[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45777-45784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-00-7052]
RIN 2127-AI37


Anthropomorphic Test Devices; 12-Month-Old Child Dummy; Final 
Rule; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On March 31, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule adopting 
design and performance specifications for a new 12-month-old infant 
dummy. Four organizations filed petitions for reconsideration of this 
rule. In response to these petitions, this document makes several minor 
changes to the final rule, including: adding a channel frequency class 
specification if a rotary potentiometer is used for measuring head 
rotation; revising the impact probe specifications to include 
provisions for mounting suspension hardware if a cable system is used 
for impacts, adopt a lower minimum mass moment of inertia, and clarify 
the specification for free air resonant frequency; revising the 
material specifications in several drawings; and correcting several 
minor errors in these drawings, and in the Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) Document. This document also denies a 
request to add a provision for post-test calibration of the dummy.

DATES: The amendments made in this final rule are effective October 29, 
2001. If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration for this 
rule, your petition must be received by October 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number and be submitted to: Administrator, Rm. 5220, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590. The drawings and PADI will be available in the NHTSA Docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues, Stan Backaitis, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards at 202-366-4912. For legal issues, 
Dion Casey, Office of the Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992. Both can be 
reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic Safety

[[Page 45778]]

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 31, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule adopting design and 
performance specifications for a new 12-month-old infant dummy. (65 FR 
17180). The specifications were added to 49 CFR part 572 as Subpart R.
    The 12-month-old dummy was developed as a child restraint/air bag 
interaction dummy (hereinafter referred to as the CRABI 12-month 
dummy). It is 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 also will provide useful information in 
a variety of crash environments to evaluate child safety.
    Adopting the dummy is a step toward using it in the tests the 
agency conducts to determine compliance with NHTSA safety standards. 
The use of the CRABI 12-month dummy in NHTSA compliance tests is being 
addressed in separate rulemaking proceedings.
    The CRABI 12-month dummy's specifications adopted in the final rule 
consist of a drawing package that shows the component parts, the 
subassemblies, and the assembly of the complete dummy. They also 
specify materials and material treatment processes for all the dummy's 
component parts, and specify the dummy's instrumentation and instrument 
installation methods. In addition, the specifications contain a manual 
specifying 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 final rule also established impact performance criteria for the 
CRABI 12-month dummy. These criteria address head, neck, and thorax 
impact responses. The criteria 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.

Petitions

    The agency received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule 
from Toyota Motor Corporation; the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
(whose members are BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Fiat, Ford Motor 
Company, General Motors, Isuzu, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, 
Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo); First Technology Safety 
Systems (FTSS--a manufacturer of crash test dummies); and Robert A. 
Denton, Inc. (a manufacturer of load cells used in crash test dummies).
    Toyota and the Alliance requested that a post-test calibration of 
the dummy be included in the performance specifications. A post-test 
calibration is an assessment of whether the dummy conforms to NHTSA 
specifications after it has been used in a crash test. Toyota and the 
Alliance asserted that a post-test calibration is necessary to provide 
an objective check of the validity of the test dummy data acquired 
during the test, particularly if the crash test results in an apparent 
non-compliance. Toyota and the Alliance argued that without a post-test 
calibration, ``neither a vehicle manufacturer nor a NHTSA test 
contractor can determine whether an apparent vehicle non-compliance is 
due to a test dummy anomaly during a test.''
    The remainder of the issues raised in the petitions are relatively 
minor. All of the issues are addressed in the Discussion and Analysis 
section below.

Discussion and Analysis

1. Post-Test Calibration

    Toyota and the Alliance previously raised the issue of post-test 
calibration of dummies in their comments on NHTSA proposals to 
establish Hybrid III dummies for fifth percentile females (H-III5F), 
six-year-old children (H-III6C), and three-year-old children (H-III3C). 
Historically, NHTSA has required that the structural properties of a 
dummy satisfy the specifications set out in the applicable regulation 
in every respect both before and after its use in any test in a Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard. However, in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the H-III5F dummy, the agency rejected a post-
test dummy calibration provision for the following reasons:

    NHTSA is concerned that the post-test calibration requirement 
could handicap and delay its 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 did not affect its ability 
to accurately measure the performance requirements of the standard. 
The agency is 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, NHTSA has tentatively 
concluded that removal of the post-calibration requirement would be 
in the public interest, since it would permit the agency to proceed 
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.

