[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46400-46420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-6940]
RIN 2127-AI01


Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female 
Test Dummy, Alpha Version; 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: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of the 
final rule that adopted design and performance specifications for a new 
dummy whose height and weight are representative of a fifth percentile 
female adult. That final rule was published on March 1, 2000. Adopting 
the dummy was the first step toward using the dummy to evaluate the 
safety of air bags for small-statured adults and teenagers. The 
petitions are granted in part and denied in part. The agency also 
discovered several minor discrepancies in the drawings package and is 
correcting those errors in this document.

DATES: The amendments made in this final rule are effective September 
13, 2002. If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration for this 
rule, your

[[Page 46401]]

petition must be received by August 29, 2002.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy 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 officials can be reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Availability of Drawings and PADI Document: The drawings and 
specifications package and the PADI (Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly, and Inspection) Document referred to in this final rule 
are available for viewing and copying at the DOT Docket's public area, 
located at Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. 
Copies of these documents are also available from Reprographic 
Technologies, 9107 Gaither Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, (301) 419-
5070. These documents may be downloaded from the DOT's document 
management system website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Search,'' 
then on ``Search Form.'' Under ``Agency,'' click on ``NHTSA.'' Under 
``Category,'' click on ``Rulemaking.'' Under ``Subcategory,'' click on 
``Crashworthiness Drawings and Test Equipment Specifications.'' Then 
click on ``Search'' and select the desired file.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Decision
II. Background
III. Petitions
IV. Discussion and Analysis
    A. Post-Test Calibration
    B. Neck Characteristics
    1. Neck Response
    2. Neck Injury Criteria
    3. Neck Shield
    4. Pendulum Pulse for Neck Flexion/Extension
    C. Torso Flexion Test
    D. Thoracic Peak Force Criterion

E. Impact Pendulum Characteristics

    1. Probe Definition
    2. Mass Moment of Inertia
    3. Free Air Resonance Frequency
    4. Weight of Attachments to the Thorax and Knee Probes
    5. Knee Impactor Mass Tolerance
    6. Impact Face Edge Radius
    7. Conclusion
    F. Instrumentation Filter Classes
    1. Thorax Spine and Pendulum Accelerations
    2. Sternum Deflection
    3. Lower Leg
    4. Neck
    G. Sensor Specifications
    H. Figures, Drawings, and PADI Document
    1. Figures O1, O2, O3, O4, and O5
    2. Drawing SA572-S14
    3. Drawing 880105-000
    4. Drawing 880105-434
    5. Drawing 880105-440
    6. Minor Drawing Revisions
    7. PADI Document
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Summary of Decision

    Most of the issues raised in the petitions were minor and involved 
technical changes to either the dummy specifications or to the drawing 
package. In response to the petitions, the agency is making the 
following minor changes to the dummy specifications: (1) Adding a 
channel frequency class specification if a rotary potentiometer is used 
for measuring head rotation; (2) specifying a maximum sternum 
displacement limit; (3) prohibiting contact between the dummy and any 
attachments to the test probe during a knee or thorax impact test; and 
(4) revising the thorax and knee test 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, clarify the 
specification for free air resonant frequency, and add a minimum edge 
radius for the impact face.
    NHTSA's review of the petitions and production dummies also 
uncovered several minor errors and discrepancies in the figures, 
tables, and drawings package, which are resolved in this document.
    The petitioners also raised more significant issues. They requested 
that the agency specify a post-test calibration, narrow the temperature 
range for the torso flexion test, and discontinue using the Hybrid III 
neck for assessing neck injury criteria. The agency is denying those 
requests.
    Further changes to the dummy will be designated as beta, gamma, 
etc., to assure that modifications can be easily tracked and 
identified. The new dummy is defined by a drawing and specification 
package, a new procedures document for disassembly, assembly and 
inspection, and performance parameters including associated calibration 
procedures.

II. Background

    Air bag-related fatalities and injuries to small female drivers 
seated close to the deploying air bag in low speed crashes have raised 
serious concerns about the safety of certain air bag designs for this 
portion of the population.\1\ One way to evaluate the protection 
provided by, and the risks associated with, air bag systems is through 
the use of human mechanical surrogates with a high degree of 
biofidelity, such as the family of Hybrid III-type crash test dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Close proximity to the air bag is one of the primary factors 
leading to serious injury or fatality. Several factors can lead to 
an individual being too close to the air bag at the time of 
deployment, including failure to wear a safety belt. Nevertheless, 
very small-statured women appear to constitute the largest segment 
of the driver population that may not be able to sit a safe distance 
from the air bag, even when properly restrained. Additionally, 
differences in body size may lead to more severe injury for a small-
statured woman than for an unrestrained, average-size male.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 1, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule adopting design and 
performance specifications for a new dummy whose height and weight are 
representative of a fifth percentile female adult. (65 FR 10961). The 
specifications were added to 49 CFR Part 572 as Subpart O.
    This new dummy (hereinafter referred to as the ``HIII-5F dummy'') 
is capable of accurately assessing the potential for injuries to small-
statured adults and teenagers. It is especially needed to ensure that 
air bags protect small-statured adult females and teenage vehicle 
occupants in frontal crashes and to minimize the risk of injury during 
those crashes. The dummy will also provide a means of gathering useful 
information in a variety of crash environments to better evaluate 
vehicle safety.
    The HIII-5F 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, where practical, 
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 parts list of dummy drawings. 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 
HIII-5F 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

[[Page 46402]]

structural damage and functional deficiency from previous use.
    Adopting the dummy is a step toward assuring the users that it is a 
stable and useful test device for the assessment of vehicle safety and 
its readiness to be used in the tests the agency conducts to determine 
compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The use of the 
HIII-5F dummy in NHTSA compliance tests is being addressed in separate 
rulemaking proceedings.

III. Petitions

    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule from 
DaimlerChrysler; 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 crash test dummies and the 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 
DaimlerChrysler recommended that the agency discontinue using the 
Hybrid III neck to assess neck injury criteria.
    The remainder of the issues raised in the petitions are relatively 
minor, technical issues. All of the issues are addressed in the 
Discussion and Analysis section below.

IV. Discussion and Analysis

A. Post-Test Calibration

    Toyota and the Alliance requested that a post-test calibration of 
the dummy be included in the performance specifications. 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. The Alliance stated 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's proposals to 
establish Hybrid III dummies for 12-month-old children, six-year-old 
children (HIII-6C), and three-year-old children (HIII-3C), in addition 
to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing the HIII-5F 
dummy. 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 NPRM 
proposing the HIII-5F 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 
petitions for reconsideration, neither Toyota nor the Alliance provided 
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.

B. Neck Characteristics

1. Neck Response
    Toyota expressed concern with the response of the HIII-5F dummy's 
neck. Toyota first expressed these concerns in its comments to the 
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking updating Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection, published in the Federal Register on 
November 5, 1999 (64 FR 60556).
    In those comments, Toyota stated that in barrier crash testing at 
about 23 kph without an air bag, the HIII-5F dummy's neck extension 
exceeded the IARV value. However, the 50th percentile male dummy in the 
same test at the same speed met the injury criteria. Toyota noted that 
the incidence rates of cervical spine injury in the real world for a 
5th percentile female-statured occupant is not significantly different 
from those for a 50th percentile male-statured occupant. Therefore, 
Toyota believed that the HIII-5F dummy's neck response was 
inappropriately measuring an artifact of the dummy, not the actual 
response that is related to the injuries that may be seen by a small 
statured female.
    In addition, Toyota claimed to experience non-biofidelic responses 
of the HIII-5F dummy's neck. Toyota observed a large flexion moment 
when the dummy's head was slightly extended rearward, and a large 
extension moment when the dummy's head was slightly flexed forward and 
the rotational angle of the head was very small. Toyota stated that 
this indicated the existence of a neck artifact in the HIII-5F dummy.
    Due to these concerns, Toyota recommended that the dummy not be 
used to measure any neck injury criteria associated with the neck 
extension bending moment until these issues are resolved.
    DaimlerChrysler argued that the current biomechanical flexion and 
extension response corridors of the Hybrid III dummy neck are not 
applicable to air bag loading. DaimlerChrysler stated that the 
biomechanical response corridors for the Hybrid III neck were developed 
based on inertial loading (whiplash loading of seat belt-restrained 
occupants) of the head-neck rather than direct impact loading by the 
deploying air bag. DaimlerChrysler claims that impact loading of the 
head-neck is significantly different because the Hybrid III neck bends 
in a second-mode, in contrast to the first-mode of bending associated 
with inertial loading. In this second-mode of bending, the dummy's neck 
produces substantial moments with very little observed rotation between 
the head and chest, which places the neck response outside the 
established biomechanical design corridors. DaimlerChrysler stated that 
a relaxed human neck cannot produce a resistance moment without 
significant rotation of the head. Thus, DaimlerChrysler claimed, the 
dummy's neck is not biofidelic for air bag loading, and the responses 
can be considered an artifact of current Hybrid III dummy neck design 
not relevant for assessing human injury. DaimlerChrysler

[[Page 46403]]

recommended that the agency cease using the HIII-5F dummy to assess 
neck injuries.
    NHTSA agrees that the biomechanical corridors for the Hybrid III 
neck were based on the inertial loading response of human heads with 
respect to their torso. However, this does not invalidate the design 
and use of the neck in other impact applications. Paragraph 4.5.3 of 
SAE document J885, July 1986, titled ``Human Tolerance to Impact 
Conditions as Related to Motor Vehicle Design'' reads:

    * * * the neck can be injured without exceeding its static 
angular range of motion. * * * Measures of the neck loads may be a 
better indicator of injury potential [than angular rotation].

