[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24417-24428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-03-15089]
RIN 2127-AI58


Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Weighted 
Child Test Dummy

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend 49 CFR part 572 by adding a 
weighted version of the current Hybrid III six-year-old child size 
dummy (H-III6C). The weighted dummy would weigh 62 pounds, ten pounds 
more than the H-III6C dummy. The drawings and specifications for the 
weighted dummy would be the same as those for the H-III6C dummy, except 
for added masses at the thoracic spine and at the base of the lumbar 
spine. The agency issued an NPRM in May 2002 proposing to use the 
weighted dummy in the agency's compliance tests of child restraint 
systems recommended for use by larger children, i.e., children from 50 
to 65 pounds. Today's document proposes specifications and calibration 
procedures for the weighted test dummy described in that NPRM.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 7, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be 
submitted to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. See 
Supplementary Information section for electronic access and filing 
addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, Stan 
Backaitis, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-4912.
    For legal issues, Deirdre R. Fujita, NHTSA Office of the Chief 
Counsel, at 202-366-2992.

[[Page 24418]]

    Both officials can be reached by mail at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Test Dummy
    B. The Need for a Heavier Child Dummy
    C. NPRM on Standard No. 213
II. Alternatives Considered
    A. Objectives for the Weighted Dummy
    B. Weighting Concepts
    C. Evaluation of the Weighted Dummy
    1. Calibration Tests
    2. Torso Flexion Tests
    3. Sled Tests
    4. Overall Assessment
III. Agency Proposal
IV. Costs
V. Benefits
VI. Lead Time
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

A. The Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Test Dummy

    On January 13, 2000, NHTSA issued a final rule establishing 
specifications and test procedures for a new, more advanced six-year-
old child test dummy (H-III6C).\1\ The agency determined that a new 
six-year-old dummy was needed to evaluate the risks of air bag 
deployment for children, particularly for unrestrained children. The 
agency adopted the H-III6C dummy because it had a more humanlike impact 
response than the six-year-old dummies that existed at that time, and 
because it allowed the assessment of the potential for more types of 
injuries. The agency also concluded that the H-III6C dummy would 
provide greater and more useful information in a variety of automotive 
impact environments to better evaluate child safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 65 FR 2059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Need for a Heavier Child Dummy

    Research has shown that children, even those older than six years, 
do not fit properly in adult vehicle seats, and that adult belt 
restraint systems cannot be properly applied over the load bearing 
structural parts of children's torsos.\2\ Moreover, both the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) \3\ and the ``Blue Ribbon Panel II: 
Protecting Our Older Child Passengers'' \4\ have recommended that older 
children be restrained in child safety seats, booster seats, or safety 
belts appropriate for their size and weight. Both recommended also that 
a universally acceptable crash test dummy approximating a ten-year-old 
child should be developed. In addition, child restraint manufacturers, 
while attempting to develop specialized child restraint systems and 
booster seats for larger children, have found themselves hampered in 
this effort by not having an appropriately sized dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Kathleen DeSantis Klinich, et al., ``Study of Older Child 
Restraint/Booster Seat Fit and NASS Injury Analysis,'' Technical 
Report, DOT HS 80 248, NHTSA/VRTC, November 1994.
    \3\ NTSB, Safety Recommendation H-96-25, Study on Advanced Air 
Bags, Safety Belts and Child Restraint Issues, September 1996. A 
copy of this document has been placed in the docket.
    \4\ Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel II: Protecting Our 
Older Child Passengers, March 15, 1999. The panel was announced by 
Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater and Ricardo Martinez, M.D., 
NHTSA Administrator, on November 19, 1998, with a mission of 
recommending ways to increase the use of age- and size-appropriate 
occupant restraints by children ages four through fifteen whenever 
they are riding in a motor vehicle. These recommendations can be 
found at http://www.actsinc.org/whatsnew_6.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2000, NHTSA responded to these needs by asking the Society 
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to take the lead in developing a Hybrid 
III ten-year-old child size dummy. This effort received a further boost 
from Congress on November 1, 2000, when the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act was 
enacted.\5\ Section 14 of the TREAD Act directs NHTSA to consider 
whether to require the use of anthropomorphic test devices that 
``represent a greater range of sizes of children, including the need to 
require the use of an anthropomorphic test device that is 
representative of a ten-year-old child * * * .'' Further, on December 
4, 2002, Congress enacted Pub. L. 107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002; 116 Stat. 
2772) (``Anton's Law''). Section 4 of Pub. L. 107-318 directs that--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public Law 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800.