(63 FR 46981, 46983, September 3, 1998).

    The agency believes this reasoning remains valid. Further, in their 
comments on this rulemaking, the Alliance and Toyota have not produced 
any new information that would support the reversal of the decision not 
to include a post-test calibration provision. Thus, the agency is 
denying this part of the Alliance and Toyota petitions.

2. Instrumentation; Filter Classes; Neck Flexion/Extension Test 
Instrumentation

    In the Part 572 language describing the CRABI 12-month dummy, NHTSA 
did not specify use of mechanical test fixtures, including 
potentiometers, to measure head rotation in the specified head-neck 
tests. The agency believes there are several methods of measuring this, 
and there is no reason why a specific method should limit the user's 
choice. The Alliance and FTSS recommended that the agency revise 
section 572.155(i)(2) to specify a channel class to provide guidance 
for those instances in which a rotary potentiometer is used to measure 
the amount of head rotation: (iv) Rotation potentiometer--Class 60.
    In its petitions concerning the H-III5F and H-III6C final rules, 
the Alliance noted that industry users appear to have reached a 
consensus that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended 
practice J211 Channel Frequency Class (CFC) 60 specification is 
appropriate if a potentiometer is used to measure head rotation. In 
addition, the NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) used the 
CFC 60 to filter head rotation data measured by rotary potentiometers 
to establish the certification requirements for the dummies. VRTC 
review of raw data showed absence of high frequency signals which would 
obviate the need for a specification greater than CFC 60.
    Consequently, the agency has no objections to specifying Channel 
Frequency Class 60 for this application if a rotary potentiometer is 
used for measuring head rotation. The agency is revising 
Sec. 572.155(i)(2) to add the following: (iv) Rotary potentiometer 
response (if used)--CFC 60.

[[Page 45779]]

3. Impact Pendulum Characteristics

3.1  Probe Specification
    The test probe specification in Sec. 572.155(a) reads:

    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 2.86  0.02 kg 
(6.3  0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 
622 kg-cm\2\ (0.55 lbs-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG 
[center of gravity]. 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 (4.00 
 0.01 in) diameter face with an edge radius of 12.7 
 0.25 mm (0.5 in  0.01 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.

