Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11651 

Issued on: February 16, 2012. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4134 Filed 2–21–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0175] 

RIN 2127–AJ49 

Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test 

Dummy 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes 

regulations setting forth specifications 

and qualification requirements for a 

Hybrid III 10-year-old size child test 

dummy (HIII–10C). In a companion 

document published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register, NHTSA is 

adopting use of the dummy to test child 

restraints recommended for children 

weighing more than 65 pounds (lb) for 

compliance with the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard for child 

restraint systems. The HIII–10C dummy 

enables NHTSA to assess the 

performance of child restraint systems 

in restraining children in the 8- to 12- 

year-old age range. 

DATES: Effective date: April 27, 2012. 

The incorporation by reference of the 

publications listed in the rule has been 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of April 27, 2012. 

If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by April 12, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. For more 

information, see Section V, Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Peter 

Martin, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 

202–366–5668) (fax 202–493–2990). For 

legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, 

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 

(telephone 202–366–2992) (fax 202– 

366–3820). The mailing address for 

these officials is the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this rule: The 

petition will be placed in the docket. 

Anyone is able to search the electronic 

form of all documents 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.002</GPH>
11652 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 70 FR 51720 (August 31, 2005). Among other 

matters, Public Law 107–318 directed NHTSA to 

evaluate an anthropomorphic test device (ATD) that 

simulates a 10-year-old child for use in testing CRSs 

and to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the 

adoption of the ATD. NHTSA addressed other 

provisions of Public Law 107–318 in earlier agency 

actions. These actions are discussed in the 

preamble of the August 31, 2005 NPRM. 

2 73 FR 3901 (January 23, 2008). This SNPRM 

proposed a seating procedure for the HIII–10C to 

minimize the chin-to-chest impacts. Commenters 

were generally unsupportive of the procedure. 

3 75 FR 71648 (November 24, 2010). This second 

SNPRM proposed an alternative seating procedure 

for the ATD. 

4The HIII–10C represents children of a size 

heretofore not represented by the ATDs used in 

NHTSA regulations. The child ATDs in 49 CFR part 

572 that NHTSA uses for testing CRSs are ATDs 

representing a newborn infant, a 12-month-old, a 

3-year-old, a 6-year-old, and a weighted 6-year-old. 

In 49 CFR part 572, there is also specified a 5th 

percentile adult female ATD, which is 

approximately the size of a 12-year-old. 

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). 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

a. 2005 NPRM 

b. Developments Since 2005 

c. Summary of Decision 

III. Summary of Comments 

IV. Response to Comments 

a. Functionality of the HIII–10C as a Part 

572 ATD 

1. Chin-to-Chest Contact 

2. Shock Emanating From Shoulder and 

Neck 

i. Shoulder Revision 

ii. Lower Neck Revision 

3. Stiffness of Vinyl Insert 

4. Dummy Availability 

b. Durability of the HIII–10C 

1. Proximal Femur 

2. Bib Assembly 

3. Shoulder Rotation Stop Screws 

4. Agency Part Replacement Records 

i. Pelvis Helicoil Insert 

ii. Neck and Ribcage Replacement 

iii. Other Replacements 

5. Durability Summary 

c. Qualification Procedures and 

Requirements 

1. Response Corridors 

i. Head 

ii. Neck 

iii. Thorax 

iv. Torso Flexion 

v. Knee Impact 

2. Summary of Qualification Requirements 

3. Impact Probes 

4. Instrumentation 

i. Rotary Potentiometers 

ii. Sternum Displacement 

d. Technical Data Package 

1. Changes to the Engineering Drawings 

and PADI 

2. Organization of Materials 

i. Searchable Text 

ii. Order of Engineering Drawings 

iii. Part Quantity Specification 

iv. Part Numbering Scheme 

3. Specifications for Soft Parts 

4. Use of 3D Computer Renderings 

e. Other 

1. Labeling the Dummy as a ‘‘Ten Year 

Old’’ 

2. Best Practices for Belt Routing 

3. Abdominal Injury Correlates 

4. Repeatability in Systems Testing 

f. Dummy Development Efforts 

1. Hybrid III Child Dummy Revisions— 

Abdomen and Pelvis 

2. Pediatric Research 

3. Status of HIC 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Executive Summary 

The agency has determined that the 

HIII–10C dummy, configured as 

described in this document, is a suitable 

and useful test device for quantitative 

assessment of child restraint systems 

(CRSs) and other safety devices for older 

children. The dummy, with a weight of 

35.2 kilograms (kg) (77.6 pounds (lb)) 

and sitting height of 71 centimeters (28 

inches), is ideally suited to test the 

upper load and height limits of safety 

restraints for children. 

The dummy is specified by this rule 

by a technical data package (TDP) 

consisting of a set of engineering 

drawings, a parts list, and a set of 

procedures for assembly, disassembly, 

and inspection (PADI) of the dummy. 

Additionally, this rule amends 49 CFR 

part 572 to specify qualification 

requirements for the dummy, to assure 

that the HIII–10C responses are within 

established performance corridors, and 

further ensure the uniformity of dummy 

assembly, structural integrity, 

consistency of response and adequacy of 

instrumentation. The TDP and 

qualification requirements assure that 

HIII–10C dummies are uniform in their 

design, construction and kinematics. 

The drawings and the PADI for the 

HIII–10C are available for examination 

in the docket for this final rule. 

Technical reports and other materials 

pertaining to this final rule have also 

been placed in the docket for this final 

rule. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) on which this final rule is 

based was published July 13, 2005 (70 

FR 40281). 

The agency is concurrently publishing 

in this issue of the Federal Register a 

final rule to amend Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

213, ‘‘Child restraint systems’’ (49 CFR 

571.213), to adopt use of the HIII–10C 

dummy in agency compliance tests of 

CRSs. (RIN 2127–AL10, formerly RIN 

2127–AJ44.) 

The final rules bring to a close 

NHTSA’s work on Public Law 107–318, 

116 Stat. 2772 (‘‘Anton’s Law’’), which 

contained provisions for NHTSA to 

develop and evaluate a test dummy that 

represents a 10-year-old child for use in 

testing CRSs. Public Law 107–318 

required us to initiate rulemaking on the 

Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD), a 

mandate we satisfied in 2005 when we 

published an NPRM to adopt the HIII– 

10C into FMVSS No. 213.1

When we published the 2005 

proposal to include the dummy in 

FMVSS No. 213, we proposed that 

booster seats must conform to several 

new requirements based on HIII–10C 

measurements, including a head injury 

criterion (HIC). As part of our 

assessment, we demonstrated in our 

pre-proposal testing that, while most 

CRSs conformed to the new 

requirements, there were some failures, 

including those where HIC was 

exceeded. However, during extensive 

post-NPRM booster seat testing, 

inconsistencies in the test protocol 

revealed variability in the kinematics 

and measurements of the HIII–10C. In 

particular, the agency discovered that a 

slight perturbation in the test protocol 

could create a large change in HIC. The 

variability in HIC measurements is 

attributable to a design feature unique to 

the HIII–10C in which chin-to-chest 

contact during the impact event can be 

excessively hard, but not easily 

controlled through CRS design. 

Subsequently, the agency devoted 

substantial rulemaking and research 

efforts to try to address test variability. 

The August 31, 2005 (FMVSS No. 213) 

NPRM was followed by a supplemental 

NPRM (SNPRM) published in 2008 2

and an SNPRM published in 2010.3

Throughout the rulemaking proceeding, 

NHTSA informed the public of its 

research findings, concerns and ideas 

about using the HIII–10C in FMVSS No. 

213, and in turn learned from comments 

from research organizations, consumer 

groups, CRS, vehicle, and ATD 

manufacturers, and others. Considerable 

effort was devoted to revising the test 

protocol to eliminate variability in HIC. 

The endeavor has led to a new 

dummy positioning procedure that 

improves test repeatability with no 

substantial change to the HIII–10C. The 

agency has determined that the HIII– 

10C is an important ATD that will 

enhance our ability to assess the 

performance of CRSs and other 

occupant protection systems in 

protecting children.4 In the 

accompanying FMVSS No. 213 final 

rule published today, we adopt the HIII– 

10C into FMVSS No. 213, but due to the 

recurrence of hard chin-to-chest 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11653 

5 70 FR at 51724. 

6To assist consumers in deciding which CRS to 

purchase, NHTSA provides ease of use ratings for 

child seats. We attempt to select and rate all seats 

on the market. Currently, we provide about 80 

ratings of seats designed for children weighing 36.3 

kg (80 lb) or more and manufactured since 2006. 

There are 23 different manufacturers represented in 

our selection of seats. 

7Except to the extent discussed in this document 

regarding chin-to-chest contact, NHTSA confirms 

the NPRM’s discussion of the findings that the HIII– 

10C is a biofidelic ATD that produces repeatable 

and reproducible results. A detailed discussion of 

Continued 

contacts, we will not adopt HIC as an 

FMVSS No. 213 injury criterion. 

The agency has thus decided that the 

HIII–10C is a suitable device for use in 

FMVSS No. 213. The HIII–10C test 

dummy will provide an enhanced 

assessment of child restraint 

performance, and is worthy of adoption 

into 49 CFR part 572 as implemented by 

this final rule. 

II. Background 

a. 2005 NPRM 

In July 2005, NHTSA issued an NPRM 

proposing specifications and 

certification requirements for a new test 

dummy representative of a 10-year-old 

child (70 FR 40281, July 13, 2005). The 

dummy was proposed to be included 

among the descriptions of 

anthropomorphic test devices in 49 CFR 

part 572, so that it could be called out 

for use in FMVSS test procedures and 

other regulations. Concurrently, NHTSA 

proposed to use the new dummy to 

assess CRSs recommended for older 

children under FMVSS No. 213 (70 FR 

51720, August 31, 2005). These two 

NPRMs are referred to herein as the Part 

572 NPRM and the FMVSS No. 213 

NPRM, respectively. 

b. Developments Since 2005 

Additional rulemaking notices. Since 

the two NPRMs were published in 2005, 

the agency issued two supplemental 

NPRMs that dealt with the unrealistic 

‘‘chin-to-chest’’ condition that occurred 

when the HIII–10C was used in the 

FMVSS No. 213 sled test environment. 

This condition was first observed in 

agency tests that led up to the 2005 

NPRMs. In several of the tests, as the 

HIII–10C’s head flung forward, the neck 

flexed to the point where the dummy’s 

chin came into hard contact with its 

upper thorax. This chin-to-chest contact 

at times produced elevated head 

accelerations. However, in the testing 

that led up to the 2005 NPRMs, we did 

not foresee a problem with the chin-tochest contact because the majority of 

booster seats tested met the FMVSS No. 

213 head injury criterion (HIC) limit of 

1000.5

Commenters to both NPRMs of 2005 

also observed hard chin-to-chest contact 

in their own tests. Some commenters 

(Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel), Graco 

Children’s Products (Graco)) expressed 

concerns the chin-to-chest contact was 

an indication of poor spine biofidelity 

and urged NHTSA to undertake 

additional testing of the HIII–10C to 

ensure that the test dummy is 

appropriate for use in FMVSS No. 213 

testing. 

Following these comments, NHTSA 

conducted further testing of the HIII– 

10C to investigate the chin-to-chest 

contact. We concurred with the 

commenters that the hard chin-to-chest 

contact exhibited by the HIII–10C in 

sled tests was an undesirable 

occurrence. The hard contact was 

unrealistic, as real-world accident data 

indicated that children do not sustain 

head injuries in that manner. The chinto-chest contact is much less prevalent 

in the kinematics of actual children 

because the child’s spine is more 

flexible than that of the ATD. The added 

flexibility of a child’s spine allows 

greater forward translation and rotation 

of the head. When chin-to-chest contact 

occurs in children, it does not produce 

as hard of a contact as the dummy and 

does not result in severe injuries. 

Moreover, we found that HIC values 

produced by the HIII–10C were highly 

variable when chin-to-chest contact 

occurs, as the dummy was not designed 

to achieve repeatable or reproducible 

responses under this condition. 

In consideration of the likelihood of 

unreasonably high HIC values, the 

agency issued the 2008 SNPRM that 

mitigated chin-to-chest contact by 

specifying a posture that was about 10 

degrees more upright than the HIII–10C 

positioned in a CRS under the original 

NPRM (73 FR 3901). However, this 

proposal was widely criticized in 

comments to the SNPRM. Some 

commenters believed that the upright 

positioning procedure was unrealistic 

because it did not reflect the way 

children actually sit in booster seats. 

Some also indicated that a belt routing 

system or harness designed for an 

upright ATD may introduce unwanted 

belt slack when applied to a fully 

reclined child. They believed this could 

add to head excursion and preclude a 

CRS from performing its primary 

function of properly positioning a 

vehicle’s seat belt to a child occupant. 

Additionally, some commenters found 

the procedure to be cumbersome and 

difficult to follow. 

Following a test program conducted 

in response to these comments, on 

November 24, 2010 the agency issued a 

second SNPRM for positioning the HIII– 

10C (75 FR 71648). The 2010 SNPRM 

replaced the proposal for the upright 

positioning procedure with a procedure 

developed by the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research 

Institute (UMTRI). The UMTRI 

procedure emphasizes fitting the 

dummy to the CRS rather than 

achieving a specific dummy posture. In 

trial tests run by the agency using the 

UMTRI procedure, we found the 

repeatability of all test measurements to 

be greatly improved relative to those 

observed under the seating procedures 

we had proposed previously. Because 

the UMTRI procedure typically results 

in an ATD posture similar to that 

associated with the seating procedure 

used in the original NPRM of 2005, 

chin-to-chest contact continued to 

occur. Thus, we proposed using the 

UMTRI procedure when positioning the 

HIII–10C in FMVSS No. 213 tests, but 

proposed that HIC would not be used as 

a performance criterion in FMVSS No. 

213 when using the HIII–10C. 

Supplemental testing. Since the 

NPRMs of 2005, the agency has used the 

HIII–10C in about two hundred sled 

tests to support the FMVSS No. 213 

SNPRMs, to address the comments to 

the Part 572 NPRM, and to arrive at the 

final configuration of the dummy. We 

have acquired four additional HIII–10C 

units to add to our repeatability and 

reproducibility assessment. In this 

period since 2005, we have made a 

comprehensive assessment of the ATD 

to examine the many issues brought up 

in comments received on the four 

rulemaking proposals. 

The test results permitted us to 

examine and evaluate the consistency of 

the data and adequacy of the dummy in 

a broad range of CRSs available in the 

market. Of the approximately 80 models 

of booster seats manufactured since 

2006,6 twenty seats from eight different 

manufacturers have been tested with the 

HIII–10C since the Part 572 NPRM. 

Another fourteen seat models 

manufactured prior to 2006 have also 

been tested. This spectrum represents a 

good cross-section of the booster seat 

market and demonstrates well the utility 

of the HIII–10C under all installations. 

Utility of the HIII–10C. Our 

supplementary testing has reaffirmed 

that the HIII–10C is a meaningful ATD 

for use in FMVSS No. 213 and merits 

incorporation into 49 CFR part 572 even 

without NHTSA’s use of HIC as an 

FMVSS No. 213 pass/fail criterion. 

Additional qualification data obtained 

since 2005 has confirmed the high level 

of repeatability and reproducibility that 

was demonstrated in the NPRM on a 

limited data set.7 As reported in this 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11654 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the HIII–10C’s biofidelity can be found in the 

NPRM, see 70 FR at 40284. The repeatability and 

reproducibility of the HII–10C is discussed in the 

NPRM at 70 FR at 40285. Commenters did not 

disagree with these aspects of the dummy, except 

as discussed in this document regarding the chinto-chest contact. 