    (a) Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall develop and evaluate an 
anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-year-old child for 
use in testing child restraints used in passenger motor vehicles.
    (b) Within 1 year following the development and evaluation 
carried out under subsection (a), the Secretary shall initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of an anthropomorphic test 
device as developed under subsection (a).
    Responding to NHTSA's call, the SAE designed and developed a Hybrid 
III ten-year-old child size dummy weighing approximately 76 pounds. In 
accordance with the agency's rulemaking and research plans and in 
furtherance of Section 4 of Pub. L. 107-318, NHTSA is evaluating the 
dummy for incorporation into Part 572. However, the evaluation will 
take time, as necessary design modifications are usually necessary for 
a dummy to be suitable for incorporation into 49 CFR part 572. In the 
meantime, child restraint system manufacturers will still need a dummy 
approximating children in the seven to eight year old age bracket, 
i.e., children above 50 pounds. To meet this need, the agency is 
considering a weighted version of the current H-III6C dummy, one that 
weighs approximately 62 pounds instead of the 52-pound weight of the H-
III6C dummy.

C. NPRM on Standard No. 213

    The agency issued an NPRM in May 2002 proposing a number of changes 
to Standard No. 213 in response to Section 14 of the TREAD Act, 
including a proposal to use the weighted dummy in the agency's 
compliance tests of child restraint systems recommended for use by 
larger children, i.e., children from 50 to 65 pounds. (67 FR 21806; May 
1, 2002; Docket No. 02-11707.) The use of the dummy was viewed as an 
interim measure until such time that the Hybrid III ten-year-old dummy 
becomes available. The agency proposed that the dummy would be used in 
Standard No. 213's dynamic testing to measure the forces that are 
sustained by the dummy's head, neck, and chest when restrained by the 
child restraint in a simulated crash. Standard No. 213 would require 
the child restraint to limit the forces to specified levels. In 
addition, it was proposed that the dummy would be used to assess the 
restraint's ability to maintain structural integrity in a crash when 
the dummy is restrained in it, and to limit excursion of the dummy's 
head, torso and knees.
    Today's document proposes to incorporate into Part 572 the weighted 
six-year-old dummy that was described in the May 2002 NPRM. That dummy 
has extensive instrumentation to measure the potential for injuries to 
the head, the upper and lower ends of the neck, and the chest, as well 
as other areas of the dummy. Comments were requested and received by 
the agency on the suitability of the weighted, instrumented dummy for 
use in Standard No. 213 compliance tests of booster seats and other 
child restraints recommended for use by children weighing over 50 lb.
    Some commenters on the May 2002 NPRM expressed concerns or 
questions about using the dummy's injury assessment capabilities in 
Standard No. 213 compliance tests. Some commenters suggested that the 
weighted dummy does not adequately represent a child in the seven- to 
eight-year-old age bracket, and that the dummy should thus not be used 
in the compliance tests because it

[[Page 24419]]

would add little, if anything, to child passenger safety. Some 
suggested that the agency should focus on developing the Hybrid III 
ten-year-old dummy instead. Others suggested that the weighted six-
year-old dummy be used only to assess the structural integrity of child 
restraints, and not to assess the crash forces imposed in the dynamic 
test.
    The agency is considering all the comments on the May 2002 NPRM and 
will respond to them in the follow-on document to the NPRM. Today's 
NPRM proposes specifications for the weighted dummy simply to 
complement the May 2002 NPRM, i.e., this document completes the dummy 
specifications called for in the May NPRM. By issuing this document, 
the agency does not intend to imply that it has concluded that the 
instrumented dummy will be fully used in Standard No. 213 compliance 
tests, with all its measurement capabilities. A final rule on the use 
of the weighted dummy in Standard No. 213 compliance tests, assuming 
the agency adopts such a provision in a final rule, will address all 
issues concerning the full or limited use of the dummy. Further, a 
final rule adopting the dummy into Part 572 will likely parallel 
NHTSA's final rule concerning use of the dummy in Standard No. 213.

II. Alternatives Considered

A. Objectives for the Weighted Dummy

    The agency defined the following objectives for the weighted six-
year-old child size dummy:
    1. Develop a method for increasing the weight of the current H-
III6C dummy from 52 pounds to over 60 pounds.
    2. The system used to add weight to the H-III6C dummy must not 
interfere with the restraint system being used, and must not distort 
the kinematics and impact response of the dummy.
    3. The weighted dummy must have sufficient durability in the 
intended impact exposures.
    4. The weighted dummy must have repeatability and reproducibility 
in calibration and sled tests comparable to that of the H-III6C dummy.
    5. The weighted dummy must be backed up with sufficient design and 
performance data to support its incorporation into 49 CFR part 572.
    6. The weighted dummy must be useful in assessing the structural 
integrity of child restraints in dynamic testing.

