[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 136 (Friday, July 16, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42595-42605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-04-18075]
RIN 2127-AI58


Child Restraint Systems; Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III 
Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy

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

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding a new subpart 
describing a weighted version of the current Hybrid III six-year-old 
child size dummy (HIII-6C). The weighted dummy weighs 62 pounds, 
approximately ten pounds more than the current HIII-6C. The dummy will 
be used in compliance tests under the Federal child restraint standard 
to test the structural integrity of child restraints recommended for 
use by children weighing over 50 pounds. This document also makes a 
technical amendment to the child restraint standard by adding cross-
references to the subpart added by today's document.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule becomes effective January 12, 
2005. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of January 12, 2005.
    Petitions for reconsideration must be received by August 30, 2004 
and should refer to this docket and the notice number of this document 
and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, Sean 
Doyle, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-1740.
    For legal issues, Chris Calamita, NHTSA 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: 

I. Background

    In June 2003, NHTSA issued a final rule amending Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, to 
add a weighted (62-pound) dummy to the compliance testing of child 
restraint systems recommended for use by larger children; i.e., 
children weighing 50 to 65 pounds (lb)(68 FR 37620; June 24, 2003; 
Docket No. 03-15351). The rule specified that the agency will use the 
dummy to test such child restraints that are manufactured on or after 
August 1, 2005. The weighted dummy will be used as a means of ballast 
to evaluate the structural integrity of the child restraints; i.e., to 
ensure that restraints certified up to 65 lb would not structurally 
fail in a crash.
    Over the years, NHTSA has incorporated new and improved child test 
dummies into the compliance tests of FMVSS No. 213 as a means of 
ensuring a fuller evaluation of child restraint performance. The June 
2003 final rule replaced most of the existing dummies used in the 
standard with a new 12-month-old Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction 
dummy, and state-of-the art Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-old dummies. NHTSA 
proposed to incorporate the weighted 6-year-old dummy (which is a HIII-
6C to which weights have been added) into 49 CFR Part 572, so that the 
dummy could be used in the dynamic testing of child restraints 
recommended for children weighing above 50 lb. Without the weighted 
dummy with which to test such restraints, there would have been little 
practical effect of extending the application of FMVSS No. 213 to child 
restraint systems recommended for children above 50 lb.
    Incorporation of the weighted 6-year-old dummy (referred to as the 
``HIII-6CW'') was viewed as an interim measure until such time as a 
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy (HIII-10C), now under development, becomes 
available. At the request of NHTSA, the Dummy Family Task Group of the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE-DFTG) has taken the lead in 
designing and developing a HIII-10C. Development of the dummy has been 
further reinforced by Congress, which on December 4, 2002, enacted P.L. 
107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002; 116 Stat. 2772) (``Anton's Law''). Section 4 of 
P.L. 107-318 directs the Secretary of Transportation to ``develop and 
evaluate an anthropomorphic test

[[Page 42596]]

device that simulates a 10-year old child for use in testing child 
restraints used in passenger motor vehicles.''
    NHTSA is making progress evaluating the HIII-10C (76 lb) to 
determine its suitability for incorporation into 49 CFR Part 572, 
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies. In the meantime, prior to completion of 
that evaluation, the weighted 6-year-old dummy will be used to 
approximate children in the seven to eight year old age bracket, i.e., 
children above 50 pounds.
    NHTSA originally considered using all the measurement capabilities 
of the weighted dummy in FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests, including the 
dummy's instrumentation for measuring the potential for injuries to a 
child's head, the upper and lower ends of the neck, and the chest, as 
well as other body regions. However, because of concerns about the 
biofidelity of the weighted dummy, NHTSA decided to use the weighted 
dummy only to test the structural integrity of child restraints. 68 FR 
37620, supra.

II. Notice Proposing the Weighted Dummy

    On May 7, 2003, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) that proposed to add the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy to 49 CFR 
Part 572 in order to complement the then-proposed (now required) use of 
a HIII-6CW in FMVSS No. 213 (68 FR 24417). The NPRM proposed 
calibration requirements for the test dummy's thorax and lumbar flexion 
tests.

Evaluation of the Weighted Dummy

    In developing the NPRM, 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 HIII-6CW dummy with 
that of the unmodified Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (``HIII-6C dummy''). 
The agency followed the calibration test procedures specified for the 
HIII-6C 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 will 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 also conducted ten high acceleration (HYGE) sled tests 
with both the HIII-6C and the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy in seating 
configurations restrained with three point belts and belt positioning 
booster seats. All tests were performed using the FMVSS No. 213 pulse 
(24g, 30 mph) and sled mounted seating buck.