8Ash, JH, Sherwood, CP, Abdelilah, Y, Crandall, 

JR, Parent, DP, Kallieris, D., ‘‘Comparison of 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies with a Pediatric 

Cadaver Restrained by a Three-point Belt in Frontal 

Sled Tests,’’ Proceedings of the 21st International 

Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 

Vehicles, June 2009. 

9Reed, M., Ebert-Hamilton, S., Klinich, K., 

Manary, M., Rupp, J., ‘‘Assessing Child Belt Fit, 

Volume I: Effects of Vehicle Seat and Belt Geometry 

on Belt Fit,’’ UMTRI Report No. UMTRI–2008–49– 

1, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 

September 2008. 

10Reed, M., Ebert-Hamilton, S., Klinich, K., 

Manary, M., Rupp, J., ‘‘Assessing Child Belt Fit, 

Volume II: Effect of Restraint Configuration, Booster 

Seat Designs, Seating Procedure, and Belt Fit on the 

Dynamic Response of the Hybrid III 10-year-old 

ATD in Sled Tests,’’ UMTRI Report No. UMTRI– 

2008–49–2, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 

September 2008. 

11At the date of the October 3, 2005 comment, 

the Alliance consisted of: BMW Group, 

DaimlerChrysler; Ford Motor Company; General 

Motors; Mazda; Mitsubishi Motors; Porsche; Toyota; 

and Volkswagen. 

12 In 2010, FTSS and Denton announced that they 

have merged into one company, Humanetics, Inc. 

preamble, the qualification corridors 

indicate outstanding dummy 

repeatability and reproducibility. 

Throughout the entire test experience, 

the HIII–10C has proven to be a durable 

test instrument. 

The additional data also confirms the 

qualification of HIII–10C-based injury 

metrics. Other than HIC, all other 

dummy-based measurements used in 

FMVSS No. 213—head excursion, knee 

excursion, and chest acceleration—have 

proven to be sound metrics appropriate 

for CRS testing. A NHTSA-sponsored 

study published in 2008 found the head 

excursion of the HIII–10C to be very 

similar to a human subject in matched 

pair tests.8 Also, the agency has 

observed a strong correlation between 

knee excursion and submarining in 

child dummies. As such, knee excursion 

correlates indirectly with abdominal 

injuries. The limit on knee excursion 

prevents CRS manufacturers from 

controlling head excursion by designing 

their restraints so that children 

submarine in a crash. 

The limit on chest acceleration 

ensures that a CRS provides a child with 

sufficient ‘‘ride down’’ or absorption of 

crash forces over a period of time in a 

manner that avoids injury. The revisions 

to the HIII–10C described in this 

preamble assure that the chest 

acceleration measurements are devoid 

of any signal irregularities. The HIII– 

10C will also be used in FMVSS No. 213 

to assess the structural integrity of CRSs 

for older children. 

Recent agency studies have also 

demonstrated that the HIII–10C has 

sufficient biofidelity to be used in 

possible belt fit programs. Our research 

has found lap and shoulder belts to fit 

the HIII–10C much like they do a 

human.9 The dummy was found to sit 

in a seat like a human child and don the 

belt like a human child. 

The agency has also recently 

completed studies on the HIII–10C’s 

utility and biofidelity in assessing 

submarining and abdominal injury.10 In 

summary, we have found the HIII–10C 

to be sufficiently biofidelic to mimic the 

kinematics of a belted human child. The 

dummy was found to be sensitive to a 

range of lap belt and torso belt 

anchorage configurations and its 

propensity to submarine was consistent 

with that of a belted child. Given these 

positive results, the agency is pursuing 

the development of an HIII–10C 

modification consisting of an abdominal 

insert that measures abdominal 

deformation, thus providing a direct 

assessment of injury risk. 

c. Summary of Decision 

The data available since 2005 support 

a decision that the HIII–10C is a suitable 

device for use in FMVSS No. 213. 

Adopting the HIII–10C in 49 CFR part 

572 enables NHTSA to expand the 

applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to CRSs 

that are recommended for children over 

the current 35.2 kg (65 lb) weight limit 

in a meaningful way. There has been 

considerable interest over the years in 

expanding the applicability of FMVSS 

No. 213 to increase the likelihood that 

child restraints for older children (e.g., 

booster seats) will perform adequately 

in a crash. This interest goes hand-inhand with efforts to prolong CRS use 

among children who have outgrown 

their child safety seat, but who cannot 

adequately fit a vehicle’s lap and 

shoulder belt system. Adopting the 

HIII–10C into 49 CFR part 572 enhances 

NHTSA’s ability to reduce unreasonable 

risks of traffic crashes to older children. 

III. Summary of Comments 

We received comments on the Part 

572 NPRM from: The American 

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia 

(CHOP), Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety (Advocates), Dorel, 

Chrysler, the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers 11 (Alliance), and a joint 

submission from ATD manufacturers 

First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) 

and Denton ATD (Denton) (FTSS/ 

Denton).12 Some of the comments on the 

FMVSS No. 213 SNPRMs raised issues 

pertaining to the Part 572 rulemaking, 

which we discuss in this document as 

appropriate. Additional organizations 

commenting on the FMVSS No. 213 

rulemaking include Graco, the Juvenile 

Product Manufacturers Association 

(JPMA), and Consumers Union. 

Commenters were very supportive of 

the idea of incorporating an ATD 

representing children in the 8- to 12- 

year-old age range. There was general 

support for the HIII–10C’s incorporation 

into Part 572, but as indicated above, 

concerns were raised about the chin-tochest contact. Dorel expressed 

opposition to the adoption of the HIII– 

10C, citing concerns about the ATD’s 

biofidelity, durability, and compatibility 

with the FMVSS No. 213 test 

environment. Some comments 

suggested adjustments and clarifications 

to the Part 572 proposed regulatory text, 

to improve the procedures for qualifying 

an ATD and the performance 

assessments. 

The following major categories of 

issues were raised: (a) Functionality of 

the HIII–10C as a Part 572 ATD; (b) 

durability of the ATD; (c) qualification 

procedures and requirements; (d) the 

TDP (the engineering drawings and 

PADI); (e) other issues (clarifying agency 

statements in the preamble); and (f) 

dummy development efforts. Each of 

these areas is discussed below. 

IV. Response to Comments 

a. Functionality of the HIII–10C as a 

Part 572 ATD 

1. Chin-to-Chest Contact 

As described earlier in this preamble, 

the agency received many comments 

regarding the undesirable chin-to-chest 

contact exhibited by the HIII–10C, 

which is related to the biofidelity of the 

HIII–10C’s spine. Dorel, the Alliance 

and others reported chin-to-chest 

contact during normal use of the 

dummy, which was believed to be 

brought on by an overly stiff thoracic 

spine relative to human children. 

We agree that the hard chin-to-chest 

contact in FMVSS No. 213 sled tests is 

an undesirable characteristic of the 

HIII–10C. Chin-to-chest contact has also 

been observed in tests run by the 

agency. In most cases, the time interval 

producing the highest calculation of HIC 

enveloped the instant when chin-tochest contact occurred, including cases 

where head acceleration was very high. 

In other words, chin-to-chest contact 

often caused HIC to exceed the injury 

assessment reference value (HIC36 = 

1000). 

The design of the neck-to-thorax joint 

in the HIII–10C differs from other 

dummies in the Hybrid III family. In the 

other dummies, the neck is off-set or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11655 

13 2008 UMTRI Vol. 2 Report 

14Stammen, J., Bolte, J., Shaw, J., ‘‘Biomechanical 

Impact Response of the Human Chin and 

Manubrium,’’ Annals of Biomedical Engineering 

(2011, in press). 

15Because we are measuring HIC for research 

purposes, this final rule adopts the proposed 

qualification test for the HIII–10C head 

measurements. 

16 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21247–0016. 

17The chest acceleration criterion specified in 

FMVSS No. 213 is 60 G’s. 

18The 3 ms clip truncates the peak acceleration 

portion of a continuous signal having a duration 

less than 3 milliseconds. 

19The computation of HIC applies a higher signal 

filter class (CFC 1000 vs. CFC 180) and does not 

impose a 3 ms clip. The revisions do not affect the 

assessment of CRSs with regard to FMVSS No. 213, 

so this change will not delay the incorporation of 

the HIII–10C into Part 572. 

cantilevered anterior to the thorax, 

which is not optimal 

anthropometrically. In the HIII–10C, the 

upper part of the thorax spine structure 

has been designed such that the neckto-thorax joint is an in-line connection 

following more closely the 

anthropometry of a human. The lower 

neck bracket described earlier serves at 

the neck-to-thorax joint. 

The downside to the improved 

anthropometry is that it creates a ‘‘hard 

spot’’ during chin-to-chest contact. The 

stiff lower neck bracket is where the 

chin comes into contact with the chest 

and where only a thin layer of soft flesh 

material offers any buffer. Beyond a few 

millimeters of flesh material 

compression, chin-to-chest contact 

forces—and head accelerations— 

increase exponentially. As a result, a 

small deviation in head motion causes 

a very large change in head acceleration 

and HIC. The change is difficult to 

control and may be in conflict with 

good CRS design. In some cases, HIC 

scores have been shown to improve 

when the torso belt fit is degraded.13

Since chin contact to the thorax is not 

a natural brain injury path in actual 

children, any such attempt to lessen HIC 

through booster seat design may 

compromise the overall safety 

performance of the seat. 

Due to the non-biofidelic chin-tochest contact, we have decided not to 

require CRSs to meet the HIC criterion 

when tested with the HIII–10C in the 

compliance of FMVSS No. 213, as 

announced in the FMVSS No. 213 final 

rule published today. When we 

followed the UMTRI seating procedure 

adopted in the final rule for FMVSS No. 

213, we found that the seating 

procedure reduces HIC variability in 

repeat tests of the same booster seat, 

including those in which hard chin-tochest contact occurs. However, hard 

chin-to-chest contact was still observed 

in many agency tests. Mitigating this 

effect altogether, as recommended in 

comments by Dorel, would require a 

major redesign of the entire thorax and 

spine, which is not feasible. Instead, the 

agency is concentrating efforts on 

developing an entirely new pediatric 

dummy for future use, as discussed later 

in this preamble. 

Nonetheless, we did make minor 

changes to the HIII–10C to mitigate 

some of the effects of the chin-to-chest 

contact in accordance with a recent 

agency study.14 This Part 572 final rule 

specifies the thickness of the HIII–10C’s 

chin flesh in the inferior-superior 

direction. The new specification is 

aimed at lessening the variability of 

head accelerations among different 

dummies when chin-to-chest contact 

does occur. 

The chin flesh specification improves 

the functionality of the HIII–10C as an 

ATD, even though we have decided not 

to use HIC as an FMVSS No. 213 pass/ 

fail criterion when using the dummy. 

HIC may continue to be measured in 

FMVSS No. 213 tests with the HIII–10C 

for research purposes, and could be 

used as a performance metric in other 

NHTSA programs (e.g., out-of-position 

(OOP) air bag tests, New Car Assessment 

Programs). Standardizing the thickness 

of the chin will improve the 

repeatability of the HIC measurements 

from different dummies when chin-tochest contact occurs. Hard chin-to-chest 

contact may be a concern to researchers 

investigating the whipping actions of 

the head. The chin specification will 

better enable them to compare HIC 

measurements in tests with different 

dummies.15

2. Shock Emanating From Shoulder and 

Neck 

Chrysler16 and Graco were concerned 

that spikes or ‘‘noise’’ is present in the 

signal traces of accelerometers and load 

cells in the head and upper torso of the 

HIII–10C. In evaluating these comments, 

we determined that the presence of 

these spikes has no consequence on the 

use of the HIII–10C as a regulatory tool 

as specified in the final rule for FMVSS 

No. 213. The only instruments within 

the HIII–10C that will be used in 

FMVSS No. 213 are accelerometers 

arranged triaxially at the center of 

gravity (CG) of the chest. In all agency 

tests in which these spikes appeared in 

the accelerometer signals, they were 

removed by the signal processing 

algorithms used to compute the chest 

acceleration criterion.17

The routines used to compute chest 

G’s include a standard SAE 

International (SAE) Channel Frequency 

Class (CFC) 180 filter and a 3 

millisecond (ms) clip.18 The 3 ms clip 

originated in 1970 for use in FMVSS No. 

208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ in 

recognition that such spikes are 

insignificant as injury contributors (35 

FR 14941). The spikes in the data of the 

HIII–10C were caused by two sources 

other than by chin-to-chest contact: 

part-to-part contact between 

components of the shoulder assembly, 

and a loose fitting neck cable that 

interfered with the lower neck load cell. 

Spikes emanating from the shoulder and 

neck of the HIII–10C were not always 

completely removed by CFC180 filtering 

of the chest acceleration signals, but 

once they were ‘‘clipped’’ by the 3 ms 

algorithm, they had no measureable 

effect on the computation of chest G’s. 

Moreover, in most cases the time 

interval containing the peak 

acceleration identified by the algorithm 

did not contain the spike, which usually 

occurred later in the event. Thus, the 

injury reference measures for the HIII– 

10C’s immediate use in FMVSS No. 213 

(chest acceleration, head and knee 

excursion) are not affected by this 

condition. 

The shock emanating from the 

shoulder and neck is benign in terms of 

its effect on the dummy itself (the 

acceleration spikes are no greater than 

150 G’s). It does not affect the 

kinematics of the dummy in any way 

(i.e., the head trajectory and knee 

excursion are unaffected). The 

magnitude of the spikes is well within 

the typical operating range of +/¥ 2000 

G’s for the specified accelerometers, so 

shock damage to the instruments is 

unlikely. 

Nonetheless, although the shocks do 

not influence the outcomes of FMVSS 

No. 213 tests, we made the following 

simple modifications to the HIII–10C’s 

shoulder and neck to lessen the shock 

effect. Improving the ATD in this 

manner assures that the dummy is better 

suited for possible future uses in tests 

where computations for head injury 

assessments based on head 

accelerometer signals are more sensitive 

to the condition (e.g., OOP air bag 

tests).19

i. Shoulder Revision 

The TDP of this final rule modifies 

the shoulder design of the HIII–10C. 

Similar to a human, the shoulder of 

the HIII–10C provides the load bearing 

surface for the shoulder belt. On the 

dummy, the part that provides this 

surface is a one-piece aluminum casting 

that is connected to the spine via a yoke 

that extends laterally from the spine. 

The yoke-to-shoulder connection is a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11656 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

20 Id. 

21 ‘‘Revisions to the HIII–10C Technical Data 

Package,’’ NHTSA, August 2011. 

22The revised load cell is a six-axis load cell. 

Maximum load capacities and several other load 

cell specifications are given on Drawing SA572–40 

in the TDP. 

pivot which provides medial-lateral 

movement (i.e., pivoting about the zaxis) in a direction that is dependent 

upon the position of the shoulder belt. 

If the belt lies close to the neck, the 

shoulder will pivot inward; if it is on 

the edge of the shoulder it will pivot 

outward. The piece of the shoulder 

casting that contains the pivot hole has 

a finger-like protrusion. As the shoulder 

pivots, the finger acts as a cam by 

compressing a rubber pad that is glued 

within the yoke. This provides 

resistance to the z-axis pivoting. 

Compared to Hybrid III adult 

dummies, the shoulder design of the 

HIII–10C is anthropometrically 

improved. For the adult dummies, the 

shoulder is an assembly of two halves 

that are joined medially-laterally. The 

mid-joint provides the z-axis pivoting 

for each half. By eliminating the midjoint, the HIII–10C is able to provide a 

more biofidelic interaction with the 

shoulder belt during a dynamic event. 

