250 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA 

(February 21, 2014). The Alliance consisted of: 

BMW Group; Chrysler Group LLC; Ford Motor 

Company; General Motors Company; Jaguar Land 

Rover; Mazda; Mercedes-Benz USA; Mitsubishi 

Motors; Porsche; Toyota; Volkswagen Group of 

America; and Volvo Cars. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2024–0093] 

RIN 2127–AM13 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices, HIII 

5TH Percentile Female Test Dummy; 

Incorporation by Reference 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document revises the 

chest jacket and spine box specifications 

for the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female 

Test Dummy (HIII–5F). The jacket 

revisions resolve discrepancies between 

the jacket specifications in subpart O 

and jackets available in the field, and 

ensure a sufficiently low level of 

variation between jackets fabricated by 

different manufacturers. The spine box 

revisions eliminate a source of signal 

noise caused by fasteners within the box 

that may become loose during sled or 

vehicle crash tests. This rulemaking 

responds to a petition for rulemaking 

from the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers. 

DATES: Effective date: This rule is 

effective on February 18, 2025. 

IBR date: The incorporation by 

reference of certain material listed in the 

rule is approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of February 18, 2025. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration for this final rule 

must be received no later than February 

18, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document or by any of 

the following methods: 

• Petitions for reconsideration of this 

final rule must refer to the docket and 

notice number set forth above and be 

submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Note that all petitions received will be 

posted without change to 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

• Confidential Business Information: 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA, at the address given under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 

addition, you should submit a copy, 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to Docket Management at 

the address given above. When you send 

a submission containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation (49 CFR part 

512). Please see further information in 

the Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

section of this preamble. 

• Privacy Act: 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 

(65 FR 19476) or you may visit 

www.transportation.gov/individuals/ 

privacy/privacy-act-system-recordsnotices. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its decisionmaking process. DOT posts these 

comments, without edit, including any 

personal information the commenter 

provides, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/ 

privacy. In order to facilitate comment 

tracking and response, we encourage 

commenters to provide their name, or 

the name of their organization; however, 

submission of names is completely 

optional. Whether or not commenters 

identify themselves, all timely 

comments will be fully considered. 

• Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to 

www.regulations.gov at any time or the 

street address listed above. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may contact Mr. 

Garry Brock, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards; phone: (202) 366–6198. For 

legal issues, you may contact Ms. K. 

Helena Sung, Office of Chief Counsel; 

phone: (202) 366–2992. The mailing 

address of these officials is: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

a. Rulemaking History 

b. Chest Jacket 

c. Spine Box 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

IV. Post-NPRM Measurement and Analysis 

V. Response to Comments 

a. Dimensional Targets and the Use of 

Mandrel 

b. Certification 

c. Annual Inspection Specification 

d. Other Measurement Device 

e. Spine Box 

f. Sample Size 

VI. Changes to Drawing Package and PADI 

VII. Housekeeping Amendments 

VIII. Lead Time 

IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

I. Executive Summary 

This final rule finalizes changes to the 

Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female 

(HIII–5F) anthropomorphic test device 

(ATD or crash test dummy or dummy). 

The HIII–5F is used in frontal 

compliance crash tests and air bag static 

deployment tests, certification to which 

is required for certain vehicles by 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash 

protection. The dummy is described in 

49 CFR part 572, subpart O. 

Among other things, subpart O 

incorporates by reference several 

documents that specify the physical 

make-up of the dummy. This document 

finalizes changes to the chest jacket and 

spine box specifications to address 

issues with the fit and availability of the 

jacket and a noise artifact from the spine 

box. Today’s rulemaking responds to the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer’s 

(the Alliance) 2014 petition for 

rulemaking.1

Chest Jacket 

The chest jacket is a sleeveless foamfilled vinyl zippered jacket that 

represents human flesh, including 

female breasts. The chest jacket may 

need to be replaced because it can 

shrink or otherwise fall out of 

specification or wear out with age. Since 

the introduction of the HIII–5F into part 

572 in 2000, none of the jackets that 

were manufactured met the jacket 

specifications specified in part 572. 

Since around 2006, NHTSA, in its own 

compliance tests, has used the brand of 

dummy and jacket (either First 

Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) or 

Denton ATD (Denton)) used by the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 251 

2The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE 

International). SAE is an organization that develops 

technical standards based on best practices. 

3Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA 

(February 21, 2014). 

4Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA 

(May 11, 2015). 

5NHTSA–2019–0023–004. 

6NHTSA–2019–0023–007. 

vehicle manufacturer to certify the 

vehicle. However, these FTSS and 

Denton jackets are no longer being 

manufactured; manufacturers (or test 

laboratories) and NHTSA have, or will 

soon, run out of these jackets. In 2013, 

SAE 2published an information report 

for the HIII–5F chest jacket, SAE J2921 

JAN2013, H–III5F Chest Jacket 

Harmonization, describing a new jacket 

compatible with FTSS and Denton 

dummies. 

The NPRM proposed to adopt the 

jacket specifications described in SAE 

J2921, as well as a few additional 

specifications. We believed that chest 

jackets that have been and are being 

manufactured to the SAE J2921 design 

would also conform to the proposed 

specifications. NHTSA also believed 

that additional specifications were 

necessary to ensure a sufficient level of 

uniformity between jackets produced by 

different manufacturers when other 

manufacturers enter the market, and to 

prevent the variances in jacket designs 

that were problematic in the past from 

reoccurring. Based on NHTSA’s testing, 

the agency concluded that dummies 

fitted with chest jackets that satisfy the 

proposed specifications would perform 

equivalently to dummies fitted with the 

FTSS or Denton jackets that were 

previously used. A benefit of 

standardized jacket specifications 

would be that the agency would no 

longer have to maintain chest jackets of 

different designs and take steps to 

match the compliance test jacket with 

that specified by the vehicle 

manufacturer, thereby providing more 

objective test results. 

Spine Box 

The spine box is the dummy’s steel 

backbone. It is located in the dummy’s 

thorax, which consists of six bands that 

simulate human ribs. Since the mid2000s, industry and NHTSA have been 

aware of a signal noise artifact in the 

signals from the accelerometers in the 

thorax during sled and crash tests 

originating in the spine box. The source 

of the noise is fasteners that become 

loose during normal use. In 2011 SAE 

published an information report for a 

spine box modification (SAE J2915 

AUG2011, H–III5F Spine Box Update to 

Eliminate Noise). 

We proposed to adopt the SAE J2915 

modification. The proposed revisions 

would add plates to the side of the spine 

box, with bolts countersunk into the 

plate to remove any play from the 

assembly. The modification would not 

affect or change the dummy’s 

performance in any way (other than 

eliminate the potential for noise). The 

improved spine box would address a 

shortcoming in the ATD’s design that 

had to be addressed by end users 

disassembling the dummy, re-torquing 

the relevant fasteners by hand before 

each test, and re-qualifying the dummy 

as needed. The improved spine box 

would increase the quality of data and 

reduce maintenance and testing time. 

Summary of Final Rule 

NHTSA received comments from 

Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. 

(HIS), the Alliance for Automotive 

Innovation (the Alliance), and Ms. Sial 

(an individual commenter). All 

commenters were generally supportive 

of the NPRM, with a few measurement 

specification recommendations. 

The final rule adopts most of the 

NPRM’s proposed specifications, with 

minor changes to ensure a sufficiently 

low level of variation among jackets 

based on analysis of post-NPRM 

measurement data and commenters’ 

data. For the jacket, the agency updates 

the values of some dimensions to reflect 

more closely the larger pool of 

measurement data acquired since the 

NPRM. We also increase the 

dimensional tolerances in several places 

because the proposed tolerances were 

unnecessarily small. Additionally, a 

limited number of dimensions are 

revised to become ‘‘reference only’’ 

dimensions (which are useful during 

inspections) because the larger pool of 

data revealed that there were not 

consistent reference measurement 

points associated with them. For the 

spine box, the final rule adjusts the 

mass specification slightly to reflect a 

small increase in mass due to the 

material that is added. 

Furthermore, the rule’s effective date 

is 45 days after the final rule’s 

publication date. The final rule change 

is not intended to impose new 

requirements on vehicle manufacturers. 

We believe currently manufactured 

chest jackets meet the SAE J2921 

specifications and meet the finalized 

specifications. We also believe that the 

parts to implement the spine box fix are 

available, as are newly manufactured 

replacement spine boxes that 

incorporate the fix. Manufacturers 

wishing to test with the finalized jacket 

and spine box should have no difficulty 

obtaining the necessary parts. 

The costs associated with this 

rulemaking are limited to those 

associated with acquiring new dummy 

parts. We conclude that the finalized 

changes would not necessitate the 

purchasing of any parts that would not 

have been purchased in the normal 

course of business in the absence of the 

finalized changes. This final rule is not 

significant and was not reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

E.O.12866. 

II. Background 

a. Rulemaking History 

In 2014, the Alliance petitioned 

NHTSA to incorporate the new SAE 

jacket into part 572 per SAE Information 

Report J2921 and revise the spine box as 

described in SAE Information Report 

J2915.3 NHTSA subsequently sent a 

letter to the Alliance asking for 

clarification on several points. The 

Alliance responded to NHTSA’s request 

with a supplemental letter dated May 

11, 2015.4 NHTSA granted this petition. 

On December 26, 2019, NHTSA 

published a NPRM (84 FR 70916) to 

revise the chest jacket and spine box 

specifications for the Hybrid III 5th 

Percentile Female Test Dummy (HIII– 

5F) set forth in Part 572— 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices. NHTSA 

proposed to adopt the jacket 

specifications described in SAE J2921, 

as well as several additional 

specifications for the jacket’s contour 

that are not contained in SAE J2921. 

The NPRM comment period closed on 

February 24, 2020. HIS requested a 

ninety-day extension to the NPRM 

comment period to collect data 

regarding the proposed additional chest 

jacket specifications while also ensuring 

a sufficient sample size.5 On June 2, 

2020, the agency extended the comment 

period until August 3, 2020 (85 FR 

33617). NHTSA also published a set of 

instructions on how to record jacket 

measurements in the rulemaking 

docket.6 The instructions were written 

for lab technicians to record the jacket 

measurements. They were the same 

jacket measurements as those proposed 

in the NPRM but conveyed in more 

comprehensible format than in the 

NPRM. After the extended comment 

period in August 2020, HIS and the 

Alliance submitted additional 

measurement data and 

recommendations to the NPRM. 

After issuing the NPRM, NHTSA 

continued to collect measurement data 

on newly purchased jackets to check 

whether the dimensions and tolerances 

proposed were being met by SAE jackets 

already in the field. For the final rule, 

the agency also examined all 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
252 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

7 65 FR 10968 (March 1, 2000). 

