[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 240 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64368-64377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30637]



[[Page 64368]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-01-11111]
RIN 2127-AH02


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

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule adding a new, 
more advanced 3-year-old child dummy to the regulation for 
Anthropomorphic Test Devices. 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: 
Slightly raising the limit on the peak forces that occur in the 
transition compression zone referenced in calibration tests for the 
dummy's thorax response; revising the impact probe definition to 
include provisions for mounting suspension hardware if a cable system 
is used to suspend and guide the pendulum for impacts, to adopt a lower 
minimum mass moment of inertia, and to clarify the specification for 
free air resonant frequency; revising specifications in several 
drawings for the fabrication of load cells; and correcting several 
minor specification errors in these drawings. This document also denies 
a request to add a provision for post-test calibration of the dummy.

DATES: The amendment is effective on January 14, 2002.
    Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must be received by 
January 28, 2002.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Issues
    a. Section 572.144  Thorax assembly and test procedure
    b. Section 572.145  Torso flexion test procedure
    c. Section 572. 146(a)  Test probe for thoracic impacts
    d. Section 572.146(l)(2)  Instrumentation filter classes
    e. Changes to drawings
    f. Request to add provision for post-test calibration
    g. Availability of drawings and PADI document
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    d. Executive Order 13045
    e. Executive Order 12778
    f. National Environmental Policy Act
    g. Paperwork Reduction Act
    h. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    i. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Background

    On March 22, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule amending the 
regulation for Anthropomorphic Test Devices (49 CFR part 572), by 
adding specifications and calibration requirements for a new, advanced 
3-year-old child dummy (65 FR 15254; docket number 2000-7051). The new 
dummy, part of the family of Hybrid III test dummies, is more 
representative of children than the existing 3-year-old child test 
dummy in Part 572, and allows the assessment of the potential for more 
types of injuries in automotive crashes. The new dummy is used to 
evaluate the effects of air bag deployment on out-of-position children, 
and can provide a fuller evaluation of the performance of child 
restraint systems in protecting young children. The new dummy is 
defined in part 572 subpart P (Sections 572.140-572.146).
    The specifications for the Hybrid III type 3-year-old test dummy 
(hereinafter referred to as the H-III3C dummy) consist of three 
elements. First, there is a drawing package that shows the component 
parts, the subassemblies, and the assembly of the complete dummy. The 
drawing package also defines materials and, where practical, material 
treatment processes for all the dummy's component parts, including the 
dummy's crash sensors and their location and orientation in the dummy. 
Second, there is a manual containing disassembly, inspection, and 
assembly procedures, and a dummy parts list.
    Third, there are the impact performance criteria and associated 
test procedures. These are specified to serve as calibration checks so 
as to assure the uniformity of the dummy's kinematics and impact 
response, and to reveal possible functional deficiencies from previous 
use. The tests address head, neck, and thorax impact responses and 
assess the resistance of the lumbar spine-abdomen region to upper torso 
flexion motion.
    In addition, the final rule adopted generic specifications for all 
of the dummy-based sensors. For dummies incorporated into Part 572 
through the 1990's, the agency specified sensors by make and model. 
However, the agency concluded that that approach was unnecessarily 
restrictive and limited innovation and competition. Accordingly, the 
final rule for the dummy, and those for all new dummies as of year 
2000, specified sensors primarily by performance characteristics, and 
by their intended geometry, alignment and method of attachment within 
the dummy (see, NHTSA technical report ``Development and Evaluation of 
the Hybrid III 3-year-old Child Dummy'' (December 1998), Docket No. 99-
5032).
    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the rule from First 
Technology Safety Systems (FTSS), Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota); 
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and Robert A. 
Denton, Inc. (Denton). The petitioners generally supported adopting the 
new dummy into Part 572, but believed that some technical issues, and 
one related to the agency's enforcement policy, had to be resolved. To 
support its suggested revisions, FTSS attached to its petition extracts 
from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Dummy Test Equipment 
Sub-Committee (DTES) meeting minutes pertaining to DTES's evaluation of 
the H-III3C dummy over the past several months. Similarly, the Alliance 
stated that its discussion of the calibration procedures of the final 
rule was based on the DTES's evaluation of the specifications of the 
rule and other data.
    NHTSA has evaluated the petitions and is responding to the 
suggestions in this document. The agency is also correcting minor 
errors in the final rule and dummy drawings that we discovered during 
the review of these petitions.

II. Issues

a. Section 572.144  Thorax Assembly and Test Procedure

    Section 572.144(b)(1) limited the peak force within a specified 
``transition compression zone'' because excessively

[[Page 64369]]