Because it is made from one part instead 

of two, the HIII–10C shoulder was able 

to be designed with a sloped, uniform 

shoulder belt bearing surface. 

The improved design of the HIII–10C 

is made possible by the new 

configuration of the upper thorax in 

which the offset of the neck has been 

eliminated. The HIII–10C shoulder 

design allows more realistic movement 

of the belt along the shoulder during a 

dynamic event. Furthermore, since the 

surface that bears the load of the 

shoulder belt is a one-piece casting, the 

designers of the dummy were able to 

build in a shoulder load cell. Although 

it is not currently used for regulatory 

purposes, the load cell is very useful in 

research and development activities to 

study belt load distributions across the 

torso. 

Notwithstanding its simpler design, 

the new shoulder has had problems over 

the years. In early versions of the design 

(pre-NPRM), the shoulder had a 

tendency to over-pivot to the point 

where the finger protrusion was 

bottoming out the rubber pad. In the 

2001–2002 timeframe, the shoulder 

went through two design revisions in an 

attempt to rectify the situation by 

relocating the shoulder pivot hole and 

trimming the yoke. 

As indicated by the Graco and 

Chrysler comments, the Part 572 NPRM 

version of the shoulder could still be 

improved. Before the finger bottoms out 

the pad, metal-to-metal contact occurs 

between the yoke and the shoulder in 

one or more places. Shock from this 

contact appears as short-duration spikes 

of up to 150 G’s in the signals of 

accelerometers closest to the shoulder. 

Spikes of a lesser extent also appear in 

neck load cell signals. Chrysler ran sled 

tests to identify the shoulder-yoke 

contact points by means of transfer 

paint, and reported these results to the 

agency.20

To address the spikes, as reflected in 

the TDP for this final rule, we have 

revised the shoulder and yoke assembly 

to lessen the effect of the two parts 

bottoming out against each other. More 

clearance has been created for the 

shoulder to move by reconfiguring the 

shoulder casting and the yoke assembly 

by making them both narrower. This 

modification does not affect the 

biofidelity of the ATD or the 

reproducibility or repeatability of the 

responses because the neck response 

and sled kinematics were not affected 

by the shoulder revisions. 

Complete details of the modifications 

are described in an agency technical 

report that may be found in the docket 

for this final rule.21

ii. Lower Neck Revision 

This final rule makes simple 

modifications to the HIII–10C’s lower 

neck load cell and fasteners associated 

with the neck safety cable to lessen the 

shock effect. 

The safety cable of the HIII–10C neck 

is common to all ATDs in Part 572. It 

is a steel wire rope that runs through the 

center of the molded neck to prevent 

total separation of the head from the 

torso under an extreme test condition. 

The rope is fitted with swages at both 

ends: a ball-end at the superior end and 

a threaded stud-end at the inferior end. 

The ball-end is larger than the diameter 

of the neck’s through-hole to prevent it 

from passing through the neck. On the 

inferior end, a nut is used to tighten the 

threaded swage, which places the cable 

under tension and the molded neck 

under compression. A secondary jam 

nut serves as a lock. According to the 

NPRM and final rule specifications, the 

nut should be tightening to a torque 

setting of 8 +/¥ 2 inch-pounds (in-lbs) 

before each test. 

The entire neck assembly is joined to 

the spine by means of a specialized 

bracket that allows the neck to be set at 

different forward tilt angles. A throughhole runs through the center of this 

bracket allowing access to the end 

fitting of the wire rope so that it may be 

tightened without removing the bracket 

from the neck. In lieu of the bracket, an 

optional part is available for the HIII– 

10C containing a lower neck load cell. 

It has the same general configuration as 

the un-instrumented bracket, except the 

through hole has a smaller bore. 

Shock emanating from the neck has 

been observed when either the bracket 

or an optional part containing a lower 

neck load cell is used. (The load cell is 

not needed in tests carried out under 

FMVSS No. 213.) When the neck goes 

into extreme flexion (a 90 degree bend 

is specified in the qualification test), the 

center cable is not sufficiently taut to 

prevent its movement within the center 

channel of the neck. As a result, the 

steel washer and nuts on the threaded 

swage move within the free space 

provided by the center hole and can 

come into contact with the inner walls 

of the through-hole. To mitigate this 

condition, the washer has been changed 

from steel to nylon. Also, the lower neck 

load cell and its structural replacement 

have been revised since the Part 572 

NPRM. For each of these two parts, a 

sleeve made of soft, dampening material 

is now used to line the through-hole and 

prevent rattling of the nuts. The load 

cell revision also carries over the 

capacities specified in the NPRM which 

were increased for some channels where 

data was truncated in pre-NPRM agency 

tests using a previous load cell.22

In a related problem, a premature 

wear problem has been observed in the 

agency’s HIII–10C units and reported in 

comments provided by Dorel. The 

molded neck itself has two polymeric 

bushings, one at each end of the neck, 

through which the cable passes. The 

bushings prevent the steel rope from 

abrading the internal through-hole of 

the neck. However, the aforementioned 

cable movement tends to abrade the 

neck channel and chafe the lower 

polymeric cable bushing. 

To avoid problems such as those 

noted by Dorel, the polymeric bushing 

should be inspected on a periodic basis. 

The bushing is an inexpensive part that 

may be readily inspected and replaced 

during the course of running the neck 

qualification tests. We note that setting 

the neck cable to the proper torque is 

key to the longevity of the bushing. The 

torque setting is also critical to passing 

the qualification requirement for the 

neck. In addition, we also found that the 

torque setting of the neck cable nut 

significantly affects the head excursion 

and the upper neck moment within the 

sagittal plane (about the y-axis). 

We also found that, when left 

unchecked, the threaded stud-end could 

wear through the plastic collar and 

chafe the outer aluminum disc of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11657 

molded neck after extended use. When 

the neck goes into extreme flexion, a 

chafed bushing can partially work its 

way out of the center through hole of 

the molded neck. This allows the wire 

rope to rub directly against the 

aluminum end plate of the neck, 

sending shock through the entire spine, 

which appears as noise in the signals of 

nearby sensors. 

As described earlier, the signal noise 

emanating from the neck has no 

consequence on the use of the HIII–10C 

in FMVSS No. 213 because the noise is 

removed by signal processing 

algorithms. Nonetheless, the agency has 

implemented simple revisions to 

mitigate any shock emanating from the 

shoulder and lower neck. In addition to 

revising the lower neck load cell to 

preclude rattling, we have taken steps to 

lessen the effects of the chafing. A new 

bushing has been specified in the TDP 

with an increase to the flange thickness 

and with a smaller inner diameter, 

which reduces the clearance of the wire 

rope. The inner diameter of the cable 

washer has also been decreased to 

prevent it from sliding. Details of the 

new load cell, bushing, and washer, 

along with their effects, are reported in 

NHTSA’s technical report, ‘‘Revisions to 

the HIII–10C Technical Data Package,’’ 

August 2011. 

3. Stiffness of Vinyl Insert 

Dorel indicated in its comments that 

it was having difficulty meeting the 

torso flexion test because the vinyl 

abdominal inserts it used were too stiff 

or too soft. Dorel had to mix and match 

inserts and lumbar flex joints in an 

attempt to pass the test. The commenter 

was concerned that the manufacturing 

variability for the inserts is too wide. 

The agency has revised the 

specification of the abdominal insert by 

adding new dimensional requirements 

that improve manufacturing consistency 

and fit. The agency has also revised the 

PADI to include a section on how to 

position the abdominal insert within the 

pelvis cavity when running the torso 

flexion test. The specified setting of the 

insert governs its interaction with the 

chest jacket, lumbar spine, and ribcage, 

all of which influences the outcome of 

the torso flexion test. In agency tests, the 

new insert setting provided sufficient 

instruction to successfully carry out the 

torso flexion tests without having to mix 

or match inserts. 

4. Dummy Availability 

In its 2005 comments, Dorel claimed 

that no dummies were available on the 

market prior to the NPRMs of 2005 that 

satisfied the proposed Part 572 

specifications. It listed nine changes to 

its version of the dummy relative to the 

version specified by the Part 572 NPRM 

of 2005. Thus, Dorel claimed that it was 

not given adequate opportunity to 

evaluate the proposed dummy. 

We see no merit to delaying the final 

rule to either FMVSS No. 213 or Part 

572 on the basis of HIII–10C availability. 

Several years have passed since the 

NPRMs were published in 2005, during 

which two additional NPRMs have been 

published on the use of the HIII–10C in 

FMVSS No. 213. This has provided 

commenters with ample time and 

opportunity to acquire, test, and submit 

comments to the docket about the HIII– 

10C. We note that in Dorel’s comments 

to the SNPRM of 2008, it did not discuss 

any specifics on the HIII–10C other than 

those already provided in 2005 and 

addressed herein. 

b. Durability of the HIII–10C 

In its comments, Dorel reported on 

observed durability problems and 

breakage of the HIII–10C in its sled tests. 

No other commenters noted any 

problems related to these observations 

or any other damage. 

As described earlier in this preamble, 

the agency has expanded our dataset of 

HIII–10C sled tests by about 200 tests 

and many more qualification tests since 

the NPRMs were published in 2005. In 

the whole of this extensive test regimen, 

the agency has studied many aspects of 

the dummy’s performance including its 

functionality and durability. We have 

not observed any significant 

functionality or durability problems that 

would preclude the use of the HIII–10C 

use in FMVSS No. 213 or any other 

standardized test. 

Each problem raised by Dorel is 

discussed below. Also included is a 

discussion of our own part replacement 

records assembled during the course of 

our post-NPRM evaluation of the 

dummy. No further changes to the 

dummy have been implemented as a 

result of these observations. 

1. Proximal Femur 

Dorel reported a broken casting in one 

of its HIII–10C units representing the 

proximal femur. Although Dorel did not 

describe how the failure occurred, we 

assume it was brought on by the 

‘‘flailing legs’’ seen in FMVSS No. 213 

tests. During the impact event, the lap 

belt retains the pelvis, while the legs 

spring forward placing a tensile load on 

the joint connecting the legs to the 

pelvis. 

We had observed this type of failure 

in testing of an earlier, pre-NPRM 

version of the dummy. Since then, the 

dummy part representing the proximal 

femur was redesigned to eliminate the 

fracture problem. The part is now made 

of 4140 steel rather than C954 

aluminum bronze, and a sharp corner 

stress riser has been rounded. In the 

photographs provided by Dorel, it 

appears that its failed unit had the older 

aluminum bronze casting. The new 

design was incorporated into the Part 

572 NPRM version of the dummy and is 

specified in the version described in 

this final rule. 

The femur has held up in all agency 

tests since the change was implemented 

to the pre-NPRM version. No further 

change to the dummy is necessary. 

2. Bib Assembly 

Dorel provided a picture of a torn bib 

assembly, without further discussion, in 

its response to the Part 572 NPRM. The 

extent of the testing to produce this 

damage was not described. 

The agency has not encountered any 

instances of torn bib assemblies in our 

extensive testing experience with the 

HIII–10C, but we have seen occasional 

abrasions on some bib assemblies of 

other Part 572 dummies. They were 

caused by the shoulder belt pressing 

against and eventually rubbing through 

the chest jacket during multiple severe 

test exposures. This may have been the 

case for Dorel, based on its general 

comment that it had performed ‘‘65 

dynamic sled tests run at DJG [Dorel 

Juvenile Group] to the new [FMVSS 

No.] 213 standard bench and pulse 

using the HIII–10C dummy,’’ in addition 

to other dynamic sled tests conducted at 

a contract laboratory. Given that the tear 

is likely caused by excessive wear-andtear, the agency has not revised the bib 

assembly. 

3. Shoulder Rotation Stop Screws 

The arm of the HIII–10C is connected 

to the shoulder through a yoke that acts 

as a two degree of freedom joint which 

allows the arm to flex, extend, and 

rotate axially. Affixed to the yoke is a 

protrusion, or ‘‘shoulder rotation stop,’’ 

that limits the range of motion of the 

shoulder in axial rotation (i.e., it cannot 

complete a 360 degree circuit). So, when 

the arms of the HIII–10C flail forward 

and extend during a dynamic test, the 

stops prevent the arms from rotating all 

the way up and around behind the 

body. 

Dorel provided photos showing that 

the screws holding the rotation stop in 

place in its HIII–10C unit had sheared 

off. Dorel stated that it repaired the part 

by welding the stop into place, but the 

commenter provided no further 

discussion. 

The agency has not experienced this 

type of failure in any of our tests of the 

HIII–10C, and we do not know the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11658 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

23This was not the proximal femur casting part 

reported by Dorel. 

circumstances that led to the failure in 

the Dorel unit. In the absence of 

information that a problem exists or that 

it is recurring, we find no need to 

change the HIII–10C with regard to the 

shoulder stop. 

4. Agency Part Replacement Records 

Since the NPRMs of 2005, NHTSA has 

continued to monitor the durability of 

the HIII–10C, as we do routinely with 

all of our ATDs. A summary of our 

records is provided below. In general, a 

part within a dummy is replaced for one 

of two reasons: Because it was damaged 

during a test or because it has become 

worn and unserviceable after extensive 

use. As described below, our experience 

indicates that all part replacements were 

made under the latter circumstance. The 

records thus show good durability of the 

HIII–10C. 

i. Pelvis Helicoil Insert 

Throughout our post-NPRM testing 

experience of about 200 sled tests, the 

agency observed only one instance of a 

part failure that appeared to have 

affected the outcome of the test. This 

failure was brought on by flailing legs, 

which caused the femur to separate 

from the pelvis due to the failure of a 

helicoil.23 ‘‘Helicoil’’ is the product 

name of a steel fastener that provides 

positive thread locking into soft metals 

like aluminum or bronze. 

Three helicoils are inserted into the 

HIII–10C’s aluminum pelvis casting so 

that the flange that retains the proximal 

head of the femur may be bolted directly 

to the casting. After one of our tests, we 

noticed that the flange had separated 

from the pelvis. Upon closer inspection, 

we found that a helicoil had disengaged 

from the pelvis. This failure has not 

recurred. Moreover, a helicoil failure is 

typically gradual as its threads loosen 

from the base material over time. A 

thorough pre-test inspection can usually 

spot helicoil looseness so that repairs 

may be made, thus mitigating the 

likelihood of a test failure. Therefore, a 

revision to the flange fastening system is 

unnecessary. 

ii. Neck and Ribcage Replacement 

Like all ATDs in the Hybrid III family 

of dummies, the deformable parts of the 

HIII–10C have the shortest service lives. 

The two most often replaced parts on 

the HIII–10C are the ribcage and the 

molded neck. Worn ribs are usually 

detectable by examining them for overly 

gouged or delaminated damping 

material. Unserviceable molded neck 

assemblies are not noticeable by visual 

inspection, with the exception of chafed 

cable bushings as described earlier. 

The conditions of the ribs and neck 

are monitored directly through the Part 

572 qualification procedures. In our 

experiences with the HIII–10C, the 

decision to remove a rib set or neck 

from service has always been made 

during pre-test qualification procedures 

when the thorax impact or the neck 

flexion/extension test qualifications 

cannot be met after a few trials. The 

typical service life for HIII–10C rib sets 

and neck assemblies alike are about 

thirty sled tests. We have not had a 

situation where failure occurred during 

a sled test of any kind. 

iii. Other Replacements 

According to our records, flesh 

materials—particularly the chest flesh— 

are the only other parts that have been 

replaced on a recurring basis. As with 

flesh materials of all ATDs, those of the 

HIII–10C are replaced periodically as 

they become aged, abraded, or torn. 

