as a concept and warrants 
further study, we do not believe that the technology is sufficiently 
developed for implementation at the present time.

Pubic Load Cell Mounting

    Denton suggests changes to drawing 921022-035 to specify an 
orientation of two tapped holes in the pelvic structure weldment to 
accommodate the mounting of the pubic load cell SA572-S24. If that is 
not done, Denton states, it will not be possible to insert a wrench 
through the access holes in the load cell to loosen the set screws 
which thread into detail 3 of drawing 921022-035. Denton suggests that 
``the top surface of the weldment (which is ground flat to within 
0.001) be indicated as datum A, and that a callout be added indicating 
that the centerlines of the holes are perpendicular to the datum 
surface A within 0.020 inches.''
    We agree with the comment and have revised drawing 921022-35 in 
line with the suggested changes.

Accelerometer Frequency Response

    Denton, in its comments on frequency response for the Hybrid III-
type 5th percentile female adult dummy (Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4283-10), 
suggests 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 drawings saying that ``Signal output must be compatible 
with and recordable in the data channel defined by SAE J211.''

[[Page 17187]]

Title and Features of the Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and 
Inspection

    The preamble for the NPRM on the CRABI 12 dummy notes that the 
final rule package will contain a ``User's Manual'' for the 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 this issue, DTES noted that it has 
developed a User's Manual for this dummy and suggested its 
incorporation into Part 572. There are a number of reasons why we 
decline to incorporate the DTES User's Manual as a reference document.
    DTES's manual contains, 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 reference a document which could 
contain calibration procedures and response requirements that may be 
inconsistent or in conflict with the Part 572 requirements. Further, 
while the DTES 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 DTES 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 DTES manual should not be 
incorporated into Part 572, we generated and incorporated into Part 572 
our own document which is limited to addressing procedures for 
inspection, assembly and disassembly of the CRABI 12 test dummy. We 
have titled the document Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and 
Inspection (PADI), Subpart R, CRABI 12-month-old Infant Crash Test 
Dummy (CRABI-12, Alpha version), March 2000. Our incorporation of the 
PADI does not prevent anyone from using the procedures contained in the 
DTES User's Manual. However, persons using the DTES 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 CRABI 12 test dummy is incorporated in Part 572 as Subpart R. 
Today's final rule designates the dummy adopted today as the alpha 
version. Further significant 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 12-month-old child dummy that we 
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 12-month-old dummy is approximately 
$19,000. Instrumentation would add $15,000 to $43,000 to the cost, 
depending on the amount of instrumentation the user chooses to add.
    Because the economic impacts of this proposal 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. Sec. 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 17188]]

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 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 CRABI 12 test 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

    Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 572 is amended 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 R consisting 
of 572.150-572.155, to read as follows:
Subpart R--CRABI 12-Month-Old Infant Crash Test Dummy, Alpha Version
Sec.
572.150   Incorporation by reference.
572.151   General description.
572.152   Head assembly and test procedure.
572.153   Neck-headform assembly and test procedure.
572.154   Thorax assembly and test procedure.
572.155   Test condition and instrumentation.
Subpart R--12-Month-Old Infant, Alpha Version


Sec. 572.150  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following materials are incorporated by reference in this 
subpart R.
    (1) A drawings and specifications package entitled ``Parts List and 
Drawings, Subpart R, CRABI 12-Month-Old Infant Crash Test Dummy, 
(CRABI-12, Alpha version), March 2000'' and consisting of :
    (i) Drawing No. 921022-001, Head Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.151, 572.152, 572.154, and 572.155;
    (ii) Drawing No. 921022-041, Neck Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.151, 572.153, 572.154, and 572.155;
    (iii) Drawing No. TE-3200-160, Headform, incorporated by reference 
in Secs. 572.151 and 572.153;
    (iv) Drawing No. 921022-060, Torso Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.151, 572.154, and 572.155;
    (v) Drawing No. 921022-055, Leg Assembly, incorporated by reference 
in Secs. 572.151, and 572.155 as part of a complete dummy assembly;
    (vi) Drawing No. 921022-054, Arm Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Secs. 572.151, and 572.155 as part of the complete dummy 
assembly;
    (2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI), Subpart R, CRABI 12-month-old Infant 
Crash Test Dummy (CRABI-12, Alpha version), March 2000,'' incorporated 
by reference in Sec. 572.151;
    (3) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, Rev. Mar95 ``Instrumentation 
for Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation'', incorporated by 
reference in Sec. 572.155;
    (4) SAE J1733 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash 
Testing'', incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.155.
    (b) 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 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 drawings and specifications package referred to in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the procedures manual 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 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. 572.151  General description.