large force, or acceleration, spikes in that zone might be indicative 
of deficiencies in the chest structure. The agency stated in the 
preamble to the final rule that, based on an analysis of the H-III3C 
dummy's thorax responses, statistically, the peak force of a well-
functioning dummy in the transition compression zone of the rib cage 
could be as high as 860 N. Accordingly, the final rule specified an 860 
N peak force limit for the transition compression zone bounded between 
12.5 mm and 32 mm of sternum deflection.
    The Alliance questioned the need for limiting the peak allowable 
thorax force, ``as it does not make the dummy response fit better into 
the biomechanical corridor.'' FTSS requested that the agency change the 
thoracic peak force requirement from 860 N to 910 N. The petitioner 
stated that, based on 34 DTES tests and applying a two standard 
deviation tolerance and rounding to the nearest 10 N, the peak force 
criterion should be 910 N instead of 860 N. The Alliance suggested 
that, if the agency retained the additional peak force specification, 
then the peak force criterion should be changed to 912 N based on the 
average (mean) of data, plus two standard deviations. These force 
values, the Alliance notes, were provided by DTES participants (FTSS, 
TRW and General Motors) following an April 14, 2000 DTES meeting.
    NHTSA's Response: The basis for limiting the peak force was 
explained in the final rule. While this final rule increases the force 
limit in the transition compression zone, NHTSA confirms the rationale 
given in the rule for establishing a limit. A limit is needed to better 
ensure that the dummy's overall responses are reliable and repeatable. 
Forces within the transition compression zone should be limited because 
excessively large force spikes are indicative of potential deficiencies 
in the chest structure, which could affect the results of a compliance 
test. Biomechanical response corridors indicate that high peaks in the 
transition compression zone would not be humanlike and not likely to 
occur in a well functioning physical spring-mass system, which is 
representative of the dummy's rib cage. An excessively high peak force 
occurring in the transition compression zone would indicate a 
mechanical deficiency within the rib cage structure, even though the 
peak force requirement within the specified maximum allowable 
compression corridor is met. Accordingly, an additional upper force 
peak limit prior to reaching the specified maximum displacement 
corridor would provide significant assurance that the dummy's rib cage 
has human-like response and adequate structural integrity.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA limited the peak force measured during the sternum-to-
spine displacement interval in response to a comment from TRC on the 
NPRM for the Hybrid III fifth percentile female dummy. TRC had 
stated that the thorax force response for that dummy included 
several peaks before it gets to the specified corridor, and asked 
for clarification of which of the forces should be considered and 
which should be disregarded. TRC had recommended that the final rule 
limit the peak force that occurs in the deflection interval between 
the first inertial spike and the peak force at the minimum/maximum 
required sternum displacement (transition zone) to a value 5 percent 
or less above the peak force measured within the required minimum/
maximum compression corridor. NHTSA agreed with TRC that the initial 
force spike, occurring within 12.5 mm of impact, is an artifact of 
the inertial mass interaction between the impactor and the dummy. It 
has no biomechanical significance, and thus it is not an indicator 
of a bad ribcage. Thus, the final rule for the fifth percentile 
female adult dummy accommodated the existence of the initial data 
spike by limiting peak force measurements only to a specified 
sternum displacement after the initial force spike has occurred. 
Because the agency determined that the approach taken in that final 
rule constituted a good definition of the response force in the 
transition zone and provided control of the thorax force response 
levels, the final rule for the H-III3C dummy used the same approach 
in discounting the significance of the initial data spike. 
Accordingly, the final rule excluded consideration of force data 
from the first 12.5 mm of sternum compression and limited the peak 
allowable force after 12.5 mm (to 860 N).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule limited the peak forces that occur in the transition 
compression zone to 860 N. The agency's analysis of SAE data and NHTSA 
data generated at the agency's Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC) 
indicated that statistically the peak force of a well-functioning dummy 
in the transition compression zone could be as high as 860 N. In its 
petition for reconsideration, FTSS submitted data from 34 tests that 
supported the petitioner's suggested force value of 912 N. After 
analyzing the data, NHTSA agrees that the recommended upper peak thorax 
force in the transition deflection corridor should be changed to a 
rounded value of 910 N. The 860 N value specified in the final rule was 
based on tests performed by the SAE using a higher mass pendulum, but 
at a slightly lower impact speed, than the pendulum and speed specified 
in the final rule. The ratio of impact energies between the Part 572 
calibration test and the SAE biomechanical tests is 1.136. Because the 
Part 572 calibration test is performed at an approximately 13.6 percent 
higher energy level than the SAE biomechanical tests, an increase up to 
13.6 percent of force in the transition zone is justified. Thus, 
petitioner FTSS's suggestion to increase the force level to 910 N in 
the transition zone is reasonable.\2\ NHTSA has determined that 910 N 
is a sufficient and justifiable peak force limit. It is within 12.3 
percent of the peak force value allowed at maximum sternum deflection, 
and well within the data dispersion of +2 standard deviations from the 
mean of 806 N rounded to the nearest 10 N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The increase in thorax force response by 50 N may result at 
its extreme in only an increase of chest acceleration of less than 1 
g in compliance tests based on the upper torso-neck-and head weight 
of approximately 14 lb (50/4.448/14.00 = 0.8g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Section 572.145  Torso Flexion Test Procedure

    Section 572.145(c)(1) specifies that the temperature range for the 
torso flexion test is at 66 deg. to 78 deg. F (18.9 deg. to 25.6 deg. 
C). FTSS and the Alliance believed that the range was too wide and 
could cause test variability because of the sensitivity of the dummy's 
thorax and lumbar spine/abdomen materials to temperature. FTSS and the 
Alliance recommended reducing the temperature range to 69 deg. to 
72 deg. F. FTSS stated that the narrower range would be consistent with 
other dummy component tests (see, e.g., 572.144(c)(2), thorax assembly 
test procedure).
    NHTSA's Response: NHTSA is denying the request to change the 
specified torso flexion temperature range. After receiving the 
petitions for reconsideration of the final rule on the H-III3C dummy, 
the agency tested whether the dummy's torso flexion sensitivity is 
significantly affected by temperatures in the specified temperature 
range. NHTSA's Vehicle Research & Test Center performed two series of 
temperature sensitivity tests: one at a temperature range between 
66 deg. to 78 deg. F and the other between 69 deg. and 72 deg. F. The 
change in average force needed to flex the dummy, normalized for the 
temperature range for each test series, showed very little difference 
in the two test series: 0.18 lbf/ deg.F for the 66 deg. to 78 deg. F 
range and 0.17 lbf/ deg.F for the 69 deg. to 72 deg. F range. Thus, the 
agency concludes, the torso flexion force is virtually unaffected by 
temperature variation within the specified range and thus should not be 
a significant factor having effects on crash test measurements, 
particularly given that the compliance tests are performed at a 
temperature range between 69 deg. to 72 deg. F. NHTSA has placed a copy 
of a memorandum in the docket (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7051-7) 
documenting details and results of torso resistance to flexion vs. 
temperature sensitivity tests conducted by the agency in response to 
this petition.