Deterioration of these parts is easy to 

identify so that they may be repaired or 

replaced well before they deteriorate to 

the point where their condition may 

affect test results. They are also 

relatively inexpensive (chest flesh is the 

highest priced flesh material item: $650) 

and easy to service. 

5. Durability Summary 

Given the record of low maintenance 

to our own HIII–10C units and the 

relatively few complaints noted by 

commenters, we consider the dummy to 

be highly suitable for use in FMVSS No. 

213 in terms of its durability. Our 

records indicate that there have been 

relatively few instances of HIII–10C part 

replacements of any sort. When we have 

replaced parts, it has always been due 

to extensive service, not a sudden 

failure. Replacement of worn parts 

constitutes preventative maintenance 

that, when scheduled at regular 

intervals, will help to ensure valid test 

results. 

c. Qualification Procedures and 

Requirements 

Qualification procedures for the HIII– 

10C are basically the same as those 

proposed in the Part 572 NPRM, though 

some of the response corridors have 

been modified in consideration of 

additional qualification test data 

accumulated by the agency during our 

post-NPRM test experience. We also 

considered in our analysis a large 

qualification test dataset provided by 

the Alliance, amassed by members of 

the SAE International (SAE) Dummy 

Testing Equipment Subcommittee 

(DTESC). The much larger data set now 

allows us to base the setting of the 

corridors on an enhanced statistical 

analysis, providing even better 

assurance that the mean and the 

dispersion of the responses are 

representative of the dummies that the 

users will have to work with in the 

field. 

Comments provided by the Alliance 

and echoed by FTSS/Denton 

recommended several changes to the 

performance corridors for the HIII–10C. 

In most instances, the commenters 

recommended changes that were 

specified by the DTESC based on a large 

dataset of qualification test results 

provided by participating organizations, 

including Chrysler, Ford, and General 

Motors, FTSS/Denton, Delphi, MGA, 

and TRW. The Alliance also 

recommended changes to the 

specification for impact probes and 

dummy instrumentation. The comments 

and our response thereto are discussed 

below. 

1. Response Corridors 

The corridors suggested by the 

Alliance are based on a range of 98 to 

275 qualification tests per body segment 

from about 25 dummies. The Part 572 

NPRM corridors were based on a range 

of 6 to 28 qualification tests per 

component performed on 2 dummies. 

Post-NPRM data accumulated by the 

agency contained qualification results 

from an additional 4 HIII–10C units. 

The agency analyzed the data 

submitted by the Alliance and found 

that the suggested corridors and the 

coefficients of variation (CVs) were 

generally in good agreement with 

agency data. This good correspondence 

lent confidence that the data were of 

sufficient quality to be considered with 

agency data towards the establishment 

of performance corridors. The advantage 

of a larger sample size is that it allows 

for consideration of such factors as labto-lab, operator-to-operator, and 

dummy-to-dummy variability. 

Upon consideration of the larger 

dataset, we found that our original 

corridors proposed in the Part 572 

NPRM needed only fine-tuning. 

Summaries of the changes to each body 

region are given below. Full details of 

our analyses are contained in the 

technical report, ‘‘Development of 

Qualification Performance 

Specifications for the HIII–10C Crash 

Test Dummy,’’ December 2011, which 

has been placed in the docket for this 

final rule. 

i. Head 

The head qualification test consists of 

dropping the head onto a rigid surface 

from a height of 376 millimeters (mm) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11659 

(14.8 inch (in.)). Since the HIII–10C 

head is a Hybrid III 5th percentile adult 

female (HIII–5F) head, the same test 

procedure is specified as in 49 CFR part 

572, Subpart O, which contains the 

specification for the HIII–5F ATD. The 

head drop is designed for the forehead 

to impact a flat, rigid surface at the 

midsagittal plane. The head response 

limit in these impacts is specified 

between 250 and 300 G’s as proposed in 

the NPRM. No change was necessary to 

these limits, as the majority of data fit 

well and is well centered within the 

corridors. 

ii. Neck 

The head and neck assembly and the 

test procedures are the same as 

proposed in the Part 572 NPRM. The 

neck is evaluated for flexion and 

extension kinematics similar to that 

defined in 49 CFR part 572, Figure 15 

and Figure 21. The head-neck assembly 

is mounted to the bottom of a pendulum 

that is being decelerated from a speed of 

6.1 meter/sec (m/s) (20 feet/sec (ft/s)) for 

flexion and 5.03 m/s (16.5 ft/s) for 

extension at velocity reduction rates 

indicated in Table 1. The only 

difference between the final rule and the 

Part 572 NPRM is a corrected reduction 

in velocity specification at 10 ms for 

neck extension, changing from 1.59– 

1.89 ft/s to 1.49–1.89 ft/s. (The metric 

specification was correct.) The 1.59 ft/ 

s specification reflected a typographical 

error. 

TABLE 1—NECK REDUCTION IN IMPACT VELOCITY FROM INITIAL IMPACT IN FLEXION AND EXTENSION

Body region Reduction in impact velocity from initial impact 

Neck (flexion) 

Final rule NPRM 

ft/s m/s ft/s m/s 

at 10ms ............................................................................................ 1.64–2.04 5.38–6.69 1.64–2.04 5.38–6.69 

at 20ms ............................................................................................ 3.04–4.04 9.97–13.25 3.04–4.04 9.97–13.25 

at 30ms ............................................................................................ 4.45–5.65 14.60–18.53 4.45–5.65 14.60–18.53 

Neck (Extension) ft/s m/s ft/s m/s 

at 10ms ............................................................................................ 1.49–1.89 4.89–6.20 1.59–1.89 4.89–6.20 

at 20ms ............................................................................................ 2.88–3.68 9.45–12.07 2.88–3.68 9.45–12.07 

at 30ms ............................................................................................ 4.20–5.20 13.78–17.06 4.20–5.20 13.78–17.06 

Neck flexion. The final rule 

performance corridors for maximum Dplane rotation of the head and moment 

decay time were revised from those 

proposed in the Part 572 NPRM. Even 

though the width of the D-plane rotation 

corridor remained unchanged, 

additional agency data and comments 

by the Alliance supported a statistically 

justifiable shift of the range upward 

from 74–88 degrees to 76–90 degrees 

(the Alliance recommended a 76.5–88.5 

degree range). The corridor for moment 

decay time was adjusted to a slightly 

narrower range from 85–105 ms to 86– 

105 ms in the final rule. The combined 

NHTSA–Alliance data did not justify 

the selection of a narrower corridor 

suggested by the Alliance at 91–101 ms. 

In light of the good fit of the new 

qualification data within the previously 

established limits, the peak moment 

range within the rotation corridor 

remains unchanged from that proposed 

in the NPRM at 50–62 ms. The Alliance 

did not comment on this item. 

Neck extension. All three neck 

extension performance corridors in this 

qualification test were adjusted slightly 

from those proposed in the Part 572 

NPRM. The adjustments were needed to 

account for data received from the 

Alliance and the additional data 

generated in agency tests. The 

maximum D-plane rotation corridor was 

widened and shifted downward from 

99–114 degrees proposed in the NPRM 

to 96–115 degrees for the final rule. The 

limits suggested by the Alliance were 

also 96–115 degrees. 

Also, based on the additional data, in 

the final rule the corridor for peak 

occipital-condyle moment during the 

maximum rotation interval is revised to 

(¥46)–(¥37) Newton-meters (N-m), as 

compared to (¥47)–(¥35) N-m 

proposed in the NPRM, and (¥47)– 

(¥36) N-m recommended by the 

Alliance. The final rule specifies a 

moment decay time of 100–116 ms, as 

compared to 100–120 ms proposed in 

the NPRM, and 100–114 ms 

recommended by the Alliance. 

iii. Thorax 

The thorax qualification procedure is 

the same as that proposed in the Part 

572 NPRM. It specifies a 6.0 m/s (19.7 

ft/s) frontal impact within the 

midsagittal plane by a 6.89 kg (15.2 lb) 

round faced 121 millimeter (mm) (4.76 

in) diameter probe into the mid-sternum 

of a seated dummy. Thorax impact 

responses are specified as the maximum 

sternum displacement, the maximum 

probe force at the time of maximum 

sternum displacement, the maximum 

probe force when the sternum 

displacement is between 20 mm and the 

lower bound of maximum displacement, 

and the internal hysteresis percentage 

between loading and unloading curves. 

The NPRM proposed chest deflection 

limits of 40.5–48.5 mm, while the 

Alliance recommended 38.5–48.5 mm. 

Upon consideration of the full dataset, 

our analysis has led us to set the limits 

at 37–46 mm for the final rule. This 

downward shift was necessitated by a 

stiffer response seen in the most recent 

data in both NHTSA testing and in 

results submitted by the Alliance. 

In light of the modified maximum 

chest deflection corridor, the limits of 

the peak probe force at maximum 

deflection and the peak probe force in 

the deflection transition zone (prior to 

the rib deflection reaching the lower 

corridor limit) were raised 

correspondingly. The former was 

changed from 1.83–2.33 kN in the 

NPRM to 2.0–2.45 kN in the final rule, 

while the latter was changed from 

<2.33kN in the NPRM to <2.52 kN in the 

final rule. Comparable Alliance 

recommendations were 1.95–2.45 kN for 

peak force at maximum deflection and 

<2.45 kN in the transition zone. Limits 

for hysteresis proposed in the NPRM 

were well-supported by the data and 

remained unchanged at 69–85 percent. 

iv. Torso Flexion 

The torso flexion test involves the 

determination of bending resistance of 

the upright seated dummy’s lumbar 

spine/mid-torso area when the upper 

torso is quasi-statically flexed from its 

upright seated posture by 35 degrees 

relative to a lower torso. The resistance 

to bending is defined as the highest load 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11660 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

encountered during the bending 

process. 

The final rule specifies a resistance of 

180 to 250 N compared to that in the 

NPRM of 190–240 N. The adjustment 

was made in response to Alliance 

comments recommending a range of 

178–249 N. The final rule limits are in 

near agreement with the Alliance 

recommendation, and are well 

supported by the combined AllianceNHTSA data set. The final rule also 

specifies that upon removal of the 

flexion force the torso, the torso is 

required to return to within 8 degrees of 

its initial position. This is the same 

requirement that was proposed in the 

NPRM. Commenters did not recommend 

a revision to this requirement. 

v. Knee Impact 

The knee impact test is the same as 

that proposed in the Part 572 NPRM, 

consisting of a 2.1 m/s (6.9 ft/s) impact 

by a 1.91 kg (4.21 lb) flat-faced 76.2 mm 

(3.0 in.) diameter rigid probe into the 

knee of a HIII–10C leg assembly 

(including the tibia and foot), where the 

distal end of the femur is mounted 

rigidly to a reaction mass. For the final 

rule, the corridor for the force applied 

to the knee by the impactor is specified 

to be between 2.6 and 3.2 kN, as 

compared to 2.56 to 3.14 kN in the 

NPRM. The final rule specification is in 

agreement with recommendations made 

by the Alliance. 

2. Summary of Qualification 

Requirements 

A summary of performance 

specifications for the entire dummy, 

including those proposed in the Part 

572 NPRM and those advocated by the 

Alliance, is provided in Table 2. Based 

on our analysis, the agency data were 

found in most instances to be in 

reasonably good agreement with the 

corridors suggested by the Alliance 

corridors. For measurements where our 

analysis of the data did not justify 

setting the corridors at Alliance 

recommendations, we searched for the 

best justifiable accommodation of both 

datasets within the limits of the 

biofidelity data. 

As a general rule, performance 

corridors were set around ± 3 standard 

deviations from the mean for 

measurements with a CV<3 percent, at 

± 2 standard deviations from the mean 

for measurements with a CV from 3 to 

5 percent, and at ± 10 percent from the 

mean for measurements with a CV from 

5 to 10 percent. 

Table 2 indicates that all of the data 

leading to CVs for the final rule are 

within the 10 percent limit. 

Accordingly, all of the dummy based 

measurements related to their projected 

use as Injury Assessment Reference 

Values (IARVs) meet the requirements 

for inclusion into Part 572. 

TABLE 2—FINAL RULE QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS AND COMPARISON WITH NPRM AND ALLIANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Test Response measurement or test parameter 

Final rule 

corridor 

NPRM corridor 

Alliance suggested corridor Full alliance/NHTSA dataset 

Mean S.D. %CV 

Head drop ............... Acceleration (g) ....................................... 250–300 250–300 250–300 271 11.6 4.29 

Neck pendulum, 

flexion.

Max D-plane rotation (deg) ..................... 76–90 74–88 76.5–88.5 83.05 3.28 3.95 

Peak O–C moment (N-m) ....................... 50–62 50–62 n/a 55.38 3.30 5.96 

Moment decay time to 10 N-m (ms) ....... 86–105 85–105 91–101 96.63 3.88 4.01 

Neck pendulum, extension.Max D-Plane rotation (deg) .................... 96–115 99–114 96–115 105.4 4.35 4.12 

Peak O–C moment (N-m) ....................... (¥46)–(¥37) (¥47)–(¥35) (¥47)–(¥36) ¥41.8 2.37 5.67 

Moment decay to –10 N-m (ms) ............. 100–116 100–120 100–114 107.2 3.17 2.95 

Thorax pendulum 

impact.

Sternum displacement (mm) ................... 37–46 40.5–48.5 38.5–48.5 41.3 2.1 5.04 

Peak probe force defining the displacement corridor (kN).2.0–2.45 1.83–2.33 1.95–2.45 2.227 0.113 5.06 

Peak probe force during the time when 

sternum displ. is 20 to 40.5 mm (kN).

<2.52 <2.33 <2.45 2.287 0.154 6.74 

Thorax hysteresis .................................... 69–85% 69–85% 69–85% 80.3 2.3 2.91 

Torso flexion ........... Peak force at 35 deg from vertical (N) ... 180–250 190–240 178–249 213.3 18.7 8.8 

Return angle (degrees) ........................... < 8, >¥8 < 8, >¥8 ...................... 5.2 1.7 note 1 

Knee impact ........... Peak force (kN) ....................................... 2.6–3.2 2.56–3.14 2.60–3.20 2.92 0.157 5.37 

(1) The %CV does not apply to this measurement since the nominal requirement of zero degrees renders a %CV of infinite magnitude. 

3. Impact Probes 

For the dummies specified in Part 572 

before 2000, impact probes used in 

qualification testing were assumed to 

take the form of a nearly perfect 

cylinder that could be specified by a 

material, weight, and diameter. In 

practice, a perfectly cylindrical probe is 

rare. Also, the addition of several new 

child dummies to 49 CFR part 572 

called for a new assortment of lighter 

probes that were even more difficult to 

design in a pure cylindrical form due to 

their low weight. This created a 

situation where testing laboratories 

maintained a limited assortment of 

probe bodies, and then attained the 

proper probe characteristics by 

interchanging probe faces. 

Beginning with our final rule for the 

Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy 

(HIII–6C) in January 2000, the agency 

began to specify the minimum mass 

moment of inertia (MOI) and free air 

resonance for the various probes used in 

Part 572 qualification testing. This 

assured that vibratory effects were not 

present and that various probe 

configurations did not introduce 

differences in dummy response due to 

probe shape variations. At the same 

time, laboratories retained ample 

latitude to design impact probes. For the 

HIII–10C, the Part 572 NPRM specified 

a minimum mass moment of inertia as 

well. 

In its comment, the Alliance took 

issue with our proposed specifications. 

It pointed out that the minimum thorax 

and knee pendulum mass moments of 

inertia as proposed in the NPRM at 

2,040 kg-cm2 and 140 kg-cm2, 

respectively, were higher than those 

recommended by the SAE Hybrid III 

Dummy Family Task Group. In its 

comments, the Alliance included thorax 

and knee qualification data collected 

from multiple test facilities indicating 

minimal performance differences in 

qualification tests despite a variety of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11661 

test probes with different MOIs. It 

recommended that we revise our 

minimum specification to 1,463 kg-cm2

for the thorax probe and 117 kg-cm2 for 

the knee probe, as was called out in the 

original SAE specification of the 

dummy. 