B. Weighting Concepts

    The agency evaluated several weighting concepts for developing a 
weighted H-III6C dummy. Initially, the agency placed a weighted vest on 
the dummy. However, upon inspecting this system, the agency determined 
that use of such a vest would be unacceptable in compliance testing. 
Since the weights are not rigidly attached to the dummy, they could 
rattle or even slap during dynamic tests, possibly interfering with the 
dummy's instrumentation responses. In addition, the vest, loaded with 
weighting materials, was somewhat bulky. The agency was concerned that 
this bulkiness could affect the positioning of the dummy and compromise 
the effectiveness of the tested restraint system.
    NHTSA then considered mounting ballasts directly on the dummy's 
interior structure. The agency designed carbon steel masses (about 9 
pounds) that could be rigidly mounted on the dummy's spine and pelvis. 
However, this resulted in the elevation of the upper torso by 1 inch. 
The agency determined that a more uniform distribution of the added 
weight between the upper and lower torso halves, and less elevation of 
the upper torso with respect to the lower torso, were necessary.
    The agency discovered that a more uniform mass distribution, and a 
lowering of the upper torso, could be achieved through the use of a 
dense Tungsten alloy material. The increased density of the Tungsten 
alloy allowed each of the weights to be reduced in size as compared to 
the carbon steel weights. The dummy's seated height was increased by 
only 0.7 inch, while the carbon steel weights increased the dummy's 
seated height by 1 inch. The agency also was able to design the 
Tungsten alloy weights to distribute the added weight more uniformly 
between the upper and lower torso halves. The Tungsten alloy material 
allowed the agency to increase the added weight of the bottom of the 
lumbar spine (hereinafter referred to as ``pelvis'') from 3.8 pounds to 
4.9 pounds while maintaining the thoracic spine weight increase at 5.2 
pounds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The spine weights consist of two 2.6-pound plates, one on 
each lateral side of the thoracic spine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's preliminary testing and evaluation of the dummy with 
the Tungsten alloy weights attached to the thoracic spine and pelvis 
has indicated responses comparable to the responses of the H-III6C 
dummy. Therefore, the agency has tentatively concluded that attaching 
Tungsten alloy weights to the H-III6C dummy's thoracic spine and pelvis 
met the agency's objectives for a weighted six-year-old child size 
dummy outlined above.

C. Evaluation of the Weighted Dummy

    The agency subjected the weighted dummy to two types of impact 
evaluations in the laboratory environment: component calibration tests 
and sled tests.
    Component calibration tests were conducted to compare the 
performance of the weighted dummy with that of the H-III6C dummy. The 
agency followed the calibration test procedures specified for the H-
III6C dummy in 49 CFR part 572 subpart N. Since masses were added to 
the dummy's upper and lower torso, the agency limited its evaluation of 
the weighted dummy for certification responses to the thorax impact 
(specified in 49 CFR 572.124) and torso flexion (49 CFR 572.125) tests. 
Since the added weights would not influence the head drop, neck flexion 
and extension, and knee impact calibration tests, the agency did not 
conduct these tests with the weighted dummy.
    The agency conducted ten high acceleration (HYGE) sled tests with 
both the H-III6C and the weighted dummies in seating configurations 
with adult restraint systems and belt positioning booster seats. All 
tests were performed using the Standard No. 213 pulse (24 G, 30 mph) 
and sled mounted seating buck. The dummies were seated in Century 
Breverra Metro and Graco Cherished Cargo booster seats and restrained 
with a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am rear seat lap/shoulder belts for all 
tests. One set of tests with the Century Breverra Metro booster seats 
was performed without belt retractors.
1. Calibration Tests
    To evaluate the dummy's repeatability, structural integrity, and 
durability, the agency performed seven thorax impacts with the weighted 
dummy. The first four thorax calibration tests were conducted prior to 
a series of six Standard No. 213 sled tests. Three additional tests 
were conducted after the sled tests. The test results are detailed in 
NHTSA's Technical Report entitled ``Evaluation of the Weighted Hybrid 
III Six-Year-Old Child Dummy'' (October, 2001, Docket No. NHTSA-2002-
11707-2). The results indicate the following responses.
    The chest deflection responses of the weighted dummy met the 
calibration limits for the H-III6C dummy in all tests. However, the 
average chest deflection for the weighted dummy was approximately 41 
mm, which is 1 mm below the target deflection of 42 mm