Proposed Incorporation of the Weighted Dummy (HIII-6CW)

    Based on the testing and evaluation of the HIII-6CW, \1\ the agency 
tentatively concluded that the weighted dummy would be appropriate to 
serve as an interim measure for evaluating the safety of child 
restraint systems designed for children over 50 pounds. Accordingly, 
the agency proposed to incorporate the HIII-6CW dummy into 49 CFR Part 
572 as Subpart S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the technical report entitled ``Evaluation of the 
Weighted Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Child Dummy,'' October 2001. 
(Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11707-2.)''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency proposed the same drawings and specifications for the 
weighted dummy as the drawings and specifications for the HIII-6C dummy 
in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart N, with the following modifications in four 
main areas affected by the addition of the weights.
    First, the drawings for the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy's upper and 
lower torso assemblies were modified to include the spine box weighting 
plates and pelvis weighting spacer. To obtain a more uniform mass 
distribution and to accommodate sufficient mass within the available 
space, the agency proposed using a dense Tungsten alloy material. The 
agency decided against the use of a commercially available weighted 
vest on the test dummy because of its bulkiness and the potential of 
rattling or inertial slap \2\ during sled tests, with the possibility 
of affecting the dummy's instrumentation responses. The agency also 
decided against the use of carbon steel weights because their size 
would reduce available thorax deflection space, and they would result 
in the elevation of the dummy's seated height by one inch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because the weighed vest would permit some movement of the 
weights independent of the test dummy, the weights could continue to 
move forward for a brief period after the dummy has fully 
decelerated and then slap back onto the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with regard to the thorax assembly and test procedure 
specifications for the HIII-6C dummy (49 CFR 572.124(b)(1)), the peak 
force defining the compression corridor was proposed to be changed from 
1150-1380 Newtons (N) (259-310 lbf) for the HIII-6C dummy to 1225-1455 
N (275-327 lbf) for the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy. This was in response 
to test results that showed the HIII-6CW dummy responding with somewhat 
higher resistance forces to pendulum impact than the HIII-6C dummy. The 
higher force range reflected mass changes in the thorax that are needed 
to convert the HIII-6C to the HIII-6CW dummy. Additionally, Sec.  
572.124(b)(1) specifies that peak thoracic response forces for the 
HIII-6C must occur between 38 and 46 mm of rib cage compression, but 
that an early first peak transition force is permitted provided that it 
occurred after 12.5 mm but before 38 mm of sternum displacement and 
does not exceed by five percent the specified peak force at maximum 
thorax compression. The agency proposed limiting the transition force 
for the HIII-6CW to not more than ten percent of the peak specified 
value at maximum permissible deflection. This change addressed the fact 
that the weighted dummy did not consistently meet the 5 percent limit 
during testing.
    Third, with regard to the upper and lower torso assemblies flexion 
test specifications for the HIII-6C dummy (49 CFR 572.125(b)(1)), the 
specification for the force applied as shown in Figure S2 was proposed 
to be changed for the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy from 147-200 N (33-45 
lbf) to 85-125 N (18.5-27.5 lbf). The HIII-6CW dummy yielded an average 
resistance to flexion force of 103 N (23.2 lbf), well below the 147-200 
N range permitted for the HIII-6C. The HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy 
exhibited very good repeatability of resistance force in the flexion 
tests as well as no signs of related component deterioration in the 
sled tests. Accordingly, the agency tentatively concluded that lowering 
the range would impact neither the dummy's durability nor consistency.
    Fourth, with regard to the upper and lower torso assemblies test 
procedure specifications for the HIII-6C dummy (49 CFR 572.125(c)(5)), 
the initial torso orientation angle specification for the HIII-6CW 
(weighted) dummy was proposed to be changed from 22 degrees to 32 
degrees. The proposed increase in the initial torso orientation angle 
was to accommodate the additional mass load located on the spine box of 
the weighted dummy.
    Copies of the proposed Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and 
Inspection (PADI) (September 2002) and of the draft Parts List and 
Drawings for the H-III6CW, Alpha Version (September 13, 2002) were 
placed in Docket No. 2003-15089-1.

