Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42469

may also file informal comments or an

exact copy of formal comments

electronically via the Internet at <http:/

/gullfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/cgi-bin/

comment/comment.hts>. Only one copy

of electronically-filed comments must

be submitted. A commenter must note

whether an electronic submission is an

exact copy of formal comments on the

subject line. A commenter also must

include its full name and Postal Service

mailing address in its submission.

Parties are also asked to submit their

comments and reply comments on

diskette. Such diskette submissions are

in addition to and not a substitute for

the formal filing requirements addressed

above. Parties submitting diskettes

should submit them to Sheryl Todd of

the Common Carrier Bureau, 2100 M

Street, N.W., Room 8611, Washington,

D.C. 20554. Such a submission should

be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an

IBM compatible form using WordPerfect

5.1 for Windows or compatible software.

The diskette should be submitted in

‘‘read only’’ mode. The diskette should

be clearly labelled with the party’s

name, proceeding, type of pleading

(comment or reply comments) and date

of submission. Each diskette should

contain only one party’s comments in a

single electronic file. The diskette

should be accompanied by a cover

letter.

Ordering Clauses

91. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections

1, 4(i) and (j), and 254 of the

Communications Act as amended, 47

U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 151(j), and 254,

that the Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is hereby adopted and

comments are requested as described

above.

92. It is further ordered, pursuant to

§§ 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission’s

rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.291, that authority

is delegated to the Common Carrier

Bureau to issue orders in this

proceeding directing model proponents

to make certain changes in their models

in order for those models to remain

under consideration in this proceeding.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 54

Universal service.

47 CFR Part 69

Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Attachment A, Service List

The Honorable Reed E. Hundt, Chairman,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW., Room 814,

Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Rachelle B. Chong,

Commissioner, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room

844, Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Susan Ness, Commissioner,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW., Room 832,

Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable James H. Quello,

Commissioner, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room

802, Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Julia Johnson, State Chair,

Chairman, Florida Public Service

Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.,

Gerald Gunter Building, Tallahassee, FL

32399–0850

The Honorable David Baker, Commissioner,

Georgia Public Service Commission, 244

Washington Street, SW., Atlanta, GA

30334–5701

The Honorable Sharon L. Nelson, Chairman,

Washington Utilities and Transportation

Commission, 1300 South Evergreen Park

Dr. SW., P.O. Box 47250, Olympia, WA

98504–7250

The Honorable Laska Schoenfelder,

Commissioner, South Dakota Public

Utilities Commission, State Capitol, 500

East Capitol Street, Pierre, SD 57501–5070

Martha S. Hogerty, Missouri Office of Public

Council, 301 West High Street, Suite 250,

P.O. Box 7800, Jefferson City, MO 65102

Tom Boasberg, Federal Communications

Commission, Office of the Chairman, 1919

M Street, NW., Room 814, Washington, DC

20554

Charles Bolle, South Dakota Public Utilities

Commission, State Capitol, 500 East

Capitol Street, Pierre, SD 57501–5070

Deonne Bruning, Nebraska Public Service

Commission, 300 The Atrium, 1200 N

Street, P.O. Box 94927, Lincoln, NE 68509–

4927

James Casserly, Federal Communications

Commission, Commissioner Ness’s Office,

1919 M Street, NW., Room 832,

Washington, DC 20554

Rowland Curry, Texas Public Utility

Commission, 1701 North Congress Avenue,

P.O. Box 13326, Austin, TX 78701

Bridget Duff, State Staff Chair, Florida Public

Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak

Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32399–0866

Kathleen Franco, Federal Communications

Commission, Commissioner Chong’s

Office, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 844,

Washington, DC 20554

Paul Gallant, Commissioner Quello’s Office,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW., Room 802,