[[Page 24420]]

specified for the H-III6C dummy. Since these results were based upon 
only one dummy, the agency has tentatively concluded that it should 
retain the 38-46 mm chest deflection specification.
    The peak pendulum force responses in the weighted dummy's thoracic 
deflection range of 38-46 mm met the specifications for the H-III6C 
dummy in all tests. However, the average response was close to the 
upper limit of the specified corridor. Accordingly, the data suggest 
that, to assure better centering of the response specification, the H-
III6C dummy corridor be changed from 1150-1380 N to 1225-1455 N for the 
weighted dummy.
    The H-III6C specifications also require that the peak pendulum 
force during the thoracic deflection range of 12.5-38 mm not exceed by 
more than 5 percent the value of the peak force during the deflection 
range of 38-46 mm. The weighted dummy did not consistently meet this 
specification during NHTSA's testing. Accordingly, the data suggest 
that the H-III6C dummy limit be changed from 5 percent to 10 percent 
for the weighted dummy.
    The internal hysteresis responses of the weighted dummy met the 
specifications for the H--III6C dummy in all tests. Accordingly, the 
data suggest that the H-III6C dummy specification for internal 
hysteresis of 65-85 percent be retained for the weighted dummy.
2. Torso Flexion Tests
    The agency performed six torso flexion tests with the weighted 
dummy, two tests prior to and four following a series of six Standard 
No. 213 sled tests. The test results are detailed in the October 2001 
Technical Report noted above. The results indicate that the durability 
and structural integrity of the weighted dummy were not compromised by 
the added weight during the test series. However, the test data 
indicate that the weighted dummy did not meet the established flexion 
force corridors for the H-III6C dummy. The agency's torso flexion test 
responses with the weighted dummy also indicate the following.
    The initial average torso setup angle for the weighted dummy in the 
absence of external support was 31.2 degrees. This is higher than the 
maximum value of 22 degrees specified for the H-III6C dummy. The 
additional mass located on the spine box of the weighted dummy is 
responsible for the increase in the initial torso setup angle. 
Accordingly, the data suggest that the following specification be added 
for the weighted dummy torso flexion test:

    Remove the external support and wait two minutes. Measure the 
initial orientation of the Torso reference plane of the seated dummy 
as shown in Figure S2. This initial torso orientation angle may not 
exceed 32 degrees.

    The agency also notes that the initial torso angle exhibited very 
good repeatability, with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 4.1 
percent.
    The weighted dummy torso in 45-degree flexion tests yielded an 
average resistance force of 103 N (23.2 lbf) with a standard deviation 
of 4 N (0.9 lbf). This is significantly lower than the resistance force 
of 173.5 +/- 26.5 N (39 +/- 6 lbf) specified for the H-III6C dummy. 
Accordingly, the data suggest that the H-III6C dummy resistance force 
specification be changed from 173.5 +/- 26.5 N (39 +/- 6 lbf) to 105 +/
- 20 N (23 +/- 4.5 lbf) for the weighted dummy.\7\ The agency also 
notes that the weighted dummy exhibited very good repeatability of 
resistance force in the flexion tests, yielding a CV of 3.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Since NHTSA had to base this proposed performance range 
specification on data from only a single dummy, the agency used 5 
standard deviations to calculate the upper and lower limits. The 
agency believes that this range is comparable to that for the H-
III6C and will be sufficient to accommodate the flexion responses 
from other dummy tests in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The H-III6C dummy specifications require the torso to return within 
8 degrees of the initial torso position upon removal of the flexion 
force. The weighted dummy met this specification in all tests. 
Accordingly, the data suggest that this specification be retained for 
the weighted dummy.
3. Sled Tests
    The agency conducted HYGE sled tests using the Standard No. 213 
pulse (24 G, 30 mph). The sled buck was equipped with a Standard No. 
213 bench seat. The H-III6C and weighted dummies were seated side by 
side in Century Breverra Metro booster seats and restrained with 1999 
Pontiac Grand Am rear seat lap/shoulder belts for all the sled tests. 
No shoulder belt routing clips or top tethers were used with any of the 
booster seats. To determine possible variability that may occur with 
shoulder belt retractors, the agency performed three tests with each 
dummy in the Century Breverra Metro restraint system both with and 
without the shoulder belt retractors.
    The response data of the H-III6C and weighted dummies are 
summarized in the table below. The CV for most of the measurements 
listed indicates relatively comparable responses for the two dummies. 
Differences, such as higher chest deflection and higher belt loading 
for the weighted dummy, can be explained by the weighted dummy's 
increased mass. The shapes of the response curves, found in the October 
2001 Technical Report, reflect reasonably comparable tracking of the 
loading responses vs. time for the same dummy seating and restraint 
configuration.