III. Comments and Agency Decision

    The agency received four comments to the NPRM, all of which 
generally

[[Page 42597]]

supported the incorporation of the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy into Part 
572. Some of the commenters--Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 
(Advocates), Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo), and the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) \3\--had concerns about the limits 
of the dummy in providing a full evaluation of child restraints. A 
dummy manufacturer (Denton ATD, Inc.) suggested technical changes to 
some of the proposed calibration tests and drawings for the dummy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The members of Alliance are BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford 
Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, 
Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
    \4\ On August 8, 2003, Denton ATD petitioned the agency for 
reconsideration of a final rule that amended FMVSS No. 213 to adopt 
the III-6C dummy into the standard's compliance test procedures (68 
FR 37620; June 24, 2003; Docket No. NHTSA-03-15351). In part, Denton 
asked NHTSA to amend the specifications for the clothing and shoes 
for the dummy. The agency will be responding to the petition in the 
near future. We not that today's final rule for the weighted dummy 
relies on the clothing and shoes specifications of the unweighted 
dummy. Therefore, any future changes to the clothing and shoe 
specifications for the HIII-6C dummy will also amend the clothing 
and shoes specifications for the HIII-6CW dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule adopts the HIII-6CW dummy into Part 572 generally 
as proposed, except we have modified some of the performance criteria 
after considering the comments to the NPRM. A discussion of the issues 
raised by the comments is set forth below. A copy of the Procedures for 
Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (April 2004) for the dummy, and 
copies of the Parts List and Drawings for the H-III6CW, Alpha Version 
(April 2004) can be found in the docket for this final rule.

Interim Use of the Weighted Dummy

    Issue No. 1: Advocates, Evenflo and the Alliance supported 
incorporation of the weighted dummy to facilitate testing the 
structural integrity of CRSs recommended for children weighing more 
than 50 lb, but only as an interim measure until the Hybrid III 10-
year-old dummy is adopted. The Alliance encouraged the agency to 
expedite the development of the 10-year-old test dummy and not to 
``expend any additional resources toward the establishment of injury 
assessment capabilities'' for the weighted 6-year-old dummy.
    Response: Based on the results from testing and evaluation, the 
agency has concluded that the weighted dummy is appropriate for 
evaluating certain aspects of the dynamic performance of child 
restraint systems designed for children over 50 lb. In particular, the 
weighted dummy is representative of children who would be using child 
restraints recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb, and the dummy 
has demonstrated the durability required to assess the structural 
integrity of these child restraints. Accordingly, the agency is 
incorporating the weighted 6-year-old dummy into 49 CFR Part 572 as 
Subpart S. As the agency stated in the June 24, 2003 final rule, the 
agency is seeking to use a HIII-10C dummy eventually to test booster 
seats certified for use by children with higher weights. While the 
development of the HIII-10C dummy proceeds at the quickest possible 
pace, the HIII-6CW will provide the agency with an interim test device 
for evaluating child restraint systems recommended for children 
weighing more than 50 lb.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Even if the HIII-10C dummy were added to FMVSS No. 213's 
compliance test procedures, there may still be a need for the 
weighted 6-year-old to represent children between the ages of six 
and ten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue No. 2: Advocates expressed concern that a 62-lb dummy will be 
used to test child restraints recommended for children weighing up to 
65 lb. Advocates stated that a child who weighs 65 lb is 5 percent 
heavier than the maximum weight of the weighted dummy. Advocates 
requested that the agency demonstrate there to be no practical 
difference in real-world performance between the weighted dummy and a 
65-lb child.
    Response: The commenter raised this identical comment in the 
agency's recently-completed rulemaking on FMVSS No. 213 (68 FR 37620, 
supra). As we responded to Advocates in the FMVSS No. 213 rulemaking, 
we are confident in the ability of the 62-pound dummy to test 
restraints recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb. There will be 
less than a 3-lb difference between the dummy weight and the maximum 
certification weight of the child restraint; a difference of roughly 
4.5 percent. The 33-lb Hybrid III three-year-old test dummy that has 
been long-used in FMVSS No. 213 has proven efficient at testing 
restraints certified to a maximum weight of 40 lb. This is a difference 
of 7 lb, or 17.5 percent.