In our analysis of Alliance data, we 

examined round-robin tests performed 

on the same knee (or thorax) to isolate 

the effect of the different probe MOI on 

the response of that part. By only 

considering these tests, we eliminated 

the possibility that dummy 

reproducibility would confound the 

response data. Also, we only considered 

data from the sources where MOIs were 

known. Though it submitted test data 

from several laboratories, the Alliance 

provided probe MOIs from just three 

sources. 

In comparing qualification test data 

using the Alliance probes with the 

lowest MOIs against data using our own 

probes, we found peak force 

measurements to be consistently lower 

with the Alliance probes. We note that 

the Alliance knee probe with the lowest 

MOI was still above our lower limit (152 

kg-cm2 vs. 140 kg-cm2), and the Alliance 

thorax probe with the lowest MOI was 

only narrowly under our limit (1,960 kgcm2 vs. 2,040 kg-cm2). Given the trend 

towards lower force response with 

lower MOIs and that the majority of 

Alliance probes are already within our 

MOI specification, the agency will not 

revise the probe specifications. 

4. Instrumentation 

i. Rotary Potentiometers 

The Alliance pointed out an omission 

to the filter specification for rotary 

potentiometers that are typically used in 

the neck flexion and extension 

qualification tests. The potentiometers 

are used to measure the rotation of the 

head relative to the pendulum. The 

agency inadvertently overlooked the 

filter call-out in the Part 572 NPRM. We 

have revised the specification to include 

a 60 CFC call-out as was recommended 

by the Alliance. This call-out is 

consistent with SAE J211 and that of 

other Part 572 ATD specifications. 

ii. Sternum Displacement 

The Alliance pointed out that the CFC 

180 filter specification for sternum 

displacement was not consistent with 

the SAE Recommended Practice J211, 

Rev. Mar 95, ‘‘Instrumentation for 

Impact Tests—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation,’’ (SAE J211). It noted 

that Hybrid III dummies specified in 49 

CFR part 572 subparts N (HIII–6C) and 

O (HIII–5F) call for the use of a CFC 600 

filter for sternum displacement. This 

was a mistake in the Part 572 NPRM. 

We have revised the final rule to specify 

a CFC 600 filter for sternum 

displacement potentiometer signals. 

d. Technical Data Package 

The HIII–10C as specified herein is 

essentially the same as that defined in 

the Part 572 NPRM. A few minor 

revisions to the TDP have come about as 

a result of our experiences during 

extensive use of multiple HIII–10C 

dummies in the post-NPRM tests of 

booster seats. The revisions were 

corrective in nature; they do not affect 

the response of the dummy other than 

to remove unwanted artifacts. These 

include changes associated with 

improved functionality to the shoulder, 

neck cable bushing, and chin as 

described earlier. In addition, several 

typographical errors and other mistakes 

in print were uncovered. Comments 

associated with the TDP are discussed 

below. 

1. Changes to the Engineering Drawings 

and PADI 

FTSS/Denton requested a number of 

changes to the engineering drawings 

and PADI. These requests were echoed 

by the Alliance. For the most part, we 

agree with FTSS/Denton’s requests and 

we have revised the TDP accordingly. 

The revisions are all aimed at 

manufacturing, machining, assembly, 

and inspection of dummy parts. They 

fell into four categories: errors, 

dimensioning changes, clarifications 

expressed in notes, and changes 

associated with the introduction of new 

part numbers. 

Errors consisted of misnumberings, 

typographical errors, and other mistakes 

in print. 

An example of a dimension change 

can be seen on the Shoulder Yoke 

Assembly, drawing 420–3430. For this 

part, the yoke was widened by 0.003 

inches. This minor change provides the 

proper clearance needed to account for 

tolerance stack up so that the arm may 

always be attached to the shoulder 

without force-fitting. 

An example of a clarifying revision is 

the added set of dimensions placed on 

sheet 3 of drawing 420–0000, Complete 

Assembly, HIII–10C. These reference 

dimensions indicate the location of 

safety belt plateaus on the dummy’s 

shoulder and pelvis. They are useful 

when inspecting the dummy in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in the PADI and when 

conducting the torso flexion 

qualification test. This additional 

information does not alter the dummy’s 

design or its construction. 

In the TDP proposed in the Part 572 

NPRM, many parts were identified with 

part numbers associated with other 

ATDs. In the final drawing package we 

assigned new part numbers to these 

parts, using the HIII–10C’s ‘‘420’’ prefix, 

to identify these as HIII–10C parts. This 

was strictly a documentation change to 

better identify HIII–10C parts and did 

not affect the construction of the 

dummy in any way. However, it did 

generate many drawing revisions since 

many of the newly assigned part 

numbers are referenced on many HIII– 

10C drawings. 

None of the revisions affect the 

performance of the HIII–10C in 

qualification testing or in FMVSS No. 

213. Therefore, they are not discussed 

exhaustively in this document. A full 

accounting of the revisions can be found 

in the supplementary technical report 

cited earlier, ‘‘Revisions to the HIII–10C 

Technical Data Package,’’ NHTSA, 

August 2011. 

2. Organization of Materials 

i. Searchable Text 

FTSS/Denton and the Alliance 

recommended that the part numbers be 

searchable in electronic PDF drawing 

files. The agency concurs that it would 

be an improvement for text to be 

searchable in the electronic PDF 

drawing files to facilitate use. 

Accordingly, the agency has converted 

the drawing files to an electronic format 

with searchable text capability. A 

searchable text is now available in the 

electronic drawing files. 

ii. Order of Engineering Drawings 

FTSS/Denton and the Alliance 

recommended that the drawing package 

be arranged into ascending order by part 

number. We disagree. We believe that 

the drawing package should be left in 

segment order to be able to quickly 

identify parts belonging to a particular 

segment cluster. Moreover, the 

numbering system should be consistent 

with the PADI to facilitate inspection 

and service of the dummy. Given that 

the drawing package is electronically 

searchable, it will be an easy matter for 

users to search for drawings and order 

them in the manner they prefer. 

Accordingly, the HIII–10C drawing 

package remains ordered by body 

segment (as proposed in the Part 572 

NPRM). 

iii. Part Quantity Specification 

The HIII–10C parts list is arranged 

such that each assembly is listed 

together with its associated parts. In 

many instances the same part (such as 

a fastener) is used on multiple 

assemblies and is thus listed more than 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11662 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

24Two sets of 3D renderings were received: one 

originating from FTSS and the other from Denton 

before the merger of the two companies into 

Humanetics. 

once on the parts list. The parts list 

proposed in the Part 572 NPRM only 

identifies how many times a part is used 

on the assembly immediately preceding 

it on the list, not the entire dummy. 

FTSS/Denton and the Alliance 

recommend that the parts list should 

include a column giving the total 

quantity of that part in the dummy the 

first time it appears on the list. The 

agency agrees that such information 

would be useful for procurement of 

parts and servicing of the dummy. 

Accordingly, a column has been added 

in the parts list showing the total 

number of times a part appears in the 

dummy. 

iv. Part Numbering Scheme 

A number of HIII–10C dummy parts 

are common with parts of other 

dummies. For example, the HIII–10C 

has the same head as the HIII 5th 

female, but the TDP’s for each dummy 

have their own numbering scheme with 

different part numbers for the head. 

FTSS/Denton commented that it 

believes the same part numbers should 

be used for identical parts. This 

comment was echoed by the Alliance. 

The agency has not revised our part 

numbering scheme as recommended by 

FTSS/Denton. If the same part numbers 

were used, substantial documentation 

problems could be encountered. A 

revision to the design of a shared part 

may be needed for one dummy, but 

detrimental to the function of another 

dummy. A distinct numbering system, 

by cross-referencing the shared part 

numbers, poses no such problems. 

The main benefits of using identical 

part numbers are related to part 

inventory control and sequencing of 

production processes. For dummy 

manufacturers like FTSS/Denton, the 

economics of production may be aided 

by a numbering scheme that identifies 

common parts so that batch processing 

of identical parts could be scheduled 

readily. However, we believe that 

interested parties can realize these 

advantages easily enough by developing 

their own internal part numbering 

scheme as they see fit. This may be 

cross-referenced against the HIII–10C 

TDP without resorting to a common part 

numbering scheme for Part 572. 

3. Specifications for Soft Parts 

The Alliance and FTSS/Denton 

recommended that the agency and 

industry work together to define 

dimensions that are critical to 

controlling performance of the vinyl, 

rubber, and other deformable parts and 

to identify suitable measurement jigs 

and part tolerances. The Alliance cited 

the jacket of the 49 CFR part 572 subpart 

O Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female 

dummy as an example of unwanted 

reproducibility variations among 

dummy manufacturers. FTSS/Denton 

requested further that the agency work 

directly with them to set longevity 

specifications for the useful life of 

deformable parts. Citing customer 

dissatisfaction, FTSS/Denton was 

concerned that vinyl and rubber ATD 

components typically shrink or change 

shape over time. 

We do not believe it is feasible or 

practical for NHTSA to undertake the 

work suggested by the commenters at 

this time, nor is it necessary for the 

HIII–10C. The HIII–10C was developed 

cooperatively under the direction of the 

SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family Task 

Force to limit the variability of parts. At 

the time, FTSS and Denton collaborated 

jointly on the design. SAE provided the 

general specifications, and the two 

manufacturers shared the responsibility 

of designing the hardware and 

producing the prototypes. The 

cooperation assured that variations in 

reproducibility were avoided. 

Even before the companies merged, 

HIII–10C parts built by FTSS and 

Denton had a good record of 

reproducibility and interchangeability, 

as highlighted in the Part 572 NPRM. 

Now that the two companies have 

merged, HIII–10C vinyl and rubber parts 

can be created from a common set of 

molds, thus precluding any variability 

in the form and fit of soft parts. As for 

longevity, the decision on when to 

replace worn HIII–10C parts should be 

based on conformity to part 

specifications and qualification testing. 

4. Use of 3D Computer Renderings 

The Part 572 NPRM mentioned that 

‘‘three-dimensional engineering aids are 

available from the NHTSA Web site for 

complex dummy part dimensions. 

While these aids are not part of this 

specification, they can be used by the 

public for reference purposes.’’ These 

aids take the form of computer-aided 

design (CAD) files that appear as threedimensional (3D) renderings of various 

parts. They were received by NHTSA 

from the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family 

Task Group in 2004 at the time we 

received the two-dimensional (2D) 

engineering drawings.24 The Alliance 

commented that it believes that the 3D 

renderings should be formally entered 

into Part 572 to specify the HIII–10C. 

Although we see much merit to 3D 

renderings, we will not implement the 

suggestion to enter them into Part 572. 

We understand that all contemporary 

ATD designs originate using CAD tools 

which are valuable assets to designers 

and researchers. Within NHTSA, CAD 

files of ATDs have been used in our 

research activities to construct finite 

element models to simulate dummies in 

dynamic events. We have also used 

them to investigate possible ATD design 

modifications and to study static 

interactions with seat belts and vehicle 

interiors. 

However, 3D CAD renderings are not 

currently used for regulatory purposes 

in Part 572. As applied within our 

research activities, a 3D computer 

rendering is akin to an actual part. But 

the part alone—without dimensions or 

any other information—cannot be used 

to specify itself. Part specifications 

communicate information on how to 

fabricate and verify the part. This is 

done by applying dimensions and 

tolerances to parts, along with 

information on material, surface finish, 

and other features required by the 

specification-holder. The most objective 

way to convey this information is to 

render the part on a standard 2D 

engineering drawing, showing multiple 

views of the part when necessary. 

Drawing standards have long been 

developed to systematically and 

unambiguously convey this information, 

as reflected in Part 572 engineering 

drawings of ATDs. Thus, the 2D 

drawings ultimately serve to specify 

ATD parts. 

Neither the Alliance nor FTSS/Denton 

(the originator of the 3D renderings) has 

proposed a systematic and unambiguous 

means by which the 3D renderings may 

be used to specify ATDs. Until such a 

means is devised, we will not include 

them in 49 CFR part 572 to specify the 

HIII–10C. Our basis for acceptance of 

the dummy will continue to be 

conformance to 2D drawings, together 

with the qualification test requirements 

in Part 572. 

We continue to believe that 3D 

renderings serve as very helpful 

engineering aids as described in the 

NPRM and hold promise in specifying 

ATD parts. However, in the case of the 

3D renderings of the HIII–10C received 

from the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family 

Task Group, the agency will not post the 

CAD files on our Web site. Upon further 

review of these renderings, we have 

found many instances where they do 

not conform to the 2D specifications 

shown on drawings. Since we cannot 

vouch for their accuracy, we decline to 

post them. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11663 

25Mertz HJ, Jarrett K, Moss S, Salloum M, ZhaoY, 

The Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy, Stapp Car 

Crash Journal, Vol. 45, November 2001. 

26Tylko S, Dalmotas D (2005), ‘‘Protection of Rear 

Seat Occupants in Frontal Crashes,’’ Proceedings of 

the 19th International Technical Conference on the 

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 

05–258. 

e. Other 

In response to some of the comments, 

this section clarifies or explains some of 

the statements in the preamble of the 

Part 572 NPRM. These clarifications do 

not affect the regulatory text or TDP 

specifying the HIII–10C for 

incorporation into Part 572. 

1. Labeling the Dummy as a ‘‘Ten Year 

Old’’ 

As noted earlier in this preamble, 

among the ATDs described in 49 CFR 

part 572, the HIII–10C successfully fills 

the size gap between the existing HIII– 

6C and the Hybrid III 5th percentile 

adult female dummy. The majority of 

the commenters were supportive of the 

use of the HIII–10C. However, AAP 

noted that the height and weight of the 

HIII–10C do not correspond to an 

average 10-year-old child as indicated 

by growth charts published by the 

Center for Disease Control (CDC). AAP 

stated that, according to growth charts 

from 2000, the HIII–10C falls into the 

50th–75th percentile in weight, but at 

130 centimeters (cm) tall, it is only in 

the 5th–10th percentile in standing 

height. AAP believed that these 

proportions do not represent any 

average human child and may better 

represent a nine-year-old child than a 

ten-year-old. This comment was echoed 

by Advocates. Although neither 

organization objected to the use of the 

dummy in the FMVSS, both apparently 

believe that the discrepancy in the 

proportions of the HIII–10C may 

confuse or mislead the general public on 

the applicability of booster seats. Thus, 

both organizations believe the agency 

should explain how we defined ‘‘tenyear-old’’ as it relates to human children 

and the description of the HIII–10C. 

Agency response. The target design 

for the HIII–10C dummy was an ATD 

that was suitable for assessing CRSs 

rated for children weighing about 36.3 

kg (80 lb). At 35.4 kg (78 lb), the HIII– 

10C fulfills this objective. As such, the 

design intent of the dummy was not to 

conform rigorously to the 

anthropometry of a child of a particular 

age, weight, or height percentile. 

Furthermore, the sitting height—not the 

standing height—is of primary 

importance when evaluating booster 

seats because the overlay of the seat belt 

system onto the dummy is depended on 

its seated posture. As pointed out by 

AAP, the sitting height of the HIII–10C 

falls into the same growth chart range 

for sitting height as it does for weight. 

Nevertheless, the agency believes that 

the proportions of the HIII–10C are more 

consistent with an average 10-year-old 

than indicated by AAP’s comments. 