Washington, DC 20554

Emily Hoffnar, Federal Staff Chair, Federal

Communications Commission, Accounting

and Audits Division, Universal Service

Branch, 2100 M Street, NW., Room 8617,

Washington, DC 20554

Lori Kenyon, Alaska Public Utilities

Commission, 1016 West Sixth Avenue,

Suite 400, Anchorage, AK 99501

Debra M. Kriete, Pennsylvania Public

Utilities Commission, North Office

Building, Room 110, Commonwealth and

North Avenues, P.O. Box 3265, Harrisburg,

PA 17105–3265

Sandra Makeeff, Iowa Utilities Board, Lucas

State Office Building, Des Moines, IA

50319

Philip F. McClelland, Pennsylvania Office of

Consumer Advocate, 1425 Strawberry

Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120

Thor Nelson, Colorado Office of Consumer

Counsel, 1580 Logan Street, Suite 610,

Denver, CO 80203

Barry Payne, Indiana Office of the Consumer

Counsel, 100 North Senate Avenue, Room

N501, Indianapolis, IN 46204–2208

Timothy Peterson, Deputy Division Chief,

Federal Communications Commission,

Accounting and Audits Division, 2100 M

Street, NW., Room 8613, Washington, DC

20554

James Bradford Ramsay, National Association

of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 1100

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., P.O. Box 684,

Washington, DC 20044–0684

Brian Roberts, California Public Utilities

Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San

Francisco, CA 94102

Kevin Schwenzfeier, NYS Dept of Public

Service, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY

12223

Tiane Sommer, Georgia Public Service

Commission, 244 Washington Street, SW.,

Atlanta, GA 30334–5701

Sheryl Todd (plus 8 copies), Federal

Communications Commission, Accounting

and Audits Division, Universal Service

Branch, 2100 M Street, NW., Room 8611,

Washington, DC 20554

[FR Doc. 97–20958 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 572

[Docket No. 74–14; Notice 120]

RIN 2127–AG39

Anthropomorphic Test Dummy;

Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes

modifications to the Hybrid III test

dummy, which is specified by the

agency for use in compliance testing

under Standard No. 208, Occupant

crash protection. The agency is

proposing minor modifications to the

test dummy’s clothing and shoes and to

the hole diameter in the femur flange in

the pelvis bone flesh. The changes

would facilitate compliance testing,

while having practically no effect on

Standard No. 208 test results.

DATES: Comments must be received by

October 6, 1997.
42470 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice number of this

notice and be submitted to: Docket

Section, Room 5109, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30

a.m.–4 p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues: Mr. Stanley

Backaitis, Office of Crashworthiness

Standards, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366–4912. Fax: (202)

366–4329.

For legal issues: Mr. Stephen P.

Wood, NCC–20, Rulemaking Division,

Office of Chief Counsel, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

D.C. 20590 (202–366–2992).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash

Protection, currently permits the use of

either the Hybrid III test dummy or the

older Hybrid II dummy in compliance

testing. Effective September 1, 1997,

however, the Standard will specify the

use of only a single dummy, the Hybrid

III dummy. The specifications for the

Hybrid III dummy appear in subpart E

of 49 CFR part 572.

The Hybrid III dummy is the most

human-like test dummy currently

available and represents a number of

advances over the earlier dummy.

Among other things, the Hybrid III

dummy has more human-like seated

posture, head, neck, chest, and lumbar

spine designs that meet biofidelic

impact response requirements. It also

has the capability to monitor almost

four times as many injury-indicating

parameters as compared with the

Hybrid II dummy. NHTSA decided to

specify exclusive use of the Hybrid III

dummy in a final rule published in the

Federal Register (58 FR 59189) on

November 8, 1993.

The Hybrid III dummy has seen

widespread use in recent years. A

number of manufacturers use that

dummy for Standard No. 208

certification purposes and in their

research and developmental testing.

NHTSA also uses the Hybrid III dummy

in its New Car Assessment Program

(NCAP). This program involves testing

new cars and trucks by crashing them

into a fixed collision barrier at 35 mph,

which is five mph faster and 36 percent

more severe than the crash test specified

in Standard No. 208.

II. NHTSA Proposal

A. General

NHTSA has decided to propose two

modifications to the Hybrid III dummy.