    (a) The 12-month-old-infant crash test dummy is described by 
drawings and specifications containing the following materials:
    (1) Technical drawings and specifications package 921022-000

[[Page 17189]]

(refer to Sec. 572.150(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. 572.150(a)(2)).
    (b) The dummy consists of the component assemblies set out in the 
following Table A:

                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Component assembly                     Drawing number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Assembly.............................  921022-001.
Neck Assembly (complete)..................  921022-041.
Torso Assembly............................  921022-060.
Leg Assembly..............................  921022-055 R&L.
Arm Assembly..............................  921022-054 R&L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Adjacent segments of the dummy 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 
shall conform to this Subpart in every respect before its use in any 
test under this chapter.


Sec. 572.152  Head assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The head assembly (refer to Sec. 572.150(a)(1)(i)) for this 
test consists of the assembly (drawing 921022-001), triaxial mount 
block (SA572-80), and 3 accelerometers (drawing SA572-S4).
    (b) Frontal and rear impact.
    (1) Frontal impact. When the head assembly in paragraph (a) of this 
section is dropped from a height of 376.01.0 mm 
(14.80.04 in) in accordance with paragraph (c)(3)(i) of 
this section, the peak resultant acceleration measured at the head CG 
shall not be less than 100 g or more than 120 g. The resultant 
acceleration vs. time history curve shall be unimodal, and the 
oscillations occurring after the main pulse shall be less than 17 
percent of the peak resultant acceleration. The lateral acceleration 
shall not exceed 15 g's.
    (2) Rear impact. When the head assembly in paragraph (a) of this 
section is dropped from a height of 376.01.0 mm 
(14.80.04 in) in accordance with paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of 
this section, the peak resultant acceleration measured at the head CG 
shall be not less than 55 g and not more than 71 g. The resultant 
acceleration vs. time history curve shall be unimodal, and the 
oscillations occurring after the main pulse shall be less than 17 
percent of the peak resultant acceleration. The lateral acceleration 
shall not exceed 15 g's.
    (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. These temperature and humidity levels shall be 
maintained throughout the entire testing period specified in this 
section.
    (2) Before 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 shall be clean and dry for 
testing.
    (3)(i) For a frontal impact test, suspend the head assembly with 
its midsagittal plane in vertical orientation as shown in Figure R1 of 
this subpart. The lowest point on the forehead is 376.01.0 
mm (14.8 0.04 in) from the impact surface. The 3.30 mm 
(0.13 in) diameter holes located on either side of the dummy's head are 
used to ensure that the head is level with respect to the impact 
surface. The angle between the lower surface plane of the neck 
transducer mass simulator (drawing 910420-003) and the plane of the 
impact surface is 45 1 degrees.
    (ii) For a rear impact test, suspend the head assembly with its 
midsagittal plane in vertical orientation as shown in Figure R2 of this 
subpart. The lowest point on the back of the head is 
376.01.0 mm (14.8 0.04 in) from the impact 
surface. The 3.30 mm (0.13 in) diameter holes located on either side of 
the dummy's head are used to ensure that the head is level with respect 
to the impact surface. The angle between the lower surface plane of the 
neck transducer structural replacement (drawing 910420-003) and the 
impact surface is 90 1 degrees.
    (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 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 of the head 
assembly at the same impact point. For head impacts on the opposite 
side of the head, the 30-minute waiting period specified in 
Sec. 572.155(m) does not apply.


