Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5931 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** 

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

# Depth in feet above 

ground 

∧Elevation in meters 

(MSL) 

Communities affected 

Effective Modified 

Ransom County, North Dakota, and Incorporated Areas 

Sheyenne River .................... Approximately 1,064 feet upstream of Richland County boundary.None +990 City of Fort Ransom, City 

of Lisbon, Unincorporated Areas of Ransom County. 

Approximately 7,465 feet downstream of State Highway 46.None +1,160 

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. 

# Depth in feet above ground. 

+ North American Vertical Datum. 

∧ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter. 

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for 

exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. 

Send comments to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. 

ADDRESSES 

City of Fort Ransom 

Maps are available for inspection at P.O. Box 17, Fort Ransom, ND 58033. 

City of Lisbon 

Maps are available for inspection at P.O. Box 1079, Lisbon, ND 58054. 

Unincorporated Areas of Ransom County 

Maps are available for inspection at 204 5th Avenue West, Lisbon, ND 58054–4115. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2491 Filed 2–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0194] 

RIN 2127–AK64 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid 

III Test Dummy, ES–2re Side Impact 

Crash Test Dummy 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes 

corrections or minor changes to some of 

the drawings incorporated by reference 

by a final rule, published on June 16, 

2008, that responded to petitions for 

reconsideration of a December 2006 

final rule that had adopted 

specifications and qualification 

requirements for a new crash test 

dummy called the ‘‘ES–2re’’ test dummy. 

The ES–2re is a 50th percentile adult 

male side impact crash test dummy that 

will be used in an upgraded Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard on side 

impact protection and in the agency’s 

New Car Assessment Program. This 

NPRM responds to requests from test 

dummy manufacturers First Technology 

Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD 

(Denton) to correct or make minor 

adjustments to the drawings of the ES– 

2re. This NPRM would also correct 

dimensional errors in Figure 22 of 49 

CFR part 572, subpart E, which depicts 

the pendulum used in the neck 

qualification tests of several of the crash 

test dummies, including the Hybrid III 

and ES–2re test dummies. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

they are received not later than April 6, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the Docket ID Number 

above) by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1That final rule adopting the ES–2re into 49 CFR 

part 572 was published December 14, 2006 (71 FR 

75303, Docket No. NHTSA–04–25441). 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Peter 

Martin, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 

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

legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre 

Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 

(telephone 202–366–2992) (fax 202– 

366–3820). You may send mail to these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

NHTSA published a final rule on June 

16, 2008 (73 FR 33903, Docket No. 

NHTSA–08–0111) that responded to 

various petitions for reconsideration of 

its previous rule 1 incorporating a new 

mid-size adult male crash test dummy, 

called the ‘‘ES–2re’’ test dummy, into 49 

CFR part 572. The ES–2re will be used 

in an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 214, ‘‘Side impact 

protection,’’ and in the agency’s New 

Car Assessment Program beginning with 

vehicle model year 2010. The June 16, 

2008 final rule incorporated by 

reference a drawing package, parts list, 

and user’s manual, all dated February 

2008. 

After publication of the June 16, 2008 

final rule, NHTSA received requests 

from dummy manufacturers FTSS and 

Denton to correct errors in and make 

minor changes to the ES–2re drawing 

package. Many of these requested 

changes were wholly corrective, while 

others, although minor, were more 

substantive and notice of such changes 

appeared beneficial. Rather than 

respond to the requested changes 

piecemeal, the agency has decided to 

address all the requested changes with 

this NPRM. Accordingly, we are issuing 

this NPRM to correct the ES–2re 

drawing package and to make 

corresponding changes to the parts list. 

In addition, we are also proposing to 

clarify the inclusion of load sensors and 

to correct dimensional errors we found 

in Figure 22 of 49 CFR part 572, which 

is a figure illustrating the pendulum 

used in the neck qualification test for 

the ES–2re and other adult crash test 

dummies (e.g., the Hybrid III 50th 

percentile adult male). 

II. FTSS Requested Changes 

FTSS requested the following 18 

changes to the ES–2re drawing package. 

The petitioner’s requests are set forth 

verbatim in the list below, and 

following each request is NHTSA’s 

tentative decision on the request. 

Comments are requested on the agency’s 

responses. 