8These documents can be found in Docket 

NHTSA–2000–6940 (available at 

www.regulations.gov). 

9Both Transport Canada and the Alliance found 

dimensional differences between the two brands of 

jackets. The 2019 NPRM (84 FR 70916) provides 

more details on the specific differences and 

manufacturing design choices contributing to the 

discrepancies. 

10 Letter from FTSS to NHTSA (dated December 

30, 2003). 

11 71 FR 45427 (August 9, 2006). 

12 Id. See also letter from FTSS to NHTSA 

(August 28, 2006). 

13Transport Canada’s research found that the 

FTSS and Denton dummies performed differently 

with respect to chest deflection in both full-scale 

rigid barrier crash tests and in out-of-position 

testing. Suzanne Tylko et al., 2006, The Effect of 

Breast Anthropometry on the Hybrid III 5th Female 

Chest Response, Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 50 

(November 2006), p. 390. The Alliance similarly 

reported research by vehicle manufacturers. Letter 

from the Alliance (January 31, 2006), p. 1, 8–9. In 

2005 the Alliance presented these issues to NHTSA 

and documented them in a 2006 letter. See also 

Tylko et al., 2006, A Comparison of Hybrid III 5th 

Female Dummy Chest Responses in Controlled Sled 

Trials, SAE Technical Paper Series, 2006–01–0455. 

14See, e.g., FMVSS No. 208 S15 (rigid barrier test 

requirements); S25 (out-of-position requirements). 

15The Brand Harmonization of the Hybrid III 5th 

Small Female Crash Test Dummy 880105–000, The 

ATD Harmonization Task Group, Humanetics 

Innovative Solutions, Inc., July 2012. 16 Identified as part number 880105–355–H. This 

is the part number of the engineering drawing of the 

jacket that appears in SAE J2921. Hybrid-III 5th 

Small Female Dummy, 880105–000–H Brand 

Harmonized Parts Catalog, Humanetics Innovative 

Solutions, Inc., August 2018. 

measurement data provided by the 

commenters. 

b. Chest Jacket 

The HIII–5F chest jacket is a 

sleeveless foam-filled vinyl zippered 

jacket that represents human flesh, 

including female breasts. The chest 

jacket is zipped onto the underlying 

dummy and covers the entire thorax, 

including the shoulder assembly. The 

HIII–5F was added to part 572 in 2000.7

The HIII–5F is used in frontal 

compliance crash tests and air bag static 

deployment tests, certification to which 

is required for certain vehicles by 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash 

protection. 

The HIII–5F dummy is described in 

49 CFR part 572, subpart O. This 

subpart contains regulatory text 

describing the qualification procedures 

and requirements for the dummy. 

Subpart O also incorporates several 

other documents by reference. Those 

documents describe the physical makeup of the dummy, and include a parts 

list, a set of engineering drawings, and 

a document entitled, Procedures for 

Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection 

(PADI).8

The NPRM proposed changes to the 

chest jacket specifications to address 

known issues with the shape and 

availability of the jacket. 

Existing Jackets Do Not Meet the 

Current Part 572 Specifications 

The chest jacket, along with the HIII– 

5F, was developed under the auspices of 

SAE. When subpart O was created in 

2000, jackets for the HIII–5F were being 

produced solely by FTSS. Soon 

thereafter, Applied Safety Technologies 

Corporation, which later became 

Denton, began to manufacture HIII–5F 

dummies and jackets. 

The jackets FTSS and Denton 

produced did not conform to all aspects 

of the part 572 specifications; in 

addition, jackets produced by each 

manufacturer differed from those 

produced by the other.9 The differences 

between the FTSS and Denton jackets, 

and between those jackets and the part 

572 specifications, are the result of a 

variety of factors. For one, the subpart 

O jacket drawing, which consists of two 

sheets, contains errors and ambiguities. 

The dimensions for the breast locations 

are not consistent between the two 

sheets, and the overall shape is not 

consistent, either. These inconsistences 

and ambiguities contributed to 

dimensional differences between the 

FTSS and Denton jackets. 

In 2003, FTSS submitted a petition for 

rulemaking to revise the jacket 

dimensions to correspond to the 

dimensions of the jackets then being 

produced by FTSS.10 NHTSA denied 

this petition.11 The agency stated that 

while dummies with the FTSS and 

Denton jackets performed somewhat 

differently from dummies with jackets 

that conformed with the part 572 

specifications, the dimensional 

differences did not have a significant 

effect on dummy performance as long as 

the seat belt was properly positioned.12

However, studies of the jacket by 

Transport Canada and the Alliance in 

the mid-2000s found that FTSS and 

Denton dummies performed differently 

in the types of testing specified in 

FMVSS No. 208.13 FMVSS No. 208 

specifies a variety of different dynamic 

(crash) and static (out-of-position) 

requirements using the HIII–5F.14

Development of the SAE J2921 Jacket 

Specifications (SAE Jacket) 

These differences between the FTSS 

and Denton jackets led SAE, in 2006, to 

establish a task force to develop a 

harmonized jacket compatible with both 

companies’ versions of the HIII–5F 

jacket (for ease of reference, referred to 

in this document as the ‘‘SAE jacket’’). 

In 2010, FTSS and Denton merged to 

form HIS. The merger meant that HIS 

became the only significant dummy 

manufacturer and what had begun as an 

effort to specify the design of a 

‘‘harmonized’’ jacket became an effort 

for HIS to simply design and produce a 

jacket that could fit existing Denton and 

FTSS dummies as well as newly 

manufactured HIS dummies. 

SAE published an information report 

for the harmonized jacket in 2013 (SAE 

J2921 JAN2013 supra). An update to 

this information report was published in 

March 2023 (SAE J2921 MAR2023). 

This update does not alter any of the 

technical specifications. The J2921 

jacket is currently offered for sale by 

HIS and JASTI–USA, Inc., the U.S. 

affiliate of JASTI Co., LLC, a 

manufacturer of dummies and test 

equipment headquartered in Japan. 

NHTSA Enforcement Policy To Address 

Chest Jacket Issues 

The discrepancies among the 

available jackets brands (principally 

from FTSS and Denton) can lead to 

different compliance test results with 

different jackets. In 2006, the Alliance 

requested that NHTSA, in its 

compliance testing program, use the 

same dummy brand (Denton or FTSS) 

the vehicle manufacturer used in its 

certification of a particular make/model. 

NHTSA adopted this requested practice. 

Recent events render this approach of 

maintaining both FTSS and Denton 

jackets obsolete and necessitate further 

action by NHTSA. After the merger of 

FTSS and Denton, HIS indicated that it 

would maintain production of the FTSS 

and Denton brand versions of the jackets 

so that they could be used as spare parts 

on the existing FTSS and Denton 

dummies.15 However, in 2015 HIS 

discontinued production of the original 

FTSS and Denton chest jacket designs 

and now sells only the SAE jacket, 

identified as part number 880105–355– 

H.16

Over the past few years, NHTSA has 

received requests from several vehicle 

manufacturers for NHTSA to conduct its 

compliance tests using the SAE jacket. 

NHTSA has asked manufacturers to 

identify the jacket (Denton, FTSS or 

SAE) for NHTSA to use in its 

compliance testing. However, because 

chest jackets shrink or otherwise fall out 

of specification or wear out with age, 

NHTSA’s stock of FTSS and Denton 

jackets is running out, and NHTSA has 

only a limited supply. The Alliance has 

informed NHTSA that its members are 

facing the same issue. Thus, the issues 

of jacket availability and which jacket 

designs are acceptable for use in 

compliance tests have become more 

urgent. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 253 

17See 2019 NPRM Section IV (84 FR 70921– 

70922) for a more detailed summary of NHTSA and 

industry evaluation of the chest jacket. 

18Reported in SAE J2915. 

19At the time of the NPRM, the most current SAE 

J2915 was the January 2011 version. Since the 

NPRM publication, this information report was 

revised in May 2022 (SAE J2915 May2022). The 

updated information report does not contain any 

technical changes to the design, and focuses on 

minor formatting and typographical changes. 

20We note that the current subpart O ATD can 

be a valid test dummy without installing the new 

spine box, i.e., users can address the signal noise 

problem by disassembling the dummy and 

inspecting and tightening the screws by hand on a 

routine basis. However, NHTSA believes that these 

efforts must be taken regularly to ensure that the 

ATD’s thoracic data are not affected by the spine 

box signal noise, and that test evaluators should 

carefully review test data for signs of artifacts in the 

signals of the thorax accelerometers. As an 

alternative to checking bolt tightness on existing 

units or replacing the entire spine box, end-users, 

at their discretion, may opt to modify (rather than 

replace) their dummy’s spine box as prescribed by 

SAE J2915. However, NHTSA’s proposal does not 

include specifications for the modification. 

Testing of the SAE Jacket 17

The development of the SAE jacket 

included was a preliminary jacket in 

2011 and then a final version in 2013. 

NHTSA and others tested both versions 

of the SAE jackets to assess ATD 

performance with the new components. 

The studies compared the dimensions 

of the jackets and evaluated the 

performance of dummies fitted with the 

jackets in different tests (sled tests, outof-position tests, and some of the 

subpart O qualification tests). The 

studies found that dummies fitted with 

SAE-designed jackets (both the 2011 

and 2013 versions) performed 

essentially the same as dummies fitted 

with pre-existing FTSS and Denton 

(non-SAE) jackets with respect to 

dummy injury metrics and other 

responses (with one exception). While 

some common refurbishment may be 

needed when fitting the jacket onto an 

older dummy, the tests demonstrated 

that once an older dummy was 

retrofitted with a new J2921 jacket, all 

parts on the dummy conformed 

dimensionally to the proposed subpart 

O engineering drawings. 

Proposed Modifications 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to 

amend the chest jacket specifications in 

subpart O’s regulatory text to 

incorporate by reference new versions of 

the drawing package, parts list and 

PADI. The proposed changes reflect the 

J2921 jacket design in which the breast 

contours are blended more gradually 

into the torso, compared to the current 

subpart O design where the breast 

contours are more sharply defined. 

NHTSA proposed to adopt the 

specifications in SAE J2921 (Figures 4– 

6 in SAE J2921, which are engineering 

drawings of the SAE jacket design). 