[[Page 64370]]

c. Section 572.146(a)  Test Probe for Thoracic Impacts

    Concentric and Symmetric in Shape: Section 572.146(a) specified 
generic characteristics for the test probe for thoracic impacts. It 
specified, among other things, that the test probe ``shall be * * * 
concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal axis.''
    The Alliance said that it believes that the requirements for 
concentricity and symmetry about the longitudinal axis ``are 
unrealistic since the pendulum is often fitted with velocity vanes, 
causing asymmetry.'' FTSS stated that the meaning of ``concentric in 
shape'' was unclear. FTSS believes that ``[c]oncentric means `having 
the same center', but does not define the shape of an object'' and 
that, in any event, specifying concentricity was unnecessary. FTSS 
notes that NHTSA adopted the concentricity and symmetry requirements to 
locate the probe center of gravity (CG) on the longitudinal axis, 
passing through the center of the impacting face, and that the rule 
should therefore simply specify the CG location of the probe. Further, 
similar to the Alliance, FTSS stated that the addition of cable 
attachments and velocity vanes does not allow the probe to be symmetric 
in any one plane. FTSS thus suggested that a tolerance of 3.5 mm should 
be specified for locating the CG, such as by the statement: ``The probe 
center of gravity shall lie within 3.5 mm of the longitudinal axis 
passing through the center of the impacting face.''
    NHTSA's Response: NHTSA agrees with the petitioners that the 
definition of the probe should include provisions for mounting velocity 
vanes, suspension hardware, and cable system if and when it is used to 
guide the pendulum for impacts. NHTSA agrees with the concerns about 
specifying concentricity and symmetry and has revised the test probe 
definition by removing the words ``* * * in shape and symmetric'' from 
the first sentence in ``571.146(a) and has added ``except for 
attachments'' to assure that attachments are not considered in 
evaluating the concentricity of the probe along the longitudinal axis. 
The sentence now reads: ``The test probe for thoracic impacts, except 
for attachments, shall be of rigid metallic construction and concentric 
about its longitudinal axis.''
    Rather than itemizing all attachments, such as suspension hardware, 
suspension cables and velocity vanes, to specifications for 
concentricity, symmetry and dimensions, this rule specifies in a new 
paragraph in Sec. 572.144(c)(7) that any attachments to the impactor 
(e.g., suspension hardware, suspension cables and velocity vanes) must 
not contact the dummy during the test.
    The agency does not agree with FTSS that the CG offset from the 
longitudinal axis needs to be specified. To measure such an offset 
would be extremely difficult, and it would be virtually of no benefit 
to any user. The requirements in the final rule for moment of inertia 
in pitch and yaw and the specification of mass, as discussed 
immediately below, provide sufficient controls to assure stable 
kinematics during the probe's free flight and impact with the dummy.
    Mass Moment of Inertia: Section 572.146(a) also specified that the 
probe must have a minimum mass moment of inertia 283 kg-cm2 
(0.25 lb-in-sec2) in yaw and pitch about the CG of the 
probe, and a free air resonant frequency not less than 1000 Hz. The 
Alliance stated that it believes that NHTSA did not clearly explain the 
reason for these criteria. The Alliance stated that it could not 
determine the necessity of the criteria from data collected by the DTES 
following the April 2000 meeting. The Alliance further stated that, for 
thorax impact probes used at a number of test labs, the mass moments of 
inertia (MMI) values fell below the minimum requirement of 283 kg-
cm2. The petitioner said these probes were used to develop 
the data that formed the basis for the thorax calibration performance 
corridors of the final rule. The Alliance said that if NHTSA decides to 
retain the MMI specification, the impactor should be cylindrical since 
NHTSA had stated in a final rule for a previous dummy (fifth percentile 
female) that the ideal impactor is of cylindrical design, and that the 
following values should be specified: Mass 1.70 kg; MMI 138.4 kg-
cm2. FTSS stated that the specified values of MMI are 
arbitrary and that its thorax probe has a yaw MMI of 199 kg-
cm2 and pitch MMI of 201 kg-cm2, which do not 
meet the specified criterion of 283 kg-cm2. FTSS said that 
NHTSA presented no data to suggest that probes, such as those the 
petitioner uses, do not provide satisfactory performance.
    NHTSA's Response: NHTSA defined the impactor in generic terms in 
response to industry comments on the NPRMs for both the 6-year-old and 
fifth percentile female dummies, stating that the impactor needed to be 
generic in definition and that the users desire to make them from 
building blocks, essentially, an assembly of multiple pieces. The 
commenters also requested that NHTSA not define the impactor by design. 
The agency believes that any impactor not defined by design to control 
its kinematics and response during impact, must be defined by 
engineering parameters, such as mass, stiffness, MMI and, if needed, CG 
location. As a result, the agency responded to the commenters' desire 
for a generic impactor and defined the impactor in engineering terms.
    NHTSA notes that 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 the Alliance notes 
that its member companies have used different impactors with MMIs 
ranging from 122 to 572 kg-cm2 (measured) and 138 to 199 kg-
cm2 (calculated).
    To determine the effects on kinematics of low and high inertia 
impactors, in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final 
rules for the 6-year-old and fifth percentile female dummies, the 
agency studied the kinematics of impactors having low MMI and compared 
them with the kinematics of impactors having a much higher MMI. The 
evaluation revealed that low inertia impactors experienced considerable 
motion instability. In contrast, impactors with higher MMIs 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 not be a source of variability. (A discussion 
of NHTSA's evaluation of impact probes can be found at Docket No. 
NHTSA-00-6714-12.)
    FTSS stated that its thorax probe has a yaw MMI of 199 kg-
cm2 and a pitch MMI of 201 kg-cm2. We have 
determined that the FTSS measured MMI values reflect current industry 
practice, and, therefore, there are reasonably good grounds for their 
acceptance. In contrast, the agency believes that the calculated low 
MMI value of 138.4 kg-cm2 suggested by the petitioner is 
considerably below the values of impactors currently used by the 
industry. The petitioner has not provided any evidence to support the 
validity of its suggestion. In a study related to moment of inertia 
specifications for impact probes, the agency found that a pendulum type 
impact probe must have at least 164 kg-cm2 MMI value to 
assure stability during free flight and at impact with the dummy's 
sternum (ref. Technical Report, Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6714-12). 
Accordingly, the agency is