1. ‘‘Drawing 175–1011, Top Plate 

UNLC Blank. Fix typographical errors 

for dimensions, M;5.0, M;6.0, M;6, 

and M;2.5. Eliminate the ; symbol.’’ 

NHTSA agrees and would remove the ; 

symbol from the dimensions listed by 

FTSS. 

2. ‘‘Drawing 175–3502, Pivot Stop 

Plate, Left. Fix typographical error on 

Note #4. Replace RH with LH since this 

is a left hand part.’’ NHTSA agrees with 

this correction. 

3. ‘‘Drawing 175–6006, Pubic 

Symphysis Structural Replacement. 

There is a Part Mark located at the 

center of the part. This Part Mark is not 

defined. FTSS recommends that the Part 

Mark be clarified or removed altogether 

from the drawing.’’ NHTSA agrees that 

the part mark is unnecessary and should 

be removed from the drawing. 

4. FTSS states: 

Drawing 175–6012, Hip Pivot Pin. FTSS 

believes that dimension ‘‘16.994 +0.000/¥ 

0.011’’ is a typographical error and should be 

dimensioned as ‘‘16.990 +0.000/¥0.011’’. The 

Hip Pivot Pin mates to part number 5000110 

(Ball Bearing)—which has an ID dimension 

of 17.000 +0.000/¥0.008 (vendor 

specification). The bearing at a nominal 

dimension of 16.992 would not allow a Hip 

Pivot Pin at its maximum diameter of 16.994 

to fit within the bearing. 

NHTSA agrees that with the currently 

specified dimensions, the pin may not 

fit within the bearing as described by 

FTSS. Therefore, we agree with FTSS’s 

request. 

5. FTSS states: 

Drawing 175–6010, Iliac Wing Assembly, 

Left. Fix typographical error for drawing 

dimension ‘‘17.0556’’. This dimension should 

be ‘‘17’’ since it is not reasonable to control 

and measure this molded part to four decimal 

places and ‘‘17’’ also matches the same 

dimension as the Iliac Wing Assembly, Right 

(NHTSA Drawing 175–6002). FTSS also 

recommends that the drawing dimension 

‘‘;20.03’’ be replaced with ‘‘;20.03 ± 0.10’’ 

since this dimension cannot be controlled to 

a tolerance of ± 0.05. We also recommend the 

addition of dimension ‘‘R0.5’’ to better define 

this location for easier machining of this 

particular section of the part and to prevent 

breakage due to concentrated stresses. 

NHTSA agrees that dimensions on 

this drawing should be consistent with 

those on Drawing 175–6002, Iliac Wing 

Assembly, Right. Therefore, we have 

tentatively determined that the 

dimension 17.0556 should be changed 

to (17), a reference dimension. Also, the 

suggested R0.5 dimension appears to be 

acceptable and would eliminate any 

sharp corners in this area. However, we 

do not agree that the ±0.05 tolerance on 

the ‘‘;20.03’’ dimension is restrictive. 

The tolerance is necessary in order to 

avoid a potential interference problem 

with the mating part, 175–6001, 

Bushing. In the course of investigating 

this comment, we determined that the 

current ‘‘;20.03 ± 0.05’’ dimension 

could also lead to interference, so we 

have changed it to ‘‘;20.05 ± 0.05.’’ 

Apart from FTSS’s comments, we 

noticed that the material reference block 

was mistakenly left blank. We therefore 

propose to specify the material to be 

‘‘PU Resin’’ (polyurethane) which 

matches the material callout on for the 

right iliac wing, drawing 175–6002. 

6. FTSS states: 

Drawing 175–6063, Femur Bearing Plate, 

Left. Fix typographical errors for drawing 

dimensions ‘‘17.5000 ± 0.0001’’ and ‘‘48.3000 

± 0.0001’’. The tolerances are too tight to 

reasonably achieve at four decimal places 

and would add unnecessary expense when 

making the part. FTSS recommends that 

these dimensions should be specified as 

‘‘17.5 ± 0.5’’ and ‘‘48.3’’. These recommended 

dimensions would also match the existing 

dimensions on the Femur Bearing Plate, 

Right (NHTSA Drawing 175–6068). 