    The agency disagrees with DaimlerChrysler's claim that a relaxed 
human neck cannot produce a resistance moment without significant 
rotation of the head. The agency believes that this statement is 
incorrect for several reasons.
    First, to hold the head upright, activation of the cervical 
musculature is required. Dynamic loading of this activated musculature 
would produce high visco-elastic reaction forces. In real-world 
crashes, it is also reasonable to expect that most occupants who see an 
impending collision may activate additional neck muscles to brace 
themselves. The Hybrid III dummy neck reflects these reactions by 
incorporating a stiffness equivalent to 80% muscle tone in its design.
    Second, NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) conducted 
informal tests with several human volunteers and special tests with 
HIII-5F dummies \2\ to determine the average resistance that the neck 
can generate before noticeable head rotation is observed. Male and 
female volunteers were loaded at the chin in the inferior-superior 
direction. Moments were calculated at the level of the occipital 
condyle before noticeable head rotation was observed. The average 
female volunteer produced a neck moment of 6.4 to 7.7 Nm at the level 
of the occipital condyle. The average male volunteer produced a neck 
moment of 12.2 to 15 Nm. Test results suggested that, before noticeable 
head rotation has occurred, the moments generated by the female 
volunteers at the occipital condyle level and those measured by the 
HIII-5F dummy neck were approximately the same. The measured human 
moment resistance values are probably at the lower end of the 
resistance spectra since the volunteers were tested for normal 
resistance to head motion rather than at a pain-producing level. In 
addition, the tests were conducted under nearly static loading 
conditions. Dynamically, visco-elastic properties of the neck structure 
would be expected to generate a higher resistance to impact-induced 
motion, and thus a larger moment, with little observable head rotation. 
These informal tests revealed that the human neck can provide 
resistance to bending moments at the level of the occipital condyle. 
Similarly, the moments that the Hybrid III dummy neck produces with 
little head-to-torso rotation are a reasonably accurate representation 
of what the total human neck experience would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See report titled ``Impact Loading to the Chin of the Hybrid 
III Small Female Dummy Head and Neck System,'' September 27, 2000, 
submitted to Docket No. NHTSA-2000-6940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, at high loading rates (as generated by air bags), the 
rotational inertial resistance of the head may be large. In a series of 
tests using small female cadavers in the driver ISO 2 position, angular 
accelerations of the head reached a peak of 8000 rad/sec \2\ at 10 ms 
with little rotation of the head. If the moment of inertia of the head 
were approximately 0.0155 kg-m/sec \2\, the equivalent resistive moment 
due to inertia at that point in time would be about 125 Nm.
    Thus, the facts do not support the DaimlerChrysler argument that 
the head of the human is free to rotate about the occipital condyle 
without any resistance under high speed impact conditions. Under a high 
loading rate and in the presence of partially activated cervical 
musculature, the human neck can experience large, short duration 
extension moments in the presence of small angular rotations of the 
head. Thus, the agency does not believe that the measured forces and 
moments are an artifact of the dummy.
    Fourth, preliminary analysis using modeling techniques has shown 
that, for an air bag loading to the head and neck, the initial rotation 
of the head with respect to the chest does not change significantly as 
the stiffness of the occipital condyle and neck elements are changed. 
That is to say, in a global sense, the dummy and human necks interact 
with the deploying air bag in approximately the same way and produce 
similar kinematics and total loads in the neck. However, at the local 
level, particularly at the occipital condyle joint, the forces and 
moments may be somewhat different for the dummy and human neck due to 
stiffness differences. These forces and moments may be lower than those 
measured by the dummy due to the lower stiffness of the human spine. 
However, the critical values for Nij (neck injury criteria formula, 
found in Standard No. 208, to evaluate neck injury) have already been 
adjusted to account for this.
    Finally, in pendulum impacts to the underside of the chin, the neck 
is forced into tension-type stretching and extension bending. Within a 
few milliseconds, the load cells in the upper neck register a large 
moment. Similarly, a human, under similar impact loading conditions, 
would have a high probability of fatal injuries, primarily at the upper 
portion of the neck. The NHTSA Special Crash Investigations (SCI) 
files, as of January 2002, show a total of twenty-six females with 
serious or fatal neck injuries due to deploying air bag exposures. 
Nineteen of these were caused by injuries to the upper neck segments. 
Only one of the twenty-six clearly showed a failure at the bottom of 
the cervical spine, while the remaining six showed massive blunt 
injuries, fractures of cervicals, transactions, etc., that were 
difficult to assign to any specific section of the neck. SCI describes 
a typical unrestrained occupant injury when the occupant gets too close 
to the air bag \3\ as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ August ``Chip'' B. Chidester & Thomas A. Roston, ``Air Bag 
Crash Investigations,'' NHTSA, Paper No. 246, ESV Conference 
Proceedings, Amsterdam, Netherlands (June 2001).

    Upon impact, the air bag deploys into the out-of-position adult 
passenger's neck and head. As the air bag expands, it results in the 
rapid translation and extension of the air bag underneath the chin 
against the neck and then wrapping upward from ear to ear. The 
occupant's head is effectively lifted upward off the neck resulting 
in an atlanto-occipital joint fracture (C1-C2) and transection of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the spinal cord, and probable brain stem injuries.

    The agency notes that only two additional small female (adult 
occupant category up to a height of 5 feet 4 inches) neck injuries were 
added to the SCI data files between March 2000 and January 2002. One 
injury was sustained in a 1990 model year vehicle, and the other in a 
1994 model year vehicle. To the present time, the SCI data contain no 
neck injuries of small females in vehicles of post-1997 model years.
    In summary, the agency believes that the current Hybrid III neck is 
appropriate for use in both inertial and impact loading scenarios to 
assess the risk of injury. Further, the compensation

[[Page 46404]]