[[Page 64371]]

specifying, as the minimum, a measured MMI value of 164 kg-
cm2 (0.145 lb-in-sec2), but not the calculated 
MMI of 138 kg-cm2 (0.122 lb-in-sec2) suggested by 
the Alliance. The 164 kg-cm2 value was also cited by the 
Alliance in its May 15, 2000 submission to docket NHTSA-2000-7052-6. It 
should be noted that impactors with lower MMI than the inertia value 
specified in the final rule may produce motion instability and thus 
could create unreliable test results. In contrast, the impactors with a 
higher MMI exhibited very stable free flight kinematics. Accordingly, 
as a matter of caution, the agency is advising that test facilities 
conducting tests with impactors having a lower MMI value than the 
minimum specified in this rule, should exercise great care in the 
design of the impactor suspension and guidance systems to assure stable 
and consistent impact kinematics.
    Mass (Weight) Distribution: Section 572.146(a) also specified that 
the test probe shall have a mass of 1.70  .01 [kilograms] 
kg (3.75  0.02 (pounds)(lb)). The Alliance and FTSS 
believed that a weight tolerance of 10 grams is too small to be 
practically measured. The Alliance requested that the tolerance be 
increased to 0.02 kg (0.05 lb). FTSS 
recommended 0.023 kg.
    NHTSA's Response: NHTSA agrees that the tolerance of  
0.02 lb might be difficult to achieve because some of the 
accelerometers used on the crash test equipment weigh as much as 0.02 
lb while others are as low as 0.002 lb. The agency believes that the 
total impactor weight tolerance should, to the extent possible, take 
into account the weight differences between many possible types of 
accelerometers used on impactors. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Alliance recommendation to increase the overall weight tolerance to 
 0.02 kg ( 0.05 lb), which allows less than 3 
percent variation in the overall weight of the impactor. The weight 
specification is also changed in Figure P4 of Part 572, Subpart P, 
titled ``Thorax Impact Test Set-Up Specifications.''
    Effects of Attachments on Concentricity: Section 572.146(a) also 
specified that: ``No concentric portions of the impact probe may exceed 
the diameter of the impact face.'' Since the pendulum is often fitted 
with velocity vanes and cable attachments, the Alliance considered this 
requirement unrealistic. The Alliance recommended revising the test 
probe definition to: ``The primary test probe, less any additional 
hardware, for [body region] impacts shall be of rigid metallic 
construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal 
axis.'' FTSS claimed that it does not know the meaning of ``concentric 
in shape.'' FTSS noted that necessary addition of cable attachments and 
velocity vanes means that the requirement cannot be met.
    NHTSA Response: NHTSA agrees with the Alliance that addition of 
suspension hardward and velocity vanes would violate the specification 
that ``No concentric portions of the impact probe may exceed the 
diameter of the impact face.'' The agency's concern was that use of an 
unusually shaped impactor or attachments to it might cause other 
portions than the impact face to come into contact with the dummy 
during the impact, which may distort or modify the dummy's impact 
response. To overcome this concern and those of commenters that they 
would not be able to meet the concentricity requirements, we are 
limiting the impactor body's length at which it must not exceed the 
diameter of the impact face, for a minimum of 1 inch (25.4 mm) to the 
rear of the impact face. Also, to assure that attachments to the 
impactor do not contact the dummy during impact, we are including a 
specification in Sec. 572.144(c)(7) that states that any attachments to 
the impactor, such as suspension hardware and impact vanes, must not 
contact the dummy during the test.
    Probe Diameter Edge Radius: Another provision of Sec. 572.146(a) 
specifies that the impacting end of the probe has a diameter face with 
a maximum edge radius of 12.7 mm (0.5 in). FTSS and the Alliance were 
concerned that specifying a maximum radius allows for smaller radii 
which may affect the probe's interaction with the dummy, resulting in 
differences in the initial contact area. Both petitioners recommended 
deleting the word ``maximum,'' so that the specification would read ``* 
* * diameter face with an edge radius of 12.7 mm (0.5 in).''
    NHTSA's Response: NHTSA agrees with the concern that specifying a 
maximum radius without a minimum allows for smaller radii, which may 
affect the probe's interaction with the dummy, resulting in differences 
in the initial contact area. Also, if a minimum radius were not 
specified, at the extreme of the specification, the edge of the 
impactor face could be a sharp edge. If the alignment of the probe face 
to the dummy's thorax were not perfect, such an edge could produce 
significant variability in the dummy's impact response. However, we 
believe that simply deleting ``maximum'' could raise questions about 
permissible variations in edge radius from 12.7 mm (0.5 in) in either 
direction. We see no need to either control the impactor's edge to a 
great precision or to allow it to be sharp. We find that a commercial 
tolerance of 0.1 inches would have minimal effects on the 
surface area of the impactor, and would preclude use of impactors with 
a sharp edge. Accordingly, to preclude the potential of large 
variations, we are specifying a min/max edge radius of 7.6/12.7 mm 
(0.3/0.5 in). This radius is based on dimensional tolerance of 
0.1 in from the mean of 10.2 mm (0.4 in) as a practical 
allowance for manufacturing and inspection, without any effects on the 
performance of the impact probe.
    Free Air Resonant Frequency: Section 572.146(a) specifies that the 
test probe must have a free air resonant frequency not less than 1000 
Hz.
    In its petition for reconsideration of the requirement, FTSS 
stated:

    Section 572.146(a) establishes a requirement for the free air 
resonant frequency without specifying the methods to measure this 
frequency or with a rationale for the need of this requirement. FTSS 
[First Technology] has analyzed the probes used in its calibration 
laboratories, and the results show the first resonant modes of these 
probes are bending modes, which causes a lateral translation at the 
accelerometer location. Typical accelerometers have less than 3% 
cross-axis sensitivity, so if a probe was excited during a dummy 
test (which is unproven), the affect [sic] on the acceleration 
signal would be minimal. It may be more appropriate to specify a 
1000Hz resonant frequency limit in the sensitive axis of the 
accelerometer. * * * Although the FTSS H3-3 thorax probe meets the 
1000Hz minimum requirement, we still do not agree with this 
specification. We therefore petition the mass moment of inertia and 
free air resonance response criteria should be held in abeyance for 
a period of six months to allow time to develop reasonable and 
rational criteria for the probes and to develop and manufacture re-
designed probes as necessary. * * *

    The Alliance raised similar concerns and also suggested deleting 
the free air resonance frequency requirement until data are available 
that justify the need for the requirement.
    NHTSA's Response: Commentors on the NPRMs for the 6-year-old and 
fifth percentile adult female 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 these dummies. For the sake of 
consistency, the agency carried over this ``generic'' specification 
into the final rule for the H-III3C dummy.
    The resonant frequency is a vital part of the generic specification 
of an impactor. It is necessary for three reasons: (1) Because the 
intent of users is to build a non-defined shape and multiple piece 
impactor of unknown

[[Page 64372]]

material, the natural resonant frequency of the impactor is a reliable 
indicator to assure that the impactor has sufficient structural 
rigidity, is capable of repeatable responses, and will not distort the 
responses produced by the dummy; (2) the specification will assure that 
a multiple piece impactor will not produce separate interactions 
between its constituent parts; and (3) the specification will ensure 
that the mounting structure for the accelerometer is sufficiently rigid 
and will not affect the accelerometer readings.
    We agree with the FTSS argument that an impactor can have 
vibrations in several modes: The first mode of resonance is the bending 
mode of the probe transverse to the longitudinal axis and the second 
mode of resonance is the vibration along the longitudinal axis. We 
concur with the FTSS suggestion that it would be more appropriate to 
clarify the current specification by adding to the impactor definitions 
a note that the 1000 Hz minimum resonant frequency is limited only to 
the direction of the longitudinal axis of the impactor, rather than in 
any direction. The agency also agrees that a signal of low cross axis 
sensitivity accelerometer, whose sensitive axis is aligned with the 
longitudinal axis of the impactor, will be minimally affected by 
impactor vibrations in the first bending mode. To illustrate how the 
agency measures the free air second mode resonant frequency of an 
impactor, we have described a procedure in Docket No. NHTSA-6714-14 and 
have inserted it in the PADI (Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and 
Inspection) document for this dummy.
    However, 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 which could affect the accelerometer measurement. The 
1000 Hz minimum specification would preclude a user from using such a 
probe.

d. Section 572.146(l)(2)  Instrumentation Filter Classes

    FTSS and the Alliance stated that the rule did not specify a filter 
class for rotary potentiometers that some users employ in the pendulum 
neck test. They suggested adding a new paragraph (iv) to 
Sec. 572.146(l)(2) to specify: ``(iv) Rotation potentiometer--Class 
60''.
    NHTSA's Response: In the regulatory text describing the H-III3C 
dummy, NHTSA did not specify use of mechanical test fixtures, including 
potentiometers to measure head rotation in the specified head-neck 
tests. The agency believed there were several methods for measuring 
this, and the method suggested in the regulatory text was not essential 
for the intended purpose. Subsequently, however, the Alliance noted in 
petitions for reconsideration of the final rules on the 6-year-old and 
fifth percentile adult female dummies that industry users have 
concluded that the CFC Channel Class 60 specification is appropriate if 
a potentiometer is used to measure head rotation. In addition, the 
agency's Vehicle Research and Testing Center (VRTC) used the CFC 60 to 
filter head rotations when rotary potentiometers are used in head-neck 
pendulum tests. VRTC review of raw data showed absence of high 
frequency signals which would obviate the need for a CFC specification 
greater than 60. In view of this information, NHTSA has no objection to 
specifying Channel Class 60 for this application if a potentiometer 
were used for measuring head rotation.