NHTSA agrees with FTSS and 

proposes to change the ‘‘48.3000 ± 

0.0001’’ dimension to ‘‘48.3.’’ The 

17.5000 dimension for hole depth in 

zone C–2 has been changed to (17.5) to 

indicate a reference since the depth is 

already called out in the hole size 

dimension in zone D–2. Also, NHTSA 

has fixed a typo in zone D–1 by 

eliminating an extra ‘‘R’’ in the R23.5 

dimension. 

7. ‘‘Drawing 175–6068, Femur Bearing 

Plate, Right. Fix typographical errors by 

removing the parenthesis from around 

dimensions ‘(48.3)’ and ‘(17.5 ± 0.5)’. 

This will maintain consistency between 

NHTSA Drawings 175–6068 and 175– 

6063.’’ 

NHTSA agrees with FTSS that the 

48.3 dimension should not be a 

reference dimension, and the 

parentheses indicating this is a 

reference dimension should be 

removed. However, NHTSA does not 

agree that the parentheses should be 

removed from ‘(17.5 ± 0.5)’. This should 

remain a reference dimension since the 

depth is already called out in the hole 

size dimension in zone D–2. 

8. FTSS states: 

Drawing 175–6002, Iliac Wing Assembly, 

Right. FTSS recommends that the drawing 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5933 

dimension ‘‘;20.03’’ be replaced with 

‘‘;20.03 ± 0.10’’ since this dimension cannot 

be controlled to ± 0.05. We also recommend 

the addition of dimension ‘‘R0.5’’ to better 

define this location for easier machining of 

this particular section of the part and to 

prevent breakage due to concentrated 

stresses. 

As discussed in item 5 above, NHTSA 

agrees that defining a radius of 0.5 mm 

as suggested would be beneficial, but we 

do not agree that the tolerance of the 

;20.03 dimension should be increased 

to ±0.10. Furthermore, we have changed 

the dimension to ‘‘;20.05 ± 0.05’’ for the 

reasons cited in response to item 5. 

9. FTSS states: 

Drawing 175–2003, Plate, Neck Head & 

Torso Interface. FTSS recommends that 

NHTSA part number 5000049 Helicoil, M6 x 

1 x 6, be replaced with part number 5000729 

Helicoil M6 x 1 x 4.5 because the 5000049 

Helicoil is too long and may not sit below the 

machined surface due to stack up tolerance 

of parts. FTSS also suggests the addition of 

dimension ‘‘4X R3.2 to the Surface’’ on Detail 

Z in order to clarify the dimension. 

NHTSA concurs that, with regard to 

the Helicoil, Section C–C of the drawing 

shows that the thickness of the part in 

that section is 5 mm and thus the M6 

x 1 x 6 helicoil (which is 6 mm in 

length) would be too long. We agree this 

part should be changed to ‘‘Helicoil, M6 

x 1 x 4.5.’’ In accordance with this 

change, part 5000729, Helicoil, M6 x 1 

x 4.5, should replace part 5000049, 

Helicoil M6 x 1 x 6 on the parts/ 

drawings list. With regard to the ‘‘4 x 

R3.2 to the Surface’’ note, we agree that 

this note is acceptable, as it defines a 

clearance space for the fastener. 

10. FTSS states: 

Drawing 175–3000, Shoulder Assembly. 

FTSS recommends that NHTSA part number 

5000014 SHCS, M6 x 1 x 35, be replaced with 

part number 5000008 SHCS, M6 x 1 x 30 

because the 5000014 SHCS is too long to 

properly secure the assembled parts. The M6 

x 1 x 35 SHCS is supposed to secure the 

Shoulder Top Plate (175–3008) to the 

Shoulder Spacer Block (175–3002). However, 

the Shoulder Top Plate has a material 

thickness of 8 mm and the Shoulder Spacer 

Block has a material thickness of 25.5 mm. 

Together, the overall thickness of the 

combined parts is 33.5 mm—which is 1.5 

mm shallower than the length of the 35 mm 

long SHCS. This will create a condition 

where the 35 mm SHCS will not clamp the 

parts properly. A M6 x 1 x 30 SHCS will 

provide a 3.5 mm clearance to the bottom of 

the threaded holes on the Shoulder Spacer 

Block and is therefore an appropriate fastener 

for this application. 

NHTSA is denying this request. In 

determining that the 35 mm bolt 

specified in Item 17 is too long, FTSS 

apparently failed to recognize that the 

Neck Bracket (175–2501) also sits on top 

of the Shoulder Top Plate and the bolt 

in question passes through the flange of 

the Neck Bracket, which is 12 mm thick. 