First, the agency is proposing to amend

the specifications for the Hybrid III

dummy’s clothing and shoes. The

purpose of this change is to make the

requirements consistent with

compliance testing practices. Second,

the agency is proposing to specify a hole

diameter in the pelvis bone flesh. The

purpose of this change, which is

consistent with a Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) Task Force

recommendation, is to facilitate femur

flange (shank portion) insertion during

its attachment to the pelvis bone.

NHTSA has tentatively concluded

that the Hybrid III dummy

specifications should be changed to

incorporate these minor modifications.

The agency believes that the proposed

modifications would facilitate testing

and would provide additional

information from which a more realistic

assessment of the effectiveness of

occupant protection systems could be

made, without effecting the dummy

impact responses for either Standard

No. 208 or NCAP testing.

B. Dummy Clothing and Shoes

Sections S8.1.9.1 and S8.1.9.2 of

Standard No. 208 specify that the test

dummies are clothed in formfitting

cotton stretch garments with midcalf

length pants. The use of mid-calf pants

was a carry-over from the General

Motors original specifications for the

Hybrid III dummy, but it is unclear why

use of midcalf length pants were

specified in compliance tests. The

drawing (78051–293) states:

STYLE—PANTY—BELOW THE KNEE

SIZE—LARGE

COLOR—TEAROSE

MAY BE PURCHASED FROM:

SEMCO SALES,

623 CASS,

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226

1428 PL PANTIES OR EQUIVALENT

First Technology Safety Systems

contacted NHTSA in writing and the

Motor Industry Research Association

(MIRA of United Kingdom) orally about

what it viewed as a conflict between the

Hybrid III’s specifications and the

length of stretch pants actually used on

the Hybrid III dummy in Standard No.

208 compliance testing. While

paragraph S8.1.9.1 and S8.1.9.2 specify

use of midcalf length pants, all

compliance and most development

laboratories use above-the-knee length

pants.

MIRA notified the agency that the

pants, undershirt, and shoes are not

available anymore from the supply

sources referenced in the drawings of

those items and users are having

difficulty finding such articles in the

market. MIRA requested that NHTSA

clarify where such articles may be

procured and what specifications

should be used to ensure that the correct

items are procured.

Other dummy users indicated similar

procurement difficulties and a

preference to procure shoes and

garments for the dummy in the open

commercial market and not from one

specific source. They stated that neither

the specified articles nor the supply

sources are available anymore and they

would prefer to procure them under

general product description guidelines.

The agency agrees with these

observations and finds that many

commercially available articles would

serve the intended purposes.

Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to

propose amending Standard No. 208 to

allow the users to equip the Hybrid III

dummies with commercially available

shoes and cotton stretch light weight

above-the-knee length panties and

undershirt that fit the general

description guidelines rather than

having to procure them from a

designated supplier. The agency notes

that such a change would reflect what

has become common procurement and

use practice among manufacturers and

NHTSA contractors performing

compliance tests.

In compliance tests, the panties are

either cut off above the dummy knees or

rolled up above the knees for two

reasons. First, S11.5 of Standard No. 208

requires the legs to be positioned with

a specified distance between the

‘‘outboard knee clevis flange surfaces.’’

To measure this distance, the panties

must be rolled up above the knees for

dummy positioning. Second, the

dummy knees are often marked with

chalk to determine where knee contact

with the vehicle interior occurs during

the test. It does not work well by

chalking the dummy panties, as the

panties often ride up the dummy’s legs

during the crash event. While this

information is not required by Standard

No. 208, it is helpful.

NHTSA would remove drawings

related to shoes and garments from the

Hybrid III drawing set (78051–292,

–293, –294, and –295) and incorporate

appropriately worded modifications in

§ 571.208 S8.1.9.1 and S8.1.9.2 in which

the shoes and garments to be used on

the Hybrid III dummy are described, if

today’s proposal is adopted. NHTSA

believes that this change would not

affect the stringency of Standard No.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42471

208’s requirements or result in any

difference in costs to manufacturers.