Performance Specifications

    Under FMVSS No. 213, child restraints manufactured on or after 
August 1, 2005 and recommended for children weighing over 50 lb will be 
tested with the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy. The dummy will be used to 
evaluate the structural integrity of the restraints and will not be 
used to ascertain the performance of the restraints in limiting forces 
to the child dummy. However, while the HIII-6CW dummy's instrumentation 
will not be used at this time to determine compliance with the child 
restraint standard, the dummy may be instrumented to collect data for 
use in research. Data collected on the weighted dummy may provide 
assistance in the future development of injury criteria for this age 
group. Accordingly, this final rule includes procedures for calibration 
tests to ensure that the results are repeatable and reproducible.
    Issue No. 1 (Frequency of calibration): Evenflo requested that the 
agency amend the Laboratory Test Procedure (LTP) for FMVSS No. 213 (TP-
213) to require confirmation of the dummy's calibration each time it is 
changed between the weighted and non-weighted set-up. Evenflo stated 
that evaluation of the dummy did not address the effects of multiple 
tests or conversions between normal and weighted mode over several 
months. As such, Evenflo recommended that the calibration of dummy be 
assessed more frequently.
    Response: We do not believe there is a need to amend LTP to include 
a requirement that the dummy be calibrated each time the weights are 
added or removed. The frequency of calibration is generally dependant 
on the type of test being run. The certification process typically 
requires re-calibration of the test dummy if the test dummy is 
disassembled and then reassembled. In order to change a 6-year-old 
dummy from weighted to unweighted, or visa versa, it is necessary to 
dismantle the dummy. Therefore, under the existing procedures it must 
be recalibrated before use.
    Issue No. 2 (Thorax impact test): In developing the NPRM, the 
agency performed seven thorax impacts with a single weighted dummy. In 
these tests, the peak pendulum force responses in the dummy's thoracic 
deflection range of 38-46 mm met the specifications for the HIII-6C 
dummy in all tests. However, the average response was close to the 
upper limit of the specified corridor. In response to these results, 
the agency proposed changing the corridor from 1150-1380 N (for the 
unmodified HIII-6C dummy) to 1225-1455 N for the HIII-6CW dummy. The 
shift in the corridor was to assure better centering of the response 
specification.
    Denton commented that the agency evaluation of the HIII-6CW dummy 
was insufficient to justify proposing a corridor different from those 
in the thorax impact test required for the unmodified HIII-6C. Denton 
was concerned that only a single dummy was tested to develop a new 
corridor. Denton suggested that either the agency

[[Page 42598]]