Thus, the total stack height is 45.5 mm. 

This includes the Neck Bracket (12 

mm), the Shoulder Top Plate (8 mm), 

and the Shoulder Spacer Block (25.5 

mm). Thus, the 35 mm bolt is not too 

long, as FTSS suggests. We note that a 

30 mm bolt, which FTSS recommends, 

would work for this application. 

However, the 35 mm bolt is a better 

choice because it provides more thread 

engagement with the Shoulder Spacer 

Block. 

11. ‘‘Drawing 175–3011, CAM Buffer 

Pad. FTSS has noted that the current 

dimensions for this part have tolerances 

that are too tight to accurately control a 

molded part. We recommend that the 

NHTSA drawing dimensions: ‘‘;5.0’’, 

‘‘90.0’’, ‘‘5.0’’, and ‘‘21.2 ± 0.2’’ be 

replaced with these dimensions: ‘‘;5’’, 

‘‘90’’, ‘‘5’’, ‘‘21.2 ± 0.3’’.’’ 

NHTSA agrees to the changes. 

Although this part is essentially a 

protection device for the shoulder cam 

clavicle, it does not need to be 

manufactured to exact tolerances. There 

are no critical fit issues with any of the 

dimensions listed in the request. 

12. ‘‘Drawing 175–7058, Friction Plate 

Retaining Stud. FTSS believes that the 

Datum A tolerance of ‘‘.0003’’ for the 

perpendicular surfaces is unnecessarily 

tight at four decimal places. FTSS 

stated, ‘‘We recommend a tolerance of 

‘.003’ because the NHTSA tolerance is 

too tight to be reasonably measured and 

therefore accurately controlled. 

Furthermore, at tolerance of ‘.0003’ 

would add unnecessary cost to the part.’’ 

The agency agrees that the tolerance 

is unnecessarily restrictive and can be 

changed to 0.003 in for the reasons 

listed by FTSS. 

13. ‘‘Drawing 175–7085–1, Knee 

Flesh, Left. There is a note on the 

drawing that states: 1⁄4′′ OVER WIDTH 

‘‘A’’ FOR 180°. But, ‘‘A’’ is not defined 

on the drawing. However, ‘‘A’’ is defined 

on the corresponding drawing 175– 

7085–2, Knee Flesh, Right. FTSS 

recommends that drawing 175–7085–1 

be corrected to add a definition for ‘‘A’’ 

to match drawing 175–7085–2—which 

specifies that ‘‘A = 13⁄4′′.’’ 

NHTSA agrees that the Knee Flesh 

Left and Right drawings should be 

consistent and therefore ‘‘A’’ be defined 

on Drawing 175–7085–1 as it is on 175– 

7085–2. 

14. ‘‘Drawing 175–7090–1, Thigh 

Molded, Left. Fix typographical errors 

for drawing dimensions ‘‘(2x ;;24)’’ 

and ‘‘(2x ;14)’’. These dimensions 

should be listed as ‘‘(2x ;24)’’ and 

‘‘(2x14)’’. Removal of extra or redundant 

; symbol is required. This would also 

make this part consistent with the Thigh 

Molded, Right drawing (NHTSA 

Drawing 175–7090–2).’’ 

NHTSA agrees that the (2x ;;24) 

dimension should be changed to (2x 

;24) and that (2x ;14) should be 

changed to (2x14). 

15. ‘‘Drawing 175–9013, Bearing. The 

drawing has a reference to Note #2 in 

the revision record (REV B), but the note 

is missing from the ‘‘NOTES’’ field. 

FTSS recommends that the note be 

added to the note field, or the note 

reference be eliminated from the 

revision record.’’ 

NHTSA believes that revision record 

B is incorrect, and should be corrected 

to read ‘‘ADDED REF. TO MATERIAL 

SPECIFICATION’’. 

16. ‘‘Drawing 175–9014, Pin 

Machined. Correct typographical error 

for missing revision indicator for REV B 

on the Material Reference. The revision 

record states ‘‘ADDED REF. TO 

MATERIAL SPECIFICATION’’; however 

no revision reference bubble was 

added.’’ 

NHTSA agrees that a reference 

indicator for revision ‘‘B’’ should be 

added next to the material specification. 