e. Changes to Drawings

    This final rule changes six drawings of the drawing package for the 
H-III3C dummy in response to petitions for reconsideration and corrects 
minor errors and omissions in six other drawings that the agency 
uncovered on its own. Robert A. Denton, Inc. (Denton), a manufacturer 
of load cells used in crash dummies, petitioned to revise several 
specifications in the drawings of the load cells used in the dummy. The 
six drawings were: SA572-S17-L&R SA572-S18; SA572-S19; SA572-S20; 
SA572-S21; and SA572-S22. Denton believed that each of the drawings had 
two problems. The first of these related to the output at capacity. The 
second related to a material specification requiring that the load 
cells be made of steel or similar material. NHTSA will address both of 
these issues below. Denton also pointed out other minor specification 
errors on drawings SA572-S18, SA572-S19, SA572-S20, and SA572-S21, 
which are addressed later in this section of the preamble. In its 
petition for reconsideration, the Alliance stated that it ``supports'' 
Denton's petition.
    Load Cell Output at Capacity: The drawings had a specification that 
the output at capacity of the load cells must be 1.0 mV/V MIN. Denton 
requested that specification be changed to 0.75 mV/V. Denton stated 
that many of the load cells it has been producing for years have 
nominal 1.0 mV/V channels. However, the petitioner stated, due to 
manufacturing variations, load cells could have a sensitivity above or 
below the 1.0 mV/V level. Denton also believed that NHTSA has not 
provided data to justify the 1.0 mV/V specification. Denton stated that 
since load cells with outputs slightly below 1.0 mV/V have functioned 
satisfactorily for many years, the requirement should be changed to 
``0.75 mV/V MIN.''
    NHTSA's Response: NHTSA agrees to the suggested change. The agency 
has reviewed its data from VRTC and has determined that a minimum 
output of 0.75 mV/V will not affect the performance and quality of the 
resulting data channel or the quality and accuracy of the recorded 
data.
    Load Cell Material: The drawings included a material specification 
indicating that the load cells are made of ``steel or similar 
material.'' Denton requested that the material specifications be 
removed from all load cell drawings. Denton questioned whether there 
was any point to specifying the material used to build load cells, as 
long as the load cells meet the functional, size and weight 
specifications listed in the drawings. The petitioner stated that most 
of the load cells used in the H-III3C dummy are made primarily from 
aluminum and asked whether NHTSA would consider aluminum to be a 
``similar material'' to steel. Denton also asked: ``even if part of the 
load cell is steel, covers are usually made of aluminum or brass. 
Sometimes other materials are used internally to the load cells. Does 
this violate the material specification on the drawing?'' Denton stated 
that if the agency wanted to retain the material specification, the 
specification should be corrected (the petitioner did not describe the 
nature of the corrections).
    NHTSA's Response: NHTSA does not agree with Denton's recommendation 
to remove the material specifications. Because the load cells have to 
be mounted within the structural part of the test dummy that interlinks 
the dummy's major body segments, load cells maintain a geometric 
relationship between the major body segments. Accordingly, the 
rigidity, strength and response of such connections must be compatible 
with the rest of the dummy. However, NHTSA does believe that specifying 
a specific load cell material may be too restrictive. The agency is 
aware that existing load-bearing structures of a load cell 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, 
NHTSA is revising the load cell drawings to require that the load-
bearing structure of the load cell, including provisions for mounting, 
be of metal or metal alloys. Further, the agency is specifying in the

[[Page 64373]]