C. Access Hole Diameter in the Pelvis

Flesh

In response to a June 30, 1995 notice

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (60 FR

34213, Docket 74–14, Notice 96), the

American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA) stated that the

access holes in the pelvis flesh should

be enlarged to facilitate the insertion of

the femur flange (shank portion) for

their attachment to the pelvis bone. That

organization stated that the holes’

diameter has not been specified even

though the holes are shown on the

drawing. AAMA claimed that the pelvis

flesh may be damaged when the femur

flange is inserted through the existing

two inch diameter holes (as scaled from

the drawing). It recommended that the

holes’ diameter should be enlarged to

25⁄16 inches, a change it believed would

accommodate insertion of the femur

flange without tearing the flesh material.

In support of its request, AAMA stated

that the SAE Hybrid III Family and SAE

Hip Calibration Task Forces have

recognized the need to address this

issue. AAMA stated that such a change

would not significantly affect dummy

kinematics or instrumentation readings.

NHTSA has decided to propose

specifying the diameter of the hole in

the pelvis flesh as 25⁄16 inches. The

agency believes that the larger size

would facilitate testing by making

insertion of the femur shaft less

cumbersome. The larger hole would

permit easier slip-through of the section

of the femur shaft containing the rubber

bumper. The larger hole therefore may

prevent an occasional hang up of the

urethane bumper’s edge against the

inner edge of the hole in the pelvis

flesh. As a result, the flesh with the

enlarged hole would be less susceptible

to damage during the femur flange

insertion process. The agency

anticipates that the loads on the femur

shaft, because of a looser fit within as

it compresses the pelvis flesh, would be

no different whether the hole is 2 inches

in diameter or 25⁄16 inches in diameter.

The agency requests comment about the

effect of specifying a larger hole

diameter.

D. Optional Use of Lumbar Spine Load

Cell

In response to the June 30, 1995

NPRM, GM submitted a petition

requesting that the Hybrid III

specifications in Part 572 Subpart E be

amended to include, as an option, use

of an available lower lumbar spine load

cell assembly in place of the standard

Hybrid III lumbar adapter. GM stated

that the optional transducer would

allow additional, useful information to

be obtained during Standard No. 208

testing.

NHTSA believes that it is unnecessary

to amend Part 572 to allow

manufacturers to use the lumbar spine

load cell assembly. As explained below,

a manufacturer may use the lumbar

spine load cell assembly, at its

discretion.

NHTSA notes that a ‘‘compliance

test’’ is a test conducted by or for the

agency to determine if a vehicle meets

the performance requirements of a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In contrast, a ‘‘certification test’’ is a test

conducted by or for a manufacturer to

assure itself that the vehicle will meet

the performance requirements of the

particular standard. A compliance test is

conducted in accordance with the

standard to facilitate a possible

enforcement action. On the other hand,

a manufacturer has discretion about

how it conducts a certification test. It

may, at its discretion, use a load cell.

Accordingly, a manufacturer does not

need the agency to approve use of the

optional test cell since the manufacturer

alone decides how to conduct its

certification tests.

III. Effective Dates

NHTSA is proposing to make the

amendments effective 45 days after

publication of a final rule. The agency

is proposing such an early effective date

because the modifications resulting

from this proposal would only affect the

drawings related to the dummy and

would not affect compliance testing or

certification.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rulemaking document was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’ This action has been

determined to be ‘‘non-significant’’

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. The proposed amendments

would not require any vehicle design

changes but would instead only require

minor modifications in the test

dummies used to evaluate a vehicle’s

compliance with Standard No. 208. The

agency believes that the proposed

clothing and pelvis modifications would

not affect the cost of new dummies.

Therefore, the impacts of the proposed

amendments would be so minimal that

a full regulatory evaluation is not

required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of

this rulemaking action under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) I hereby certify that the

proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The following is NHTSA’s statement

providing the factual basis for the

certification (5 U.S.C. § 605(b)).