17. FTSS states: 

Drawing 175–9027, Lower Mounting Base. 

FTSS recommends that the following NHTSA 

dimensions ‘‘92.5 +0/¥ 0.2’’, ‘‘66.5 +0/¥0.2’’, 

and ‘‘4 x 6 x 45°’’ be replaced with ‘‘91.4 +0/ 

¥0.2’’, ‘‘66.0 +0/¥0.2’’, and ‘‘4 x 9.7 x 45°’’ 

respectively. We recommend these changes 

due to the wider tolerances associated with 

typical product dimensions specified for the 

3′′ x 4′′ tubular steel beam that the Lower 

Mounting Base fits into. These tolerances are 

typically ± 0.030 for the tubular beam so our 

recommended dimensional changes for the 

Lower Mounting Base is necessary to 

guarantee that the Lower Mounting Base will 

fit into the wide variety of pendulums beams 

in the marketplace. 

Our decision at this point is not to 

agree with the requested dimensional 

changes. The parts presently owned by 

NHTSA, which were purchased from 

FTSS, do not meet the requested 

dimensions. They do, however, fall 

within the tolerances of the dimensions 

currently specified on the drawing. We 

have tentatively decided not to make the 

suggested change to this drawing. 

18. FTSS states: 

Drawing SA572–S71–1, Lower Neck Load 

Cell Assembly. FTSS recommends that 

specification of the part weight be correct[ed] 

to include the weight of the two connector/ 

cable assemblies. The weight currently 

specified for this part in the NHTSA drawing 

is ‘‘0.8 lb./0.36 kg MAX.’’ However, this 

weight does not include the weight of the 

electrical connector/cable assemblies. Since 

the cables are hard wired to the load cell, 

they need to be included in the total weight. 

Therefore, we request that the assembly 

weight be listed as ‘‘0.93 lb./0.42 kg MAX’’ to 

include the two cable assemblies. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

We have some concerns about this 

recommendation. We concur that the 

currently specified weight, 0.8 lb/0.36 

kg, is the nominal weight of the lower 

neck load cell only. It does not include 

the mass of the cable assemblies or the 

bracket. However, the critical mass is 

that of the entire assembly—not the load 

cell alone—as it should match the 

corresponding mass of the structural 

replacement (drawing 175–2501). 

Drawing SA572–S71–1 is aimed to 

allow some amount of design flexibility 

to accommodate load cells from 

different manufacturers. As long as the 

entire bracket assembly duplicates the 

geometry of the structural replacement, 

slight variations among load cell models 

are acceptable. With this consideration 

in mind, we propose making the 

specification for load cell weight a 

reference. This will allow load cell 

manufacturers to know the target weight 

for the load cell, but will not require 

that the weight be measured and 

verified by end users. We also note that 

the drawing would indicate that the 

reference weight specification applies to 

item 1 (the lower neck load cell) only, 

and not the entire assembly. 

III. Denton Requested Changes 

Denton requested the following 6 

changes to the ES–2re drawing package. 

The petitioner’s requests are set forth 

verbatim in the list below, and 

following each request is NHTSA’s 

tentative decision on the request. 

1. Denton states: 

Drawing No. 175–1001: NHTSA drawing 

specifies the distance between the upper 2 

holes to be 71.2 mm apart. The ES–2re skull 

dimensions are derived from the Hybrid III 

50th dimensions. This dimension in the 

Hybrid III 50th drawing package is 2.800 

inches, which converts to 71.1 mm. 

Additionally, the distance between the holes 

on the mating part (175–1003) is 71.12. 

Therefore, we would like to request that the 

dimension on the above referenced drawing 

be changed to 71.1. 

NHTSA agrees that 71.1 mm is the 

correct dimension. Given the tolerances 

of the hole sizes, this will allow the 

skull and skull cap to match each other 

in assembly. 

2. ‘‘Drawing No. 175–3017: NHTSA 

drawing specifies the material for this 

part to be ‘‘Moulded Ureol 100’’. This is 

a material manufactured by a single 

supplier. We would like to request that 

the specification for the material be 

more generic or add ‘‘Or Equivalent’’ to 

the specification.’’ 

We are denying the request as 

redundant. Because the drawing already 

indicates that this material is a reference 

for material selection and thus another 

equivalent material can be used, it is 

unnecessary to add ‘‘or equivalent.’’ 