Characteristic dimensions and segment 

weights of the HIII–10C are based on the 

anthropometry of the average 10-yearold as identified by Mertz et al.,25 to 

which the dummy is shown to match 

closely. 

Moreover, we note that our declared 

standing height of 130 cm is only an 

approximation, not a direct 

measurement. The HIII–10C has no oneto-one correspondence with the heights 

shown on CDC growth charts. The CDC 

reference for standing height is one that 

is taken when subjects are maximally 

erect. Like all full ATDs in Part 572, the 

HIII–10C is a sitting dummy. Since it 

cannot be placed in a standing position, 

its ‘‘standing height’’ cannot be 

measured directly. Instead, it is 

approximated by summing the lengths 

of its body segments. However, since the 

dummy is constructed to represent a 

reclined and supported seated posture, 

not an erect posture, the summed 

lengths underestimate the CDC standing 

height. This means that if an actual 

child with sitting dimensions equal to 

those of the HIII–10C stood in a 

maximally erect posture, his/her height 

would probably be greater than 130 cm. 

2. Best Practices for Belt Routing 

In citing a 2005 paper by Tylko and 

Dalmotas,26 the Alliance observed that 

the chest deflection of the HIII–10C in 

the booster seat was higher than it was 

when it was used without the booster 

seat. In the non-booster test, the belt was 

routed close to the neck where that the 

dummy’s central sternal potentiometer 

was not sensitive to high belt loading. 

(This insensitivity is common to all 

ATDs in the Hybrid III family of 

dummies.) The Alliance has asked the 

agency to raise awareness of this issue 

so that the positive effects of booster 

seats are not mistakenly maligned. 

Agency response. As a point of 

clarification, we note that an injury 

criterion based on chest deflection is not 

included in FMVSS No. 213. Further, 

we also note that the authors of the 

study make the point that limiting the 

analysis to chest responses could lead to 

false conclusions, and that multiple 

injury metrics should be used, not just 

chest deflection. 

The agency agrees that low chest 

deflections alone are not always a good 

indicator of a safe condition. Low 

deflections often accompany cases of 

submarining and high knee excursion. 

Low chest deflections can also occur 

when the belt migrates laterally off the 

shoulder so that the thorax is not held 

back and head excursion is exceedingly 

high. This exemplifies why multiple 

injury metrics are usually needed to 

evaluate a safety system. For FMVSS 

No. 213, we assess booster seats by 

evaluating the HIII–10C’s chest 

acceleration, head excursion, and knee 

excursion concurrently. The agency 

does not believe that either FMVSS No. 

213 or the HIII–10C promotes a poor 

booster seat design in which the 

shoulder belt is routed close to the neck. 

As discussed in this rulemaking, we 

have found that the HIII–10C dummy 

adequately distinguishes good vs. bad 

belt routing in the CRS test 

environment. 

3. Abdominal Injury Correlates 

The August 31, 2005 NPRM on 

FMVSS No. 213 discussed NHTSA’s 

work developing abdominal injury 

criteria for the HIII–10C, including our 

work on the ‘‘abdominal injury ratio’’ 

(AIR), which uses impulse calculations 

from the iliac compressive and lumbar 

shear forces to identify dummy 

kinematics associated with 

submarining. A high AIR value occurs 

with diminished iliac loads in the 

presence of high lumbar shear loads. 

This indicates that the belt may have 

slipped off the iliac and the dummy 

may have submarined. Thus, greater 

AIR values correlate indirectly to 

abdominal injuries. 

In comments to the Part 572 NPRM, 

Advocates requested that the agency 

implement AIR until such time as an 

alternative abdominal injury measure 

has been established. 

Agency response. AIR was not 

proposed in the FMVSS No. 213 NPRM 

or SNPRMs due to limited data and is 

not included in the final rule. We note 

that AIR is empirical; it is not founded 

upon the biomechanics of injury. (I.e., 

reduced iliac loads do not cause 

abdominal injuries. They only identify 

instances where a belt may have slipped 

into the abdomen of the dummy, which 

may or may not lead to injury.) If the 

AIR criterion were to be imposed, CRS 

manufacturers could maximize iliac 

loads to achieve a good AIR score. We 

have concerns about criteria that 

encourage high loads of any sort, as this 

could potentially increase injury risk in 

another body region or produce some 

other unexpected consequence. 

For immediate use now, the agency 

has adopted the use of a correlate to 

abdominal injuries, i.e., knee excursion. 

The final rule for FMVSS No. 213 

imposes limits on knee excursion and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11664 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

27 Klinich, K., Reed, M., Orton, N., Manary, M., 

Rupp, J., ‘‘Optimizing Protection for Rear Seat 

Occupants: Assessing Booster Performance with 

Realistic Belt Geometry Using the Hybrid III 6YO 

ATD,’’ UMTRI Report, University of Michigan, Ann 

Arbor, MI, March 2011. 

28Rouhana et al. (2001), ‘‘Development of a 

Reusable, Rate-sensitive Abdomen for the Hybrid III 

Family of Dummies,’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, V45. 

29 Kent R, Stacey S, Kindig M, Forman J, Woods 

W (2006), ‘‘Biomechanical Response of the Pediatric 

Abdomen, Part 1: Development of an Experimental 

Model and Quantification of Structural Response to 

Dynamic Belt Loading,’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, 

V50, 2006–22–0001. 

30 Klinich, K et al. (2010), ‘‘Development and 

Testing of a More Realistic Pelvis for the Hybrid III 

6-Year-Old ATD,’’ Traffic Injury Prevention, 

11:606–612. 

31Reed MP, Sochor MM, Rupp JD, Klinich KD, 

Manary MA (2009), ‘‘Anthropometric Specification 

of Child Crash Dummy Pelves through Statistical 

Analysis of Skeletal Geometry,’’ Journal of 

Biomechanics, V42: 1143–1145. 

32NHTSA’s Biomechanics Research Plan, 2011– 

2015, Report No. DOT HS 811 474, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Washington DC, June 2011. 

head excursion for the HIII–10C. The 

limit on knee excursion prevents 

restraint manufacturers from controlling 

head excursion by designing their 

restraints so that children submarine 

excessively during a crash. The agency 

has observed a strong correlation 

between knee excursion and 

submarining in the child dummies.27

Ultimately, a direct biomechanicallybased measure of abdominal 

deformation provides the best means to 

assess abdominal injuries. Our research 

plan for the HIII–10C includes 

developing a pelvis and abdominal 

modification that will provide such a 

measurement. 

4. Repeatability in Systems Testing 

In the Part 572 NPRM, the agency 

reported on a series of repeatability tests 

using a dynamic sled. The tests were 

carried out using a specialized booster 

seat designed for repeated use. Dorel 

commented that they cannot follow this 

protocol when certifying its own seats. 

Dorel also commented that our 

repeatability tests seemed to assure a 

best-case outcome in terms of dummy 

injury metrics. 

Agency response. Dorel may have 

misconstrued our reporting of these 

tests as a mandate for additional 

procedures necessary to qualify the 

HIII–10C and certify booster seats. This 

was not our intent. The series of tests 

were not directly applicable to 

compliance testing of booster seats. The 

purpose of the sled tests was to evaluate 

the repeatability and durability of the 

HIII–10C dummy kinematics in a pulse 

approaching FMVSS No. 213 severity. 

The tests were not to create a best-case 

scenario for injury reference values. We 

chose to use a rigid bench seat in 

conjunction with a limited number of 

CRS models to minimize the effects of 

set-up related variables which otherwise 

could interfere with the assessment of 

the dummy’s own true consistency. 

f. Dummy Development Efforts 

1. Hybrid III Child Dummy Revisions— 

Abdomen and Pelvis 

Citing the significance of abdominal 

injuries in children and the lack of 

instrumentation in the HIII–10C, both 

CHOP and Advocates urged the agency 

to redouble our efforts to come up with 

an appropriate means to assess 

abdominal injuries with the dummy. 

Dorel, AAP, and UMTRI also 

commented on importance of assessing 

abdominal injuries. 

Since the NPRMs of 2005, NHTSA has 

been actively involved in two principal 

research efforts aimed at improving 

abdominal injury assessment in Hybrid 

III child ATDs. The two efforts focus on 

the development of a biofidelic, 

instrumented abdomen along with an 

appropriately proportioned pelvis. 

One effort involves a concept for a 

fluid-filled abdomen that was reported 

in 2001.28 Since then, it has been 

developed into a silicone shell filled 

with silicone gel with instrumentation 

to measure deformation. The shell takes 

the form of an insert that fills the 

abdominal cavity of the HIII–6C. The 

abdominal insert has proven to be 

reasonably biofidelic when compared 

with the response of an age-matched 

animal surrogate.29 The other effort 

involves the modification of a standard 

HIII–6C pelvis to more closely reflect 

child anthropometry based on data 

collected by UMTRI on child 

participants.30

NHTSA has also begun work with an 

SAE working group devoted to 

integrating abdomen and pelvis 

technology into the HIII–6C (the SAE 

dummy abdomen pelvis round robin 

(DAPRR) working group (August 2008)). 

In DAPRR, NHTSA is facilitating the 

development of prototype pelves using 

UMTRI design criteria 31 to develop a 

biofidelic retrofit package suitable for 

assessing pediatric abdominal injuries. 

Round-robin testing of the prototypes is 

planned for 2012. The HIII–6C is the 

primary target of the developing 

modifications given the greater use rates 

of six-year-olds vs. ten-year-olds in 

child restraint systems regulated by 

FMVSS No. 213. The new pelvis and 

abdomen designs could possibly be 

transitioned to the ten-year-old size 

through dimensional scaling and 

considerations for biomechanical 

response differences. 

2. Pediatric Research 

CHOP, AAP, and Advocates have 

asked the agency to intensify our 

research efforts in child biomechanics 

in general. Many noted that current 

pediatric crash test dummies have been 

developed based on biofidelity 

requirements that were scaled from 

adult response data. 

Since the NPRMs of 2005, the agency 

has been engaged in several activities 

aimed at new child specific biofidelity 

requirements for use in the development 

of new frontal impact child dummies. 

These are summarized below and 

discussed more fully in NHTSA’s 

Biomechanics Research Plan, 2011– 

2015.32

Child anthropometry. In order to 

properly assess a child’s interaction 

with a booster seat and belt system, we 

are building a child anthropometry 

database by collecting whole-body laser 

scans of 3-, 6- and 10-year-old age 

ranges in automotive seating positions. 

Biomechanical response. We have 

several projects focused on getting 

response data that is unique to the 

pediatric human and not scaled from 

adult data. For example, to better 

understand the deformation 

characteristics of a pediatric thorax, we 

are collecting force versus deflection 

data during cardiopulmonary 

resuscitation of pediatric hospital 

patients. Additionally, we are collecting 

data from sled tests of pediatric agematched surrogates that are being used 

to quantify thoracic response and spinal 

kinematics. 

Biomechanics of injury. We are 

studying the relationship between local 

brain tissue strain and axonal injury in 

a prepubescent human. This has 

potential to be used for the basis of new 

brain injury criteria for children. 

Child dummy development. The 

agency has begun assessing current 

child ATDs (including those in the 

Hybrid III family as well as the Q-series) 

against new pediatric response data. 

Our first consideration is the need for 

developing an all-new 6-year-old ATD 

versus enhancement of the existing 

HIII–6C. Thereafter, we will consider 

the need for an advanced 10-year-old 

ATD. 

3. Status of HIC 

Advocates have asked the agency to 

work expeditiously to reinstate a head 

injury criterion for the HIII–10C. 

The agency is committed to resolving 

the problem that led to our decision to 

omit HIC as a criterion in FMVSS No. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11665 

33NHTSA’s Biomechanics Research Plan, 2011– 

2015, Report No. DOT HS 811 474, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Washington DC, June 2011, 

pp. 6–10. 

34With respect to the safety standards, the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemptive provision: ‘‘When 

a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a 

State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard 

applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if 

the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 

Continued 

213 when testing with the HIII–10C. The 

problem, explained earlier, stems from 

ATD whole-body motions that induce a 

hard chin-to-chest contact, not HIC 

itself. We are working to improve the 

ATD’s chin and sternum designs to 

mitigate this effect. As described under 

the heading of child biomechanics 

within the NHTSA Biomechanics 

Research Plan,33 we are also working to 

attain a better understanding of 

pediatric body motions in order to 

engineer a biofidelic head response into 

an ATD. This includes efforts to 

characterize the flexibility of an 

adolescent thoracic spine and its effect 

on head excursion and upper neck 

loads. Furthermore, research is 

underway to better understand the 

interaction between the shoulder belt 

and clavicle and its effect on head 

motion. We are also examining the 

extent to which chin-to-chest contacts 

actually occur to children in booster 

seats in order to model the interaction 

correctly with a child ATD. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 

13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

This rulemaking action has 

considered the impact of this regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866 and E.O.13563 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

(DOT) regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rulemaking action was 

not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866. The rulemaking has also been 

determined not to be significant under 

DOT’s regulatory policies and 

procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979). 

There are benefits associated with this 

rulemaking but they cannot be 

quantified. The incorporation of the test 

dummy into 49 CFR part 572 will 

permit NHTSA to use the ATD in 

FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing of 

CRSs for children weighing over 65 lb. 

In addition, the availability of this 

dummy in a regulated format will 

benefit safety by providing a more 

suitable, stabilized, and objective test 

tool to the safety community for use in 

research and development of child 

passenger safety products. 

Based on our dummy purchase 

contract with FTSS/Denton, the 

estimated cost of an uninstrumented 

HIII–10C dummy is approximately 

$35,000. Instruments necessary to 

qualify the dummy in accordance with 

Part 572 include 3 accelerometers for 

the head (about $500 apiece) and an 

upper neck load cell (about $10,000). 

The central sternal potentiometer, 

needed for the thorax qualification 

procedure, is included in the base cost 

of the dummy. For compliance testing, 

only three accelerometers are needed; 

they are located at the CG of the thorax 

rather than the head. All sensors 

required in compliance and certification 

procedures are common with other 49 

CFR part 572 dummies, so the cost of 

those instruments may be defrayed to 

some extent for those who already own 

them. If the dummy is outfitted with all 

instrumentation up to its full capability, 

the total instrumentation cost is about 

$65,000 in addition to the cost of the 

dummy. 

This document amends 49 CFR part 

572 by adding design and performance 

specifications for a test dummy 

representative of a ten-year-old child 

that the agency will use in compliance 

tests of the Federal child restraint 

system safety standard, and may use for 

research purposes. This Part 572 rule 

does not impose any requirements on 

anyone. Businesses are affected only if 

they choose to manufacture or test with 

the dummy. Because the economic 

impacts of this final rule are minimal, 

no further regulatory evaluation is 

necessary. 

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 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), 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of 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)). 

We have considered the effects of this 

rulemaking under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this 

rulemaking action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

addition of the test dummy to Part 572 

does not impose any requirements on 

anyone. NHTSA will not require anyone 

to manufacture the dummy or to test 

motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

equipment with it. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final 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. 

Executive Order 13045 and 12132 

(Federalism) 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under E.O. 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

This final rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866. 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the final rule does not have federalism 

implications because the rule does not 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This rule will 

not impose any requirements on 

anyone. Businesses will be affected only 

if they choose to manufacture or test 

with the dummy. 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of this 

final rule. NHTSA’s safety standards can 

have preemptive effect in two ways. 

This final rule amends 49 CFR part 572 

and is not a safety standard.34 This Part 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11666 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second, 

the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of 

implied preemption: State requirements imposed 

on motor vehicle manufacturers, including 

sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of 

a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict 

exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes the State requirements unenforceable. See 

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 

(2000). 

572 final rule does not impose any 

requirements on anyone. 