Sec. 572.153  Neck-headform assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The neck and headform assembly (refer to 
Secs. 572.150(a)(1)(ii) and 572.150(a)(1)(iii)) for the purposes of 
this test consists of parts shown in CRABI neck test assembly (drawing 
TE-3200-100);
    (b) When the neck and headform assembly, as defined in 
Sec. 572.153(a), is tested according to the test procedure in 
Sec. 572.153(c), it shall have the following characteristics:
    (1) Flexion.
    (i) Plane D referenced in Figure R3 of this subpart shall rotate in 
the direction of pre-impact flight with respect to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline not less than 75 degrees and not more than 86 
degrees. Within this specified rotation corridor, the peak positive 
moment about the occipital condyles shall be not less than 36 N-m (26.6 
ft-lbf) and not more than 45 N-m (33.2 ft-lbf).
    (ii) The positive moment about the occipital condyles shall decay 
for the first time to 5 N-m (3.7 ft-lbf) between 60 ms and 80 ms after 
time zero.
    (iii) The moment about the occipital condyles shall be calculated 
by the following formula: Moment (N-m) = My - (0.005842m)  x  (Fx), 
where My is the moment about the y-axis, Fx is the shear force measured 
by the neck transducer (drawing SA572 -S23) and 0.005842m is the 
distance from the point at which the load cell measures the force to 
the occipital condyle.
    (2) Extension.
    (i) Plane D referenced in Figure R4 of this subpart shall rotate in 
the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline not less than 80 degrees and not more than 92 
degrees. Within the specified rotation corridor, the peak negative 
moment about the occipital condyles shall be not more than -12 Nm (-8.9 
ft-lbf) and not less than -23 N-m (-17.0 ft-lbf) within the minimum and 
maximum rotation interval.
    (ii) The negative moment about the occipital condyles shall decay 
for the first time to -5 Nm (-3.7 lbf-ft) between 76 ms and 90 ms after 
time zero.
    (iii) The moment about the occipital condyles shall be calculated 
by the following formula: Moment (N-m) = My - (0.005842m)  x  (Fx), 
where My is the moment about the y-axis, Fx is the shear force measured 
by the neck transducer (drawing SA572 -S23) and 0.005842m is the 
distance from the point at which the load cell measures the force to 
the occipital condyle.
    (c) Test procedure.

[[Page 17190]]

    (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 at any 
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours 
prior to a test. These temperature and humidity levels shall be 
maintained throughout the testing period specified in this section.
    (2) Torque the jam nut (drawing 9001336) on the neck cable (drawing 
ATD-6206) to 0.2 to 0.3 Nm (2-3 in-lbf).
    (3) Mount the neck-headform assembly, defined in paragraph (b) 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 R3 for flexion and Figure R4 for extension tests.
    (i) The moment and rotation data channels are defined to be zero 
when the longitudinal centerline of the neck and pendulum are parallel.
    (ii) The test shall be conducted without inducing any torsion of 
the neck.
    (4) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely to achieve an 
impact velocity of 5.2 0.1 m/s (17.1 0.3 ft/s) 
for flexion and 2.5 0.1 m/s (8.2 0.3 ft/s) for 
extension measured at the center of the pendulum accelerometer at the 
instant of contact with the honeycomb.
    (i) 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 defined to be zero at this time.
    (ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an 
acceleration vs. time pulse which meets the velocity change as 
specified in the following table. Integrate the pendulum acceleration 
data channel to obtain the velocity vs. time curve as indicated in 
Table B:

                                            Table B.--Pendulum Pulse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Time                         Flexion                   Time                    Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 m/s                       m/s        ft/s              ms                 m/s          ft/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..................................  1.6-2.3       5.2-7.5  6......................  0.8-1.2       2.6-3.9
20..................................  3.4-4.2       11.2-13  10.....................  1.5-2.1       4.9-6.9
                                                        .8
25..................................  4.3-5.2       14.1-17  14.....................  2.2-2.9       7.2-9.5
                                                        .1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 572.154  Thorax assembly and test procedure.