    The Alliance asserted that the provisions for concentricity and 
symmetry about the longitudinal axis are unrealistic since the pendulum 
is often fitted with velocity vanes or other hardware, causing 
asymmetry. As a result, the Alliance recommended revision of the probe 
specification to read, ``The primary test probe, less any additional 
hardware, for [body region] impacts shall be of rigid metallic 
construction.''
    FTSS argued that the test probe specification is vague and overly 
restrictive. FTSS claimed that the test probe can be adequately 
specified by (1) the geometry of the contact area with the dummy, (2) 
the probe's mass, (3) the location of the center of gravity, and (4) 
the mass moment of inertia (MMI). FTSS also said that the addition of 
velocity vanes, cable attachment points, or other hardware will result 
in asymmetry and cause the center of gravity (CG) to be slightly offset 
from the geometrical center of the probe. FTSS concluded the maximum 
offset will not exceed 3.5 mm.
    Accordingly, FTSS recommended that the first sentence of the test 
probe specification be replaced with: ``The test probe should be of 
rigid metallic construction with the geometrical and inertial 
properties specified below. The probe center of gravity shall lie 
within 3.5 mm of the longitudinal axis passing through the center of 
the impacting face.'' FTSS also recommended that the sentence beginning 
``No concentric portions of the impact probe * * *'' should be deleted.
    NHTSA agrees with the Alliance that the test probe specification 
should include provisions for mounting suspension hardware if a cable 
system is used for impacts. However, the agency does not agree with 
FTSS that the possible CG offset from the longitudinal axis is either 
needed or should be specified. NHTSA believes the specifications in the 
final rule for MMI in pitch and yaw provide sufficient controls to 
assure stable kinematics during the probe's free flight and impact with 
the dummy.
    Accordingly, the agency is revising Sec. 572.155(a) and 
Sec. 572.154(c) as specified in section 3.4 below.
3.2  Thoracic Impactor--Mass Moment of Inertia
    Section 572.155(a) specifies that the thoracic impactor shall have 
``a minimum mass moment of inertia [MMI]of 622 kg-cm\2\ (0.55 lbs-in-
sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG.''
    The Alliance stated that the MMI values for thorax impact probes 
used at a number of test laboratories fall below the minimum final rule 
requirement of 622 kg-cm\2\. The Alliance claimed that its member 
companies have used different impactors with MMIs ranging from 164 to 
1160 kg-cm\2\ (measured) and 58.85 to 1017 kg-cm\2\ (calculated). The 
Alliance also quoted NHTSA from the final rule establishing the Hybrid 
III fifth percentile female (H-III5F) dummy: ``* * * the agency 
believes that, for the sake of consistency and simplicity, it would be 
best if all impact probes for dummy testing were of cylindrical design 
* * *'' (65 FR 10965, March 1, 2000). According to the Alliance, this 
ideal cylindrical probe produces a MMI of 58.85 kg-cm\2\, far below the 
minimum MMI specified in the final rule. The Alliance recommended that 
if this cylindrical probe represents the ideal impactor to NHTSA, and 
the agency insists on retaining the MMI specification, the agency 
should use the 58.85 kg-cm\2\ value as the minimum MMI.
    FTSS stated that in setting the minimum MMI, ``it appears that 
NHTSA has used the measured values of the physical probes at it's [sic] 
own test laboratories without a tolerance and without an analysis of a 
minimum MMI that will ensure satisfactory performance.'' FTSS stated 
that ``these numbers are arbitrary and have not been justified.'' The 
FTSS thorax probe has a yaw MMI of 199 kg-cm\2\ and a pitch MMI of 201 
kg-cm\2\, both of which fall well below the minimum MMI specified in 
the final rule. FTSS stated that NHTSA has not presented any data to 
suggest that these probes do not provide satisfactory performance. FTSS 
claimed that the minimum MMI specification, as currently written, will 
force a re-design of the probe and obsolescence of existing probes 
without evidence that the design is inadequate. FTSS recommended that 
the MMI specification be held in abeyance for six months to allow time 
to develop criteria for the probes and to develop and manufacture re-
designed probes as necessary.
    NHTSA specified the impactor in generic terms in response to 
industry comments on the NPRMs for both the H-III6C and H-III5F dummies 
stating that the impactor needs to be generic in specification and that 
the users desire to make them from building blocks, essentially, an 
assembly of multiple pieces. The commentors also requested that NHTSA 
not specify the impactor by design. Any impactor that cannot be 
specified by design must be specified by engineering parameters, which 
are mass, stiffness, CG location, and MMI. As a result, the agency 
accepted the commentors' desire for a generic impactor and specified 
the impactor in engineering terms.
    However, assembling impactors from multiple pieces may result in 
compositions with many forms and wide variations in the location of the 
CG, and the yaw and pitch MMI. These wide variations are evident in the 
Alliance's petition, in which it noted that its member companies have 
used different impactors with MMIs ranging from 164 to 1160 kg-cm\2\ 
(measured) and 58.85 to 1017 kg-cm\2\ (calculated).
    To determine the effects on kinematics of low and high inertia 
impactors, the agency studied the kinematics of the impactor cited by 
the Alliance as having the lowest MMI and compared that with the 
kinematics of the NHTSA impactor having a much higher MMI. The 
evaluation revealed that the low inertia impactor experienced 
considerable motion instability. In contrast, the agency impactor with 
the MMI specified in the final rule exhibited very stable free flight 
kinematics. This experiment shows that the use of impactors with low 
MMIs could lead to unstable kinematics. Inasmuch as the response of the 
dummy in calibration tests is used as a measure of the dummy's 
repeatability and objectivity, it is important that the impact probe 
kinematics at and during the impact with the dummy not be a source of 
variability.
    The Alliance petition contains a table with measured and calculated 
MMI