drawings that non-load bearing parts of the load cell, internally and/
or externally, may be made of any material suitable for the intended 
use, providing they do not interfere with the performance of the load 
cell.
Other Errors With Drawings SA572-S18, SA572-S19, SA572-S20, and SA572-
S21
    1. Drawing SA572-S18: Drawing SA572-S18 listed the thermal 
sensitivity specification as 60 deg. to 90 deg.F. Denton stated that 
this was an error, and that the correct specification was 60 deg. to 
80 deg.F. NHTSA agrees that the correct specification is 60 deg. to 
80 deg.F.
    2. Drawing SA572-S19: Denton reported five errors in drawing SA572-
S19. First, the drawing specified a load cell weight of 0.52 lb 
maximum, which included a retaining washer, flat head cap screws, and 8 
inches of cable. Denton stated that this weight was too low, and that 
existing load cells will be obsoleted by this specification since the 
existing load cells have a nominal weight of 0.53 lb with the specified 
hardware and cable. Denton requested NHTSA to change the specification 
in any one of three possible ways: (a) Change the weight specification 
to 0.55 lb max (Denton stated this would ``match the NPRM''); (b) 
change the notes on the drawing to indicate that no cable is included; 
or (c) change the notes to indicate that the retaining washer and flat 
head cap screws are not included.
    NHTSA agrees that the 0.52 lb maximum is too low and has decided to 
change the weight specification to 0.55 lb maximum (which is option (a) 
suggested by Denton).
    Second, drawing SA572-S19 also showed the height specification of 
1.250 inches as 31.37 mm. Denton pointed out that the correct metric 
equivalent for 1.250 inches is 31.75 mm. The agency has made the 
correction.
    Third, the drawing showed the 120 lb-in torque specification on the 
\1/4\-20 x \5/8\" socket head cap screws used to attach the load cell 
to the neck as 16.56 N-m. Denton stated that the correct metric 
equivalent to 120 lb-in is 13.56 N-m. NHTSA has made the correction.
    Fourth, drawing SA572-S19 showed the bolt circle diameter for the 
holes used to attach the load cell to the dummy neck as 2.177 inches 
(55.295 mm). Denton said that the load cells use a bolt circle diameter 
of 2.125 inches (53.98 mm), which matches the bolt pattern in the 
mating neck plates 210-2060 and 210-2030. NHTSA agrees and has changed 
the bolt circle diameter from 2.177 in (55.295 mm) to 2.125 in (53.98 
mm).
    Fifth, the drawing showed the counterbore for the holes used to 
attach the load cell to the neck as 0.438 inch diameter with a depth of 
1.00 inches. Denton stated that existing load cells, used for both the 
H-III3C dummy and ``the older 3-Year-Old airbag dummy,'' actually use a 
bore diameter of \3/8\ inch with a depth of 0.91 inches. Denton stated, 
``Using a 0.438 inch diameter counterbore will make the load cell much 
more difficult and expensive to manufacture, due to several issues 
internal to the load cell.'' (The issues were not specifically 
identified.) Denton requested that the counterbore diameter be 
specified as 0.37 minimum with a depth of 1.01 maximum. NHTSA agrees 
and has made the corrections.
    3. Drawing SA572-S20: Denton stated that drawing SA572-S20 contains 
two errors. First, Denton stated that the drawing showed the height of 
the load cell specified to a four decimal place dimension (1.5000 
inches), which could be construed to imply a 0.0005 inch 
tolerance. Denton states: ``That tight of a tolerance is not necessary 
for this application, is difficult to manufacture, and may obsolete 
many existing load cells.'' The petitioner requested that the 
specification be changed to a three decimal place dimension, 1.500 
inches, which will have a default tolerance of 0.005 
inches. Second, Denton reported a typographical error in the thermal 
sensitivity specification. The range should be 15.6 deg. to 26.7 deg.C, 
not 15.6 deg. to .7 deg.C.
    NHTSA agrees that the 1.5000 inches height specification is 
unnecessarily restrictive. Accordingly, the agency is changing the 
height specification to 1.500 inches. The agency also agrees that the 
metric range as well as the typographical error in the temperature 
sensitivity specification should be corrected as petitioner suggested.
    In addition, during our review, we noticed that the diameter for 
the four through-holes for the mounting of the load cell to the lumbar 
spine was not specified. We measured the diameter of the through-holes 
and confirmed with the manufacturer that the hole diameters are 0.257 
inch on the flange and in the body of the load cell. The holes in the 
body of the load cell are counterbored from the bottom with a diameter 
of 0.375 inch to a depth of 1.13 inches. A new drawing SA572-S20 
incorporates this technical correction.
    4. Drawing SA572-S21: This drawing specified that the center hole 
in the load cell is ``0.500 diameter thru.'' Denton stated that this 
will obsolete all existing load cells. In existing load cells, Denton 
reported, the hole diameter changes several times as the hole passes 
through the load cell. In addition, Denton states that the minimum 
diameter of the through-hole is 27/64 (0.422) inch. Thus, Denton 
requested that the diameter be changed to 0.410 inch minimum to allow 
for clearance to the mating part. This modification would not obsolete 
existing load cells. The petitioner stated that ``Since the dummy part 
which is inserted through the hole has a 0.390 inch diameter, the load 
cell [with a 0.410 hole] will provide sufficient clearance.'' 
Petitioner also noted that ``[t]hese load cells have been in use for 
years throughout the world.''
    NHTSA is revising the drawing to specify that the minimum diameter 
of the through-hole is 0.410 in. However, the drawing retains the 
specification of a maximum diameter, because not having a maximum hole 
diameter could result in excessively large through-holes. A very large 
hole within the load cell would permit large variations in the 
placement of the arm on the dummy=s shoulder, which could produce 
problems in test repeatability. Accordingly, the upper limit to the 
hole diameter of 0.50 inches is needed to avoid the arm mis-location 
problem.
    During the agency's review of the drawings following publication of 
the March 22, 2000 final rule, the agency identified a need to define 
four holes in the body of the load cell that are used to attach the 
load cell to the dummy. The drawing showed neither hole dimensions nor 
their alignment. This was an oversight by the originator of the 
drawing. New drawing SA572-S21 corrects this oversight by adding to the 
body of the load cell the note ``four 10-24 unc threaded holes equally 
spaced on a bolt circle of 1.062.''
    Other Minor Changes in Drawings to Correct for Missing and/or 
Misplaced Dimensions and/or Notes: Uncovered During the Agency Review 
Process: The following minor changes are also made to some of the 
drawings, to correct for missing and/or misplaced dimensions and/or 
notes. The agency realized the need for these changes during a review 
of the drawings that we conducted in response to the petitions for 
reconsideration.
    1. Drawing 210-4510. Added in top view to the specification 
``machined after weldment'' the words ``parallel to surface B.''
    2. Drawing 210-4511-1. Added radius dimension R.12 to the top 
corners of the iliac spine on the left side of the view of drawing.
    3. Drawing 210-3731. Added missing dimensions: .99 and 5.68 to 
locate the center of cut-out radius on the right and left hand sides of 
the bib, respectively,

[[Page 64374]]

and 2.75 diameter dimension to define the head of the bib.
    4. Drawings SA572-S4, -S17, -S18, -S19, -S20, -S21, -S22, -S23, -
S50 and ``S80. Changed single place dimensional tolerance from 
0.1 inch (2.54 mm) to 0.1 inch (2.5 mm), to 
correct for metric equivalence.
    5. Drawings SA572-S80. Corrected location of accelerometer mounting 
holes and added dotted lines where those holes are located in all 
views.