                            H-III6C and Weighted Dummies' Responses in Booster Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Century Breverra Metro without    Century Breverra Metro with
                                                      shoulder belt retractor         shoulder belt retractor
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   H-III6C dummy  Weighted dummy   H-III6C dummy  Weighted dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC 15:
    Average.....................................             241             177             303             261
    Percent CV..................................             5.2             9.5             4.9             4.6
HIC Unlimited:
    Average.....................................             657             554             733             695
    Percent CV..................................             7.6             4.5             4.4             7.3
Nij:
    Average.....................................            1.01            0.83            0.93            0.93
    Percent CV..................................            10.9             8.6             7.5             5.9
Neck Peak Tension (N):
    Average.....................................           2,455           1,858           2,281           2,276
    Percent CV..................................            22.4            13.0             7.9            15.9

[[Page 24421]]

 
Chest Deflection (mm):
    Average.....................................            29.8            38.0            29.0            36.6
    Percent CV..................................             5.4             7.9            10.5             5.0
Chest Acceleration (g):
    Average.....................................           45.93           48.58           50.15           49.23
    Percent CV..................................            10.9             6.9             1.1             7.7
Shoulder Belt Load (N):
    Average.....................................           4,486           5,498           4,632           5,770
    Percent CV..................................            10.8             7.2             2.3             4.3
Head Excursion (mm):
    Average.....................................             494             483             523             492
    Percent CV..................................             5.1             3.1             0.7             2.3
Knee Excursion (mm):
    Average.....................................             630             652             641             670
    Percent CV..................................             2.4             0.8             1.0             3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the Head Injury Criteria (HIC) 15 and HIC unlimited average 
values were lower for the weighted dummy than for the H-III6C dummy. 
The weighted dummy measured average HIC 15 values of 177 and 261 for 
tests without and with a shoulder belt retractor, respectively, while 
the H-III6C dummy measured average values of 241 and 303. The weighted 
dummy measured average HIC unlimited values of 554 and 695 for tests 
without and with a shoulder belt retractor, respectively, while the H-
III6C dummy measured average values of 657 and 733. It is to be noted 
that both dummies recorded higher HIC averages when a shoulder belt 
retractor was used. The agency believes this is due to the sudden 
jerking loads imposed on the dummies when the retractor locks.
    Neck tension and neck injury criteria (Nij) averages also were 
lower for the weighted dummy than for the H-III6C dummy in tests with 
and without shoulder belt retractors. Without a shoulder belt 
retractor, the weighted dummy measured an average Nij value of 0.83 and 
a peak neck tension of 1858 N (418 lbf), while the H-III6C dummy 
measured an average Nij value of 1.01 and a peak neck tension of 2455 N 
(552 lbf). With a shoulder belt retractor, both the weighted dummy and 
the H-III6C dummy measured an average Nij value of 0.93, and their peak 
neck tension values were similar as well: 2276 N (512 lbf) for the 
weighted dummy and 2281 N (513 lbf) for the H-III6C dummy. Based on 
these responses, the agency has tentatively concluded that the weighted 
dummy will produce either very similar or somewhat lower neck response 
values than those of the H-III6C dummy.
    The weighted dummy also measured a greater average chest deflection 
than the H-III6C dummy in tests without and with a shoulder belt 
retractor. In tests without a retractor, the weighted dummy average 
chest deflection was 8.2 mm greater than the H-III6C dummy average 
(38.0 mm compared to 29.8 mm). In tests with a retractor, the weighted 
dummy average chest deflection was 7.6 mm greater than the H-III6C 
dummy average (36.6 mm compared to 29.0 mm).
    The weighted dummy recorded higher shoulder belt loads than the H-
III6C dummy. The weighted dummy measured average shoulder belt loads of 
5498 N and 5770 N in tests without and with a retractor, respectively, 
while the H-III6C dummy measured average loads of 4486 N and 4632 N. 
The agency believes that the weighted dummy's higher average chest 
deflection and shoulder belt loads can be attributed to greater torso 
mass.
    The weighted dummy average chest acceleration was slightly greater 
than the H-III6C dummy average in tests without a retractor (48.58 g 
compared to 45.93 g). However, in tests with a retractor, the H-III6C 
dummy average chest acceleration was slightly greater than the weighted 
dummy average (50.15 g compared to 49.23 g).
    The weighted dummy average forward head excursion value was 11 mm 
lower than the H-III6C dummy average value (483 mm compared to 494 mm) 
in tests without a retractor. In tests with a retractor, the weighted 
dummy average head excursion value was 31 mm less than the H-III6C 
dummy average value (492 mm compared to 523 mm).
    Conversely, the weighted dummy average knee excursion value was 22 
mm greater than the H-III6C dummy average value in tests without a 
retractor (652 mm compared to 630 mm). In tests with a retractor, the 
weighted dummy average knee excursion value was 29 mm greater than the 
H-III6C dummy average value (670 mm compared to 641 mm).
    The head kinematics during the sled tests were similar for both 
dummies. The chins of both dummies exhibited contact into the chests in 
all tests. Furthermore, both dummies tended to shift into the ``pike'' 
position (legs and torso pitching forward) during the rebound response. 
However, this leg flexion did not seem to have a significant bearing on 
the dummies' performance.
4. Overall Assessment
    NHTSA's evaluation of the two dummies has led the agency to the 
following tentative conclusions.
    The weighted dummy response to thorax impacts and torso flexion 
tests was slightly different from that of the H-III6C dummy. 
Accordingly, the agency has tentatively concluded that to better fit 
the weighted dummy's response within the calibration corridors, the 
response boundaries for thorax impact and torso flexion would need to 
be slightly adjusted. However, the agency believes that the performance 
corridors for the head drop, neck flexion and extension, and knee 
impact tests would require no alteration.
    The weighted dummy response to thorax impacts and torso flexion 
tests were similar before and after a series of six sled tests using 
the Standard No. 213 pulse. These tests indicate that the consistency 
of the dummy's impact