[[Page 45780]]

values of impactors used by Alliance members. As noted above, the 
measured values range from 164 to 1160 kg-cm\2\ while calculated values 
range from 58.85 to 1017 kg-cm\2\. The agency believes that the 
measured MMI values reflect current industry practice, and, therefore, 
these are reasonably good grounds for their acceptance, particularly 
since the provisions in Sec. 572.154(c) (5) and (6) deal with alignment 
and stability of the probe at the time of impact. In contrast, the 
agency believes that the calculated MMI values, which are considerably 
below the values currently used by the industry, have never been 
evaluated for stability.
    Accordingly, the agency is accepting as the minimum MMI the low 
measured MMI of 164 kg-cm\2\ cited by the Alliance, but not the low 
calculated MMI of 58.85 kg-cm\2\. The agency is revising the MMI 
specification in Sec. 572.155(a) to 164 kg-cm\2\ (0.145 lb-in-sec\2\) 
in yaw and pitch about the CG of the probe. Since the FTSS thorax 
probe, with a yaw MMI value of 199 kg-cm\2\ and a pitch MMI value of 
201 kg-cm\2\, would meet this specification, the agency is denying its 
request to hold the minimum MMI specification in abeyance for six 
months.
3.3  Free Air Resonant Frequency
    Section 572.155(a) specifies that the thorax impact probe have a 
free air resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz.
    The Alliance said that there are insufficient data to support the 
need for such a specification. Thus, the Alliance recommended that this 
specification be deleted until substantial data is available to justify 
the need for it.
    FTSS disagreed with the free air resonant frequency specification. 
FTSS claimed that NHTSA established it without specifying the methods 
to measure the frequency or providing a rationale for the need of it. 
FTSS stated that it has analyzed the probe used in its calibration 
laboratories, and the results showed the first resonant modes of the 
probe are bending modes, which causes a lateral translation at the 
accelerometer location. FTSS noted that typical accelerometers have 
less than three percent cross-axis sensitivity, so if the probe's 
natural resonance were excited during a dummy test, the effect on the 
acceleration signal would be minimal. FTSS asserted that it may be more 
appropriate to specify a 1000 Hz resonant frequency limit in the 
sensitive axis of the accelerometer. FTSS recommended that the free air 
resonant frequency specification be held in abeyance for six months to 
allow time to develop criteria for the probes and to develop and 
manufacture re-designed probes as necessary.
    Commentors on the H-III6C and H-III5F dummies expressed a desire 
for generic impactor specifications to allow users the freedom to 
design impactors in a variety of ways, including constructing them from 
building blocks. As a result, the agency developed a generic 
engineering specification and inserted it in the final rules for the H-
III6C, H-III5F, and H-III3C dummies. The agency carried over this 
specification into the final rule for the CRABI 12-month dummy.
    The resonant frequency specification is necessary for three 
reasons: (1) Because the intent of users is to build a non-defined 
shape and multiple piece impactor of unknown material, the natural 
resonance of the impactor is the only reliable indicator to assure that 
the impactor will be of sufficient structural rigidity and capable of 
repeatable response; (2) the specification will assure that a multiple 
piece impactor will not produce separate interactions between its 
constituent parts; and (3) the specification will assure that the 
mounting structure for the accelerometer is sufficiently rigid and will 
not affect the accelerometer readings.
    Nevertheless, NHTSA agrees with the FTSS comment in principle that 
it would be more appropriate to clarify the current specification by 
adding a note indicating that the 1000 Hz minimum resonant frequency is 
limited to the direction of the sensitive axis of the accelerometer, 
rather than in any direction. The agency also agrees that the first 
mode of resonance is the bending mode of the probe about its 
longitudinal axis, and, therefore, the signal of an accelerometer with 
a low cross-axis sensitivity that is oriented in the longitudinal axis 
will be minimally affected.
    NHTSA does not agree with the Alliance comment that the resonance 
specification is unnecessary. A multiple piece impact probe, if 
improperly constructed, may contain a series of resonances along its 
longitudinal axis. The 1000 Hz minimum specification would preclude a 
user from using such a probe.
    Accordingly, the agency is denying the Alliance request to delete 
the free air resonant frequency specification, but is revising the last 
sentence in Sec. 572.155(a) to read: ``The impact probe shall have a 
free air resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz measured in line 
with the longitudinal axis of the impactor, using the test method shown 
in the Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) 
document referenced in Sec. 572.151.'' The agency is also adding to the 
Appendix of the PADI document a new section E that provides details on 
the procedure the agency uses for determining the free air resonant 
frequency of impact probes used for dummy calibration tests.
3.4  Conclusion
    In view of the discussion above, the agency is revising 
Sec. 572.155(a) to read as follows:

    The test probe for thoracic impacts, except for attachments, 
shall be of rigid metallic construction and concentric about its 
longitudinal axis. Any attachments to the impactor, such as 
suspension hardware, impact vanes, etc., must meet the requirements 
of Sec. 572.154(c)(7). The impactor shall have a mass of 2.86 
 0.02 kg (6.3  0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass 
moment of inertia of 164 kg-cm\2\ (0.145 lb-in-sec\2\) in yaw and 
pitch about the CG of the probe. One-third of the weight of 
suspension cables and any 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 of the probe, has a flat, continuous, and non-
deformable 101.6  0.25 mm (4.00 0.01 in) 
diameter face with an edge radius of 7.6/12.7 mm (0.3/0.5 in). The 
impactor shall have a 101-103 mm (4-4.1 in) diameter cylindrical 
surface extending for a minimum of 12.5 mm (0.5 in) to the rear from 
the impact face. 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. The impact probe 
shall have a free air resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz 
measured in line with the longitudinal axis of the impactor, using 
the test method shown in the Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly 
and Inspection (PADI) document referenced in Sec. 572.151.

    The agency also is adding a paragraph (7) to Sec. 572.154(c), to 
read as follows:

    No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other 
attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make 
contact with the dummy during the test.

4. Load Cells--Materials

    Load cell drawings SA572-S23, SA572-S24, and SA572-S25 specify that 
the load cells be made of ``STEEL OR SIMILAR MATERIAL.'' Denton, 
seconded by the Alliance, noted that most of the existing load cells 
used for CRABI 12-month dummy applications are made primarily from 
aluminum. Denton recommended that this specification be removed from 
all load cell drawings.
    FTSS stated that load cells are predominantly made of an aluminum 
alloy, and recommended that the

[[Page 45781]]

material specification be changed to ``ALUMINUM OR SIMILAR.''
    NHTSA does not agree with Denton's recommendation to remove the 
material specifications. The agency believes that it is necessary to 
consider and address the structural functions that the load cell must 
be capable of performing, such as sound interconnection between major 
body elements. Thus, the agency is denying Denton's request to remove 
the material specifications from the load cell drawings.
    However, NHTSA does believe that specifying a particular load cell 
material may be too restrictive. The agency is aware that existing load 
cell constructions are based on metals with a high modulus of 
elasticity, such as aluminum and steel. As a result, instead of 
specifying one type of metal for a load cell, we are revising the load 
cell drawings to specify that the body of the load cell structure and 
provisions for its mounting, except for wires and their attachments, be 
made of metal or metal alloys. A general specification of ``METAL 
CONSTRUCTION'' will allow users to continue using existing load cells 
and permit load cell manufacturers to continue building load cells for 
the CRABI 12-month and other dummies. The agency believes that this 
general specification will provide for maximum latitude in load cell 
manufacturing.
    Accordingly, the agency is revising the material specifications in 
load cell drawings SA572-S23, SA572-S24, and SA572-S25 to read:

    The load bearing structure of the load cell, including 
provisions for the load cell mounting, are of metal or metal alloys. 
Non-load bearing parts of the load cell, internally and/or 
externally, including wires and their attachments, may be made of 
any material providing they do not interfere with the performance of 
the load cell or the transmission of the load cell signals.