f. Request To Add Provision for Post-Test Calibration

    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 said 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.''
    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 a fifth percentile female (H-III5F), a 
six-year-old child (H-III6C), and a 12-month-old child (CRABI). 
Historically, NHTSA has provided 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 for the H-III5F dummy, the agency decided against 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 the Toyota petition and that part of the Alliance petition 
relating to the requirement.

g. Availability of Drawings and PADI Document

    The drawings and specifications package and the Procedure for 
Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) document referenced in this 
final rule are accessible for viewing and copying at the DOT Docket 
Management System office, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, 
DC 20590, and are downloadable at DMS.DOT.GOV. Upon access of the 
website, click ``search,'' under Search click ``Search Form,'' under 
Agency click ``NHTSA,'' under Category click ``Rulemaking,'' under 
Subcategory click ``Crashworthiness Drawings and Test Equipment 
Specifications,'' then click on search and select the desired file. The 
drawings and specifications package and the PADI document are also 
available from reprographic Technologies, 9107 Gaither Rd., 
Gaithersburg, MD 20877, telephone (301) 419-5070.

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under EO 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 making relatively minor changes to the design and performance 
specifications for a 3-year-old child dummy. This rule affects 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 affects vehicle and air 
bag manufacturers only insofar as they choose to test with a dummy that 
meets all of the criteria specified in the agency's regulation. It may 
indirectly affect child restraint manufacturers in the same manner, if 
the dummy is incorporated into the child restraint system standard. 
(NHTSA anticipates publishing an NPRM in the near future that proposes 
to adopt the dummy into agency compliance tests.) Even then, the 
amendments made by this rule for the most part correct or clarify 
existing specifications for the dummy and will not have a significant 
impact on dummy manufacturers, or on manufacturers of motor vehicles, 
air bags or child restraints. Because the economic impacts of this 
final rule are minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

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). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certify that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This rule only clarifies or corrects 
specifications for the H-III3C dummy. The rule does not impose or 
rescind any requirements for anyone. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 
does not, therefore, require a regulatory flexibility analysis for this 
action.

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable

[[Page 64375]]

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 and have determined that 
this rule does not have sufficient Federal implications to warrant 
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a 
Federalism summary impact statement. The rule will not have any 
substantial impact on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

d. 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 EO 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. As noted above, the 
impacts of this rule are minimal. It also does not involve decisions 
based on health risks that disproportionately affect children. This 
rule only clarifies or corrects specifications for the H-III3C dummy.

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. 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.

h. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    The H-III3C dummy was developed under the auspices of the SAE. (All 
relevant SAE standards were reviewed as part of the development 
process: SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar95 ``Instrumentation 
for Impact Tests''; and SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for 
Vehicle Crash Testing.'') In responding to the petitions for 
reconsideration, NHTSA made some of its decisions based on test data 
developed by the SAE Dummy Test Equipment Sub-Committee (DTES). In so 
doing, the agency complied with the NTTAA to the fullest extent 
possible.

i. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
    This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rule does not meet the definition of 
a Federal mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone. 
Further, it will not result in costs of $100 million or more to either 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

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

[[Page 64376]]

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. Revise Sec. 572.140(a)(1) introductory text, (a)(2), and (b)(1) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 572.140  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A drawings and specifications package entitled, ``Parts List 
and Drawings, Subpart P Hybrid III 3-year-old child crash test dummy, 
(H-III3C, Alpha version) September 2001,'' incorporated by reference in 
Sec. 572.141 and consisting of:
* * * * *
    (2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI), Subpart P, Hybird III 3-year-old 
Child Crash Test Dummy, (H-III3C, Alpha Version) September 2001,'' 
incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.141;
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The drawings and specifications package referred to in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the PADI document referred to in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section are accessible for viewing and copying 
at the Department of Transportation's Docket public area, Plaza 401, 
400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590, and downloadable at 
dms.dot.gov. They are also available from Reprographic Technologies, 
9107 Gaither Rd., Gaithersburg, MD 20877, (301) 419-5070.
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 572.144, revise paragraph (b)(1) and add paragraph 
(c)(7) to read as follows:


Sec. 572.144  Thorax assembly and test procedure.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Maximum sternum displacement (compression) relative to the 
spine, measured with the chest deflection transducer (SA-572-S50), must 
not be less than 32mm (1.3 in) and not more than 38mm (1.5 in). Within 
this specified compression corridor, the peak force, measured by the 
probe-mounted accelerometer as defined in Sec. 572.146(a) and 
calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, shall 
be not less than 680 N and not more than 810 N. The peak force after 
12.5 mm of sternum compression but before reaching the minimum required 
32.0 mm sternum compression shall not exceed 910 N.
* * * * *
    (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. 572.146, revise paragraph (a), add paragraph (l)(2)(iv), 
and revise Figure P4 to read as follows:


Sec. 572.146  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, and impact vanes, must meet the requirements of 
Sec. 572.144(c)(7) of this part. The impactor shall have a mass of 1.70 
 0.02 kg (3.75  0.05 lb) and a minimum mass 
moment of inertia 164 kg-cm\2\ (0.145 lb-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch 
about the CG of the probe. One-third (\1/3\) 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 50.8 
 0.25 mm (2.00  0.01 inch) diameter face with 
an edge radius of 7.6/12.7 mm (0.3/0.5 in). The impactor shall have a 
53.3 mm (2.1 in) dia. cylindrical surface extending for a minimum of 
25.4 mm (1.0 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 has a free air resonant frequency 
not less than 1000 Hz limited to the direction of the longitudinal axis 
of the impactor.
* * * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Rotation potentiometer response (if used)--CFC 60.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 64377]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13DE01.237


    Issued: December 5, 2001.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-30637 Filed 12-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C