    (a) Thorax Assembly (refer to Sec. 572.150(a)(1)(iv)) . The thorax 
consists of the part of the torso assembly shown in drawing 921022-060.
    (b) When the thorax of a completely assembled dummy (drawing 
921022-000) is impacted by a test probe conforming to Sec. 572.155(a) 
at 5.0 0.1m/s (16.5 0.3 ft/s) according to the 
test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, the peak force, 
measured by the impact probe in accordance with paragraph 
Sec. 572.155(a), shall be not less than 1514 N (340.7 lbf) and not more 
than 1796 N (404.1 lbf).
    (c) Test procedure.
    (1) 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. These temperature and humidity levels shall be maintained 
throughout the entire testing period specified in this section.
    (2) The test dummy is clothed in a cotton-polyester based tight 
fitting sweat shirt with long sleeves and ankle long pants whose 
combined weight is not more than 0.25 kg (.55 lbs).
    (3) Seat and orient the dummy on a level seating surface without 
back support as shown in Figure R5 of this subpart, with the lower 
limbs extended forward, parallel to the midsagittal plane and the arms 
0 to 5 degrees forward of vertical. The dummy's midsagittal plane is 
vertical within /1 degree and the posterior surface of the 
upper spine box is aligned at 90/1 degrees from the 
horizontal. (Shim material may be used under the upper legs to maintain 
the dummy's specified spine box surface alignment).
    (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 midsagittal plane, is centered on the torso 
196 /2.5 mm (7.7 /0.1 in) vertically from the 
plane of the seating surface, and is within 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 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. 572.155  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 2.860.02 kg 
(6.30.05 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 622 
kg-cm2 (0.55 lbs-in-sec2) in yaw and pitch about 
the CG. Up to 1/3 of the weight of the suspension cables and their 
attachments to the impact probe may be included in the calculation of 
mass, but 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 12.7 mm 
(0.5 in) thick, and have a flat, continuous, and non-deformable 101.6 
 0.25 mm (4.000.01 in) diameter face with an 
edge radius of 12.70.25 mm (0.50.01 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) Head accelerometers shall have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S4 and be mounted in the head as shown in drawing 921022-000.
    (c) The neck force-moment transducer shall have the dimensions, 
response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in 
drawing SA572-S23 and shall be mounted for testing as shown in drawing 
921022-000 and in figures R3 and R4 of this subpart.
    (d) The shoulder force transducers shall have the dimensions and 
response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S25 and are allowed 
to be mounted as optional instrumentation in place of part No. 921022-
022 in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 921022-000.
    (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

[[Page 17191]]

assembly in triaxial configuration as shown in drawing 921022-000.
    (f) The lumbar spine and lower neck force/moment transducer shall 
have the dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing 
SA572-S23 and are allowed to be mounted as optional instrumentation in 
the torso assembly in place of part No. 910420-003 as shown in drawing 
921022-000.
    (g) The pelvis accelerometers shall have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S4 and are allowed to be mounted as optional instrumentation in 
the pelvis in triaxial configuration as shown in drawing 921022-000.
    (h) The pubic force transducer shall have the dimensions and 
response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S24 and is allowed 
to be mounted as optional instrumentation in place of part No. 921022-
050 in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 921022-000.
    (i) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing devices installed 
in the dummy and in the test apparatus specified by this part are 
recorded in individual data channels that conform to the requirements 
of SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, Rev. Mar95 ``Instrumentation for 
Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation'' (refer to 
Sec. 572.150(a)(3)), with channel classes as follows:
    (1) Head and headform acceleration--Class 1000.
    (2) Neck :
    (i) Forces--Class 1000;
    (ii) Moments--Class 600;
    (iii) Pendulum acceleration--Class 180;
    (3) Thorax:
    (i) Spine and pendulum accelerations--Class 180;
    (ii) Shoulder forces--Class 600;
    (4) Lumbar:
    (i) Forces--Class 1000;
    (ii) Moments --Class 600;
    (5) Pelvis:
    (i) Accelerations--Class 1000;
    (ii) Pubic--Class 1000.
    (j) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity shall conform to 
SAE J1733, 1994-12, ``Sign Convention For Vehicle Crash Testing, 
Surface Vehicle Information Report,'' (refer to Sec. 572.150(a)(4)).
    (k) The mountings for sensing devices shall have no resonance 
frequency within a range of 3 times the frequency range of the 
applicable channel class.
    (l) Limb joints shall be set at l g, barely restraining the weight 
of the limb when it is extended horizontally. The force required to 
move a limb segment shall not exceed 2 g throughout the range of limb 
motion.
    (m) Performance tests of the same component, segment, assembly, or 
fully assembled dummy shall be separated in time by period of not less 
than 30 minutes unless otherwise noted.
    (n) Surfaces of dummy components may not be painted except as 
specified in this subpart or in drawings referenced in Sec. 572.150.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 17192]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31MR00.008


[[Page 17193]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31MR00.009


[[Page 17194]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31MR00.010


[[Page 17195]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31MR00.011


[[Page 17196]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31MR00.012

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

    Issued: March 27, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-7955 Filed 3-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P