Civil Justice Reform 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. 

The issue of preemption is discussed 

above in connection with E.O. 13132. 

NHTSA notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

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 will not 

have any requirements that are 

considered to be information collection 

requirements as defined by the OMB in 

5 CFR part 1320. 

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. The NTTAA directs 

NHTSA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The test dummy and qualification 

requirements are based on the work of 

the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family Task 

Group (DFTG). Differences between the 

DFTG recommendations and this final 

rule are minor and are based on 

additional research performed by the 

agency and on comments to the NPRM. 

The following voluntary consensus 

standards have been used in developing 

the HIII–10C dummy: 

• SAE Recommended Practice J211, 

Rev. Mar 95, ‘‘Instrumentation for 

Impact Tests—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation’’; and, 

• SAE J1733 of 1994–12 ‘‘Sign 

Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing.’’ 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million 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 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 10-year-old test dummy that the 

agency will use in FMVSS No. 213 and 

for research purposes. This final rule 

affects 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. 

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 send them to NHTSA. 

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. 

Petitions for Reconsideration of This 

Rule 

The petition will be placed in the 

docket. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all documents 

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). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572 

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by 

reference. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as 

follows: 

PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC 

TEST DUMMIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 572 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11667 

■ 2. 49 CFR Part 572 is amended by 

adding a new Subpart T consisting of 

572.170—572.177 to read as follows: 

Subpart T—Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child 

Test Dummy (HIII–10C) 

Sec. 

572.170 Incorporation by reference. 

572.171 General description. 

572.172 Head assembly and test procedure. 

572.173 Neck assembly and test procedure. 

572.174 Thorax assembly and test 

procedure. 

572.175 Upper and lower torso assemblies 

and torso flexion test procedure. 

572.176 Knees and knee impact test 

procedure. 

572.177 Test conditions and 

instrumentation. 

Appendix—Figures to Subpart T of Part 572 

§ 572.170 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference (IBR) into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

NHTSA must publish notice of change 

in the Federal Register and the material 

must be available to the public. All 

approved material is available for 

inspection at the Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

Room W12–140, telephone 202–366– 

9826, and is available from the sources 

listed below. The material is available in 

electronic format through 

Regulations.gov, call 1–877–378–5457 

or go to www.regulations.gov. It is also 

available for inspection 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/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. 

(b) NHTSA Technical Information 

Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202– 

366–5965. 

(1) A parts/drawing list entitled, 

‘‘Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart T, 

Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test 

Dummy (HIII–10C), August 2011,’’ IBR 

approved for § 572.171. 

(2) A drawings and inspection 

package entitled, ‘‘Parts List and 

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart T, Hybrid III 

10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy (HIII– 

10C), August 2011,’’ IBR approved for 

§ 572.171, including: 

(i) Drawing No. 420–0000, Complete 

Assembly HIII 10-year-old, IBR 

approved for §§ 572.171, 572.172, 

572.173, 572.174, 572.176, and 572.177. 

(ii) Drawing No. 420–1000, Head 

Assembly, IBR approved for § 572.171, 

§ 572.172, § 572.173, and § 572.177. 

(iii) Drawing No. 420–2000, Neck 

Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.171, 

572.173, and 572.177. 

(iv) Drawing No. 420–3000, Upper 

Torso Assembly, IBR approved for 

§§ 572.171, 572.174, 572.175, and 

572.177. 

(v) Drawing No. 420–4000, Lower 

Torso Assembly, IBR approved for 

§§ 572.171, 572.174, 572.175, and 

572.177. 

(vi) Drawing No. 420–5000–1, 

Complete Leg Assembly—left, IBR 

approved for §§ 572.171, 572.176, and 

572.177. 

(vii) Drawing No. 420–5000–2, 

Complete Leg Assembly—right, IBR 

approved for §§ 572.171, 572.176, and 

572.177. 

(viii) Drawing No. 420–7000–1, 

Complete Arm Assembly—left, IBR 

approved for § 572.171, and, 

(ix) Drawing No. 420–7000–2, 

Complete Arm Assembly—right, IBR 

approved for § 572.171. 

(3) A procedures manual entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly 

and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 

10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy (HIII– 

10C), August 2011’’; IBR approved for 

§§ 572.171 and 572.177. 

(c) SAE International, 400 

Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 

15096, call 1–877–606–7323. 

(1) SAE Recommended Practice J211/ 

1, Rev. Mar 95, ‘‘Instrumentation for 

Impact Tests—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation,’’ IBR approved for 

§ 572.177. 

(2) SAE Information Report J1733 of 

1994–12, ‘‘Sign Convention for Vehicle 

Crash Testing,’’ December 1994, IBR 

approved for § 572.177. 

§ 572.171 General description. 

(a) The Hybrid III 10-year-old Child 

Test Dummy (HIII–10C) is defined by 

drawings and specifications containing 

the following materials: 

(1) The parts enlisted in ‘‘Parts/ 

Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart T, 

Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test 

Dummy (HIII–10C), August 2011’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170), 

(2) The engineering drawings and 

specifications contained in ‘‘Parts List 

and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart T, 

Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test 

Dummy (HIII–10C), August 2011,’’ 

which includes the engineering 

drawings and specifications described 

in Drawing 420–0000, the titles of the 

assemblies of which are listed in Table 

A, and, 

(3) A manual entitled ‘‘Procedures for 

Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection 

(PADI) of the Hybrid III 10-Year-Old 

Child Test Dummy (HIII–10C), August 

2011.’’ 

TABLE A 

Component assembly Drawing No. 

(i) Head Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................................... 420–1000 

(ii) Neck Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................................... 420–2000 

(iii) Upper Torso Assembly .......................................................................................................................................................... 420–3000 

(iv) Lower Torso Assembly .......................................................................................................................................................... 420–4000 

(v) Complete Leg Assembly—left ................................................................................................................................................ 420–5000–1 

(vi) Complete Leg Assembly—right ............................................................................................................................................. 420–5000–2 

(vii) Complete Arm Assembly—left .............................................................................................................................................. 420–7000–1 

(viii) Complete Arm Assembly—right ........................................................................................................................................... 420–7000–2 

(b) The structural properties of the 

dummy are such that the dummy 

conforms to this Subpart in every 

respect before use in any test. 

§ 572.172 Head assembly and test 

procedure. 

(a) The head assembly for this test 

consists of the complete head (drawing 

420–1000), a six-axis neck transducer 

(drawing SA572–S11, included in 

drawing 420–0000), or its structural 

replacement (drawing 420–383X), and 3 

accelerometers (drawing SA572–S4, 

included in drawing 420–0000) (all 

incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170). 

(b) When the head assembly is 

dropped from a height of 376.0 ± 1.0 

mm (14.8 ± 0.04 in) in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section, the peak 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11668 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

resultant acceleration at the location of 

the accelerometers at the head CG may 

not be less than 250 G or more than 300 

G. The resultant acceleration vs. time 

history curve shall be unimodal; 

oscillations occurring after the main 

pulse must be less than 10 percent of 

the peak resultant acceleration. The 

lateral acceleration shall not exceed 15 

G (zero to peak). 

(c) Head test procedure. The test 

procedure for the head is as follows: 

(1) Soak the head assembly in a 

controlled environment at any 

temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 °C 

(66 and 78 °F) and a relative humidity 

from 10 to 70 percent for at least four 

hours prior to a test. 

(2) Prior to the test, clean the impact 

surface of the skin and the impact plate 

surface with isopropyl alcohol, 

trichloroethane, or an equivalent. The 

skin of the head must be clean and dry 

for testing. 

(3) Suspend and orient the head 

assembly as shown in Figure T1. The 

lowest point on the forehead must be 

376.0 ± 1.0 mm (14.8 ± 0.04 in) from the 

impact surface. The 1.57 mm (0.062 in) 

diameter holes located on either side of 

the dummy’s head shall be used to 

ensure that the head is level with 

respect to the impact surface. 

(4) Drop the head assembly from the 

specified height by means that ensure a 

smooth, instant release onto a rigidly 

supported flat horizontal steel plate 

which is 50.8 mm (2 in) thick and 610 

mm (24 in) square. The impact surface 

shall be clean, dry and have a micro 

finish of not less than 203.2 × 10¥6 mm 

(8 micro inches) (RMS) and not more 

than 2032.0 × 10¥6 mm (80 micro 

inches) (RMS). 

(5) Allow at least 2 hours between 

successive tests on the same head. 

§ 572.173 Neck assembly and test 

procedure. 

(a) The neck assembly for the 

purposes of this test consists of the 

assembly of components shown in 

drawing 420–2000 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 572.170). 

(b) When the head-neck assembly 

consisting of the head (drawing 420– 

1000), neck (drawing 420–2000), sixchannel neck transducer (SA572–S11, 

included in drawing 420–0000), lower 

neck bracket assembly (drawing 420– 

2070), and either three uniaxial 

accelerometers (drawing SA572–S4, 

included in drawing 420–0000) or their 

mass equivalent installed in the head 

assembly as specified in drawing 420– 

1000 (all incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170), is tested according to the test 

procedure in paragraph (c) of this 

section, it shall have the following 

characteristics: 

(1) Flexion. (i) Plane D, referenced in 

Figure T2, shall rotate in the direction 

of preimpact flight with respect to the 

pendulum’s longitudinal centerline 

between 76 degrees and 90 degrees. 

During the time interval while the 

rotation is within the specified corridor, 

the peak moment, measured by the neck 

transducer (drawing SA572–S11, 

included in drawing 420–0000) 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170), about the occipital condyles 

may not be less than 50 N-m (36.9 ft-lbf) 

and not more than 62 N-m (45.7 ft-lbf). 

The positive moment shall decay for the 

first time to 10 N-m (7.4 ft-lbf) between 

86 ms and 105 ms after time zero. 

(ii) The moment shall be calculated by 

the following formula: Moment (N-m) = 

My ¥ (0.01778) × (Fx). 

(iii) My is the moment about the y-axis 

in Newton-meters, Fx is the shear force 

measured by the neck transducer 

(drawing SA572–S11) in Newtons, and 

0.01778 is the distance in meters from 

the load center of the neck transducer to 

the occipital condyle. 

(2) Extension. (i) Plane D, referenced 

in Figure T3, shall rotate in the 

direction of preimpact flight with 

respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal 

centerline between 96 degrees and 115 

degrees. During the time interval while 

the rotation is within the specified 

corridor, the peak moment, measured by 

the neck transducer (drawing SA572– 

S11, included in drawing 420–0000) 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170), about the occipital condyles 

may not be more than ¥37 N-m (¥27.3 

ft-lbf) and not less than ¥46 N-m 

(¥33.9 ft-lbf). The positive moment 

shall decay for the first time to ¥10 Nm (¥7.4 ft-lbf) between 100 ms and 116 

ms after time zero. 

(ii) The moment shall be calculated by 

the following formula: Moment (N-m) = 

My ¥ (0.01778) × (Fx). 

(iii) My is the moment about the y-axis 

in Newton-meters, Fx is the shear force 

measured by the neck transducer 

(drawing SA572–S11, included in 

drawing 420–0000) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 572.170) in Newtons, 

and 0.01778 is the distance in meters 

from the load center of the neck 

transducer to the occipital condyle. 

(3) Time zero is defined as the time 

of initial contact between the pendulum 

striker plate and the honeycomb 

material. All data channels shall be at 

the zero level at this time. 

(c) Test procedure. The test procedure 

for the neck assembly is as follows: 

(1) Soak the neck assembly in a 

controlled environment at any 

temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 °C 

(69 and 72 °F) and a relative humidity 

between 10 and 70 percent for at least 

four hours prior to a test. 

(2) Torque the hex nut (drawing 420– 

2000, part 9000130) on the neck cable 

(drawing 420–2060) (both incorporated 

by reference, see § 572.170) to 0.9 ± 0.2 

N-m (8 ± 2 in-lbf) before each test on the 

same neck. 

(3) Mount the head-neck assembly, 

defined in paragraph (b) of this section, 

on the pendulum described in Figure 22 

of 49 CFR part 572 so that the leading 

edge of the lower neck bracket coincides 

with the leading edge of the pendulum 

as shown in Figure T2 for flexion tests 

and Figure T3 for extension tests. 

(4)(i) Release the pendulum and allow 

it to fall freely from a height to achieve 

an impact velocity of 6.1 ± 0.12 m/s 

(20.0 ± 0.4 ft/s) for flexion tests and 5.03 

± 0.12 m/s (16.50 ± 0.40 ft/s) for 

extension tests, measured by an 

accelerometer mounted on the 

pendulum as shown in Figure T2 at the 

instant of contact with the honeycomb. 

(ii) Stop the pendulum from the 

initial velocity with an acceleration vs. 

time pulse that meets the velocity 

change as specified below. Integrate the 

pendulum acceleration data channel to 

obtain the velocity vs. time curve: 

TABLE B—PENDULUM PULSE

Time 

(ms) 

Flexion Extension 

M/s ft/s m/s ft/s 

10 ..................................................................................................................... 1.64–2.04 5.38–6.69 1.49–1.89 4.89–6.20 

20 ..................................................................................................................... 3.04–4.04 9.97–13.25 2.88–3.68 9.45–12.07 

30 ..................................................................................................................... 4.45–5.65 14.60–18.53 4.20–5.20 13.78–17.06 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11669 

§ 572.174 Thorax assembly and test 

procedure. 

(a) The thorax consists of the part of 

the torso assembly designated as the 

upper torso (drawing 420–3000) 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170). 

(b) When the anterior surface of the 

thorax of a completely assembled 

dummy (drawing 420–0000) 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170) is impacted by a test probe 

conforming to section 572.177 at 6.00 ± 

0.12 m/s (22.0 ± 0.4 ft/s) according to 

the test procedure in paragraph (c) of 

this section: 

(1) Maximum sternum displacement 

(compression) relative to the spine, 

measured with chest deflection 

transducer (drawing SA572–T4, 

included in drawing 420–0000) 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170), must be not less than 37 mm 

(1.46 in) and not more than 46 mm (1.81 

in). Within this specified compression 

corridor, the peak force, measured by 

the impact probe as defined in section 

572.177 and calculated in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, 

shall not be less than 2.0 kN (450 lbf) 

and not more than 2.45 kN (551 lbf). 

The peak force after 20 mm (0.79 in.) of 

sternum displacement but before 

reaching the minimum required 37 mm 

(1.46 in.) sternum displacement limit 

shall not exceed 2.52 kN (567 lbf). 

(2) The internal hysteresis of the 

ribcage in each impact as determined by 

the plot of force vs. deflection in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be 

not less than 69 percent but not more 

than 85 percent. The hysteresis shall be 

calculated by determining the ratio of 

the area between the loading (from time 

zero to maximum deflection) and 

unloading portions (from maximum 

deflection to zero force) of the force 

deflection curve to the area under the 

loading portion of the curve. 

(3) The force shall be calculated by 

the product of the impactor mass and its 

measured deceleration. 

(c) Test Procedure. The test procedure 

for the thorax assembly is as follows: 

(1) The dummy is clothed in a form 

fitting cotton stretch above-the-elbow 

sleeved shirt and above-the-knees pants. 

The weight of the shirt and pants shall 

not exceed 0.14 kg (0.30 lb) each. 

(2) Torque the lumbar cable (drawing 

420–4130) (incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170) to 0.9 ± 0.2 N-m (8 ± 2 

in-lbf) and set the lumbar adjustment 

angle to 12 degrees. Set the neck angle 

to 16 degrees. 

(3) Soak the dummy in a controlled 

environment at any temperature 

between 20.6 and 22.2 °C (69 and 72 °F) 

and a relative humidity between 10 and 

70 percent for at least four hours prior 

to a test. 