5. Drawings

    Denton found several errors in load cell drawings SA572-S23, SA572-
S24, and SA572-S25. FTSS found an additional error in load cell drawing 
SA572-S25.
5.1  Drawing SA572-S23
    This drawing specifies 0.34 lb as the maximum weight of the load 
cell. The drawing also specifies that this maximum weight includes 
approximately eight inches of cable. NHTSA established this weight 
specification in response to Denton's comments on the NPRM, in which 
Denton requested that the weight of the load cell be lowered to 0.34 lb 
to be consistent with the load cells and structural replacements.
    However, Denton noted that it also stated in its NPRM comments that 
two notes were needed, one reading ``weight includes portion of cable 
exiting load cell which is covered with shrink wrap,'' and another 
reading ``specified weight does not include any cable or mounting 
hardware, except as noted.'' NHTSA did not include such notes in the 
drawing. Denton asserted that the additional eight inches of cable 
specified in the final rule weigh approximately 0.04 lb. Thus, Denton 
recommended that NHTSA either: (1) Change the drawing notes to indicate 
that cable is not included in the weight, or (2) change the weight 
specification to a maximum of 0.38 lb to account for the weight of the 
cable.
    Denton also noted that the drawing has a dimension of 2.500/63.5 
DIA for the main body of the load cell, and that this three decimal 
place dimension has a standard tolerance of 0.005 inch. 
Denton claimed that existing load cells have not been made to comply 
with such a tight tolerance. Denton uses a two decimal place dimension 
with a standard tolerance of 0.01 inch. Denton asserted 
that there are no clearance issues that require such a tight tolerance 
and requested that this dimension be changed to 2.50 with a standard 
tolerance of  0.01 inch so that existing load cells are not 
rendered obsolete.
    Finally, Denton stated that the dimension from the center of the 
body of the load cell to the front of the flange is listed as 1.625/
41.148 R. Denton noted that the 41.148 figure is incorrect because the 
metric equivalent of 1.625 inches is 41.275 millimeters.
    NHTSA agrees with all three of Denton's recommendations. 
Accordingly, the agency is revising Drawing SA572-S23 to: (1) Change 
the weight specification from a maximum of 0.34 lb to 0.38 lb; (2) 
change the dimension for the main body of the load cell from 2.500 
 0.005 inches to 2.50  0.01 inches; and (3) 
correct the metric equivalent for 1.63 inches to 41.40 millimeters.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Since the agency is changing the dimensions to two decimal 
places instead of three, the dimension from the center of the body 
of the load cell to the front of the flange is changing from 1.625 
inches to 1.63 inches. The metric equivalent for 1.63 inches is 
41.40 millimeters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.2  Drawing SA572-S24
    This drawing specifies 0.58 lb as the maximum weight of the load 
cell. The drawing also specifies that this maximum weight includes 
approximately eight inches of cable. As with Drawing SA572-S23, NHTSA 
established this weight specification in response to Denton's comments 
on the NPRM, in which Denton requested that the weight of the load cell 
be raised to a maximum of 0.58 lb to be consistent with the load cells 
and structural replacements.
    However, Denton noted that it also stated in its comments on the 
NPRM that a note was needed stating ``specified weight does not include 
any cable or mounting hardware, except as noted.'' NHTSA did not 
include such a note in the drawing. Denton asserted that the additional 
eight inches of cable specified by the drawing weigh approximately 0.02 
lb. Thus, Denton recommended that NHTSA either: (1) Include a note with 
the drawing indicating that the cable is not included in the weight 
specification, or (2) change the weight specification to a maximum of 
0.60 lb to account for the weight of the cable.
    Denton also stated that the Fx capacity is listed as 1000 lbs/448 
N. Denton noted that the 448 N figure is incorrect because 1000 lbs 
converts to 4448 N.
    NHTSA agrees with both of Denton's recommendations. Accordingly, 
the agency is revising Drawing SA572-S24 to: (1) change the weight 
specification from a maximum of 0.58 lb to 0.60 lb, and (2) correct the 
conversion of 1000 lbs from 448 N to 4448 N.
5.3  Drawing SA572-S25
    This drawing specifies 0.14 lb as the maximum weight of the load 
cell. The drawing also specifies that this maximum weight includes 
approximately eight inches of cable. As with Drawings SA572-S23 and 
SA572-S24, NHTSA established this weight specification in response to 
Denton's comments on the NPRM, in which Denton requested that the 
weight of the load cell be lowered to a maximum of 0.14 lb to be 
consistent with the load cells and structural replacements.
    However, Denton noted that it also stated in its comments that a 
note was needed stating ``specified weight does not include any cable 
or mounting hardware, except as noted.'' NHTSA did not include such a 
note in the drawing. Denton asserted that the additional eight inches 
of cable required by the drawing weigh approximately 0.02 lb. Thus, 
Denton recommended that NHTSA either: (1) include a note with the 
drawing indicating that the cable is not included in the weight 
specification, or (2) change the weight specification to a maximum of 
0.16 lb to account for the weight of the cable.
    Denton and FTSS also stated that the top dimension of the load cell 
is listed as D0.90/45.72. The commentors note that this is an error: 
the dimension