However, we also proposed adding 

additional specifications for the jacket’s 

contour that are not contained in SAE 

J2921. Our proposed additional 

specifications for the jacket’s contour 

adds breadth, depth, and circumference 

dimensions at different section levels of 

the jacket on the main assembly 

drawing of the dummy (880105–000, 

Rev. N, Sheet 5). Dimensions are 

specified for a jacket fitted/worn on a 

dummy, i.e., measurements would be 

recorded on the jacket as fitted/worn on 

a dummy positioned on the same flatback bench as what is currently shown 

on 880105–000, Rev. N, Sheet 5. The 

additional dimensional specifications 

were intended to define the outer shape 

of the thorax and to preclude belt 

routing discrepancies. The information 

included additional views of the chest 

jacket at various cross sections. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively 

concluded that the proposed jacket 

specification would ensure uniformity 

in the form, fit, and function of the HIII– 

5F. We also tentatively concluded that 

the proposed jacket specifications 

would encompass existing jackets that 

have been built to the SAE J2921 

specifications; the proposed 

specifications were developed in light of 

such existing jackets. 

c. Spine Box 

The spine box of the HIII–5F is the 

dummy’s steel backbone. It is located in 

the dummy’s thorax, which consists of 

six bands that simulate human ribs. The 

bands are made of spring steel, and a 

thick layer of graphite is bonded to each 

band to provide damping when the 

bands are deflected, thus giving them 

humanlike properties. On the posterior 

aspect of the thorax, the bands are 

affixed to the spine box. The spine box 

is currently specified in the parts and 

drawings document in drawings 

880105–1000, and SA572–S28 with callouts in 880105–300 and the PADI (p. 

21). 

In the mid-2000s, the SAE Task Force 

began an effort—in parallel with its 

efforts on the chest jacket—to find and 

eliminate a source of signal noise that 

sometimes emanated from the HIII–5F 

spine box. Alliance members 

determined that the noise was caused by 

loosening of six socket head cap screws 

attaching the spine box to the lower 

spine. Due to a design shortcoming, 

repeated crash testing loosened the 

screws so that they rattled against the 

inner walls of the through holes. This 

rattling led to artifacts in the signals of 

the accelerometers in the thorax during 

sled and crash tests. The problem 

affected FTSS and Denton units alike. 

Testing laboratories have been 

addressing this problem by 

disassembling the dummy and 

inspecting and tightening the screws 

routinely. 

As a long-term solution, SAE 

developed an alteration to improve the 

spine box. Specifically, it recommended 

adding plates to the side of the spine 

box, with bolts countersunk into the 

plate to remove any play from the 

assembly. The alteration prevents the 

screws from loosening and eliminates 

the signal noise. NHTSA and others 

tested the new spine box fix as it was 

being developed. In 2011 SAE 

published an information report for the 

spine box modification (SAE J2915 

AUG2011). This information report was 

revised in May 2022 (SAE J2915 

MAY2022). The updated information 

report does not contain any technical 

changes to the design and focuses on 

minor formatting and typographical 

changes. 

Spine Box Testing 

NHTSA’s 2011 study and the SAE 

task force 18 showed that the spine 

modification had completely eliminated 

the noise emanating from the chest 

without affecting the response of the 

dummy in any other way. The study 

found that the spine boxes 

manufactured by different 

manufacturers were identical, 

suggesting that the spine box alterations 

are sufficiently specified. The study also 

concluded that the spine box was 

durable (did not loosen over repeated 

testing). 

Proposed Modifications 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to 

change the spine box specifications to 

permanently fix the signal noise 

problem. The new versions of the 

drawing package, parts list, and PADI 

proposed for incorporation by reference 

include the SAE J2915 (Jan 2011) 19

specifications for the improved spine 

box. The proposed revisions would add 

plates to the side of the spine box, with 

bolts countersunk into the plate to 

remove any play from the assembly. The 

modification would increase the quality 

of data and reduce maintenance and 

testing time. The modification would 

not affect or change the dummy’s 

performance in any way (other than 

eliminate the potential for noise).20

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

After analysis of post-NPRM 

measurement data and commenters’ 

data, this final rule adopts most of the 

NPRM’s proposed specification with 

minor changes to ensure a sufficiently 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
254 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

21Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 

5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 572, 

Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List, Engineering 

Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), Subpart O 

Regulatory Text, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, January 2023. 

22A full discussion of the data collected and 

updates made to the jacket dimensions and 

tolerances is described in a separate document 

docketed, Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile 

Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix B, Chest 

Jacket Analysis. 

23A full discussion of the data collected, and 

updates made to the thorax weight, can be found 

in separate docketed document in Post-NPRM 

Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy 

Final Rule Appendix A, Spine Box Analysis. 

24SAE J2921 describes a mandrel to assess the fit 

of the jacket. Because jackets tend to shrink over 

time, the mandrel was developed to assess jacket fit 

as it ages. 

25Post NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile 

Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix B— 

Chest Jacket Analysis. 

26 Id. at 25. 

27 Id. at 21. Engineering Changes, Revision K, 

Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 

572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List, Engineering 

Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 

2023. 

28 Id. at 25. 

29 Id. at 25. 

low level of variation between jackets 

fabricated by different manufacturers. 

The final rule revises the chest jacket 

and spine box specifications in subpart 

O that correct previous errors and 

ambiguities. A summary of the 

engineering changes is outlined in 

section VI and a full discussion of the 

engineering changes to the HIII–5F 

dummy, as discussed in this final rule, 

is found in a separate document 

docketed.21

For the jacket, the agency updates the 

values of some jacket dimensions to 

reflect more closely the larger pool of 

measurement data acquired since the 

NPRM. We also increase the 

dimensional tolerances in several places 

because the proposed tolerances were 

unnecessarily small. Additionally, a 

limited number of dimensions are 

revised to become ‘‘reference only’’ 

dimensions (which are useful during 

inspections) because the larger pool of 

data revealed that there were not 

consistent reference measurement 

points associated with them. Such 

‘‘reference only’’ measurements are not 

required to be met by a compliant 

dummy. The additions and changes to 

the NPRM specifications will ensure 

uniformity in the form, fit, and function 

of the HIII–5F.22

For the spine box, NHTSA adjusts the 

mass specification slightly to reflect 

additional material that is added. No 

other changes are made for the spine 

box outside of the modification of the 

mass specification.23

Consistent with the NPRM, NHTSA 

has decided not to incorporate the 

mandrel 24 or the fit check procedure 

outlined in J2921. This final rule’s 

updates to subpart O provide the 

necessary dimensions for the jacket. If 

there is a concern regarding shrinking of 

the jacket, measurements can be taken 

to confirm dimensionality. It would be 

up to the individual measurement taker 

whether to utilize the mandrel as part of 

the jacket fit check. In the Alliance’s 

supplemental submission to NHTSA, 

the Alliance clarified that it was not 

requesting that the agency specify use of 

the mandrel. In the NPRM, the agency 

tentatively decided not to incorporate 

the mandrel or the fit check procedure 

outlined in J2921 and asked for 

comments on the mandrel. Commenters 

recommended using the mandrel when 

taking measurements of the jacket 

dimensions. NHTSA disagrees with the 

need to include a mandrel. Both the 

NPRM and post-NPRM analyses have 

been shown to meet the dimensional 

requirements by recording 

measurements on unworn jackets that 

were set up in the specified 

configuration without use of the 

mandrel. We recognize that when the 

proposed jacket is used on an existing 

dummy, the dummy may require some 

amount of re-tuning or refurbishment to 

pass the part 572 subpart O 

qualifications tests, but this need is 

common when worn parts are replaced. 

As SAE mentioned, the mandrel was 

intended to be used only to test the fit 

of the jacket as the jacket ages. As such, 

the mandrel can be used as an optional 

inspection device. 

Overall measurement data confirms 

that the proposed and final rule jacket 

specifications encompass existing 

jackets that have been built to the SAE 

J2921 specifications. Therefore, the final 

rule effectively remains the same as the 

proposed rule. 

IV. Post-NPRM Measurement and 

Analysis 

After the NPRM publication, NHTSA 

continued to collect measurement data 

on newly purchased jackets to check 

whether the dimensions and tolerances 

proposed (including those derived from 

J2921 drawings and the new section 

dimensions added by NHTSA) were 

being met by SAE jackets already in the 

field. We also examined all 

measurement data provided by the 

commenters. Here, we provide a 

summary of the measurement and final 

rule changes. A full discussion of the 

process and the data collected can be 

found in a separate document being 

placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking.25

In defining the jacket in the NPRM, 

we proposed ‘‘unworn’’ dimensional 

requirements and ‘‘worn’’ dimensional 

requirements. The ‘‘unworn’’ 

dimensional measurements are taken on 

the jacket as a standalone component on 

the benchtop, while the ‘‘worn’’ 

measurements are taken on the 

underlying dummy. Additional 

measurements were included to our 

pool of ‘‘worn’’ and ‘‘unworn’’ data.26

From this body of data, the final rule 

largely adopted the proposal with 

adjusted dimensions and tolerances to 

ensure that jackets in the field achieve 

an acceptable degree of conformity 

while still assuring a high level of 

uniformity. 

For the ‘‘unworn’’ requirements, we 

are replacing the old, 2002 part 572 

subpart O engineering drawings of the 

jacket with new drawings based on the 

drawings contained within SAE J2921. 

For the ‘‘worn’’ requirements, we 

specify additional dimensional 

requirements for the jacket’s contours 

that are not contained in SAE J2921. 

They include dimensions for the jacket’s 

breadth, depth, and circumference at 

different section levels. Detailed 

specification changes are described in 

the January 2023 Engineering Changes 

document.27

‘‘Unworn’’ Measurements 

The drawings containing the 

‘‘unworn’’ measurements have several 

updates to account for a larger set of 

data.28 Updates have also been made to 

create reference dimensions for some 

measures. Review of the data provided 

in comments to the NPRM revealed that 

HIS had not reported all of the 

dimensional measurements of the 

jacket. Of the ‘‘unworn’’ dimensional 

data that HIS reported, HIS data were 

shown to be within the tolerances 

specified closely with the final rule.29 In 

other words, the additional NHTSA 

measurements and the October HIS 

data, when viewed independently, both 

confirm each other. 

The shape and configuration of the 

jacket defined in the final rule is 

identical to that of the engineering 

drawing contained within SAE J2921. 

As noted previously, NHTSA’s 

engineering drawing incorporates 

several additional ‘‘unworn’’ 

dimensions that are needed to fully 

specify the jacket and preclude 

variations between future jackets 

fabricated by different manufacturers. 

NHTSA’s additional dimensional 

requirements include arm hole 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 255 

30A further discussion and analysis of the 

provided data is shown in Appendices B and C of 

the Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female 

Test Dummy Final Rule, a separately docketed 

document. 

31Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile 

Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix C— 

Response and Analysis of Comments Received. 

32See Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to 

NHTSA (Feb. 21, 2014); Letter from Scott Schmidt, 

Alliance, to NHTSA (May 11, 2015). 

specifications and reference (ref) 

dimensions for the breast location. 