[[Page 24422]]

response was not affected by the impact exposures during the sled 
tests.
    The agency noted no structural integrity, durability, or noise and 
vibration issues during component and sled testing of the proposed 
weighted dummy.
    In identical test environments, both the weighted dummy and the H-
III6C dummy produced relatively comparable responses when the effects 
of the weighted dummy's increased mass in the upper and lower torso 
were taken into account.
    Average HIC and neck tension values were lower for the weighted 
dummy than for the H-III6C dummy, while average chest deflection and 
shoulder belt loads were greater for the weighted dummy than for the H-
III6C dummy.
    HIC values were greater for both dummies when a shoulder belt 
retractor was used. Shoulder belt load averages and chest accelerations 
also increased slightly when a retractor was used.
    The two dummies exhibited similar kinematics during sled testing. 
Chin-to-chest contact was observed in all tests with both dummies. No 
contact between the head and knees was detected in any of the tests. 
The dummies appeared to interface the structure of the child restraints 
in a similar manner.

III. Agency Proposal

    Based on the results of the test and evaluation program discussed 
above, the agency has tentatively concluded that the weighted dummy is 
sufficient for evaluating the dynamic performance of child restraint 
systems designed for children over 50 pounds. If Standard No. 213 is 
amended to apply to child restraints for children over 50 lb as 
proposed in the May 2002 NPRM, the weighted dummy should be able to 
serve the interim needs of the agency until the Hybrid III ten-year-old 
size dummy is ready for incorporation. Accordingly, the agency is 
proposing to incorporate the weighted six-year-old size dummy into 49 
CFR part 572 as subpart S.
    The drawings and specifications for the weighted dummy would be the 
same as the drawings and specifications for the H-III6C dummy in 49 CFR 
part 572 subpart N, except for the following differences.
    First, the drawings for the weighted dummy's upper torso assembly 
and lower torso assembly would be changed to include the spine box 
weighting plates and pelvis weighting spacer.
    Second, in the thorax assembly and test procedure specifications 
(49 CFR 572.124(b)(1)); the peak force specification within the 
specified compression corridor would be changed from 1150-1380 N (259-
310 lbf) to 1225-1455 N (275-327 lbf); and the peak force specification 
after 12.5 mm (0.5 in) of sternum displacement would be changed from 
not more than 5 percent of the value of the peak force measured within 
the required displacement limit to not more than 10 percent of that 
value.
    Third, in the upper and lower torso assemblies specifications (49 
CFR 572.125(b)(1)), the specification for the force applied as shown in 
Figure S2 would be changed from 147-200 N (33-45 lbf) to 85-125 N 
(18.5-27.5 lbf).
    Fourth, in the upper and lower torso assemblies test procedure 
specifications (49 CFR 572.125(c)(5)), the initial torso orientation 
angle specification would be changed from 22 degrees to 32 degrees.
    A copy of the Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection 
(September 2002) for the dummy, and copies of the Parts List and 
Drawings for the H-III6CW, Alpha Version (September 13, 2002) can be 
found in the docket for this NPRM.

IV. Costs

    The agency estimates that the base cost of the new weighted six-
year-old child size dummy would be $31,170. The cost of an 
uninstrumented H-III6C dummy is approximately $30,000.\8\ The cost 
difference of $1,170 is as follows: raw tungsten alloy materials for 
the weights is approximately $270 for the lumbar spacer weight and $240 
for each of the two spine weights. The fabrication of the parts 
requires approximately 12 hours of machinist labor at a cost of $35 per 
hour, for a total of $420. Instrumentation would add approximately 
$25,000 to $41,000 to the cost of the dummy, depending on the amount of 
data desired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the H-III6C dummy final rule at 65 FR 2064 (January 13, 
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Benefits

    At this time, the agency has not quantified any benefits to the 
public from this rulemaking. The availability of a weighted six-year-
old child size dummy would provide a more suitable, repeatable, and 
objective test tool to the automotive safety community for development 
of improved safety environments for older children in motor vehicle 
crashes than the unweighted dummy. It also would facilitate the future 
certification of booster seats and child restraint systems designed for 
children up to approximately 65 pounds.