[[Page 45782]]

should be listed as either R0.90/22.86 or D1.80/45.72.
    Finally, FTSS noted that the drawing has an incorrect drawing 
number. It is listed as Drawing S572-S25. It should be Drawing SA572-
S25.
    NHTSA agrees with all of these recommendations. Accordingly, the 
agency is revising Drawing SA572-S25 to: (1) Change the weight 
specification from a maximum of 0.14 lb to 0.16 lb, (2) change the top 
dimension of the load cell from D0.90/45.72 to R0.90/22.86, and (3) 
correct the drawing number to SA572-S25.

6. Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) Document

    FTSS found several minor errors in the PADI document related to 
external dimensions and flesh repair procedures on Page 53, Table 4, 
External Dimensions: (1) the Dimension A Metric Specification should 
read 463.6 millimeters; (2) the Dimension S English Tolerance should 
read 0.20 inches; and (3) the Dimension S Metric Tolerance should read 
5.1 millimeters.
    FTSS also noted that the instructions in Appendix A, Flesh Repair, 
reference repair for vinyl materials. FTSS asserted that since the 
CRABI 12-month dummy is made primarily of urethane, the agency should 
insert the following paragraph after Paragraph 1:

    This dummy is made from urethane which is not easily repairable. 
Small cuts may be glued with contact cement and covered by smoothing 
with a soldering iron. Major cuts will require replacement or 
remolding.

    NHTSA agrees with all of the FTSS recommendations. Accordingly, the 
agency is revising the text on Page 53, Table 4, External Dimensions, 
as follows: (1) Change the metric specification in Dimension A to read 
463.6 millimeters; (2) change the English tolerance in Dimension S to 
read 0.20 inches; and (3) change the metric tolerance in Dimension S to 
read 5.1 millimeters. The agency also is inserting the following 
paragraph to Appendix A, Flesh Repair, after Paragraph 1:

    This dummy's urethane skin is not easily repairable. Small, 
superficial cuts may be glued with contact cement and covered by 
smoothing with a soldering iron. Major cuts require replacement of 
the part.