‘‘Worn’’ Measurement 

The ‘‘worn’’ dimensional 

requirements have four section levels 

specified for the jacket when fitted on 

the underlying HIII–5F dummy 

positioned on the same flat-back bench 

as what is currently shown on 880105– 

000, Rev. J, Sheet 5. The dimensional 

specifications define the outer shape of 

the thorax to preclude belt routing 

discrepancies that were the source of 

the thorax deflection differences 

described above. The requirements are 

also needed to ensure a sufficiently low 

level of variation between future jackets 

fabricated by different manufacturers. 

The final rule updates the tolerances 

for the breadth and circumference 

measurements. With a few exceptions, 

all existing new SAE jackets were 

demonstrated to be within the 

dimensional requirements in the final 

rule. The final rule demonstrates that 

current SAE jackets now in the field 

conform to the new subpart O 

dimensional requirements. However, 

the final rule does not guarantee that all 

new jackets will fit properly on all 

underlying HIII–5F units. Similar to all 

other device measurements, diligence is 

needed to select a jacket for a particular 

dummy to ensure that all jacket-ondummy requirements are met. NHTSA 

reviewed the provided data from HIS 

regarding the ‘‘worn’’ measurements 

and noted some recurring 

inconsistencies with NHTSA’s own 

data.30

V. Response to Comments 

In the NPRM, we sought comment on 

the proposed specifications, including 

the dimensions not specified in the SAE 

J291 report. We sought information and 

data on whether existing jackets built to 

SAE J2921 on existing dummies will 

meet the proposed specifications. 

NHTSA also sought comment on what 

(if any) additional information, such as 

tolerance specifications, is needed to 

fully specify the jacket to ensure that 

jackets produced by different 

manufacturers perform equivalently. We 

also sought comment on the proposed 

approach of specifying dimensions for 

the jacket as fitted on a dummy, 

including whether additional subpart O 

qualification tests are necessary. 

Section IV addresses the specific 

dimensional specifications based on 

post-NPRM measurement data analysis. 

This section will focus on the 

commenters’ specific approach of 

specifying jacket dimensions. Further 

discussion of the comments can be 

found in a separately docketed 

document.31

a. Dimensional Targets and the Use of 

Mandrel 

The mandrel was developed and 

described in the SAE information report 

(SAE J2921) describing the harmonized 

jacket. In the SAE report, it was noted 

that the jackets tend to shrink over time. 

The mandrel was developed to assess 

jacket fit as it ages. There are reference 

marks on the back, bottom, and top of 

the mandrel that serve as indicators that 

the jacket has shrunk to the point where 

a replacement is recommended. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA considered the 

need for the mandrel and tentatively 

decided not to incorporate the mandrel 

in the fit check procedure outlined in 

SAE J2921, but did request comment. 

Comment 

In response to the NPRM, comments 

recommended a new use of the mandrel, 

outside of the initial design. Both HIS 

and the Alliance commented that the 

mandrel should be incorporated and 

used for taking dimensional 

measurements of the jacket. Concerns 

were raised regarding some of the 

measurements to be taken when the 

jacket is zipped onto the underlying 

dummy (worn) and difficulty in reliably 

obtaining those measurements. These 

concerns were based on the need to 

measure the jacket and obtain 

dimensional measurements within the 

tolerances. Commenters recommended 

the use of the mandrel as a tool to 

constrain the torso and take all 

measurements on/with the mandrel. 

The commenters noted that the mandrel 

would provide a repeatable means to set 

up the jacket for dimensional 

measurement. Commenters cited a need 

to have the mandrel to ensure jacket 

measurement consistency and cited 

poor Gage repeatability and 

reproducibility when the mandrel was 

not used. 

Response 

The use of the mandrel for taking 

dimensional measurements of the jacket 

represents a new use for the mandrel 

and was not part of the petition for 

rulemaking. The Alliance’s 

supplemental submission to NHTSA 

clarified that it was not requesting that 

the agency specify the use of the 

mandrel.32 The NPRM sought comments 

on the mandrel’s use in SAE J2921. The 

SAE J2921 design used the mandrel for 

a fit check when the jacket has shrunk. 

The comments received proposed using 

the mandrel in a new way: to take 

dimensional measurements of the jacket 

in lieu of placing the jacket on the 

underlying dummy. 

There are several technical reasons 

why the mandrel is not adopted in the 

final rule. Overall, NHTSA disagrees 

with the need for a mandrel to meet the 

final jacket measurement specifications 

but agrees it can be used as an optional 

inspection device. When the jacket is 

being prepared for testing, entities 

subject to FMVSS testing are free to use 

the mandrel as an inspection device for 

shrinking of the jacket or when 

configuring the unworn jacket before 

taking certain measurements. However, 

NHTSA will not include the mandrel in 

subpart O nor will it specify use of the 

mandrel. 

Based on NHTSA’s overall assessment 

of the data provided, the agency 

believes that the ‘‘worn’’ and ‘‘unworn’’ 

dimensions specified in the final rule 

remain sufficient for a determination of 

acceptable jacket size, without the need 

for a mandrel. NHTSA was able to 

record all the measurements in both a 

‘‘worn’’ and ‘‘unworn’’ state for the 

dummy within tolerances, except for a 

few instances. 

The purpose of an engineering 

drawing is to record and convey the 

dummy’s requirements which is to be 

used in FMVSS testing. The drawings 

must include sufficient information to 

enable production planning, 

manufacture, assembly, testing, and 

inspection of individual parts and 

assemblies. The entire jacket-on-dummy 

assembly is specified by part 572, not 

just the individual parts. The jacket 

itself is made of a flexible material that 

is placed over the underlying dummy. 

The contour locations of the jacket 

relative to a vehicle shoulder belt are 

affected by the underlying structure of 

the dummy. Thus, those dimensions are 

specified on the assembly drawing of 

the dummy, known as ‘‘worn’’ 

dimensions when the jacket is fitted/ 

zipped on the underlying dummy 

structure. It is important for the 

drawings to include the underlying 

dummy, to ensure that the external 

dimensions of the assembled dummy 

are consistent and within tolerance. 

Checking dimensional measures when 

the jacket is off the underlying dummy, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
256 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

33See 49 CFR part 567. 

34Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile 

Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix C– 

Response and Analysis of Comments Received. 

35Compared to conventional devices (measuring 

tables, calipers, dial gauges) a CMM device provides 

a convenient and oftentimes more precise means to 

record measurements. 

even with the use of the mandrel, is not 

sufficient. 

In addition to exterior dimensions of 

the full dummy assembly, individual 

parts are also specified on separate 

engineering drawings. The part 

drawings specify the construction and 

material of the jacket. They also specify 

jacket dimensions that do not depend 

on the underlying dummy. These 

dimensions are referred to as the 

‘‘unworn’’ dimensions. For the jacket, 

the ‘‘unworn’’ dimensions, together 

with the ‘‘worn’’ assembly dimensions, 

are needed to ensure uniformity of the 

dummy as a whole. A separate jacket 

drawing is needed, just as separate 

drawings for other parts are needed. 

Thus, it is appropriate to have 

dimensions for the jacket on separate 

jacket-only drawings in the ‘‘unworn’’ 

condition. 

NHTSA analyzed both our own data 

and the commenters’ data. Both datasets 

have shown that the finalized 

specifications were achieved 

consistently within the tolerance ranges. 

Thus, the specifications ensure that 

current and future chest jackets will 

have sufficient uniformity. Notably, 

NHTSA’s own measurements were 

recorded without the aid of a mandrel 

and still met the final rule 

specifications. This result confirms the 

validity of NHTSA’s specifications 

without the use of mandrel. NHTSA’s 

analysis of its post-NPRM data and 

commenters’ measurement data is 

further detailed in section IV. 

The use of the mandrel, if 

implemented in subpart O, would 

require new drawings with dimensions 

and tolerances to properly and 

repeatably specify the mandrel. This 

need would likely create new 

discrepancies. While J2921 depicts a 

drawing of the mandrel, it does not 

provide details or dimensions on the 

shape of the mandrel. Also, neither 

J2921 nor the commenters provided an 

objective fit criterion for a mandrel or 

mandrel-specific test procedure. 

Without the exact specification of the 

mandrel, contrary to the commenters’ 

suggestion, the introduction of a new 

device here would create more variation 

for the jacket. 

NHTSA also disagrees with the 

commenters’ use of Gage repeatability 

and reproducibility (Gage R&R) analysis 

as further support that a mandrel is 

needed. A gage is a device used to 

obtain measurement. Here, a mandrel is 

described by SAE as a fit check device, 

not a measurement device. The purpose 

of a Gage R&R analysis is to assess the 

quality of the measurement system if 

there is reason to believe the 

measurement discrepancy is due to the 

measurement device itself. Because 

NHTSA’s proposed and final 

specification of dummy parts and 

assemblies does not introduce a new 

measurement device, NHTSA did not 

perform a Gage R&R. Analysis of Gage 

R&R is further discussed under the 

agency’s response to comment section 

on the use of another measurement 

device. 

It is important to note that just 

because a measurement is not within 

tolerances, it does not necessarily mean 

that the jacket is out of specification or 

cannot be used. For the ‘‘worn’’ 

dimensions in particular, the 

dimensions are affected by how the 

jacket is placed over the underlying 

dummy structure. If the specified 

dimensions are not met initially, the 

jacket can be adjusted and the 

measurements taken again. Note 7 on 

drawing 880105–000, Complete 

Assembly, confirms this possibility: ‘‘If 

the z-coordinates of the A-Pts are not 

within 5 mm of the target height of 

10.23 in. (265 mm), re-seat the jacket be 

rolling it fore/aft against the shoulder to 

move the z-coordinate closer to the 

target height while maintaining the 

position of the H-point. The re-seated 

jacket shall rest in contact with the 

underlying shoulder pads with no gap 

between the pads and the jacket or 

between the pads and the clavicle 

castings.’’ 

b. Certification 

The Alliance recommended the use of 

the mandrel as part of the jacket 

production process. Specifically, the 

Alliance noted that the jacket should be 

certified by its manufacturer on the 

mandrel and using a 3D measurement 

device such as a Faro arm. 

Response 

Dummy jacket certification 

requirement is not within NHTSA’s 

authority and role. NHTSA does not 

certify the ATDs specified in part 572, 

nor does NHTSA certify any of the 

components used in the ATDs. NHTSA 

specifies the ATDs in part 572 used for 

FMVSS testing. Part 572 specifications 

lay out the technical aspects of the ATD. 