propose the same corridor used for the unmodified HIII-6C in 49 CFR 
Part 572 subpart N, or generate more data to justify the change.
    The commenter submitted data from seven tests that it performed on 
a single dummy with and without the weights.\6\ According to Denton's 
data, both the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy and the HIII-6C dummy passed 
the 49 CFR Part 572 subpart N requirements. Denton's data from the 
weighted dummy demonstrated a slight difference in performance as 
compared to the unmodified dummy, but Denton stated that this was 
insignificant in relation to the corridor. Further, the weighted dummy 
tested by Denton performed close to the lower margin of the proposed 
corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Denton's comments to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In reviewing the data submitted by Denton, the agency has 
determined that Denton's data should be pooled with the agency's data 
to generate a larger sample size. Denton stated that, before the 
weights were added, the test dummies met the certification procedures 
for the HIII-6C test dummy as specified in 49 CFR Part 572 subpart N. 
NHTSA reviewed the data and has determined that the results indicate 
that the test dummies were biofidelic and appropriate for 
consideration.
    With regards to the thorax impact test, Denton supplied the agency 
with three more thorax impact tests performed on a weighted dummy.\7\ 
The dummy tested by Denton fit within the thorax corridors proposed by 
the agency, although with slightly lower values than generated by the 
agency's testing. Based on the results of Denton's thorax impact tests, 
the agency was able to generate a larger sample size to evaluate the 
HIII-6CW dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average of the pooled sample still results in a corridor higher 
than that used for the HIII-6C dummy, but lower than that originally 
proposed for the weighted dummy. Based on the average of the larger 
sample size, the agency is adopting a peak pendulum force corridor of 
1205-1435 N (270.9-322.6 lbf) during the maximum allowed deflection 
range of 38 to 46 mm.
    Issue No. 3 (Peak pendulum force): The NPRM proposed that the peak 
pendulum force during the thoracic deflection range of 12.5 and 38 mm 
not exceed by more than 10 percent the value of the peak force during 
the deflection range of 38 to 46 mm. The proposal was based on the 
agency's data indicating that the dummy it tested did not pass the 5 
percent limit specified by 49 CFR Part 572 subpart N.
    Denton recommended that the final rule retain the force limit 
between 12.5 mm and 38 mm currently in subpart N. Denton stated that 
since the issuance of the original technical report in October 2001, 
subpart N has been amended to change the force limit between 12.5 mm 
and 38 mm to an upper limit of 1500 N (67 FR 47328; July 18, 2002). 
Denton stated that the 1500 N limit is five standard deviations above 
the average measured on the weighted dummy evaluated for the proposal. 
Denton was concerned that keeping the proposed 10 percent limit could 
lead to the weighted dummy requiring special ribs.
    Response: The agency agrees that the current upper limit of 1500 N 
has eliminated the need to permit a 10 percent excedance during the 
thoracic deflection range of 12.5-38 mm. Subsequent to the development 
of the HIII-6CW (weighted) dummy technical report, the agency increased 
the peak force limit for the sternum displacement test to 1500 N (67 FR 
47321; July 18, 2002). All of the data submitted by Denton and 
generated by the agency for the sternum displacement test was below the 
1500 N maximum, demonstrating that the increased maximum limit of 1500 
N is valid for the HIII-6CW dummy as well as for the un-weighted dummy. 
Further, adoption of this maximum maintains consistency with HIII-6C 
dummy specifications.
    Issue No. 4 (Torso flexion test): In developing the NPRM, the 
agency performed six torso flexion tests with the weighted dummy. The 
results indicated that the durability and structural integrity of the 
weighted dummy were not compromised by the added weight. However, the 
weighted dummy did not meet the established flexion force corridors for 
the HIII-6C dummy.
    Agency testing demonstrated that the additional mass located on the 
spine box of the weighted dummy is responsible for an increase in the 
initial torso setup angle; an average of 31.2 degrees as opposed to the 
maximum of 22 degrees specified for the HIII-6C test dummy. As a result 
the agency proposed that the initial torso orientation angle must not 
exceed 32 degrees.
    Denton stated that the agency evaluation of the single dummy was 
insufficient to propose shifting the force and initial angle corridors 
for the torso flexion test prescribed in 49 CFR Part 572 subpart N. 
Denton submitted data from its evaluation of one dummy tested with 
abdomens having different stiffness attributes: A ``hard'' abdomen and 
a ``soft'' abdomen. (Denton states that the hard abdomen is about 20 
percent stiffer in a quasi-static compression test than the soft 
abdomen.) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the data submitted by Denton, see Docket No. NHTSA-2003-
15089-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Denton's results showed that the weighted dummy with both the hard 
and the soft abdomens could pass the proposed 32 degree initial angle. 
However, while the weighted dummy with the hard abdomen passed the 
return angle test, the weighted dummy with the soft abdomen failed. 
Based on these results, Denton suggested that the final angle may need 
to be increased slightly if existing dummy's are to be retrofitted with 
weights.
    Response: The dummy tested by Denton was certified to the subpart N 
requirements prior to the addition of the weights. The agency has thus 
determined that Denton's data are valid and should be considered by the 
agency. Based on the additional data provided by Denton, the final rule 
requires that for the 45-degree flexion test the torso of the weighted 
dummy must return within 9 degrees of the initial torso position upon 
removal of the flexion force. Denton tested both a soft and a hard 
abdomen, which permits the agency to better consider the range of HIII-
6C dummies that exist in the field. Relying on the pooled data, the 
increase from the 8 degrees proposed by the NPRM addresses the slightly 
higher return angle average of Denton's data.
    Issue No. 5 (Dummy resistance force specification): In pre-NPRM 
agency testing, the HIII-6CW (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 was lower than the 
resistance force of 173.5  26.5 N (39  6 lbf) 
specified for the HIII-6C dummy. The result was attributed to the 
addition of the weights and was not seen as an indication that the 
durability or structural integrity of the dummy was compromised. 
Accordingly, the agency proposed a dummy resistance force specification 
of 105  20 N (23  4.5 lbf) for the weighted 
dummy.
    Denton commented that it disagreed with the proposed force corridor 
based on its tests of weighted dummies with the hard and soft abdomens. 
Denton explained that it had expected the weighted dummy with the hard 
abdomen to perform at the middle of the proposed corridor and the dummy 
with the soft abdomen to perform at the lower end of the proposed 
corridor. Denton stated, however, that both

[[Page 42599]]

dummies tested below the minimum force of the corridor proposed in the 
NPRM. The commenter concluded that the proposed corridor was too high. 
The commenter believed that, because the dummy used in the agency's 
evaluation was not tested without weights, it cannot be determined if 
the dummy may have simply performed at the upper limit of the standard. 
Denton urged the agency to do more testing on multiple dummies in 
multiple laboratories to develop and validate a force corridor before 
incorporating a corridor into the standard.
    Response: Denton provided a total of six test results from torso 
flexion tests that it performed on two different weighted dummies. As 
explained above, the agency has determined that both the data from 
agency testing and testing performed by Denton are appropriate for 
pooling to generate a larger sample size.
    The dummies in Denton's testing did not meet the proposed 
resistance force corridor. (Denton's data ranged from 69 to 80 N. See, 
Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15089-4.) The agency recognizes that test 
response variation can result from variations in the abdominal 
stiffness and the abdomen's interaction with the ribcage. The average 
of the larger sample size is 88.6 N. Based on the larger sample size of 
data, the agency is adopting a resistance force specification of 88.6 
 20 N (20.0  4.5 lbf) for the 45-degree flexion 
test.