VI. Lead Time

    The agency believes that lead time is not a major factor for 
upweighting the H-III6C. The addition of the dummy to Part 572 will not 
affect manufacturers' compliance obligations with respect to the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

VII. 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.
    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) 
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). 
The Office of Management and Budget did not review this rulemaking 
document under Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking action has been 
determined not to be significant under the DOT's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures.
    This document proposes to amend 49 CFR part 572 by adding design 
and performance specifications for a weighted six-year-old child dummy 
that the agency may use in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 
If this proposed rule becomes final, it would affect only those 
businesses that choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. It would 
not impose any requirements on anyone.

[[Page 24423]]

    The cost of an uninstrumented H-III6C dummy is approximately 
$30,000.\9\ The cost of the raw tungsten alloy materials for the 
weights is $270 for the lumbar spacer weight and $240 for each spine 
weight. The fabrication of the parts requires approximately 12 hours of 
machinist labor at a cost of $35 per hour. Accordingly, the agency 
estimates that the cost of an H-III6CW dummy is $31,170. 
Instrumentation would add approximately $25,000 to $41,000 to the cost 
of the dummy, depending on the amount of instrumentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the H-III6C dummy final rule at 65 FR 2064 (January 13, 
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no 
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
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.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the proposed 
amendment would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The proposed amendment would not impose or 
rescind any requirements on anyone. Therefore, it would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency 
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. 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 proposed rule would 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 proposed rule would 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 its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The H-III6C dummy, which is the dummy upon which the weighted dummy 
is based, 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 H-III6C dummy and the weighted dummy proposed in today's document: 
SAE Recommended Practice J211-1995 Instrumentation for Impact Tests--
Parts 1 and 2, dated March, 1995; and SAE J1733 Information Report, 
titled ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing'', dated December 
1994.

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 likly 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

[[Page 24424]]

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 proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
UMRA. This proposed rule would not meet the definition of a Federal 
mandate because it would not impose requirements on anyone. It would 
amend 49 CFR part 572 by adding design and performance specifications 
for a weighted six-year-old child dummy that the agency may later use 
in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If this proposed rule 
becomes final, it would affect only those businesses that choose to 
manufacture or test with the dummy. It would 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 proposed rule is 
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

I. Plain Language

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

--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to 
understand?

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

J. Regulation Identifier Number

    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.

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
    NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also 
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If 
Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency to 
consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), 
the agency will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for 
future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new 
material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

[[Page 24425]]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 
CFR part 572 as follows:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

    1. The authority citation for part 572 would continue to read as 
follows:

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

    2. 49 CFR part 572 would be amended by adding a new subpart S, 
consisting of Sec. Sec.  572.160-572.167, to read as follows:
Subpart S--Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy
Sec.
572.160 Incorporation by reference.
572.161 General description.
572.162 Head assembly and test procedure.
572.163 Neck assembly and test procedure.
572.164 Thorax assembly and test procedure.
572.165 Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test 
procedure.
572.166 Knees and knee impact test procedure.
572.167 Performance test conditions.

Subpart S--Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy


Sec.  572.160  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following materials are hereby incorporated into this 
subpart by reference:
    (1) A drawings and specifications package entitled ``Drawings and 
Specifications for the Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test 
Dummy (H-III6CW) [a date will be inserted in the final rule]'', 
consisting of:
    (i) Drawing No. 127-1000, Head Assembly;
    (ii) Drawing No. 127-1015, Neck Assembly;
    (iii) Drawing No. 167-2000, Upper Torso Assembly;
    (iv) Drawing No. 167-3000, Lower Torso Assembly;
    (v) Drawing No. 127-4000, Leg Assembly;
    (vi) Drawing No. 127-5000, Arm Assembly; and
    (vii) The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Parts List.
    (2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III Six-Year-Old 
Weighted Child Test Dummy [a date will be inserted in the final 
rule]'';
    (3) SAE Recommended Practice J211-1995, titled ``Instrumentation 
for Impact Tests--Parts 1 and 2'', dated March, 1995;
    (4) SAE J1733 Information Report, titled ``Sign Convention for 
Vehicle Crash Testing'', dated December 1994.
    (b) The Director of the Federal Register approved those materials 
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at NHTSA's Technical 
Reference Library, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 5109, Washington, DC, 
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (c) The incorporated materials are available as follows:
    (1) The Drawings and Specifications for the Hybrid III Six-Year-Old 
Weighted Child Test Dummy referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section are available in electronic format through the NHTSA docket 
center and in paper format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New RT, 
18810 Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20879, (301) 670-0090.
    (2) The SAE materials referred to in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) 
of this section are available from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 
Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.