factors associated with the current Nij critical values account for the 
higher forces and moments measured in the dummy due to stiffness 
differences between the dummy and human necks. Accordingly, the agency 
is denying this part of the Toyota and DaimlerChrysler petitions.
2. Neck Injury Criteria
    DaimlerChrysler argued that neck tension alone is the most accurate 
predictor of injury assessment. DaimlerChrysler stated that the absence 
of moment as an effective injury predictor may be due to the inability 
of the Hybrid III dummy family to accurately simulate human neck moment 
response to the type of loading seen in air bag deployment tests. Thus, 
DaimlerChrysler recommended that the agency cease using the HIII-5F to 
assess neck injuries.
    DaimlerChrysler submitted similar comments on the advanced air bag 
(Standard No. 208) Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) 
and NPRM. NHTSA responded to these comments in the final rule on 
advanced air bags. The agency stated that the biomechanical tests used 
to reach the conclusion that tension alone is the most accurate 
predictor of injury were limited to one loading mode of out-of-position 
testing. In a vehicle environment, the neck is subject to many loading 
modes, including compression, flexion, extension, lateral bending, and 
torsion. Biomechanical data have shown that these other loading modes 
are in fact injurious to the neck. Thus, the agency has chosen to adopt 
more comprehensive neck injury criteria in the standard.
    Further, the biomechanical community addressed the load and moment 
relationship to injury and came to the consensus judgment that both 
moments and forces (shear, tension, and compression) are needed for 
injury assessment purposes. Members of the Alliance and the 
international automobile importers appear to agree with that 
conclusion. Also, analysis by NHTSA SCI of occupant injuries in air bag 
deployment crashes clearly indicates that more than one injury 
mechanism is involved in neck trauma. Thus, all of the forces and 
moments must be considered to assure the occupant's safety.
    Finally, the agency reviewed the data provided by DaimlerChrysler 
from a series of out-of-position tests with the HIII-5F dummy. 
DaimlerChrysler provided data on three types of air bag-to-head 
interactions with the HIII-5F dummy positioned close to the passenger 
air bag. DaimlerChrysler characterized the three different interaction 
patterns in the following manner: (1) The air bag directly loading the 
head in the fore-and-aft direction pushes the chin of the dummy 
downward (flexion) and backwards; (2) the air bag ``trapped under the 
chin'' pushes the chin upward (extension) and backwards; and (3) the 
air bag fabric, entrapped in the hollow area between the neck and the 
jaw, pushes the head upward (extension) and forward.
    The agency's review of the data from these tests indicates that 
dummy and the Nij criteria appear to accurately distinguish injurious 
from non-injurious loading patterns. For case one, the agency agrees 
with DaimlerChrysler's description of contact with the air bag on the 
front of the face at the chin. The applied force of the deploying air 
bag causes flexion of the head/neck and backwards loading of the head 
relative to the neck. This loading pattern of low to moderate flexion 
at the upper cervical spine does not appear to be associated with the 
type of air bag related neck injuries reported by SCI. The Nij for 
DaimlerChrysler's case one was 0.7 tension-flexion. The agency believes 
that the Hybrid III dummy and the Nij injury criteria correctly 
identify this as a non-injurious mode of interaction.
    For case two, DaimlerChrysler characterized the interaction as 
``air bag trapped under the chin'' of the dummy. The agency believes 
that interaction of the expanding air bag with the under surface of the 
chin is very similar to the injury patterns seen in SCI cases with 
upper cervical tension-extension type injuries. The Nij for this case 
was 2.9 tension-extension. The agency believes that the Hybrid III 
dummy and the Nij injury criteria correctly identify this as a 
potentially harmful mode of interaction.
    For case three, DaimlerChrysler claimed that air bag fabric was 
entrapped in the hollow area between the neck and jaw. In this third 
loading mode, the air bag expands in a wedge-like manner, pushing the 
neck backwards and at the same time pushing the head upward and 
dragging it forward along the undersurface of the chin. As with case 
two, the agency believes that interaction of the expanding air bag with 
the under surface of the chin is very similar to the injury patterns 
seen in SCI cases with upper cervical tension-extension type injuries. 
Further, the addition of a significant direct shear loading to the 
anterior surface of the neck in case three creates an even greater 
probability of this loading mode being harmful to humans. The shear 
loads measured in this third loading mode are more than 5000 N, which 
are much higher than the injury assessment reference value (IARV) of 
3100 N used in the Standard No. 208 sled test and by industry as an 
IARV for shear load. Although the shear load is not directly included 
in the Nij formulation, the high shear load along with the tension 
loads causes the large extension moments which result in an Nij failure 
with a value of 4.5 in tension-extension. The agency believes that the 
current Hybrid III dummy neck and the Nij injury criteria correctly 
identify this as a potentially harmful human mode of interaction.
    Examination of vehicle crash data with the HIII-5F dummy seated in 
the full forward position (at 30 mph into a flat, rigid barrier) 
suggested that the first two modes of interaction described by 
DaimlerChrysler are common. Loading mode one results in lower values of 
Nij, while loading mode two results in higher values of Nij. However, 
case three, where the load applied by the air bag pulls the head 
forward, was not observed in vehicle crash tests. Based on the 
calculated external shear and axial forces applied by the air bag, 
there were no cases of high shear forces pulling the head forward. 
Review of the films from these tests indicated that for the low driver 
Nij cases, the air bag appeared fully or nearly fully deployed upon 
contact with the occupant's head. There was no contact or only glancing 
contact with the anterior surface of the dummy neck. In contrast, 
review of the films for cases with high driver Nij values showed clear 
interaction of an inflating air bag with the underside of the dummy's 
chin and neck, as evidenced by chalk transfers onto the air bag fabric, 
visible folds of the air bag located under the chin, and inflation 
around the dummy's chin resulting in a dumbbell-type appearance of the 
air bag. These vehicle crash test data support the appropriateness of 
the Hybrid III neck and the Nij criteria for identifying injurious air 
bag loading patterns.
    In summary, the agency believes the current neck and Nij are 
appropriate, sufficient, and needed for the intended purpose. The neck 
has sufficient sensitivity to objectively differentiate between 
deploying air bag systems that are inherently safe and those that are 
unsafe for the small occupant.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is denying this part of the DaimlerChrysler 
petition. The agency will continue to use the current Hybrid III neck 
and Nij criteria as published in the HIII-5F final rule. However, the 
agency will conduct further review of out-of-position test data and 
compare them with SCI cases to determine if there are any loading

[[Page 46405]]

scenarios that could cause high occipital condyle moments and high 
Nij's without producing harmful neck injuries.
3. Neck Shield
    The Alliance noted that the HIII-5F dummy final rule does not 
contain a neck skin or neck shield for the dummy. The Alliance stated 
that without a neck skin or shield, a deploying air bag may get caught 
on the head-neck structure of the dummy, raising concerns about the 
validity of the forces and moments being recorded.
    The Alliance also noted that the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family Task 
Group has evaluated a variety of neck skin concepts. The Task Group has 
agreed that a neck skin is preferable to no neck skin. Currently, the 
Task Group is evaluating the effects of various neck skin designs.
    Accordingly, the Alliance recommended that the agency add a neck 
skin to the HIII-5F dummy. The Alliance recommended that the agency 
choose a neck skin type to avoid compliance issues over neck force-
moment measurements because several of its member companies are 
currently developing their advanced restraint systems using the HIII-5F 
dummy fitted with different types of neck skin.
    DaimlerChrysler conducted a series of static air bag deployment 
tests to investigate the loading of the head and neck of the HIII-5F 
dummy during air bag deployment. DaimlerChrysler observed that the SAE 
recommended head skin and neck shield did not prevent the air bag from 
being trapped under the chin or behind the jaw of the dummy.
    To eliminate this artifact, DaimlerChrysler modified the dummy 
using two approaches. In its first approach, DaimlerChrysler used a 
modified head/neck skin. Using neck parts from the Hybrid II 50th 
percentile male dummy, additional skin and rubber, and a head skin from 
the HIII-5F dummy, DaimlerChrysler formed a neck surface that extended 
from the jaw to the upper torso. This modification prevented the air 
bag from snagging under the chin or behind the jaw and produced an 
insignificant change in the pendulum extension test. In addition, the 
moment and rotation responses were within the specified biomechanical 
extension corridor. However, DaimlerChrysler believed that the flexion 
response would be compromised due to the bridge effect between the neck 
skin and the upper torso jacket.
    In its second approach, DaimlerChrysler added a pair of aluminum 
patches to the notch area of the head. This modification prevented the 
air bag from snagging behind the jaw, but not from under the chin. It 
did not affect the flexion and extension responses in the standard 
pendulum calibration tests.
    Before issuing the NPRM and final rule for the HIII-5F dummy, NHTSA 
made an exhaustive effort to evaluate a variety of neck shields.\4\ The 
agency was unable to produce any evidence that neck shields could 
effectively and consistently reduce some of the high moments associated 
with aggressive air bags. Thus, the agency did not specify a neck 
shield for the HIII-5F dummy. The agency remains unconvinced that neck 
shields will be able to have such effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See report titled ``Evaluation of Neck Wrap and Skin 
Modifications for the Hybrid III Small Female Dummy,'' August 1998, 
submitted to Docket No. NHTSA-98-4283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, DaimlerChrysler noted that it has produced two 
head-neck shield modifications which prevented the air bag from getting 
caught under the dummy's chin or behind its jaw. DaimlerChrysler 
provided a picture of a modified Hybrid II head and an accompanying 
neck cover without indicating what neck was used for that installation. 
Inasmuch as the head is not of a Hybrid III dummy, the shield 
modification for that head may not provide any insight as to the 
effectiveness of such a modification for the Hybrid III dummy. The 
agency notes that DaimlerChrysler admitted that one of its neck shield 
designs might compromise the neck flexion response due to bridge 
effects between the neck skin and the upper torso jacket, and that the 
other design did not prevent the air bag from getting caught under the 
chin.
    Based on observations of dummy interactions with deploying air bags 
and real-world neck injury patterns to small females from Special Crash 
Investigations photos, the agency believes that the Hybrid III head/
neck without the neck skin produces sufficiently realistic interactions 
with the deploying air bag to indicate either beneficial or overly 
aggressive effects of the air bag on the human occupants it is designed 
to protect. Moreover, the agency notes that the petitioners have not 
provided any feasible suggestions on what type of neck shield they 
would support to improve its alleged shortcomings. Accordingly, the 
agency is denying this part of the Alliance and DaimlerChrysler 
petitions.
4. Pendulum Pulse for Neck Flexion/Extension
    Table B of Sec. 572.133 specifies the pendulum pulse for neck 
flexion and extension. The Alliance and FTSS noted that the table 
contains a typographical error: the column headings ``Extension'' and 
``Flexion'' are reversed. The Alliance and FTSS recommended that the 
agency correct this error.
    NHTSA agrees with this recommendation. Accordingly, the agency is 
switching the order of the ``Extension'' and ``Flexion'' column 
headings.