Method of Adding Weights to the Dummy

    To minimize the increase in seated height of the dummy and to 
obtain a more uniform mass distribution, NHTSA proposed to use a dense 
Tungsten alloy material to add the additional weight to the HIII-6C 
test dummy. The higher density of the Tungsten alloy allowed the lumbar 
base weight to be fabricated thinner than what would have been required 
to achieve a similar mass increase by using carbon steel, allowing the 
dummy's seating height to be increased by only 0.72 inches (instead of 
a one-inch height increase resulting from use of carbon steel spacers). 
The design of the Tungsten alloy plates distributed the added weight 
more uniformly between the upper and lower torso halves. The Tungsten 
alloy material also allowed the agency to increase the added weight at 
the bottom of the lumbar spine (hereinafter referred to as ``pelvis'') 
from 3.8 lb to 4.9 lb while maintaining the thoracic spine weight 
increase at 5.2 lb.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The spine weights consist of two 2.6-pound plates, one on 
each lateral side of the thoracic spine. The Tungsten alloy weights 
also only increase the dummy's seated height by 0.7 inch, compared 
to carbon steel weights, which would increase the dummy's seated 
height by 1 inch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue No. 1: The proposed dimensions for the holes to attach the 
weights, the distance between these holes in the vertical dimension, 
and the overall size dimensions on the weights all have two decimal 
place dimensions. Denton commented that this implies a standard  0.01 inch tolerance. Denton stated that the proposed tolerances 
would result in potential problems aligning the holes in the weights 
with the corresponding holes in the dummy's spine box. Denton 
recommended that: ``the specifications incorporate a Geometric 
Dimension and Tolerancing (GD & T) true position tolerance of  0.002 inches at maximum material condition on one hole with the 
centerline of the other hole as the datum[.]''
    Denton indicated that this would assure that any combination of 
parts made according to the specifications would always fit together. 
Denton further stated that under the proposed tolerance for the 
distance between holes in the vertical dimension, the mating parts 
would not match at nominal, further exacerbating the fit problem. 
Denton recommended that the distance dimensions be specified to three 
decimal places.
    Denton also stated that the  0.01 inch tolerance for 
the weight measurements could give a variation in weight of up to 0.26 
lb total for the thorax. To avoid potential problems with this weight 
variance in the spine box weights, Denton recommended using three 
decimal place dimensioning.
    Response: The agency agrees with Denton that three-decimal-place 
dimensions are required to define the location of the holes in 167-
2020-1&2. The corresponding hole locations in the 127-series drawing 
utilize three-decimal place dimensions and thus, in order to maintain 
consistency, the 167-series drawing will adopt the same scheme. The 
agency does not believe that a true position tolerance is necessary and 
in order to maintain consistency with the 127-series drawings, the 
agency is not adopting the dimension tolerancing recommended by Denton. 
The tolerances used in the 127-series drawings have not utilized the 
true position callout and the agency has not encountered any resulting 
mating problems for the dummy components therefore the agency does not 
expect any fit problems with the spine box. The agency also disagrees 
with Denton's proposal to change the length, width, and height 
dimensions to three-decimal-place dimensions. This change would only 
reduce the possible weight variation to .07 pounds per piece, a 
relatively insignificant amount. Furthermore, the tungsten alloy is a 
relatively difficult material to machine and holding tighter tolerances 
may increase the machining costs.
    Issue No. 2: The proposed design of the spine box plate used a 
counterbore for the screw heads so that there are left and right 
weights. Denton recommended replacing the counterbore with a through 
hole, which would allow a single weight to be made and used. Denton 
stated that a single design for the spine box plate would reduce 
manufacturing and inventory costs.
    Response: We agree. The agency is adopting a spine box plate design 
with a through hole as opposed to a counterbore for mounting. The 
through hole will be suitable for mounting the plate on either the left 
or right side of the dummy's spine, while reducing the confusion with 
multiple parts. We agree with Denton that by allowing use of a through 
hole, the manufacturing and inventorying costs may be reduced.
    The use of the through hole does not result in any interference. 
The new design will at a maximum, result in a difference in weight of 
0.027 lb per spine box weight or a total of 0.054 lb overall. The 
nominal weight of the upper torso is 17.33 lb, thus the proposed 
elimination of the counterbore feature would only change the total mass 
of the upper torso by 0.31 percent. In relation to the weight of the 
entire dummy, this change is insignificant.