Sec.  572.161  General description.

    (a) The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy is 
defined by drawings and specifications containing the following 
materials:
    (1) Technical drawings and specifications package (drawing 167-
0000), the titles of which are listed in Table A;
    (2) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of 
the Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy [a date will be 
inserted in the final rule].

                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Drawing
                      Component assembly                          No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head assembly................................................   127-1000
Neck assembly................................................   127-1015
Upper torso assembly.........................................   167-2000
Lower torso assembly.........................................   167-3000
Leg assembly.................................................   127-4000
Arm assembly.................................................   127-5000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such that except for 
contacts existing under static conditions, there is no contact between 
metallic elements throughout the range of motion or under simulated 
crash impact conditions.
    (c) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy 
must conform to this subpart in every respect before use in any test 
similar to those specified in Standard 208, ``Occupant Crash 
Protection'' (49 CFR 571.208), and Standard 213, ``Child Restraint 
Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213).


Sec.  572.162  Head assembly and test procedure.

    The head assembly is assembled and tested as specified in 49 CFR 
572.122.


Sec.  572.163  Neck assembly and test procedure.

    The neck assembly is assembled and tested as specified in 49 CFR 
572.123.


Sec.  572.164  Thorax assembly and test procedure.

    (a) Thorax (upper torso) assembly. The thorax consists of the part 
of the torso assembly shown in drawing 167-2000.
    (b) When the anterior surface of the thorax of a completely 
assembled dummy (drawing 167-2000) that is seated as shown in Figure S1 
is impacted by a test probe conforming to 49 CFR 572.127(a) at 6.71 +/- 
0.12 m/s (22.0 +/- 0.4 ft/s) according to the test procedure specified 
in 49 CFR 572.124(c):
    (1) The maximum sternum displacement relative to the spine, 
measured with chest deflection transducer (drawing 127-8050), must be 
not less than 38.0 mm (1.50 in) and not more than 46.0 mm (1.80 in). 
Within this specified compression corridor, the peak force, measured by 
the probe in accordance with 49 CFR 572.127, must be not less than 1225 
N (275 lbf) and not more than 1455 N (327 lbf). The peak force after 
12.5 mm (0.5 in) of sternum displacement, but before reaching the 
minimum required 38.0 mm (1.46 in) sternum displacement limit, must not 
exceed by more than 10 percent the value of the peak force measured 
within the required displacement limit.
    (2) The internal hysteresis of the ribcage in each impact as 
determined by the plot of force vs. deflection in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section must be not less than 65 percent but not more than 85 
percent.
    (c) Test procedure. The thorax assembly is tested as specified in 
49 CFR 572.124(c).


Sec.  572.165  Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test 
procedure.

    (a) Upper/lower torso assembly. The test objective is to determine 
the stiffness effects of the lumbar spine (drawing 127-3002), including 
cable (drawing 127-8095), mounting plate insert (drawing 127-910420-
048), nylon shoulder busing (drawing 9001373), nut

[[Page 24426]]

(drawing 90013360), spine box weighting plates (drawings 167-2010-1 and 
-2), lumbar base weight (drawing 167-3010), and abdominal insert 
(drawing 127-8210), on resistance to articulation between the upper 
torso assembly (drawing 167-2000) and the lower torso assembly (drawing 
167-3000).
    (b)(1) When the upper torso assembly of a seated dummy is subjected 
to a force continuously applied at the head to neck pivot pin level 
through a rigidly attached adaptor bracket as shown in Figure S2 
according to the test procedure set out in 49 CFR 572.125(c), the 
lumbar spine-abdomen assembly must flex by an amount that permits the 
upper torso assembly to translate in angular motion until the machined 
surface of the instrument cavity at the back of the thoracic spine box 
is at 45 +/- 0.5 degrees relative to the transverse plane, at which 
time the force applied as shown in Figure S2 must be not less than 85 N 
(18.5 lbf) and not more than 125 N (27.5 lbs), and
    (2) Upon removal of the force, the torso assembly must return to 
within 8 degrees of its initial position.
    (c) Test procedure. The upper and lower torso assemblies are tested 
as specified in 49 CFR 572.125(c), except that in paragraph (5) of that 
section, the initial torso orientation angle may not exceed 32 degrees.


Sec.  572.166  Knees and knee impact test procedure.

    The knee assembly is assembled and tested as specified in 49 CFR 
572.126.


Sec.  572.167  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    The test conditions and instrumentation are as specified in 49 CFR 
572.127.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 24427]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY03.000


[[Page 24428]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY03.001


    Issued: May 1, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-11294 Filed 5-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C