C. Torso Flexion Test

    Section 572.135 specifies procedures for the torso flexion test. 
The temperature range for the test is specified at 66 to 78 degrees F. 
The Alliance and FTSS stated that this range is too wide and could 
result in test variability because of the sensitivity of the dummy 
materials to temperature. The Alliance noted, for example, that the 
dummy's lumbar spine should be maintained at 69 to 72 degrees F for 
proper behavior. The Alliance and FTSS recommended that the agency 
change the temperature range specification to 69 to 72 degrees F to be 
consistent with other dummy component tests.
    To determine whether there is a need for a narrower temperature 
range in torso flexion tests, NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center 
(VRTC) performed two series of temperature sensitivity tests on the 
HIII-3C dummy: one at a temperature range between 66 and 78 degrees F, 
and the other between 69 and 72 degrees F. In both series of tests, the 
average resistance force to flexion was slightly higher at the lower 
temperature.\5\ However, the test results also indicated a resistance 
force difference of less than 2 pounds over the full temperature range 
for both series. In addition, plots of force vs. angle showed a very 
consistent and uniform slope with considerable overlap of measurements 
over the entire range of temperatures tested, indicating that 
temperature is not a significant factor. Based on these test data, VRTC 
concluded that variations in temperature have virtually no influence on 
the test results due to torso flexion in a crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The test results can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although these tests were performed with the HIII-3C dummy and not 
the HIII-5F dummy, the agency believes that the similarities of design 
and test methods between the HIII-3C and HIII-5F dummies would lead to 
the same temperature sensitivity conclusions for the HIII-5F dummy.
    To address the petitioners' concern with the ``consistency'' of 
temperature specifications, the agency has reviewed

[[Page 46406]]

all temperature ranges for crash test dummies currently specified in 49 
CFR Part 572. Except for the Hybrid III neck and thorax, all 
specifications for Hybrid II, Hybrid III, and side impact (SID) dummies 
call for a test temperature range of 66 to 78 degrees F. The narrower 
temperature specification (69 to 72 degrees F) for the Hybrid III neck 
and thorax is due to a greater temperature sensitivity of these 
components, which highly influences the head kinematics and chest 
compression in crash tests. However, impact responses of the head, 
torso flexion, and femurs are not sensitive to temperature variations 
in the 66 to 78 degrees F range, and therefore allow a wider 
temperature spread. Thus, specifying a narrower temperature range 
exclusively for the torso flexion test for the HIII-5F dummy would 
create an inconsistency with respect to all other dummy torso flexion 
tests in Part 572.
    Moreover, to change the temperature specifications to a narrower 
range for dummies that already have a temperature specification of 66 
to 78 degrees F, the agency would have to initiate rulemaking to 
determine the desirability of such a change. The agency notes that 
there are a number of dummy users, other than the petitioners, who may 
neither see a need for nor want to have a narrower temperature range 
specification. Some test facilities do not have the torso flexion test 
fixtures set up in a tight temperature control environment. These 
facilities would have to make capital expenditures to accommodate a 
narrower range specification.
    In addition, the agency would have to provide a rationale for 
narrowing the temperature specification. Inasmuch as VRTC could not 
show a need for a narrower temperature range, and the petitioners have 
not provided data that would support the need for such a change, the 
agency would not be able to justify the requested revision.
    In view of these considerations, the agency is denying this part of 
the Alliance and FTSS petitions.

D. Thoracic Peak Force Criterion

    Section 572.134 specifies the thorax assembly and test procedure. 
Paragraph (b)(1) specifies the maximum sternum displacement relative to 
the spine (compression) and the peak force within this specified 
compression corridor. The last sentence of that paragraph specifies:

    The peak force after 18.0 mm (0.71 in) of sternum displacement 
but before reaching the minimum required 50.0 mm (1.97 in) sternum 
displacement limit shall not exceed by more than five percent the 
value of the peak force measured within the required displacement 
limit.

    FTSS stated:

    We have studied fourteen thorax calibration tests of seven FTSS 
5th female dummies manufactured to date, and while the majority of 
the dummies pass the 5% requirement, we are unable to see a 
relationship between the 18 mm to 50 mm peak force and the maximum 
deflection force that would justify a fractional limit. For this 
reason, we suggest that an absolute peak force limit between 18 mm 
and 50 mm would be more appropriate and this force limit should be 
5% higher than the maximum peak force limit, rounded to the nearest 
100 N.

    FTSS requested that the peak force be specified as an absolute 
value rather than a percentage. FTSS recommended that the last sentence 
of paragraph (b)(1) be revised to read:

    The peak force after 18.0 mm (0.71 in) of sternum displacement 
but before reaching the minimum required 50.0 mm (1.97 in) sternum 
displacement limit shall not exceed 4600 N.

    The HIII-5F final rule states that peak force during the 
displacement interval of 50-58 mm must be within 3900-4400 N. Applying 
the five percent criteria specified in paragraph (b)(1) to this results 
in a force range of 4095-4620 N. FTSS's recommended limit of 4600 N is 
basically the same as the limit that results from applying the five 
percent criteria currently specified in paragraph (b)(1). Thus, the 
agency agrees with FTSS's recommended change.
    Accordingly, the agency is revising the last sentence of paragraph 
(b)(1) to read:

    The peak force after 18.0 mm (0.71 in) of sternum displacement 
but before reaching the minimum required 50.0 mm (1.97 in) sternum 
displacement limit shall not exceed 4600 N.

E. Impact Pendulum Characteristics

1. Probe Definition
    Section 571.137 specifies test conditions and instrumentation. 
Paragraphs (a) and (b) specify the geometrical and inertial properties 
for the thorax and knee probes, respectively. Paragraph (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 13.97  0.023 
kg (30.8  0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia 
of 5492 kg-cm\2\ (4.86 lbs-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG 
[center of gravity]. \1/3\ of the weight of the suspension cables 
and their attachments to the impact probe must be included in the 
calculation of mass, and such components may not exceed three 
percent of the total weight of the test probe. The impacting end of 
the probe, perpendicular to and concentric with the longitudinal 
axis, must be at least 25 mm (1.0 in) long, and have a flat, 
continuous, and non-deformable 152.4  0.25 mm (6.00 
 0.01 in) diameter face with a maximum edge radius of 
12.7 mm (0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to the impact face must 
have provisions for mounting of an accelerometer with its sensitive 
axis collinear with the longitudinal axis of the probe. No 
concentric portions of the impact probe may exceed the diameter of 
the impact face. The impact probe shall have a free air resonant 
frequency of not less than 1000 Hz.

    Paragraph (b) reads:

    The test probe for knee impacts shall be of rigid metallic 
construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its 
longitudinal axis. It shall have a mass of 2.99  0.01 kg 
(6.6  0.022 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 
622 kg-cm\2\ (0.55 lbs-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG. \1/
3\ of the weight of the suspension cables and their attachments to 
the impact probe may be included in the calculation of mass, and 
such components may not exceed five percent of the total weight of 
the test probe. The impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and 
concentric with the longitudinal axis, must be at least 12.5 mm (0.5 
in) long, and have a flat, continuous, and non-deformable 76.2 
 0.2 mm (3.00  0.01 in) diameter face with a 
maximum edge radius of 12.7 mm (0.5 in). The probe s end opposite to 
the impact face must have provisions for mounting an accelerometer 
with its sensitive axis collinear with the longitudinal axis of the 
probe. No concentric portions of the impact probe may exceed the 
diameter of the impact face. The impact probe must have a free air 
resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz.

    The Alliance argued that the requirement in both paragraphs that 
the probe be symmetric about its longitudinal axis is unrealistic 
because the pendulum is often fitted with velocity vanes, causing 
asymmetry. The Alliance recommended that the agency revise the first 
sentence of both paragraphs to read as follows:

    The primary test probe, less any additional hardware, for 
[thoracic or knee] impacts shall be of rigid metallic construction, 
concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal axis.

    FTSS argued that the test probe definitions are vague and overly 
restrictive. FTSS claimed that the test probes can be adequately 
defined by the geometry of the contact area with the dummy together 
with the mass, center of gravity (CG) location, and moments of inertia 
of the entire probe.
    FTSS expressed concerns about the descriptions of the geometrical 
and inertial properties for the thorax and knee probes. FTSS stated 
that it is not clear what ``concentric in shape'' means because 
``concentric'' means ``having the same center'' but does not define the 
shape of an object. FTSS echoed the Alliance's concerns about the

[[Page 46407]]

requirement that the probe be symmetric about its longitudinal axis. 
FTSS stated that the necessary addition of cable attachments and 
velocity vanes means this requirement cannot be met. FTSS noted that 
these attachments will cause the center of gravity (CG) to be slightly 
offset from the geometrical center of the probe. Thus, FTSS recommended 
that the agency specify a dimensional tolerance for the CG offset of 
3.5 mm.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FTSS stated that they have calculated that the maximum 
offset will not exceed 3.5 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FTSS argued that the requirement that no concentric 
portions of the probe exceed the diameter of the impact face is 
redundant because mass distribution is controlled by the mass moments 
of inertia (MMI) specification. Accordingly, FTSS recommended that the 
agency delete the sentence ``No concentric portions of the impact probe 
may exceed the diameter of the impact face'' from both paragraphs and 
replace the first sentence of both paragraphs with the following 
sentences:

    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.