7. Drawing 921022-008, Head Accelerometer Mount

    The agency is revising Drawing 921022-008 to specify the need for a 
notch 0.25 inches (6.35 mm) wide by 0.50 inches (12.7 mm) long at the 
rear of the accelerometer mount. No petitioners requested that NHTSA 
make this change. However, the agency discovered the need for a notch 
in the rear of the accelerometer mount during testing at the Vehicle 
Research and Test Center (VRTC). The notch is needed to provide 
clearance for the accelerometer leads coming out of the dummy's head. 
Without a notch, it is easy to cut the wires from the accelerometers 
when assembling the head. Several wires were damaged during testing at 
the VRTC, even with careful placement and knowledge that such damage 
can take place. The agency has discussed this change with the dummy 
manufacturers. They did not object to it.
    Accordingly, the agency is revising Drawing 921022-008, Head 
Accelerometer Mount, to provide for a clearance notch 0.50  x  0.250 
inch at the left rear corner of the base of the mount.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. This rule also is not 
considered to be significant under the Department of Transportation'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 the 
agency may later incorporate into Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. This rule does not impose requirements on anyone. It simply 
establishes criteria for the 12-month-old CRABI dummy. The agency will 
use for compliance testing only those dummies that meet all of the 
criteria specified in this final rule. Vehicle and air bag 
manufacturers may be affected if the dummy is incorporated by reference 
into the advanced air bag rulemaking. Similarly, child restraint 
manufacturers may be affected if the dummy is incorporated into the 
child restraint system standard.
    The cost of an uninstrumented 12-month-old dummy is approximately 
$19,000. Instrumentation would add from $15,000 to $43,000 to the cost, 
depending on the amount of instrumentation the user chooses to employ. 
Because the economic impacts of this rule are minimal, no further 
regulatory evaluation is necessary.
    NHTSA also has determined that this rule will not alter the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. This rule has no 
such effects. In addition, the agency has concluded that this rule will 
not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the 
Executive Order.

B. 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). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 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 rule under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on

[[Page 45783]]

a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not impose or 
rescind any requirements. Further, its cost impacts on test devices 
(i.e., dummies) is minimal. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not, 
therefore, require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule 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.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency 
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have 
determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant consultation and the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 
State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the 
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not have any requirements 
that are considered to be information collection requirements as 
defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

G. 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 our 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-month 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. Mar 95 ``Instrumentation for Impact 
Tests'; and SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash 
Testing.''

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 
Pub. L. 104-4, Federal requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). 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 UMRA. 
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.

I. Children

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined by 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 E.O. 13045 because it is not 
economically significant as defined by E.O. 12866.

J. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings,

[[Page 45784]]

paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this final rule.

K. 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, 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. In Sec. 572.150, paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(2) 
are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 572.150  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) * * *
    (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) August 2001'' and consisting of:
* * * * *
    (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) August 2001'' incorporated 
by reference in Sec. 572.155;
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 572.154, paragraph (c)(7) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 572.154  Thorax assembly and test procedure.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other 
attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make 
contact with the dummy during the test.
    4. In Sec. 572.155, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph 
(i)(2)(iv) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 572.155  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    (a) The test probe for thoracic impacts, except for attachments, 
shall be of rigid metallic construction and concentric about its 
longitudinal axis. Any attachments to the impactor, such as suspension 
hardware, impact vanes, etc., must meet the requirements of 
Sec. 572.154(c)(7). The impactor shall have a mass of 2.86  
0.02 kg (6.3  0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of 
inertia of 164 kg-cm\2\ (0.145 lb-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the 
CG of the probe. One-third of the weight of suspension cables and any 
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 of the probe, has a flat, 
continuous, and non-deformable 101.6  0.25 mm (4.00 
 0.01 in) diameter face with an edge radius of 7.6/12.7 mm 
(0.3/0.5 in). The impactor shall have a 101-103 mm (4-4.1 in) diameter 
cylindrical surface extending for a minimum of 12.5 mm (0.5 in) to the 
rear from the impact face. 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. The impact probe 
shall have a free air resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz 
measured in line with the longitudinal axis of the impactor, using the 
test method shown in the Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and 
Inspection (PADI) document referenced in Sec. 572.151.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Rotation potentiometer response (if used)--CFC 60.
* * * * *

    Issued: August 7, 2001.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-21545 Filed 8-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P