ATD manufacturers produce the ATD 

and can choose to make a dummy 

meeting those specification. Then, 

under the self-certification process, 

motor vehicle original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) self-certify 

compliance with applicable FMVSS—in 

this case, FVMSS No. 208.33 OEMs 

could choose to incorporate a mandrel 

as part of their certification process. 

c. Annual Inspection Specification 

HIS and the Alliance recommended 

an annual check of jackets by users with 

a measurement of eight critical 

dimensions on the mandrel. These eight 

critical measurements would check for 

shrinkage that could occur over time as 

a jacket ages. 

Response 

While the final rule is not including 

the mandrel as part of the fit check 

procedures to the HIII–5F jacket 

specification, OEMs and testing labs are 

not prohibited from using the mandrel 

as an optional device part of their 

routine inspection process. 

Part 572 specifies the parts used on 

the dummy, but it does not specify any 

maintenance schedule or discuss any 

states of disrepair. Generally, other than 

the specifications in PADIs, there are no 

annual inspection criteria included. 

NHTSA will not be including additional 

inspection parameters as part of the 

PADI. 

d. Other Measurement Device 

HIS and the Alliance recommended 

that NHTSA stipulate that all 

measurements should be recorded using 

a digital Faro arm, or equivalent 

Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) 

system. HIS reasoned that 

measurements taken by standard gages 

are not sufficiently definitive, as 

evidenced by poor Gage repeatability 

and reproducibility results. 

Response 

Specification of a specific 

measurement technique, such as the use 

of a CMM system, is not included in 

part 572. Part 572 defines the 

dimensions of the dummy and provides 

the PADI and qualification procedures 

to ensure it is responding as expected. 

Part 572 does not dictate the equipment 

used to take those measurements. 

Nonetheless, NHTSA carried out an 

assessment by comparing operator 

measurements of multiple jackets using 

basic levels and calipers vs. the more 

sophisticated Faro arm.34 A Faro arm is 

a digital device that records precise 

three-dimensional coordinates. It is a 

brand name for a type of CMM.35 The 

digital measurement device often 

provides a more precise means to record 

measurement but such a device may not 

always be available. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 257 

36Examples of conventional devices include 

measuring tables, calipers, and dial gauges. 

37Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile 

Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix A— 

Spine Box Analysis. 

38Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 

5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 572, 

Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List, Engineering 

Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 

2023. 

NHTSA’s assessment had two 

objectives. The first was to determine 

whether both the digital device and the 

conventional device,36 in this case a 

caliper here, could achieve the proposed 

jacket specification within the tolerance. 

The second objective was to determine 

whether there is a significant difference/ 

deviation between the measurements 

taken by the two gages that the final rule 

requires gage-specific information. 

NHTSA’s gage device analysis 

showed that both types of measuring 

devices met the finalized nominal target 

value. In other words, both devices can 

properly measure the finalized jacket 

specifications. Although the Faro arm 

did have slightly more consistency than 

using the calipers, there is no significant 

difference in the use of Faro versus the 

conventional gage. 

Instead, NHTSA found that the jacket 

setup, rather than the measuring device 

itself, had an impact on the 

measurements taken. To remedy this 

inconsistency, the final rule contains a 

new stipulation on the assembly 

drawing to reposition the jacket 

(880105–000, Complete Assembly, 

Hybrid HIII–5F). 

For the final rule, NHTSA is not 

requiring a specific gage to use for jacket 

measurements. It is not uncommon for 

different labs to use different 

techniques. Even with different 

measurement techniques, NHTSA’s 

analysis has demonstrated it is possible 

to successfully measure the dimensions 

of the jackets. General care when 

placing the jacket onto the dummy can 

ensure it is consistently placed for 

measurement. Measurement with a 

CMM or calipers has been shown to 

yield consistent results that meet the 

final rule jacket specifications. 

e. Spine Box 

HIS supported NHTSA’s proposed 

adoption of the SAE spine box to 

eliminate the mechanical noise from the 

chest accelerometers while preserving 

the dynamic response. However, based 

on HIS’s review of fourteen ATDs, HIS 

requested NHTSA update the mass 

specification from one of the drawing 

documents (880105–000(-H) Sheet 6) to 

account for the additional mass from the 

bolt plates added to the spine box. 

Response 

NHTSA evaluated the ATDs that had 

the old spine box replaced (the original 

FTSS and Denton units) and newer 

HIII–5F units that incorporated the 

proposed SAE spine box design. After 

evaluation of weight measurements 

from existing and new ATDs,37 NHTSA 

is adopting the mass specification 

change, specifically the upper torso 

assembly segment weight specification. 

It was noted that the plates added a 

small additional weight to the torso of 

the dummy and could cause the 

specifications to fall outside of the 

tolerance. While the final rule also 

adopts the SAE chest jacket design, the 

jacket’s mass is not different from the 

prior FTSS and Denton versions. 

Consequently, the torso mass difference 

is due to the added bolt plates. The 

increase in torso mass specification is 

adopted in two places in the assembly 

engineering drawing in 880105–000(-H) 

Sheet 6. 

f. Sample Size 

Ms. Sial, an individual commenter, 

supported NHTSA’s jacket specification 

update. However, to obtain a 

measurement that more accurately 

reflects the average U.S. women, Ms. 

Sial recommended basing the new 

proposed chest jacket dimension on a 

larger sample size, such as the mean 

body measurement data from the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC). 

Response 

When NHTSA develops a new crash 

test dummy, the agency updates the 

dummy anthropometry to consider 

human anthropometry measurements, 

such as those maintained by the CDC 

(among other factors). However, this 

rulemaking is not a revision to the 

anthropometry of the dummy for a new 

crash test dummy; therefore, a revision 

to the basic anthropometry of the 

dummy is outside of the scope of the 

final rule. Rather, the NPRM and now 

final rule resolves discrepancies 

between the jacket specifications in 

subpart O and jackets available in the 

field. The jacket specifications are 

developed from SAE J2921 to update the 

current crash test dummy’s engineering 

components. These changes ensure a 

sufficiently low level of variation 

between jackets fabricated by different 

manufacturers. 

Ideally, dummy jackets should have 

identical dimensions. However, there 

are measurement variabilities due to 

differences in manufacturing, set up, 

and measurement processes. Thus, 

jacket specifications include tolerances 

to account for measurement variability. 

For the NPRM, NHTSA conducted its 

own measurements and testing for the 

proposal. Following the NPRM and 

reviewing of comments received that 

included jacket measurement data, the 

agency continued to collect additional 

measurements to check whether the 

dimensions and tolerances proposed 

(including those derived from J2921 

drawings and the new section 

dimensions added by NHTSA) were 

being met by SAE jackets already in the 

field for the final rule. Continuing to 

obtain jacket measurements allowed the 

agency to establish an average 

measurement and tolerance of the 

dimensions for finalized drawings and 

ensure that the finalized tolerances and 

dimensions achieve an acceptable 

degree of consistency, conformity, and 

uniformity. 

VI. Changes to the Drawing Package 

and PADI 

NHTSA proposed to amend the 

subpart O regulatory text to incorporate 

by reference new versions of the 

drawing package, parts list and PADI. 

The final rulemaking closely reflects the 

revisions in the NPRM. Some new 

revisions have been added in the final 

rule. Below is a summary of the 

changes. All revisions are fully 

described in more detail in a separate 

document being placed into the docket 

for this rulemaking.38

Chest Jacket Drawing 

For the final rule, NHTSA’s new 

drawings, the Chest Flesh Assembly 

(880105–355–H, Sheets 1 and 2) and the 

Sternum Pad (880105–356–H), include 

some dimensional changes to reflect a 

larger pool of data. New reference 

dimensions are also added for the 

jacket. NHTSA also revises drawing 

880105–000, Complete Assembly, 5th 

Female, Rev J, Sheet 5 to add jacket 

dimensions at various cross sections 

and revise the call-out to the jacket in 

drawing 880105–300 to reference the 

new drawing. We are also making some 

corresponding changes to the PADI. 

To summarize the changes to the new 

drawing package, the drawings in which 

the chest jacket is currently specified 

(880105–355–E, 880105–356, 880105– 

423, and 880105–424) are replaced with: 

• 880105–355–H, Rev B, Chest Flesh 

Assembly, Sheet 1 

• 880105–355–H, Rev B, Chest Flesh 

Assembly, Sheet 2 

• 880105–356–H, Rev C, Sternum Pad 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
258 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

39Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 

5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 572, 

Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List, Engineering 

Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 

2023. 40 Id. 

41 In its February 21, 2014 petition, the Alliance 

recommended that compliance with the new 

specifications should be optional for a period of five 

years. 

880105–000, Complete Assembly, 

Hybrid III 5th Female 

In the final rule, sheet 5 is redrawn to 

reflect the NPRM and final rule note 

changes. The dimensions remain the 

same as in the NPRM. Changes from the 

NPRM include that in note 5, the 

tolerances are updated on the section 

dimensions based on post-NPRM data to 

achieve an acceptable degree of 

conformity while still ensuring a high 

level of uniformity. For note 6, metric 

dimensions are given to aid in clarity. 

For note 7, a description is added for 

how to properly adjust the jacket fit on 

the dummy to aid in setup. 

880105–000, Complete Assembly, 

Hybrid III 5th Female, Sheet 6, 

Assembly Weights Table 

Upper torso assembly with jacket (see 

Table 1 for parts included). 

Was: 26.50 ± 0.30 lbs (12.02 ± 0.14 kg) 

Now: 26.90 ± 0.30 lbs (12.20 ± 0.14 kg) 

Total dummy weight. 

Was: 108.03 ± 2.00 lbs (49.05 kg ± 0.91 

kg) 

Now: 108.43 ± 2.00 lbs (49.18 kg ± 0.91 

kg) 

Spine box torso mass specification is 

updated following further comment 

analysis. Specifically, the nominal value 

is shifted from to 26.90 ± .30 lbs. from 

26.50 ± .30lbs. This change will allow 

the corridor to shift upwards of 0.40 lbs 

and the total dummy weight from 

108.03 ± 2.50 lbs to 108.43 ± 2.50 lbs. 

The final rule’s weight specification 

would not affect or change the dummy’s 

performance in any way (other than 

eliminate the potential for noise). 

The final rule also corrects an old 

metric conversion error between pounds 

and kilograms. Specifically, the old 

metric conversion for 108.03 lbs. was 

incorrectly listed at 49.05 kg. It should 

have been 49.00 kg. The changes to the 

affected drawings are described in more 

detail in a separate document being 

placed into the docket for this 

rulemaking.39

Jacket PADI 

The PADI provides specifications on 

how to assemble the dummy above and 

beyond the engineering drawings. Given 

the dummy is frequently dissembled, 

the PADI includes a check on the 

exterior dimension to ensure that all 

assemblies and fitted parts are properly 

installed on the reassembled dummy. 