    NHTSA agrees with the Alliance that the test probe definition 
should include provisions for mounting suspension hardware if a cable 
system is used for guiding the impactor's trajectory. 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. Inasmuch as hardware 
attachments do not meet the definition of concentricity, the agency is 
excluding them from the concentricity requirement.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is revising Sec. 572.137(a) and (b) as specified 
in section E.7 below. The agency is also adding a paragraph (7) to 
Sec. 572.134(c) and a paragraph (6) to Sec. 572.136(c) disallowing any 
contact between hardware attached to the probe and the dummy. The 
agency believes this is necessary to assure that hardware attached to 
the probe does not interfere with the dummy. Each paragraph will 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.

2. Mass Moment of Inertia
    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 572.137 specifies that the test probe for 
thoracic impacts have a MMI of 5492 kg-cm\2\ (4.86 lbs-in-sec\2\) in 
yaw and pitch about the CG. Paragraph (b) specifies that the test probe 
for knee impacts have a MMI of 622 kg-cm\2\ (0.55 lbs-in-sec\2\) in yaw 
and pitch about the CG.
    The Alliance stated that, for thorax impact probes used at a number 
of test labs, the MMI values fall below 5492 kg-cm\2\. The Alliance 
argued that these probes were used to develop the data that formed the 
basis for the thorax calibration performance corridors adopted by the 
agency in the final rule.
    The Alliance observed that a similar problem exists with the MMI 
specification for the test probe for knee impacts in paragraph (b). The 
Alliance claimed that the MMI values of knee impact probes used at a 
number of test labs fall below 622 kg-cm\2\.
    The Alliance recommended that the agency delete the MMI criteria 
until substantial data are available justifying its need. In the 
alternative, the Alliance requested that if the cylindrical pendulum 
described in paragraphs (a) and (b) represents the ideal test probe, 
and if NHTSA insists on retaining the MMI requirement, the agency 
change the MMI requirement to 1132.5 kg-cm\2\ for the thorax test probe 
and 156.8 kg-cm\2\ for the knee test probe.
    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.''
    FTSS noted that its thorax test probe has a yaw MMI of 5320 kg-
cm2 and a pitch MMI of 5303 kg-cm2, both of which 
fall below the minimum specified in Sec. 572.137(a). FTSS stated that 
NHTSA has no evidence 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 test probes in generic terms in response to 
industry comments on the NPRM for the HIII-5F dummy stating that the 
probe needs to be generic in specification and that the users desire to 
make them from building blocks, essentially, an assembly of multiple 
pieces. The commenters also requested that NHTSA not specify the probe 
by design. NHTSA agreed with this objective but noted that any probe 
that cannot be specified by design must be specified by engineering 
parameters, which are mass, stiffness, MMI, CG location, and resonance 
of the probe's structure. As a result, the agency accepted the 
commenters' desire for a generic probe and specified the probe in 
engineering terms.
    However, assembling probes from multiple pieces may result in 
compositions taking many configurations and wide variations of the MMI 
in yaw and pitch. These wide variations are evident in the Alliance's 
petition, in which it noted that its member companies have used 
different probes with MMIs ranging from 4114 to 5320 kg-cm2 
(calculated) for thorax test probes and from 209 to 331 kg-
cm2 (measured) for knee test probes.
    To determine the effects on kinematics of low and high inertia test 
probes, the agency studied the kinematics of a probe with a 
considerably lower MMI than specified in Sec. 572.137 and compared that 
with the kinematics of the NHTSA probe having a much higher MMI. The 
evaluation revealed that the low inertia probe experienced considerable 
motion instability. In contrast, the agency probe with the MMI 
specified in the final rule exhibited very stable free flight 
kinematics. This experiment shows that the use of probes 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 test probe 
kinematics at and during the impact with the dummy not be a source of 
variability.
    In its petition, the Alliance included a table with actual inertia 
values of test probes used by the industry for both thorax and knee 
calibrations. The agency believes that these values reflect current 
industry practice, and, therefore, these are reasonably good grounds 
for their acceptance. In contrast, the calculated probe values, which 
are considerably below the inertia values currently used by the 
industry, have never been evaluated for kinematic stability as used in 
the specified tests.
    As a result, the agency is accepting as the minimum MMI for thorax 
test probes the lower MMI value of 3646 kg-cm2, and for knee 
test probes the lower MMI value of 209 kg-cm2, cited by the

[[Page 46408]]

Alliance. Accordingly, the agency is changing the MMI specification for 
thorax test probes in Sec. 572.137(a) to 3646 kg-cm2 (3.22 
lb-in-sec2), and the MMI specification for knee test probes 
in Sec. 572.137(b) to 209 kg-cm2 (.177 lb-in-
sec2), in yaw and pitch about the CG of the probe.
    Since the FTSS thorax probe, with a yaw MMI value of 5320 kg-
cm2 and a pitch MMI value of 5303 kg-cm2, meets 
this specification, the agency is denying the FTSS request to hold the 
minimum MMI specification in abeyance for six months.
3. Free Air Resonance Frequency
    Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 572.137 both specify that the 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. The Alliance stated that preliminary 
analysis of the knee test probe conducted by FTSS demonstrates that the 
measured free air resonance frequency of a probe currently in use is 
only 662 Hz. Additional analysis conducted by DaimlerChrysler indicates 
that there is not frequency content sufficient to excite a resonance, 
thereby failing to meet the 1000 Hz requirement. Thus, the Alliance 
recommended that this specification be deleted until substantial data 
are available to justify 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 frequency content of the probe 
structure used in its calibration laboratories. It said that the 
results showed that the probe has two primary resonant modes. The first 
resonant mode is bending of the probe about its CG, causing each end of 
the probe to translate laterally. FTSS noted that a typical 
accelerometer, which is mounted at the non-impacted end of the probe, 
has less than three percent cross-axis sensitivity. Accordingly, if the 
probe's first mode natural resonance were excited during a dummy test, 
the effect on the signal of a longitudinally oriented accelerometer 
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. However, 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.
    The agency notes that commenters on the HIII-6C and HIII-5F dummy 
NPRMs expressed a desire for generic probe specifications to allow 
users the freedom to design and build probes 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 HIII-6C, HIII-5F, and HIII-3C dummies.
    The agency believes that the resonant frequency specification is 
necessary for three reasons: (1) Because the intent of users is to 
build the probe from multiple pieces and of unspecified material, the 
natural resonance of the probe is the only reliable indicator to assure 
that the probe will be of sufficient structural rigidity and capable of 
repeatable response; (2) the specification will assure that a multiple 
piece probe 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.
    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 use 
of such a probe.
    Moreover, in its petition, the Alliance indicated that the probe's 
free air resonance frequency is 662 Hz, which falls below the minimum 
specification of 1000 Hz. However, the agency's review of the Alliance 
data indicated the existence of at least two resonances: one around 800 
Hz and the other around 7.5 kHz. The 800 Hz resonance is due to the 
first mode of beam bending around the CG of the probe. The 7.5 kHz is 
the second mode natural resonance of the probe along its longitudinal 
axis.
    The agency agrees with the FTSS observation that beam bending is 
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the probe and should have 
little, if any, effect on the output of the longitudinally-oriented 
accelerometer (unless the accelerometer has a large cross axis 
sensitivity). In contrast, resonance along the axis of the probe is of 
primary interest in thorax and knee tests. NHTSA would not be concerned 
if the probe's resonance in the longitudinal axis of the impactor were 
at 7.5 kHz. This exceeds the agency's specification of 1 kHz. However, 
if the probe's resonance were lower than 1 kHz, it could affect the 
measured impact response.
    NHTSA concludes that the Alliance's argument does not demonstrate 
the irrelevance of the minimum natural free air resonance frequency for 
undefined probes. Instead, the Alliance argument demonstrates that the 
agency should specify which resonance mode it is defining. Thus, the 
agency is revising the last sentence in ``572.137(a) and (b) to read:

    The impact probe has a free air resonant frequency of not less 
than 1000 Hz, which may be determined using the procedure listed in 
Docket No. NHTSA-6714-14.

4. Weight of Attachments to the Thorax and Knee Probes
    Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 572.137 both specify that one-third 
of the weight of suspension cables and any attachments to the impact 
probe must be included in the calculation of mass, and that such 
components may not exceed three percent of the total weight of the test 
probe. There were no comments regarding this specification. However, 
the specifications for the HIII-3C and CRABI dummies specify that one-
third of the weight of suspension cables and any attachments to the 
impact probe may not exceed five percent of the total weight of the 
test probe. To maintain consistency in specifications for the entire H-
III dummy family, the agency is revising the specification in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 572.137 to five percent of the total 
weight of the test probe. This change has been made as specified in 
section E.7 below.
5. Knee Impactor Mass Tolerance
    Section 572.137(b) specifies that the test probe for knee impacts 
have a mass of 2.99  0.01 kg (6.6  0.022 lbs).
    The Alliance and FTSS argued that the probe mass tolerance of 
 0.01 kg ( 0.022 lb) is not practical. The 
Alliance stated that some accelerometers weigh approximately 0.02 lb. 
FTSS stated that a mass tolerance of 0.01 kg is too small to be 
practically measured. Thus, the Alliance and FTSS recommended that the 
agency increase the tolerance to  0.023 kg ( 
0.05 lb) to account for both slight mass deviations and additional 
instrumentation, such as accelerometers.
    NHTSA agrees that the mass tolerance is too tight. Accelerometers 
used on the probe do not have to be the same as the very low mass 
accelerometers used on the dummy. Since the weight of some 
accelerometers can be as high as 0.02 lb, the agency must account for 
this additional variation. Accordingly, the agency is changing the mass 
tolerance in 572.137(b) to  0.023 kg 
( 0.05 lb).