IV. Technical Amendment

    This document also makes a technical amendment to FMVSS No. 213 by 
adding cross-references to 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S (the subpart 
added by today's document) to various paragraphs in FMVSS No. 213 that 
refer to the ``weighted'' 6-year-old dummy. This amendment clarifies 
FMVSS No. 213 and makes no substantive change to the standard. The June 
24, 2003 final rule that adopted the weighted 6-year-old dummy into 
FMVSS No. 213 referenced this rulemaking on the HIII-6CW in referring 
to the weighted dummy (see 68 FR at 37652, col. 2). Because today's 
final rule completes the addition of Subpart S into 49 CFR Part 572, we 
are amending S5(d), S7.1.2(e), S9.1(f) and S9.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 to 
refer to the weighted dummy as the Subpart S dummy.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We are also correcting S7.1.1(e) of FMVSS No. 213 by 
deleting paragraph (e) of that section. S7.1.1 sets forth 
requirements that apply to child restraints manufactured before 
August 1, 2005. The requirement of S7.1.1(e) apply to child 
restraints manufactured on or after August 1, 2005 and thus does not 
belong in S7.1.1.

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

[[Page 42600]]

V. Costs

    The agency estimates that the base cost of the new weighted 6-year-
old child size dummy would be $31,170. The cost of an uninstrumented 
HIII-6C test dummy is approximately $30,000.\11\ The cost difference of 
$1,170 is as follows: Raw tungsten alloy materials for the weights are 
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 an uninstrumented dummy, depending on the amount 
of data desired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the H-III6C dummy final rule at 65 FR 2064 (January 13, 
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Benefits

    The agency has not quantified any benefits to the public from this 
rulemaking. There are qualitative benefits. The weighted 6-year-old 
child size dummy provides a suitable, repeatable, and objective test 
tool to the automotive safety community for development of improved 
safety systems for older children. In the absence of the dummy, the 
structural integrity of booster seats and child restraint systems 
designed for children from 50 to approximately 65 pounds was not 
evaluated. With the dummy, this aspect of performance can be appraised 
under FMVSS No. 213 in a meaningful manner.

VII. Lead Time

    This final rule is effective in 180 days. The agency believes that 
lead time is not a major factor for upweighting the HIII-6C. The 
weights can be attached relatively easily. The HIII-6CW dummy will be 
used in FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests to test child restraints 
(typically booster seats) manufactured on or after August 1, 2005.

VIII. 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 amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and 
performance specifications for a weighted 6-year-old child dummy that 
the agency will use in conducting its tests under FMVSS No. 213. If 
this final rule affects only those businesses that choose to 
manufacture or test with the dummy. It does not require anyone to 
manufacture or use the dummy.
    The cost of an uninstrumented H-III6C dummy is approximately 
$30,000.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See the H-III6C dummy final rule at 65 FR 2064 (January 13, 
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the economic impacts of this final rule 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 amendment does 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The amendment does not impose any requirements on anyone. 
Therefore, it does 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 does 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

[[Page 42601]]

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 final rule 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 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 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 adopted 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), 
Pub. L. 104-4, Federal requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule 
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 
generally requires 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 final rule does not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
UMRA. This final rule does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate 
because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49 CFR 
Part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for a weighted 
6-year-old child dummy that the agency will use in FMVSS No. 213 and 
could use in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This final 
rule affects only those businesses that choose to manufacture or test 
with the dummy. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

I. 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.

J. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments or 
petitions 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.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 572

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S5(d), S7.1.2(e), S9.1(f) and 
S9.3.2, and removing S7.1.1(e), to read as follows:


Sec.  571.213  Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S5 * * *
    (d) Each child restraint tested with a Part 572 Subpart S dummy 
need not meet S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.
* * * * *
    S7.1.2 * * *
    (e) A child restraint that is manufactured on or after August 1, 
2005, that is recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 
for use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any 
children