This exterior dimension corresponds to 

the specification changes to Drawing 

No. 880105–000, Complete assembly, 

5th female, Rev. N, Sheet 5. In addition, 

the mass tables are removed from the 

PADI as they are already present within 

the drawing package. Detailed changes 

are further specified in the separate 

document being docketed.40

Spine Box 

The new versions of the drawing 

package, parts list, and PADI 

incorporated by reference include the 

SAE J2915 specifications for the 

improved spine box. The final rule 

revisions add plates to the side of the 

spine box, with bolts countersunk into 

the plate to remove any play from the 

assembly. NHTSA’s new engineering 

part and assembly drawings include the 

revised spine box to replace the current 

spine box drawings with the following: 

• 880105–1045, Rev C, Hybrid III 5th 

Female Thoracic Spine Upgrade, Sheets 

1–3 

• 880105–1047, HIII–5F Plate, 

Thoracic Spine Upgrade 

• SID–070–6, Rev B, DOT–SID, 

Modified 5/16–18 x 5/8′′ SHCS 

VII. Housekeeping Amendments 

In the final rule, NHTSA adopts all of 

the proposed housekeeping and other 

amendments to subpart O below. 

1. NHTSA amends the title of subpart 

O to add the word ‘‘adult’’ between ‘‘5th 

percentile’’ and ‘‘female’’ for clarity. 

2. The agency removes the words 

‘‘Alpha Version’’ from the title of 

subpart O. During adoption of some of 

the subparts of part 572 NHTSA had 

decided that referring to the alpha, beta, 

etc., ‘‘versions’’ of the test dummies 

would better distinguish a current 

version of an ATD from a previous 

version. The agency later decided this 

naming convention was not helpful and 

has not followed it. Accordingly, for the 

final rule, NHTSA removes ‘‘Alpha 

Version’’ from the title of subpart O 

since the naming convention is no 

longer used. 

3. This final rule revises subpart O’s 

references to SAE J211 parts 1 and 2 and 

to SAE J1733 to refer to updated 

versions of the standards. SAE J211 is 

revised with improved diagrams for 

defining the dummy coordinate system, 

and corrections to minor mistakes in 

print. New information and 

recommendations for data system 

grounding, sensor cable shielding, and 

minimizing the effects of transducer 

resonance are included. Clarifications 

on data processing are also included. 

J1733 is revised with improved 

diagrams for defining the dummy 

coordinate system (for the HIII–5F, the 

system itself is unchanged). 

VIII. Lead Time 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to 

make subpart O—the specifications for 

the chest jacket and spine box—effective 

45 days after the publication of the final 

rule. 

The Alliance commented that the 45- 

day lead time is not sufficient time for 

the adoption of the new proposed chest 

jacket and spine box specification. The 

commenter noted that NHTSA did not 

account for the time needed for 

compliance testing. Instead of a 45-day 

effective date, the Alliance suggested a 

lead time of five years,41 and that until 

the effective date, the new specification 

be optional. 

Response 

After consideration of the comment 

and post-NPRM analysis of the 

proposed and final specification, 

NHTSA believes the 45-day lead time 

remains sufficient because the agency 

does not believe that testing under 

FMVSS No. 208 would be significantly 

affected by the final rule. 

FMVSS No. 208 specifies that NHTSA 

is to use the subpart O dummy in its 

compliance tests. As discussed 

previously, if manufacturers are not 

using the final rule’s jacket for 

certification, NHTSA will ask 

manufacturers to identify an FTSS or 

Denton jacket for NHTSA to use in its 

compliance testing. This rulemaking 

does not change any existing process for 

vehicle certification with the 

manufacturer-identified jackets. This 

rulemaking solely adds the new jacket 

specifications to part 572 and in turn for 

FMVSSS No. 208 testing. This final rule 

does not impose any new requirements 

on anyone. 

Some vehicle manufacturers already 

use the SAE jackets on the ATD. 

Moreover, because none of the dummy 

jackets that are currently in use 

correspond to the existing subpart O 

specifications, there should be no issue 

with taking an existing dummy out of 

conformity with the implementation of 

this rule. Post-NPRM measurement 

included new SAE jackets that are 

currently used in the field and 

conformed to the final rule 

specifications. The improved spine box 

is not expected to affect dummy 

performance because the revision only 

acts to remove the unwanted artifact of 

loose bolts rattling. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 259 

42For the HIII–5F, a new jacket costs about 

$1,300. This is an updated estimate from the 

NPRM’s approximate cost of $850. If a new jacket 

is installed on an existing dummy, additional 

refurbishments or tuning of that dummy may be 

needed for it to pass the subpart O qualification 

tests. Depending on the condition and age of the 

dummy, several other parts may need to be replaced 

at a cost of up to $10,000. However, dummy 

refurbishments and part replacements are an 

inherent part of testing and many of the additional 

parts are often replaced on a regular schedule. In 

other words, some of the parts would eventually be 

replaced, and the costs of the replacement parts can 

be amortized over a number of tests. 

43This cost was originally estimated to be 

approximately $600 during the NPRM stage. This 

estimation has been updated for the final rule. 

Manufacturers wishing to test with 

the final rule’s jacket and spine box 

should have no difficulty obtaining the 

necessary parts. In the Alliance’s 

supplemental petition letter, the 

Alliance indicated that all parts 

associated with the proposed jacket and 

spine box changes are available, and 

there should not be any difficulties 

meeting anticipated demand. NHTSA 

believes that the introduction of the new 

parts is part of the normal maintenance 

of jackets as it ages and it would not 

create any significant increases in the 

workload necessary to maintain the 

dummies. 

Lastly, a shortened lead time is 

desirable because the changes are 

beneficial for testing laboratories. We 

believe that the final rule’s jacket and 

spine box changes will likely lead to 

diminished laboratory technician 

workload. A common jacket design will 

eliminate the need to deal with multiple 

jacket versions. The new spine box will 

also lighten laboratory workload by 

eliminating the need to re-torque the 

bolts between tests. With respect to 

levels of effort and technician training 

needed to modify and maintain the new 

jacket and spine box, the Alliance 

indicated in its supplemental letter that 

both modifications are well within the 

technical competency of existing 

laboratory technicians. 

IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 

14904, Executive Order 13563, and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the potential 

impact of this final rule under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, 

Executive Order 13563, DOT Order 

2100.6A, and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This final rule is not 

considered to be significant under the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures (44 

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). 

As stated in 49 CFR 572.3, 

Application, part 572 does not in itself 

impose duties or liabilities on any 

person. It only serves to describe the test 

tools that measure the performance of 

occupant protection systems. Thus, this 

part 572 final rule itself 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 

rule are minimal, no further regulatory 

evaluation is necessary. 

This final rule finalizes changes to the 

specifications of the HIII–5F chest jacket 

and spine box. For entities testing with 

the dummy, the finalized revisions are 

intended to resolve issues with the fit 

and availability of the jacket and a noise 

artifact from the spine box. Neither 

change would impose new requirements 

on vehicle manufacturers. 

With respect to benefits, the dummy 

would not change in any way other than 

to improve its usability and objectivity. 

This rulemaking benefits the public by 

specifying a more objective test tool, 

which lessens the burden of dummy 

end-users in performing tests and 

interpreting test results. It also benefits 

vehicle manufacturers by providing 

certainty about which test jacket and 

spine box NHTSA will use in 

compliance tests with the HIII 5th 

percentile adult female ATD, and 

assurance about the continued 

availability of the jacket. This 

rulemaking benefits NHTSA as the 

agency would no longer have to 

maintain test jackets of different designs 

and take steps to match the compliance 

test jacket with that specified by the 

vehicle manufacturers. Specifying the 

new test jacket and spine box ensures 

the long-term availability of a test jacket 

for compliance tests. 

The costs associated with this 

rulemaking are limited to those 

associated with acquiring new dummy 

parts. We conclude that the finalized 

changes would not necessitate the 

purchasing of any parts that would not 

have been purchased in the normal 

course of business in the absence of the 

finalized changes. 

We do not believe the finalized chest 

jacket changes will impose any 

additional costs compared to what 

would have been expended if we did 

not adopt the proposed changes. 

Because a chest jacket eventually wears 

out, it must be replaced. Dummy 

refurbishments and part replacements 

are a routine part of ATD testing. The 

agency understands that industry has 

essentially run out of its supply of the 

older FTSS and Denton jackets. We 

further understand that industry has 

been replacing worn-out FTSS and 

Denton jackets with new jackets built to 

the SAE J2921 specifications. While the 

FTSS and Denton jackets are not 

consistent with the finalized 

specifications, we believe that chest 

jackets built to the SAE J2921 

specifications would meet the finalized 

specifications. Because industry and 

testing labs need to replace the chest 

jacket in the regular course of 

business—regardless of whether the 

proposed changes are adopted—and the 

only available replacement chest jackets 

conform to the finalized specifications, 

we believe the finalized chest jacket 

specifications would not impose any 

additional costs on industry.42

The revised spine box, which is not 

typically replaced during routine 

maintenance, costs about $3,000.43 End 

users do not have to purchase a revised 

spine box. They can compensate for the 

design shortcoming of the current spine 

box by disassembling the dummy and 

re-torquing the relevant fasteners by 

hand before each test. 

Executive Order 13609: Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

The policy statement in section 1 of 

Executive Order 13609 provides that the 

regulatory approaches taken by foreign 

governments may differ from those 

taken by the United States to address 

similar issues, and that in some cases 

the differences between them might not 

be necessary and might impair the 

ability of American businesses to export 

and compete internationally. It further 

recognizes that in meeting shared 

challenges involving health, safety, and 

other issues, international regulatory 

cooperation can identify approaches 

that are at least as protective as those 

that are or would be adopted in the 

absence of such cooperation and can 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. 

The finalized revisions are intended 

to resolve issues with the fit and 

availability of the jacket and a noise 

artifact from the spine box. Neither 

change would impose new requirements 

on vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA does 

not believe the final rule would lead to 

any reduction in harmonization. 

Executive Order 13045 

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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
260 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

44www.sae.org/standards/reading-room. 

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. 

Incorporation by Reference 

Under regulations issued by the Office 

of the Federal Register (1 CFR part 51), 

an agency, as part of a proposed rule 

that includes material incorporated by 

reference, must summarize material that 

is proposed to be incorporated by 

reference and must discuss the ways the 

material proposed to be incorporated by 

reference is reasonably available to 

interested parties or how the agency 

worked to make materials available to 

interested parties. At the final rule stage, 

regulations require that the agency seek 

formal approval, summarize the 

material that it incorporates by reference 

in the preamble of the final rule, discuss 

the ways that the materials is reasonably 

available to interested parties, and 

provide other specific information to the 

Office of the Federal Register. 