[[Page 46409]]

6. Impact Face Edge Radius
    Section 572.137(a) specifies that the edge radius of the thorax 
probe impact face is a maximum of 12.7 mm. Both the Alliance and FTSS 
stated that specifying a maximum edge radius allows for smaller radii, 
which could affect the probe's interaction with the dummy due to 
differences in initial contact area. The Alliance and FTSS recommended 
that the agency delete the word ``maximum''.
    NHTSA agrees with these concerns. At its extreme, a maximum radius 
specification allows the edge of the probe face to have no radius and 
produce a sharp corner. Such a probe face may affect the probe's 
interaction with the dummy if the alignment at impact was not perfect. 
However, the agency does not agree with the Alliance and FTSS 
recommendation of specifying an exact radius. This could cause 
substantial tolerancing problems over even small variations of the edge 
radius. To overcome these concerns, the agency is adding a minimum edge 
radius of 7.6 mm (0.3 in) to both the thorax and knee impact probe 
specifications to assure that the probes will always have an edge 
radius that is practical to hold and will not affect the probes' 
interaction with the dummy.
7. Conclusion
    In view of the discussion above, the agency is revising paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of Sec. 572.137 to read as follows:

    (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. 572.134(c)(7). The impactor shall have a mass of 13.97 
 0.23 kg (30.8  0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass 
moment of inertia of 3646 kg-cm2 (3.22 lbs-in-
sec2) 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 152.4  0.25 mm (6.00 
 0.01 in) diameter face with a minimum/maximum edge 
radius of 7.6/12.7 mm (0.3/0.5 in). The impactor shall have a 152.4-
152.6 mm (6.0-6.1 in) diameter cylindrical surface extending for a 
minimum of 25 mm (1.0 in) to the rear from the impact face. The 
probe's end opposite to the impact face has provisions for mounting 
of an accelerometer with its sensitive axis collinear with the 
longitudinal axis of the probe. The impact probe has a free air 
resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz, which may be determined 
using the procedure listed in Docket No. NHTSA-6714-14.
    (b) The test probe for knee 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. 572.136(c)(6). The impactor shall have a mass of 2.99 
 0.23 kg (6.6  0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass 
moment of inertia of 209 kg-cm2 (0.177 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 may be included in the calculation of mass, and 
such components may not exceed five percent of the total weight of 
the test probe. The impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and 
concentric with the longitudinal axis of the probe, has a flat, 
continuous, and non-deformable 76.2  0.2 mm (3.00 
 0.01 in) diameter face with a minimum/maximum edge 
radius of 7.6/12.7 mm (0.3/0.5 in). The impactor shall have a 76.2-
76.4 mm (3.0-3.1 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 has a free air 
resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz, which may be determined 
using the procedure listed in Docket No. NHTSA-6714-14.

F. Instrumentation Filter Classes

1. Thorax Spine and Pendulum Accelerations
    Section 572.137(m)(3)(ii) specifies CFC Class 1000 filters for 
conditioning the spine and pendulum acceleration signals. The Alliance 
and FTSS recommended that the agency change this specification to Class 
180 because Class 1000 is too high for the pendulum acceleration 
measurement during impact with the dummy, and to remain consistent with 
SAE-J211.
    NHTSA agrees with the Alliance and FTSS comments regarding 
Sec. 572.137(m)(3)(ii). The current specification of Class 1000 is too 
high for the intended application and is not consistent with SAE-J211 
Recommended Practice and similar specifications in the final rules for 
other dummies. The agency notes that it is a typographical error. 
Accordingly, the agency is correcting this error by revising 
``572.137(m)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
    (ii) Spine and pendulum accelerations--Class 180
2. Sternum Deflection
    Section 572.137(m)(3)(iii) specifies the sternum deflection signal 
filters at Class 180. The Alliance recommended that the agency change 
this specification to Class 600 to remain consistent with SAE-J211.
    NHTSA notes that the Class 180 specification in 
``572.137(m)(3)(iii) is in line with the specification for the Hybrid 
III 50th percentile male dummy. The agency believes this specification 
is sufficient for direct chest deflection measurement. However, Class 
600 data are needed if a V*C measurement is to be made. NHTSA does not 
require the measurement of V*C, but the agency has no objection to 
filtering the data to a higher CFC class since that level data is 
suitable for both the deflection and V*C measurements. Accordingly, the 
agency is revising Sec. 572.137(m)(3)(iii) to read as follows:
    (iii) Sternum deflection--Class 600
3. Lower Leg
    Section 572.137(m)(6) specifies the femur forces filters at Class 
600. The Alliance and FTSS recommended that the agency revise this 
paragraph to include a knee pendulum filter, also of Class 600, to 
remain consistent with SAE-J211.
    NHTSA notes that currently Sec. 572.137(m)(6) reads: ``Femur 
forces--Class 600.'' Since the femur force is calculated during 
calibration from the pendulum based accelerometer, the agency assumed 
it was clear that the Class 600 also applied to the impactor mounted 
accelerometer data. Apparently, it was not. Accordingly, the agency is 
revising Sec. 572.137(m)(6) to read as follows:
    (6) Femur forces and knee pendulum--Class 600
4. Neck
    Section 572.137(m)(2) specifies the neck signal filters. The 
Alliance and FTSS noted that it does not specify a filter class for the 
neck test rotation potentiometers. The Alliance and FTSS recommended 
that the agency add a paragraph (iv) to that section to read as 
follows:
    (iv) Rotation potentiometer--Class 60.
    In Sec. 572.137(m)(2), NHTSA did not specify use of mechanical test 
fixtures, including potentiometers, to measure head rotation in the 
specified head-neck tests. The agency believes that 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 Sec. 572.137(m)(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 by adding:
    (iv) Rotation potentiometer--Class 60.
    In its petitions concerning the HIII-6C final rule, the Alliance 
noted that industry users appear to have reached a consensus that the 
Society of

[[Page 46410]]

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 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 that 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 
``572.137(m)(2) to add the following paragraph:
    (iv) Rotation potentiometer--Class 60 (optional).

G. Sensor Specifications

    The drawing package contains seven drawings that provide generic 
specifications for load cells used within the HIII-5F dummy. Each of 
these drawings specifies that the load cell electrical output/input 
sensitivity at capacity be 1.0 mV/V MIN.
    Denton stated that many of the existing load cells that it has 
built for these applications have a nominal sensitivity specification 
of 1.0 mV/V channels. Due to manufacturing variations, load cells may 
have a sensitivity above or below the 1.0 mV/V level. Denton stated 
that many existing load cells would be rendered obsolete by this 
requirement. Denton argued that load cells with outputs slightly below 
1.0 mV/V have functioned satisfactorily in these applications for many 
years. Denton also stated that NHTSA did not provide any data to 
justify this requirement. Thus, Denton requested that this 
specification be changed to 0.75 mV/V MIN.
    NHTSA is granting Denton's request. The agency notes that this 
change is nominal and will have no detrimental effects on the quality 
of the resulting data channel. Accordingly, the agency is changing this 
specification in Drawings SA572-S11, SA572-S14, SA572-S15, SA572-S29, 
SA572-S16-L&R, SA572-S27, and SA572-S28 from 1.0 mV/V MIN to 0.75 mV/V 
MIN.
    Drawing SA572-S15 for the Small Female Lumbar Spine Load Cell 
specifies 5000 Hz as the minimum free air resonance specification. It 
also specifies that the lumbar load cell force measurement use a 
Channel Frequency Class (CFC) of 1000.
    Denton requested that the agency change the free air resonance 
specification to 3000 Hz. Denton stated that the measured free air 
resonance of its load cell is below 5000 Hz and that it has functioned 
well for years. Denton argued that if the agency did not change this 
specification, many, if not all, existing lumbar spine load cells 
currently in use would be rendered obsolete.
    Denton also requested that the agency change the CFC specification 
to Class 600 for data signals generated by the lumbar load cell. Denton 
noted that there is no rationale for the Class 1000 specification for 
the force measurement and that it was chosen by default. Denton stated 
that it is extremely unlikely that any forces or moments will come even 
close to exceeding Class 600 because the top of the load cell is 
attached to a rubber lumbar spine, and the lumbar spine will be unable 
to transmit high frequencies.
    NHTSA is granting both of Denton's requests. As Denton noted, the 
agency chose the minimum free air resonance specification and CFC by 
default. Accordingly, the agency is revising Drawing SA572-S15 by 
changing the minimum free air resonance specification from 5000 Hz to 
3000 Hz and changing the lumbar force CFC classification from Class 
1000 to Class 600.