[[Page 42602]]

having a mass greater than 22.7 kg or by children in a specified height 
range that includes any children whose erect standing height is greater 
than 1100 mm is tested with a part 572 subpart S dummy.
* * * * *
    S9.1 * * *
    (f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N) and 
Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S). When 
used in testing under this standard, the dummies specified in 49 CFR 
Part 572, Subpart N and Subpart S, are clothed in a light-weight cotton 
stretch short-sleeve shirt and above-the-knee pants, and size 12\1/2\ M 
sneakers with rubber toe caps, uppers of dacron and cotton or nylon and 
a total mass of 0.453 kg.
* * * * *
    S9.3.2 When using the test dummies conforming to Part 572 Subparts 
N, P, R, or S, prepare the dummies as specified in this paragraph. 
Before being used in testing under this standard, dummies must be 
conditioned at any ambient temperature from 20.6[deg] to 22.2[deg] C 
and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at 
least 4 hours.
* * * * *

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

0
3. 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.


0
4. 49 CFR part 572 is 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 Test conditions and instrumentation.

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 S by reference:
    (1) A drawings and specifications package entitled ``Parts List and 
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III Weighted Six-Year Old Child 
Test Dummy (H-III6CW, Alpha Version) April 13, 2004'', incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  572.161 and consisting of:
    (i) Drawing No. 167-0000, Complete Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  572.161;
    (ii) Drawing No. 167-2000, Upper Torso Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Sec. Sec.  572.161, 572.164, and 572.165 as part of a 
complete dummy assembly;
    (iii) Drawing No. 167-2020, Spine Box Weight, incorporated by 
reference in Sec. Sec.  572.161 and 572.165 as part of a complete dummy 
assembly;
    (iv) Drawing No. 167-3000, Lower Torso Assembly, incorporated by 
reference in Sec. Sec.  572.161, and 572.165 as part of a complete 
dummy assembly;
    (v) Drawing No. 167-3010, Lumbar Weight Base, incorporated by 
reference in Sec. Sec.  572.161 and 572.165 as part of a complete dummy 
assembly; and
    (vi) The Hybrid III Weighted Six-Year-Old Child Parts/Drawing List, 
incorporated by reference in Sec.  572.161.
    (2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III Six-Year-Old 
Weighted Child Test Dummy (H-III6CW), April 2004,'' incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  572.161;
    (3) 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 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) 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) [Reserved]


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) ``Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III 
Weighted Six-Year Old Child Test Dummy (H-III6CW, Alpha Version) April 
13, 2004'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.160),
    (2) The head, neck, arm, and leg assemblies specified in 49 CFR 572 
subpart N; and
    (3) ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) 
of the Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy, April 2004'' 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.160).

                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Component assembly \1\                    Drawing No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete assembly..........................................     167-0000
Upper torso assembly.......................................     167-2000
Spine box weight...........................................     167-2020
Lower torso assembly.......................................     167-3000
Lumbar weight base.........................................    167-3010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Head, neck, arm, and leg assemblies are as specified in 49 CFR 572
  subpart N.

    (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 Subpart S in every respect and Subpart N as applicable, 
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 (Subpart N).


Sec.  572.163  Neck assembly and test procedure.

    The neck assembly is assembled and tested as specified in 49 CFR 
572.123 (Subpart N).


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 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  572.160).
    (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):

[[Page 42603]]

    (1) The maximum sternum displacement relative to the spine, 
measured with chest deflection transducer (specified in 49 CFR 
572.124(b)(1)), 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 1205 N (270.9 lbf) and not more than 1435 N 
(322.6 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 an upper limit of 1500 
N.
    (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 (specified in 49 CFR 
572.125(a)), including cable (specified in 49 CFR 572.125(a)), mounting 
plate insert (specified in 49 CFR 572.125(a)), nylon shoulder bushing 
(specified in 49 CFR 572.125(a)), nut (specified in 49 CFR 572.125(a)), 
spine box weighting plates (drawing 167-2020), lumbar base weight 
(drawing 167-3010), and abdominal insert (specified in 49 CFR 
572.125(a)), on resistance to articulation between the upper torso 
assembly (drawing 167-2000) and the lower torso assembly (drawing 167-
3000). Drawing Nos. 167-2000, 167-2020, 167-3000 and 167-3010 are 
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.160.
    (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 within 88.6 
N  20 N (20.0 N  4.5 N), and
    (2) Upon removal of the force, the torso assembly must return to 
within 9 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 (c)(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 (Subpart N).


Sec.  572.167  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    The test conditions and instrumentation are as specified in 49 CFR 
572.127 (Subpart N).
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Figures to Subpart S

[[Page 42604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY04.005


[[Page 42605]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY04.006


    Issued: July 7, 2004.
Otis G. Cox,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-15851 Filed 7-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C