In this rule, NHTSA incorporates by 

reference updated versions of a parts 

list, a set of drawings, and a manual into 

49 CFR part 572, subpart O. After 

seeking comments and the agency’s 

measurement analysis, we believe the 

updated versions contain additional 

specifications and illustrations that are 

helpful for end users who are 

attempting to qualify the ATD. This 

material is published by NHTSA. The 

contents of the documents are 

summarized in section VI above, and 

the documents incorporated by 

reference are placed in the docket for 

this rulemaking for interested parties to 

review. The following updated parts 

list, drawings, and a manual appear in 

the amendatory text of this document 

and earlier versions were previously 

approved for the locations in which 

these updated versions appear now: 

Parts and Drawings List, Part 572 

Subpart O, Hybrid III Fifth Percentile 

Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy 

(HIII–5F), revised December 2022; 

Engineering Drawings, Part 572 Subpart 

O, Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Small 

Adult Female Test Dummy (HIII–5F), 

revised December 2022; Procedures for 

the Assembly, Disassembly, and 

Inspection (PADI), Hybrid III Fifth 

Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy 

(HIII–05F), revised June 2022. 

This final rule also incorporates 

updated versions of SAE Recommended 

Practice J211/1 parts 1 and 2 and SAE 

J1733. Older versions of these 

documents were previously 

incorporated by reference into subpart 

O. The changes in the updated versions 

are summarized in section VII above 

and under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

rulemaking analysis below. The 

versions previously incorporated by 

reference are available in SAE 

International’s online reading room.44

The updated versions incorporated by 

reference in this final rule are available 

for review at NHTSA and are available 

for purchase from SAE International at 

https://www.sae.org. 

NHTSA has placed a copy of the parts 

list, set of drawings, and manual in the 

docket for this final rule. Interested 

persons can obtain a copy of the 

material or view the material online by 

accessing www.regulations.gov; phone: 

(877) 378–5457; or by contacting 

NHTSA’s Chief Counsel’s Office at the 

phone number and address in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document. The material is also 

available for inspection at the 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, Room W12–140, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC; 

phone: (202) 366–9826. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this 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 

this rule will not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

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.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption 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 

under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. The express 

preemption provision described above 

is subject to a savings clause under 

which compliance with a motor vehicle 

safety standard prescribed under this 

chapter does not exempt a person from 

liability at common law. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, 

State common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision are 

generally preserved. 

NHTSA rules can also preempt State 

law if complying with the FMVSS 

would render the motor vehicle 

manufacturers liable under State tort 

law. Because most NHTSA standards 

established by an FMVSS are minimum 

standards, a State common law tort 

cause of action that seeks to impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers will generally not be 

preempted. If and when such a conflict 

does exist—for example, when the 

standard at issue is both a minimum 

and a maximum standard—the State 

common law tort cause of action is 

impliedly preempted. See Geier v. 

American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 

861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this rule could or should 

preempt State common law causes of 

action. The agency’s ability to announce 

its conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (i.e., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this rule and finds that this 

rule, like many NHTSA rules, would 

prescribe only a minimum safety 

standard. As such, NHTSA does not 

intend this rule to preempt state tort law 

that would effectively impose a higher 

standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers. Establishment of a 

higher standard by means of State tort 

law will not conflict with the minimum 

standard adopted here. Without any 

conflict, there could not be any implied 

preemption of a State common law tort 

cause of action. 

Severability 

The issue of severability of FMVSSs is 

addressed in 49 CFR 571.9. It provides 

that if any FMVSS or its application to 

any person or circumstance is held 

invalid, the remainder of the part and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 261 

45National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 

110 Stat. 775 (1996), at section 12(d)(1). 

46 Id. at section 12(d)(3). 

the application of that standard to other 

persons or circumstances is unaffected. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies 

to evaluate the potential effects of their 

proposed and final rules on small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small Government jurisdictions. The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

The Act requires agencies to prepare 

and make available an initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 

describing the impact of proposed and 

final rules on small entities. An RFA is 

not required if the head of the agency 

certifies that the proposed or final rule 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The head of the agency has made such 

a certification with regard to this final 

rule. 

The factual basis for the certification 

(5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set forth below. 

Although the agency is not required to 

issue an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, this section discusses many of 

the issues that an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis would address. 

Section 603(b) of the Act specifies the 

content of an RFA. Each RFA must 

contain: 

1. A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

2. A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for a final 

rule; 

3. A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the final rule 

will apply; 

4. A description of the projected 

reporting, recording keeping and other 

compliance requirements of a final rule 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; 

5. An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with the final rule; 

6. Each final regulatory flexibility 

analysis shall also contain a description 

of any significant alternatives to the 

final rule which accomplish the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes and 

which minimize any significant 

economic impact of the final rule on 

small entities. 

A description of the reason why 

action by the agency is being considered 

and the objectives of, and legal basis for, 

the final rule are discussed at length 

earlier in this document. 

NHTSA has 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 

revisions to the test dummy will not 

impose any requirements on anyone. 

NHTSA will use the revised ATD in 

agency testing but will not require 

anyone to manufacture the dummy or to 

test motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

equipment with it. Further, small 

vehicle manufacturers that choose to 

test with the 5th percentile adult female 

dummy will not be significantly 

impacted by this rulemaking. The final 

rule will simply replace the chest jacket 

and spine box now used with the test 

dummy with more up-to-date 

equipment. Since chest jackets must 

periodically be replaced on the test 

dummy because they wear out, this 

amendment will not significantly affect 

end users of the ATD (they will 

continue to do what they already do). 

Similarly, the change to the new spine 

box will not significantly affect small 

vehicle manufacturers. It entails a 

simple one-time replacement where the 

old part would be switched out with the 

new. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. In accordance with 49 CFR 

1.81, 42 U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA 

Order 5610.1C, NHTSA has determined 

that this rule is categorically excluded 

pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) 

(planning and administrative activities, 

such as promulgation of rules, that do 

not involve or lead directly to 

construction). This rulemaking, which 

finalizes changes to the Hybrid III 5th 

percentile adult female (HIII–5F) 

anthropomorphic test device (ATD or 

crash test dummy), is not anticipated to 

result in any environmental impacts, 

and there are no extraordinary 

circumstances present in connection 

with this rulemaking. 

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 procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal 

agencies must obtain approval from the 

OMB for each collection of information 

they conduct, sponsor, or require 

through regulations. This rulemaking 

does not establish any information 

collection requirements as defined by 

the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), ‘‘all Federal agencies and 

departments shall use technical 

standards that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, using such technical standards 

as a means to carry out policy objectives 

or activities determined by the agencies 

and departments.’’ 45 However, if the 

use of such technical standards would 

be ‘‘inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical, a Federal agency 

or department may elect to use technical 

standards that are not developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies.’’ 46 Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies such as SAE. The 

NTTAA directs the agency to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. Circular A–119 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
262 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

47Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. 

A–119, ¶ 5(a)(i), Federal Participation in the 

Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities 

(Jan. 26, 2016). 

48 Id. 

directs that evaluating whether to use a 

voluntary consensus standard should be 

done on a case-by-case basis.47 An 

agency should consider, where 

applicable, factors such as the nature of 

the agency’s statutory mandate and the 

consistency of the standard with that 

mandate.48

SAE has published information 

reports on the HIII 5th percentile adult 

female’s chest jacket and spine box 

which today’s rule incorporates by 

reference in full. The foregoing sections 

of this document discuss in detail SAE’s 

work in these areas: SAE J2921 (Chest 

Jacket) and SAE J2915 (Spine Box). This 

rule includes a few specifications 

beyond SAE J2921; the preamble 

explains NHTSA’s belief that they are 

necessary to ensure a sufficient level of 

uniformity between jackets produced by 

different manufacturers going forward, 

and to prevent discrepancies in jacket 

designs from reoccurring in the future. 

In addition, the following voluntary 

consensus standards have been used in 

developing this final rule: 

• SAE Recommended Practice J211/ 

1_202208 (August 2022), Electronic 

Instrumentation; 

• SAE Recommended Practice J211/ 

2_202204 (April 2022), Photographic 

Instrumentation; and 

• SAE J1733_201811 (November 

2018), Sign Convention for Vehicle 

Crash Testing. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) (UMRA) 

requires agencies to prepare a written 

assessment of the costs, benefits, and 

other effects of proposed or final rules 

that include a Federal mandate likely to 

result in the expenditures by States, 

local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted annually 

for inflation with base year of 1995) in 

any one year. Adjusting this amount by 

the implicit gross domestic product 

price deflator for 2022 results in $177 

million (111.416/75.324 = 1.48). The 

assessment may be included in 

conjunction with other assessments, as 

it is here. 

This rule will 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 

specifications for a new test jacket and 

spine box for the 5th percentile adult 

female dummy that NHTSA uses in 

agency compliance tests. This rule will 

affect only those businesses that choose 

to manufacture or test with the dummy. 

This rule would not result in 

expenditures by State, local, or tribal 

governments of more than $177 million 

annually. 

UMRA requires the agency to select 

the ‘‘least costly, most cost-effective or 

least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the rule.’’ As 

discussed above, the agency considered 

alternatives to the final rule and has 

concluded that the requirements are the 

most cost-effective alternatives that 

achieve the objectives of the rule. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. NHTSA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This rule does not meet the 

criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to be 

considered a major rule. The rule will 

be effective forty-five days after the date 

of publication in the Federal Register. 

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. 

Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4) 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rule can be found in 

the Abstract section of the Department’s 

Unified Agenda entry for this 

rulemaking at https://www.reginfo.gov/

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=

202404&RIN=2127-AM13. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can 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 (65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit 

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

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: 

• Have we 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 isn’t 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 we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us with your 

views. 

NHTSA has considered these 

questions and attempted to use plain 

language in promulgating this final rule. 

Please inform the agency if you can 

suggest how NHTSA can improve its 

use of plain language. 

Submission of Confidential Information 

You should submit a redacted ‘‘public 

version’’ of your comment (including 

redacted versions of any additional 

documents or attachments). This 

‘‘public version’’ of your comment 

should contain only the portions for 

which no claim of confidential 

treatment is made and from which those 

portions for which confidential 

treatment is claimed has been redacted. 

See below for further instructions on 

how to do this. 

You also need to submit a request for 

confidential treatment directly to the 

Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for 

confidential treatment are governed by 

49 CFR part 512. Your request must set 

forth the information specified in part 

512. This information includes the 

materials for which confidentiality is 

being requested (as explained in more 

detail below); supporting information, 

pursuant to § 512.8; and a certificate, 

pursuant to § 512.4(b) and part 512, 

appendix A. 