The proposed rule would affect

passenger car and light truck

manufacturers, few of which are small

entities. As described above, there

would be no significant economic

impact on those vehicle manufacturers

that are small entities.

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)).

SBA’s size standards are organized

according to Standard Industrial

Classification Codes (SIC). SIC Code

3711 ‘‘Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car

Bodies’’ has a small business size

standard of 1,000 employees or fewer.

For passenger car and light truck

manufacturers, NHTSA estimates there

are at most five small manufacturers of

passenger cars in the U.S. Because each

manufacturer serves a niche market,

often specializing in replicas of

‘‘classic’’ cars, production for each

manufacturer is fewer than 100 cars per

year. Thus, there are at most five

hundred cars manufactured per year by

U.S. small businesses.

In contrast, in 1996, there are

approximately nine large manufacturers

manufacturing passenger cars and light

trucks in the U.S. Total U.S.

manufacturing production per year is

approximately 15 to 15 and a half

million passenger cars and light trucks

per year. NHTSA does not believe small

businesses manufacture even 0.1

percent of total U.S. passenger car and

light truck production per year.

NHTSA also notes that the cost of

new passenger cars or light trucks

would not be affected by the proposed

rule.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this proposed rule.
42472 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

D. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this

proposed rule under the National

Environmental Policy Act and

determined that it would not have a

significant impact on the human

environment.

E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this proposed rule

would not have significant federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

F. 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.

Submission of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

proposal will be available for inspection

in the docket. The NHTSA will continue

to file relevant information as it

becomes available in the docket after the

closing date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by

reference.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

proposed that 49 CFR Parts 571 and 572

be amended as follows:

PART 571—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 571

of Title 49 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. Section 571.208 would be amended

by revising S8.1.8.2, as published at 58

FR 59191, November 8, 1993, with an

effective date of September 1, 1997, to

read as follows:

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208, Occupant

crash protection.

* * * * *

S8.1.8.2 Each test dummy is clothed

in a formfitting cotton stretch short

sleeve shirt with above-the-elbow

sleeves and above-the-knee length

pants. The weight of the shirt or pants

shall not exceed 0.25 pounds each. Each

foot of the test dummy is equipped with

a size 11XW shoe which meets the

configuration size, sole, and heel

thickness specifications of MIL–S 13192

change ‘‘P’’ and whose weight is 1.25

± 0.2 pounds.

* * * * *

PART 572—[AMENDED]

3. The authority citation for Part 572

of Title 49 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.

Subpart E—Hybrid III Test Dummy

4. Section 572.31 would be amended

by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3),

(a)(4), and the table in paragraph (b), to

read as follows:

§ 572.31 General description.

(a) * * *

(1) The Anthropomorphic Test

Dummy Parts List, dated [a new date

would be inserted], and containing 16

pages, and a Parts List Index, dated [a

new date would be inserted], containing

8 pages.

* * * * *

(3) A General Motors Drawing

Package identified by GM Drawing No.

78051–218, revision [a new revision

letter would be inserted], and

subordinate drawings.

(4) Disassembly, Inspection, Assembly

and Limbs Adjustment Procedures for

the Hybrid III dummy, dated [a new

date would be inserted].

* * * * *

(b) * * *

[new revision letters would be inserted

in the table for the drawings for leg

assemblies]

* * * * *

4. Section 572.34 would be amended

by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 572.34 Thorax.

* * * * *

(b) When impacted by a test probe

conforming to 572.36(a) at 22 fps +/

¥0.40 fps in accordance with paragraph

(c) of this section, the thorax of a

complete dummy assembly (78051–218,

revision (a new revision letter would be

inserted)), without shoes, shall resist

with a force of 1242.5 pounds +/¥82.5

pounds measured by the test probe and

shall have a sternum displacement

measured relative to spine of 2.68

inches +/¥0.18 inches. The internal

hysteresis in each impact shall be more

than 69% but less than 85%. The force

measured is the product of pendulum

mass and deceleration.

* * * * *

Issued on August 1, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–20726 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P