H. Drawings, Figures, and PADI Document

    The Alliance and FTSS found several errors in Figures O1, O2, and 
O3. Denton noted several specification errors in Drawing SA572-S14. In 
the process of inspecting production dummies, the VRTC noted additional 
dimensional discrepancies in three of the dummy drawings. The agency 
believes that these discrepancies are of little consequence to the 
dummy functioning but must be adjusted to reflect the dummies being 
built with production equipment. In this document, the agency is 
correcting the errors in these drawings.
1. Figures O1, O2, O3, O4, and O5
    The Alliance noted that Figure O1 (Neck Flexion Test Setup 
Specifications) is missing the label for the lower neck-adjusting 
bracket. The Alliance also noted that the second label for the neck-
adjusting bracket in Figure O2 (Neck Extension Test Setup 
Specifications) is incorrect. It should read: ``BRACKET--NECK 
ADJUSTING--UPPER (P/N 880105-207).''
    The Alliance and FTSS noted that some of the language in Figure O3 
(Thorax Impact Test Setup Specifications) does not conform to the 
language in the final rule text. Specifically, the Alliance and FTSS 
recommended that the agency change the tolerance for the test probe 
alignment from  0.05 degrees to  0.5 degrees, 
and the tolerance for the impact probe weight from  0.01 kg 
(0.02 lb) to  0.023 kg (0.05 lb) to conform to the text of 
the final rule. Finally, the Alliance and FTSS stated that Figure O3 
does not contain a pelvic angle measurement. They noted that the 
Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) Engineering Aid 25 specifies 
that the pelvis should be inclined rearward 7  2 degrees 
with respect to the horizontal. They recommended that this angle be 
added to the note Pelvic Angle Reference Surface'' in Figure O3 so that 
testers will not be required to force the dummy's pelvis into an 
unnatural orientation.
    NHTSA agrees with all of these recommendations. The suggested 
changes reflect errors in the figures. Accordingly, the agency is 
revising Figure O1 by adding the missing label for the lower neck-
adjusting bracket. That label will read ``BRACKET--NECK ADJUSTING--
LOWER (P/N 880105-208).'' The agency is also revising the second label 
for the neck-adjusting bracket in Figure O2 to read: BRACKET--NECK 
ADJUSTING--UPPER (P/N 880105-207). The agency is changing the tolerance 
for the test probe alignment in Figure O3 from  0.05 
degrees to  0.5 degrees, and the tolerance for the impact 
probe weight in Figures O3 and O5 from  0.01 kg (0.02 lb) 
to  0.023 kg (0.05 lb). Finally, the agency is adding the 
angle 7  2 degrees from the horizontal to the note Pelvic 
Angle Reference Surface in Figure O3.
    In reviewing Figure O4, NHTSA discovered that it had failed to 
specify the weight of the pull mechanism \7\ used in the torso flexion 
test. The Hybrid III Six- and Three-Year-Old dummy requirements each 
specify the weight of the pull mechanism for the torso flexion test. To 
be consistent with those dummy requirements and assure test 
repeatability, the agency is specifying that the weight of the pull 
mechanism must be less than or equal to 1.07 kg (2.35 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The pull mechanism consists of the load cell, loading 
adapter bracket, pull cable, and attachment hardware needed for the 
torso flexion test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the agency is adding the following note to Figure O4: 
``Combined weight of load cell, loading adaptor bracket, pull cable, 
and attachment hardware 1.07 kg (2.35 lb).
2. Drawing SA572-S14
    This drawing provides generic specifications for the uniaxial femur

[[Page 46411]]

load cells for use within the HIII-5F dummy. The drawing specifies a 
diameter dimension of 1.722 inches/4.375 millimeters, with a tolerance 
of 0.005 inch, for the load cell.
    Denton said that there are three errors in this specification. 
First, the 1.722 inches should be 1.75 inches. Denton said that its 
Model 2121 femur, which has been used for this application worldwide 
(including by NHTSA) for many years, has a diameter of 1.75 inches. 
Denton argued that if NHTSA required a diameter of 1.722 inches, all 
existing femur force transducers would be rendered obsolete. As a 
result, the agency and its contractors, and other test facilities 
worldwide, would have to purchase all new femur force transducers. 
Denton also argued that this dimension is irrelevant to the performance 
of the load cell. Thus, Denton requested that the diameter dimension be 
changed to 1.75 inches.
    Second, Denton argued that the 0.005 inch tolerance is 
unnecessarily tight for the diameter dimension. Denton requested that 
the tolerance be changed to two decimal places, or 0.01 
inch.
    Third, Denton noted that the metric conversion for 1.722 inches is 
stated incorrectly in the drawing. It should be 44.45, rather than 
4.375, millimeters.
    NHTSA agrees with all three of Denton's recommendations. The agency 
notes that the 1.722 inch specification and metric conversion for 1.722 
inches were errors, and the agency is correcting them in this document. 
The agency also agrees that the tolerance specification is 
unnecessarily tight. For the load cells used in the Child Restraint Air 
Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy, NHTSA has already changed the tolerance 
specification for diameter dimensions to two decimal places. For the 
sake of consistency, the agency is changing the tolerance specification 
of the HIII-5F load cell diameter dimension to two decimal places as 
well. Accordingly, the agency is revising Drawing SA572-S14 by 
changing: (1) The load cell diameter dimension to 1.75 inches; (2) the 
tolerance to 0.01 inch; and (3) the metric conversion for 
1.75 inches to 44.45 millimeters.
3. Drawing 880105-000
    In inspecting production dummies, the VRTC noted a discrepancy in 
the height reference dimension ``AA'' of sheet 5 of 6 of drawing 
880105. This dimension locates the measurement of the maximum chest 
circumference ``Y'' of the dummy with respect to the seating surface. 
Currently, the dimension is 12.0 0.20 inches.
    The agency is increasing that dimension to 13.6 0.50 
inches. This increase is needed to allow for stack up of dimensional 
tolerances of dummy components from the bottom of the buttocks to the 
shoulder structure and for variations in the dummy's torso posture. The 
changes will appear in the modified drawing as revision ``J''.
    The agency's review of drawing 880105-000 (sheet 3 of 6) also 
revealed an erroneous callout for Item #4 of the parts list. Item #4 
specifies part #9000224, Screw, 10-24 x \5/8\, SHCS. However, the 
agency has determined that a \5/8\ inch length screw is too long and 
will bottom-out before securely fastening the head accelerometer mount 
to the skull casting. The correct length of screw is \3/8\ inch. 
Accordingly, the correct callout for Item #4 is part #9000487, 10-24 x 
\3/8\, SHCS. The agency is revising Print 880105-000 sheet 3 of 6 to 
reflect this correction under revision ``I''.
4. Drawing 880105-434
    The VRTC also noted a discrepancy in the abdominal insert drawing 
in drawing 880105-434. Currently, the abdominal drawing specifies, on 
the posterior side of the abdomen, a semicircular relief denoted by the 
R 3.62 and R 1.90 dimensions and shape.
    Instead, the abdominal drawing should specify a rectangular shaped 
cutout on the posterior side of the abdomen to fit around the chest 
deflection transducers mounted bi-laterally next to the lumbar spine. 
All of NHTSA's evaluation, calibration, repeatability, and 
reproducibility work, including vehicle tests, have been performed with 
the HIII-5F dummy containing an abdomen with the rectangular cutout. If 
the abdominal insert were fabricated according to the dimensions and 
shape in the current drawing, the agency could not be assured that the 
dummy response would be consistent with these underlying tests.
    Accordingly, the agency has revised the abdominal insert drawing in 
drawing 880105-434 by replacing the semicircular cutout shape with a 
rectangular cutout shape 4.45 inches wide and 2.00 inches long in the 
fore and aft direction from the posterior side, and 1.87 inches deep 
from the top surface of the abdomen. The change will appear in the 
modified drawing as revision ``C''.
5. Drawing 880105-440
    Finally, the VRTC noted a discrepancy in the datum line in Drawing 
880105-440, Molded Pelvic Assembly. The drawing dimension with respect 
to the datum line adds up to an overall depth of 10 inches in the fore-
aft direction. As measured, however, the actual parts on several FTSS 
and Denton dummies have an overall depth of 9.25 inches. These dummies 
provide a good fit between the pelvis and thigh flesh.
    The VRTC has inspected several pelvis assemblies and determined 
that the 1.00 inch dimension to the end of the pelvis flesh at the 
interface with the thigh flesh is incorrectly specified in the drawing. 
It is not needed, if the overall fore and aft depth of 9.25 inches of 
the pelvis is specified. Thus, control of the pelvis to a depth of 9.25 
inches eliminates a potential assembly interference problem and 
provides a good fit between the pelvis and thigh flesh during the 
attachment of the femur to the pelvis. Accordingly, the agency is 
removing the 1.00 inch dimension from the end of the pelvis flesh and 
adding an overall depth dimension of 9.25 inches. The changes will 
appear in the modified drawing as revision ``B''.
6. Minor Drawing Revisions
    In reviewing the drawings package, VRTC discovered several missing 
or misplaced notes and call out errors. To correct these errors, the 
agency is revising the drawings as shown in the following table. The 
revised drawings package contains a drawing revision list (Drawing 
Number SA572-880105DRL-1) describing all these changes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Drawing #                     Drawing title               Revision                  Reason
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
880105-109...........................  SKIN, HEAD--HIII 5th     Added hole note ``\1/2\  The hole in the skin
                                        FEMALE.                  in. Dia.''.              for the condile pin
                                                                                          had no dimension.
880105-728-1.........................  ARM COMPLETE ASSEMBLY,   Corrected location of    The arrow for item #11
                                        RIGHT.                   balloon ``11''           was not pointing to
                                                                 arrowhead.               the clamping screw.
880105-728-2.........................  ARM COMPLETE ASSEMBLY,   Corrected location of    The arrow for item #11
                                        LEFT.                    balloon ``11''           was not pointing to
                                                                 arrowhead.               the clamping screw.