(4) Seat and orient the dummy on a 

seating surface without back support as 

shown in Figure T4, with the limbs 

extended horizontally and forward, 

parallel to the midsagittal plane, the 

midsagittal plane vertical within ± 1 

degree and the ribs level in the anteriorposterior and lateral directions within ± 

0.5 degrees. 

(5) Establish the impact point at the 

chest midsagittal plane so that the 

impact point of the longitudinal 

centerline of the probe coincides with 

the midsagittal plane of the dummy 

within ± 2.5 mm (0.1 in) and is 12.7 ± 

1.1 mm (0.5 ± 0.04 in) below the 

horizontal-peripheral centerline of the 

No. 3 rib and is within 0.5 degrees of a 

horizontal line in the dummy’s 

midsagittal plane. 

(6) Impact the thorax with the test 

probe so that at the moment of contact 

the probe’s longitudinal centerline falls 

within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in 

the dummy’s midsagittal plane. 

(7) Guide the test probe during impact 

so that there is no significant lateral, 

vertical, or rotational movement. 

(8) No suspension hardware, 

suspension cables, or any other 

attachments to the probe, including the 

velocity vane, shall make contact with 

the dummy during the test. 

§ 572.175 Upper and lower torso 

assemblies and torso flexion test 

procedure. 

(a) The test objective is to determine 

the stiffness of the molded lumbar 

assembly (drawing 420–4100), 

abdominal insert (drawing 420–4300), 

and chest flesh assembly (drawing 420– 

3560) on resistance to articulation 

between the upper torso assembly 

(drawing 420–3000) and lower torso 

assembly (drawing 420–4000) (all 

incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170). 

(b) 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 T5 according to the test 

procedure set out in paragraph (c) of 

this section: 

(1) The lumbar spine-abdomen-chest 

flesh assembly shall flex by an amount 

that permits the upper torso assembly to 

translate in angular motion relative to 

the vertical transverse plane 35 ± 0.5 

degrees at which time the force applied 

must be not less than 180 N (40.5 lbf) 

and not more than 250 N (56.2 lbf). 

(2) Upon removal of the force, the 

torso assembly must return to within 8 

degrees of its initial position. 

(c) Test Procedure. The test procedure 

for the upper/lower torso assembly is as 

follows: 

(1) Torque the lumbar cable (drawing 

420–4130) (incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170) to 0.9 ± 0.2 N-m (8 ± 2 

in-lbf) and set the lumbar adjustment 

angle to 12 degrees. Set the neck angle 

to 16 degrees. 

(2) Soak the dummy in a controlled 

environment at any temperature 

between 20.6 and 22.2 °C (69 and 72 °F) 

and a relative humidity between 10 and 

70 percent for at least four hours prior 

to a test. 

(3) Assemble the complete dummy 

(with or without the legs below the 

femurs) and attach to the fixture in a 

seated posture as shown in Figure T5. 

(4) Secure the pelvis to the fixture at 

the pelvis instrument cavity rear face by 

threading four 1⁄4-inch cap screws into 

the available threaded attachment holes. 

Tighten the mountings so that the test 

material is rigidly affixed to the test 

fixture and the pelvic-lumbar joining 

surface is 18 degrees from horizontal 

and the legs are parallel with the test 

fixture. 

(5) Attach the loading adaptor bracket 

to the spine of the dummy as shown in 

Figure T5. 

(6) Inspect and adjust, if necessary, 

the seating of the abdominal insert 

within the pelvis cavity and with 

respect to the chest flesh, assuring that 

the chest flesh provides uniform fit and 

overlap with respect to the outside 

surface of the pelvis flesh. 

(7) Flex the dummy’s upper torso 

three times between the vertical and 

until the torso reference frame, as 

shown in Figure T5, reaches 30 degrees 

from the vertical transverse plane. Bring 

the torso to vertical orientation and wait 

for 30 minutes before conducting the 

test. During the 30-minute waiting 

period, the dummy’s upper torso shall 

be externally supported at or near its 

vertical orientation to prevent it from 

drooping. 

(8) Remove all external support and 

wait two minutes. Measure the initial 

orientation angle of the torso reference 

plane of the seated, unsupported 

dummy as shown in Figure T5. The 

initial orientation angle may not exceed 

20 degrees. 

(9) Attach the pull cable and the load 

cell as shown in Figure T5. 

(10) Apply a tension force in the 

midsagittal plane to the pull cable as 

shown in Figure T5 at any upper torso 

deflection rate between 0.5 and 1.5 

degrees per second, until the angle 

reference plane is at 35 ± 0.5 degrees of 

flexion relative to the vertical transverse 

plane. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11670 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(11) Continue to apply a force 

sufficient to maintain 35 ± 0.5 degrees 

of flexion for 

10 seconds, and record the highest 

applied force during the 10-second 

period. 

(12) Release all force at the 

attachment bracket as rapidly as 

possible, and measure the return angle 

with respect to the initial angle 

reference plane as defined in paragraph 

(c)(7) of this section three minutes after 

the release. 

§ 572.176 Knees and knee impact test 

procedure. 

(a) The knee assembly for the purpose 

of this test is the part of the leg assembly 

shown in drawing 420–5000 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170). 

(b) When the knee assembly, 

consisting of lower upper leg assembly 

(420–5200), femur load transducer 

(SA572–S10, included in drawing 420– 

0000) or its structural replacement (420– 

5121), lower leg assembly (420–5300), 

ankle assembly (420–5400), and foot 

molded assembly (420–5500) (all 

incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170) is tested according to the test 

procedure in subsection (c) of this 

section: 

(1) The peak resistance force as 

measured with the test probe-mounted 

accelerometer must not be less than 2.6 

kN (585 lbf) and not more than 3.2 kN 

(719 lbf). 

(2) The force shall be calculated by 

the product of the impactor mass and its 

deceleration. 

(c) Test Procedure. The test procedure 

for the knee assembly is as follows: 

(1) Soak the knee assembly in a 

controlled environment at any 

temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 °C 

(69 and 72 °F) and a relative humidity 

between 10 and 70 percent for at least 

four hours prior to a test. 

(2) Mount the test material and secure 

it to a rigid test fixture as shown in 

Figure T6. No part of the foot or tibia 

may contact any exterior surface. 

(3) Align the test probe so that 

throughout its stroke and at contact with 

the knee it is within 2 degrees of 

horizontal and collinear with the 

longitudinal centerline of the femur. 

(4) Guide the pendulum so that there 

is no significant lateral, vertical, or 

rotational movement at the time of 

initial contact between the impactor and 

the knee. 

(5) The test probe velocity at the time 

of contact shall be 2.1 ± 0.03 m/s (6.9 

± 0.1 ft/s). 

(6) No suspension hardware, 

suspension cables, or any other 

attachments to the probe, including the 

velocity vane, shall make contact with 

the dummy during the test. 

§ 572.177 Test conditions and 

instrumentation. 

(a) The following test equipment and 

instrumentation is needed for 

qualification as set forth in this subpart: 

(1) The test probe for thoracic impacts 

is of rigid metallic construction, 

concentric in shape, and symmetric 

about its longitudinal axis. It has a mass 

of 6.89 ± 0.012 kg (15.2 ± 0.05 lb) and 

a minimum mass moment of inertia of 

2040 kg-cm2 (1.81 lbf-in-sec2) in yaw 

and pitch about the CG. One-third (1⁄3) 

of the weight of the suspension cables 

and their attachments to the impact 

probe is included in the calculation of 

mass, and such components may not 

exceed five percent of the total weight 

of the test probe. The impacting end of 

the probe, perpendicular to and 

concentric with the longitudinal axis, is 

at least 25.4 mm (1.0 in) long, and has 

a flat, continuous, and non-deformable 

121 ± 0.25 mm (4.76 ± 0.01 in) diameter 

face with a maximum edge radius of 

12.7 mm (0.5 in). The probe’s end 

opposite to the impact face has 

provisions for mounting of an 

accelerometer with its sensitive axis 

collinear with the longitudinal axis of 

the probe. No concentric portions of the 

impact probe may exceed the diameter 

of the impact face. The impact probe has 

a free air resonant frequency of not less 

than 1000 Hz, which may be determined 

using the procedure listed in the PADI 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170). 

(2) The test probe for knee impacts is 

of rigid metallic construction, 

concentric in shape, and symmetric 

about its longitudinal axis. It has a mass 

of 1.91 ± 0.01 kg (4.21 ± 0.02 lb) and a 

minimum mass moment of inertia of 

140 kg-cm2 (0.124 lbf-in-sec2) in yaw 

and pitch about the CG. One third (1⁄3) 

of the weight of the suspension cables 

and their attachments to the impact 

probe may be included in the 

calculation of mass, and such 

components may not exceed five 

percent of the total weight of the test 

probe. The impacting end of the probe, 

perpendicular to and concentric with 

the longitudinal axis, is at least 12.5 mm 

(0.5 in) long, and has a flat, continuous, 

and non-deformable 76.2 ± 0.2 mm (3.00 

± 0.01 in) diameter face with a 

maximum edge radius of 12.7 mm (0.5 

in). The probe’s end opposite to the 

impact face has provisions for mounting 

an accelerometer with its sensitive axis 

collinear with the longitudinal axis of 

the probe. No concentric portions of the 

impact probe may exceed the diameter 

of the impact face. The impact probe has 

a free air resonant frequency of not less 

than 1000 Hz, which may be determined 

using the procedure listed in the PADI 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170). 

(3) Head accelerometers have 

dimensions, response characteristics, 

and sensitive mass locations specified 

in drawing SA572–S4 (included in 

drawing 420–0000) and are mounted in 

the head as shown in drawing 420–0000 

(both incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170), sheet 2 of 6. 

(4) The upper neck force and moment 

transducer has the dimensions, response 

characteristics, and sensitive axis 

locations specified in drawing SA572– 

S11 (included in drawing 420–0000) 

and is mounted in the head-neck 

assembly as shown in drawing 420– 

0000 (both incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170), sheet 2 of 6. 

(5) The chest deflection transducer 

has the dimensions and response 

characteristics specified in drawing 

SA572–S50 (included in drawing 420– 

0000) and is mounted to the upper torso 

assembly as shown in drawing 420– 

0000 (both incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170), sheet 2 of 6. 

(b) The following instrumentation 

may be required for installation in the 

dummy for compliance testing. If so, it 

is installed during qualification 

procedures as described in this subpart: 

(1) The thorax CG accelerometers 

have the dimensions, response 

characteristics, and sensitive mass 

locations specified in drawing SA572– 

S4 (included in drawing 420–0000) 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170) and are mounted in the torso 

assembly in a triaxial configuration 

within the spine box instrumentation 

cavity. 

(2) The lower neck force and moment 

transducer has the dimensions, response 

characteristics, and sensitive axis 

locations specified in drawing SA572– 

S40 (included in drawing 420–0000) 

and is mounted to the neck assembly by 

replacing the lower neck mounting 

bracket 420–2070 as shown in drawing 

420–2000 (all incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170). 

(3) The clavicle force transducers 

have the dimensions, response 

characteristics, and sensitive axis 

locations specified in drawing SA572– 

S41 (included in drawing 420–0000) 

and are mounted in the shoulder 

assembly as shown in drawing 420– 

3800 (both incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170). 

(4) The IR–Tracc chest deflection 

transducers have the dimensions and 

response characteristics specified in 

drawing SA572–S43 (included in 

drawing 420–0000) and are mounted to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11671 

the spine box assembly as shown in 

drawing 420–8000 (both incorporated 

by reference, see § 572.170). 

(5) The spine and sternum 

accelerometers have the dimensions, 

response characteristics, and sensitive 

mass locations specified in drawing 

SA572–S4 (included in drawing 420– 

0000) and are mounted in the torso 

assembly in uniaxial fore-and-aft 

oriented configuration arranged as 

corresponding pairs in two locations 

each on the sternum and at the spine 

box of the upper torso assembly as 

shown in drawing 420–0000 (both 

incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170), sheet 2 of 6. 

(6) The lumbar spine force-moment 

transducer has the dimensions, response 

characteristics, and sensitive axis 

locations specified in drawing SA572– 

S12 (included in drawing 420–0000) 

and is mounted in the lower torso 

assembly as shown in drawing 420– 

4000 (both incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170). 

(7) The iliac force transducers have 

the dimensions and response 

characteristics specified in drawing 

SA572–S13 L and R (included in 

drawing 420–0000) and are mounted in 

the lower torso assembly as shown in 

drawing 420–4000 (both incorporated 

by reference, see § 572.170). 

(8) The pelvis accelerometers have the 

dimensions, response characteristics, 

and sensitive mass locations specified 

in drawing SA572–S4 (included in 

drawing 420–0000) and are mounted in 

the torso assembly in triaxial 

configuration in the pelvis bone as 

shown in drawing 420–0000 (both 

incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170), sheet 2 of 6. 

(9) The femur force and moment 

transducers (SA572–S10, included in 

drawing 420–0000) have the 

dimensions, response characteristics, 

and sensitive axis locations specified in 

the appropriate drawing and are 

mounted in the upper leg assembly, 

replacing the femur load cell simulator 

(drawing 420–5121) as shown in 

drawing 420–5100 (all incorporated by 

reference, see § 572.170). 

(10) The tilt sensors have the 

dimensions and response characteristics 

specified in drawing SA572–S42 

(included in drawing 420–0000) and are 

mounted to the head, thorax, and pelvis 

assemblies as shown in drawing 420– 

0000 (both incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170), sheet 2 of 6. 

(c) The outputs of transducers 

installed in the dummy and in the test 

equipment specified by this part are to 

be recorded in individual data channels 

that conform to SAE Recommended 

Practice J211 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.170) except as noted, with 

channel frequency classes as follows: 

(1) Pendulum acceleration, CFC 180, 

(2) Pendulum D-plane rotation (if 

transducer is used), CFC 60, 

(3) Torso flexion pulling force (if 

transducer is used), CFC 60, 

(4) Head acceleration, CFC 1000, 

(5) Neck forces, upper and lower, CFC 

1000, 

(6) Neck moments, upper and lower, 

CFC 600, 

(7) Thorax CG acceleration, CFC 180, 

(8) Sternum deflection, Class 600, 

(9) Sternum and rib accelerations, 

Class 1000, 

(10) Spine accelerations, CFC 180, 

(11) Lumbar forces, CFC 1000, 

(12) Lumbar moments, CFC 600, 

(13) Shoulder forces, CFC 180, 

(14) Pelvis accelerations, CFC 1000, 

(15) Iliac forces, CFC 180, 

(16) Femur and tibia forces, CFC 600, 

(17) Femur and tibia moments, CFC 

600. 

(d) Coordinate signs for 

instrumentation polarity are to conform 

to SAE Information Report J1733 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.170). 

(e) The mountings for sensing devices 

have no resonant frequency less than 3 

times the frequency range of the 

applicable channel class. 

(f) Limb joints are set at one G, barely 

restraining the weight of the limb when 

it is extended horizontally. The force 

needed to move a limb segment is not 

to exceed 2G throughout the range of 

limb motion. 

(g) Performance tests of the same 

component, segment, assembly, or fully 

assembled dummy are separated in time 

by not less than 30 minutes unless 

otherwise noted. 

(h) Surfaces of dummy components 

may not be painted except as specified 

in this subpart or in drawings subtended 

by this subpart. 

Appendix—Figures to Subpart T of Part 

572 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11672 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11673 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.004</GPH>
11674 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11675 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.006</GPH> ER27FE12.007</GPH>
11676 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued on: February 16, 2012. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4129 Filed 2–21–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.008</GPH>