You are required to submit to the 

Office of Chief Counsel one unredacted 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 263 

‘‘confidential version’’ of the 

information for which you are seeking 

confidential treatment. Pursuant to 

§ 512.6, the words ‘‘ENTIRE PAGE 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ or ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS’’ (as 

applicable) must appear at the top of 

each page containing information 

claimed to be confidential. In the latter 

situation, where not all information on 

the page is claimed to be confidential, 

identify each item of information for 

which confidentiality is requested 

within brackets: ‘‘[ ].’’ 

You are also required to submit to the 

Office of Chief Counsel one redacted 

‘‘public version’’ of the information for 

which you are seeking confidential 

treatment. Pursuant to § 512.5(a)(2), the 

redacted ‘‘public version’’ should 

include redactions of any information 

for which you are seeking confidential 

treatment (i.e., the only information that 

should be unredacted is information for 

which you are not seeking confidential 

treatment). 

NHTSA is currently treating 

electronic submission as an acceptable 

method for submitting confidential 

business information to the agency 

under part 512. Please do not send a 

hardcopy of a request for confidential 

treatment to NHTSA’s headquarters. 

The request should be sent to Dan 

Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief 

Counsel at Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov. 

You may either submit your request via 

email or request a secure file transfer 

link. If you are submitting the request 

via email, please also email a courtesy 

copy of the request to Helena Sung at 

Helena.Sung@dot.gov. 

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 DEVICES 

■ 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 1.95. 

Subpart O—Hybrid III 5th Percentile 

Adult Female Test Dummy 

■ 2. Revise the heading of subpart O to 

read as set forth above. 

■ 3. Revise § 572.130 to read as follows: 

§ 572.130 Incorporation by reference. 

Certain material is incorporated by 

reference (IBR) into this subpart 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, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) must 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register and the material must be 

available to the public. All approved 

material is available for inspection at 

NHTSA and at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

Contact NHTSA at: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 

phone: (202) 366–2588; website: 

www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa/electronicreading-room. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/ 

cfr/ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@

nara.gov. The material may be obtained 

from the following sources: 

(a) NHTSA Technical Information 

Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, 

Washington, DC 20590; phone: 202– 

366–2588; website: https://

www.nhtsa.gov. 

(1) Engineering Drawings, Part 572 

Subpart O Hybrid III 5th Percentile 

Small Adult Female Test Dummy, 

December 2022 (the Engineering 

Drawings); IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 

572.132, 572.133, 572.134, 572.135, 

572.136, and 572.137. 

(2) Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 

Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th Percentile 

Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy, 

December 2022 (the Parts/Drawings 

List); IBR approved for § 572.131. 

(3) Procedures for the Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of 

the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Adult 

Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII–05F), 

June 2022 (the PADI); IBR approved for 

§ 572.131. 

(b) SAE International, 400 

Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 

15096; phone: 1–877–606–7323; 

website: https://www.sae.org. 

(1) SAE Recommended Practice J211– 

1, Instrumentation for Impact Test; Part 

1—Electronic Instrumentation, August 

2022 (SAE J211–1); IBR approved for 

§ 572.137. 

(2) SAE Recommended Practice J211– 

2, Instrumentation for Impact Tests— 

Part 2: Photographic Instrumentation, 

April 2022 (SAE J211–2); IBR approved 

for § 572.137. 

(3) SAE J1733, Sign Convention for 

Vehicle Crash Testing, November 2018; 

IBR approved for § 572.137. 

■ 4. Amend § 572.131 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and 

■ c. Redesignating table A as ‘‘Table 1 

to § 572.131(a)—Drawings List for 

Engineering Drawings, Part 572 Subpart 

O Hybrid III 5th Percentile Small Adult 

Female Test Dummy’’. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 572.131 General description. 

(a) * * * 

(1) The Engineering Drawings 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130), including the drawings 

listed in table 1 to § 572.131(a); 

(2) The Parts/Drawings List 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130); and 

(3) The PADI (incorporated by 

reference, see § 572.130). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 572.132 by adding 

introductory text, revising paragraph (a), 

and removing the heading to paragraph 

(c). The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 572.132 Head assembly and test 

procedure. 

All assemblies and drawings 

referenced in this section are contained 

in the Engineering Drawings 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130). 

(a) The head assembly for this test 

consists of the complete head (drawing 

880105–100X), a six-axis neck 

transducer (drawing SA572–S11) or its 

structural replacement (drawing 78051– 

383X), and 3 accelerometers (drawing 

SA572–S4). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 572.133 by: 

■ a. Adding introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a), the first 

sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(i), and the 

first sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(i); 

■ c. Removing the heading to paragraph 

(c); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) and 

(c)(4)(ii); and 

■ e. Redesignating Table B—Pendulum 

Pulse as ‘‘Table 2 to § 572.133— 

Pendulum Pulse’’. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 572.133 Neck assembly and test 

procedure. 

All assemblies and drawings 

referenced in this section are contained 

in the Engineering Drawings 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130). 

(a) The neck assembly for the 

purposes of this test consists of the 

assembly of components shown in 

drawing 880105–250. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
264 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Plane D, referenced in figure O1 to 

this subpart O, shall rotate in the 

direction of preimpact flight with 

respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal 

centerline between 77 degrees and 91 

degrees. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Plane D, referenced in figure O2 to 

this subpart O, shall rotate in the 

direction of preimpact flight with 

respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal 

centerline between 99 degrees and 114 

degrees. * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Mount the head-neck assembly, 

defined in paragraph (b) of this section, 

on the pendulum described in figure 22 

in 49 CFR part 572 so that the 

midsagittal plane of the head is vertical 

and coincides with the plane of motion 

of the pendulum as shown in figure O1 

to this subpart O for flexion tests and 

figure O2 to this subpart O for extension 

tests. 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Stop the pendulum from the 

initial velocity with an acceleration vs. 

time pulse which meets the velocity 

change as specified in table 2 to 

§ 572.133. Integrate the pendulum 

acceleration data channel to obtain the 

velocity vs. time curve. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 572.134 by adding 

introductory text, revising paragraph (a), 

removing the heading to paragraph (c), 

and revising paragraph (c)(3). The 

addition and revisions read as follows: 

§ 572.134 Thorax assembly and test 

procedure. 

All assemblies and drawings 

referenced in this section are contained 

in the Engineering Drawings 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130). 

(a) The thorax (upper torso) assembly 

consists of the part of the torso assembly 

shown in drawing 880105–300. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Seat and orient the dummy on a 

seating surface without back support as 

shown in figure O3 of this subpart O, 

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 anterior-posterior and lateral 

directions within ±0.5 degrees. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Revise and republish § 572.135 to 

read as follows: 

§ 572.135 Upper and lower torso 

assemblies and torso flexion test 

procedure. 

All assemblies and drawings 

referenced in this section are contained 

in the Engineering Drawings 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130). 

(a) The test objective is to determine 

the stiffness effects of the lumbar spine 

(drawing 880105–1096), and abdominal 

insert (drawing 880105–434), on 

resistance to articulation between the 

upper torso assembly (drawing 880105– 

300) and the lower torso assembly 

(drawing 880105–450). 

(b)(1) When the upper torso assembly 

of a seated dummy is subjected to a 

force continuously applied at the head 

to neck pivot pin level through a rigidly 

attached adaptor bracket as shown in 

figure O4 of this subpart O according to 

the test procedure set out in paragraph 

(c) of this section, the lumbar spineabdomen assembly shall flex by an 

amount that permits the upper torso 

assembly to translate in angular motion 

relative to the vertical transverse plane 

45 ±0.5 degrees at which time the force 

applied must be not less than 320 N 

(71.5 lbf) and not more than 390 N (87.4 

lbf), and 

(2) Upon removal of the force, the 

torso assembly must return to within 8 

degrees of its initial position. 

(c) The test procedure for the upper/ 

lower torso assembly is as follows: 

(1) Soak the dummy in a controlled 

environment at any temperature 

between 18.9 and 25.6 °C (66 and 78 °F) 

and a relative humidity between 10 and 

70 percent for at least four hours prior 

to a test. 

(2) 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 O4 of 

this subpart O. 

(3) 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 horizontal. 

(4) Attach the loading adapter bracket 

to the spine of the dummy as shown in 

figure O4 of this subpart O. 

(5) Inspect and adjust, if necessary, 

the seating of the abdominal insert 

within the pelvis cavity and with 

respect to the torso flesh, assuring that 

the torso flesh provides uniform fit and 

overlap with respect to the outside 

surface of the pelvis flesh. 

(6) Flex the dummy’s upper torso 

three times between the vertical and 

until the torso reference plane, as shown 

in figure O4 of this subpart O, 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. 

(7) 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 O4 of this 

subpart O. The initial orientation angle 

may not exceed 20 degrees. 

(8) Attach the pull cable and the load 

cell as shown in figure O4 of this 

subpart O. 

(9) Apply a tension force in the 

midsagittal plane to the pull cable as 

shown in figure O4 of this subpart O at 

any upper torso deflection rate between 

0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second, until the 

angle reference plane is at 45 ±0.5 

degrees of flexion relative to the vertical 

transverse plane. 

(10) Continue to apply a force 

sufficient to maintain 45 ±0.5 degrees of 

flexion for 10 seconds, and record the 

highest applied force during the 10- 

second period. 

(11) 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)(6) of this section 3 minutes after the 

release. 

■ 9. Amend § 572.136 by adding 

introductory text, revising paragraph (a), 

removing the heading to paragraph (c), 

and revising paragraph (c)(2). The 

addition and revisions read as follows: 

§ 572.136 Knees and knee impact test 

procedure. 

All assemblies and drawings 

referenced in this section are contained 

in the Engineering Drawings 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130). 

(a) The knee assembly for the purpose 

of this test is the part of the leg assembly 

shown in drawing 880105–560. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Mount the test material and secure 

it to a rigid test fixture as shown in 

figure O5 of this subpart O. No part of 

the foot or tibia may contact any exterior 

surface. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 572.137 by adding 

introductory text and revising the 

paragraph (m) introductory text and 

paragraph (n) to read as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 265 

§ 572.137 Test conditions and 

instrumentation. 

All assemblies and drawings 

referenced in this section are contained 

in the Engineering Drawings 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130). 

* * * * * 

(m) The outputs of acceleration and 

force-sensing devices installed in the 

dummy and in the test apparatus 

specified by this part shall be recorded 

in individual data channels that 

conform to SAE J211–1 and SAE J211– 

2 (both incorporated by reference, see 

§ 572.130), except as noted, with 

channel classes as follows: 

* * * * * 

(n) Coordinate signs for 

instrumentation polarity shall conform 

to SAE J1733 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 572.130). 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501. 

Adam Raviv, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30985 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1