[[Page 46412]]

 
880105-650/651.......................  HYBRID III 5th FEMALE--  (1) Changed weight to    (1) The weight was
                                        FOOT ASSEMBLY.           1.75 +/- 0.10 lbs.       changed to 1.75 lbs to
                                                                 from 1.60 +/- 0.10       reflect the actual
                                                                 lbs. (2) Removed         weight of the foot
                                                                 ``left'' from the        assembly.
                                                                 title block.            (2) The word ``LEFT''
                                                                                          was removed from the
                                                                                          title block because
                                                                                          the drawing is for the
                                                                                          Left and Right
                                                                                          Assembly.
880105-621...........................  KNEE CLEVIS--ADAPTOR     Changed hole dia. to     The hole drilled in
                                        WELDMENT.                .266 from .2656.         part is actually .266.
880105-516...........................  LINEAR POT--SHAFT        Changed call-out in      Drawing 880150-229L/R
                                        MODIFICATIONS.           ``Next Assembly'' to     specified in the
                                                                 880105-528L/R from       ``Next Assembly'' was
                                                                 880105-229L/R.           incorrect.
880105-250...........................  NECK ASSEMBLY..........  Changed note 2 from 2.0  Incorrect torque
                                                                 +/- 0.2 lbs/in to 12.0   designation. The PADI
                                                                 +/- 2.0 in-lbs.          document (page 11)
                                                                                          requires the neck to
                                                                                          be torqued to 10-14 in-
                                                                                          lbs.
880105-1092..........................  LUMBAR LOAD CELL         Hole depth dia .75 x     Corrected depth of .75
                                        SIMULATOR.               .30 DP. changed to       dia. hole note, and
                                                                 dia. .75 x .350 DP.      removed duplicate call-
                                                                 Removed .350 dimension   out of same in
                                                                 from crossectional       crossectional view.
                                                                 view.
H350-1006............................  MOUNT, CHEST             Added to title block     Title block was revised
                                        ACCELEROMETER FOR        ``SA572-S4'' and         by removing vendor
                                        ENDEVCO 7264-2000        removed ``Endevco 7264-  designated
                                        ACCELS ON TRIAX MOUNT.   2000''.                  accelerometer call-
                                                                                          out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. PADI Document
    Currently, the PADI (Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and 
Inspection) Document specifies that the dummy shoes shall be ``low 
dress black oxfords, size 8E that met MIL-S-13192P.'' These 
specifications must be updated to be consistent with the specifications 
in the Standard No. 208 Advanced Air Bag NPRM. Accordingly, the agency 
is revising the fifth sentence on page four of the PADI Document (under 
the Clothing section) to read as follows:
    The shoes are women's low dress black oxfords, size 7\1/2\
     W that meet MIL-S21711E.

V. 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 making minor amendments to 
the design and performance specifications for a new 5th percentile 
female dummy that the agency may later incorporate into Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. This document does not impose requirements on 
anyone.
    The cost of an uninstrumented 5th percentile female dummy is 
approximately $33,400. Instrumentation would add from $29,000 to 
$99,100 to the cost, depending on the amount of instrumentation the 
user chooses to employ. This document does not add any costs to the 
cost of the dummy or any instrumentation. Thus, the economic impacts of 
this document are minimal, and 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). 
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 a substantial number of small entities. The rule 
does not impose or rescind any requirements. This rule makes relatively 
minor amendments to the design and performance specifications for a new 
5th percentile female dummy that the agency may later incorporate into 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It does not impose requirements 
on anyone. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not, therefore, require 
a regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental

[[Page 46413]]

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.
    NHTSA has 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. This rule 
makes relatively minor amendments to the design and performance 
specifications for a new 5th percentile female dummy that the agency 
may later incorporate into Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The 
agency has 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 NHTSA 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 5th percentile female 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, Surface Vehicle Information Report.''

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 
Public Law 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 the agency 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. This rule makes relatively 
minor amendments to the design and performance specifications for a new 
5th percentile female dummy that the agency may later incorporate into 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 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.

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

    Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety.


    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 572 is amended as 
follows:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

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

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

    2. In ``572.130, paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (a)(2), and 
(c)(1) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 572.130  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A drawings and specification package entitled ``Parts List and

[[Page 46414]]

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Small Adult 
Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII-5F, Alpha Version)'' (June 2002), 
incorporated by reference in ``572.131, and consisting of:
* * * * *
    (2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth 
Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII-5F), Alpha Version'' 
(February 2002), incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.132.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III 
Fifth Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy, (HIII-5F, Alpha 
Version) (June 2002), referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
and the Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of 
the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy, 
Alpha Version, referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section are 
available from Reprographic Technologies, 9107 Gaither Road, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20877, (301) 419-5070. These documents are also 
accessible for reading and copying through the DOT Docket Management 
System.
* * * * *

    3. In ``572.131, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 572.131  General description.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth 
Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII-5F, Alpha Version) 
(June 2002) (refer to Sec. 572.130(a)(1)(ix)).
* * * * *

    4. In ``572.133, Table B is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 572.133  Neck assembly and test procedure.

* * * * *

[[Page 46415]]



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


    5. In ``572.134, the last sentence of (b)(1) is revised and 
paragraph (c)(7) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 572.134  Thorax assembly and test procedure.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The peak force after 18.0 mm (0.71 in) of sternum 
displacement but before reaching the minimum required 50.0 mm (1.97 in) 
sternum displacement limit shall not exceed 4600 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.

    6. In Sec. 572.136, paragraph (c)(6) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 572.136  Knees and knee impact test procedure.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) 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.

    7. In Sec. 572.137, paragraphs (a), (b), (m)(3)(ii) and (iii), and 
(m)(6), are revised and paragraph (m)(2)(iv) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 572.137  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. 572.134(c)(7). The impactor shall have a mass of 13.97 
 0.23 kg (30.8  0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass 
moment of inertia of 3646 kg-cm 2 (3.22 lbs-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 152.4  0.25 mm (6.00  0.01 in) 
diameter face with a minimum/maximum edge radius of 7.6/12.7 mm (0.3/
0.5 in). The impactor shall have a 152.4-152.6 mm (6.0-6.1 in) diameter 
cylindrical surface extending for a minimum of 25 mm (1.0 in) to the 
rear from the impact face. The probe's end opposite to the impact face 
has provisions for mounting of an accelerometer with its sensitive axis 
collinear with the longitudinal axis of the probe. The impact probe has 
a free air resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz, which may be 
determined using the procedure listed in Docket No. NHTSA-6714-14.
    (b) The test probe for knee 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. 572.136(c)(6). 
The impactor shall have a mass of 2.99 0.23 kg (6.6 0.05 
lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 209 kg-cm 2 
(0.177 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 may be included in the calculation of 
mass, and such components may not exceed five percent of the total 
weight of the test probe. The impacting end of the probe, perpendicular 
to and concentric with the longitudinal axis of the probe, has a flat, 
continuous, and non-deformable 76.2  0.2 mm (3.00 
 0.01 in) diameter face with a minimum/maximum edge radius 
of 7.6/12.7 mm (0.3/0.5 in). The impactor shall have a 76.2-76.4 mm 
(3.0-3.1 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 has a free air resonant frequency 
of not less than 1000 Hz, which may be determined using the procedure 
listed in Docket No. NHTSA-6714-14.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Rotation potentiometer--Class 60 (optional)
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Spine and pendulum accelerations--Class 180
    (iii) Sternum deflection--Class 600
* * * * *
    (6) Femur forces and knee pendulum--Class 600
* * * * *

    8. At the end of subpart O, Figures O1, O2, O3, O4, and O5 are 
revised as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 46416]]

Figures to Subpart O
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY02.000


[[Page 46417]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY02.001


[[Page 46418]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY02.002


[[Page 46419]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY02.003


[[Page 46420]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY02.004


    Issued: June 13, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-15285 Filed 7-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C