3. ‘‘Drawing No. 175–4006: NHTSA 

drawing specifies ‘Screw, SHCS M3 x .5 

x 8’ for item no. 18. We would like to 

request that the specification be 

changed to ‘Screw, BHCS M3 x .5 x 8[’] 

as a button head screw has more surface 

area under the head thus providing 

better clamping force and less distortion 

to part no. 175–4031.’’ 

NHTSA believes that the current 

socket head cap screw (SHCS) will work 

sufficiently, but agrees that a button 

head cap screw (BHCS) would also be 

acceptable. Therefore, we are keeping 

the part as a SHCS, but are adding an 

option to the drawing that allows use of 

the BHCS M3 x .5 x 8. 

4. ‘‘Drawing No. 175–4012: NHTSA 

drawing calls out 4X M3 x .5 ISO—H 

Tap x 6.0 Deep. We would like to 

request that these tapped holes be made 

optional as they serve no purpose in the 

assembly of the dummy.’’ 

NHTSA agrees that these holes are not 

required for any functional purpose and 

should be specified as optional. 

5. ‘‘Drawing Nos. 175–4040, 175–4041 

& 175–4042: NHTSA drawing specifies 

that the free length tolerance should be 

+/¥ 1 mm. According to the Spring 

Manufacturers Institute (SMI), the 

normal commercial tolerance for the 

length should be +/¥3 mm when the 

spring index, length and number of coils 

are considered for these specific springs. 

Therefore, we would like to request that 

the free length tolerance be changed to 

+/¥3 mm.’’ 

NHTSA does not agree with this 

request. Increasing the tolerance of the 

free spring length could create problems 

with variation in dummy thoracic 

response, since these springs are part of 

the ES–2re rib modules. For example, if 

the free spring length is too long, this 

could lead to a large preload in the 

spring and greater resistance to 

compression. Conversely, if the free 

spring length is too short, the spring 

will offer less resistance to compression. 

Therefore, we are denying the request 

and are maintaining a spring length 

tolerance of +/¥ 1 mm. 

6. Denton states: 

Drawing Nos. 175–7053–1, 175–7053–3 & 

175–7055: NHTSA drawing specifies [a] 

through hole diameter of .373 +.0005/ 

¥.0000. We believe the hole diameter is too 

small and the tolerance is unnecessarily 

tight. At minimum diameter condition of the 

hole, a 3⁄8 diameter shoulder bolt may not go 

through. At the maximum diameter condition 

of the hole, assembly of the knee is still very 

difficult as there still may only be .0005 in. 

clearance. Therefore, we would like to 

request the hole diameter tolerance be 

changed to +.005/¥.000 on these three 

drawings. 

NHTSA is denying this request. The 

ES–2re knee design is a carry-over from 

the Hybrid II dummy, Part 572 Subpart 

B. The design is also incorporated into 

the knee of the SID dummy, Subpart F. 

The knee plates are designed to provide 

a very tight fit, and careful selection of 

the bolt will allow the knee assembly to 

function properly. The SID has had 

many years of use, and we know of no 

reports of problems assembling the 

knee. Furthermore, Denton has not 

provided evidence that its request to 

allow a loose fit will not result in any 

performance degradation. 

IV. Corrections to Figure 22 

NHTSA observed that Figure 22, 

‘‘Pendulum Specifications,’’ of 49 CFR 

part 572 has several dimensional errors 

that need correction. This pendulum is 

used in neck qualification tests for the 

ES–2re as well as other adult crash test 

dummies, including the Hybrid III 50th 

percentile male and 5th percentile 

female frontal crash test dummies, the 

SID–IIsD 5th percentile female side 

impact dummy, and the SID and SID/ 

HIII side impact crash test dummies. 

The dimensional corrections that should 

be made to this figure are listed below 

and shown in Figure 1 of this preamble, 

below: 

• The 8.28 millimeter (mm) (32.6 

inch (in)) dimension should be 828 mm 

(32.6 in); 

• The 4.8 mm (188 in) dimension 

should be 4.8 mm (0.188 in); 

• The 198.6 mm (7.75 in) dimension 

should be 196.8 mm (7.75 in). 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5935 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

This proposed rulemaking action was 

not considered a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

This proposed rulemaking action was 

also determined not to be significant 

under the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT’s) regulatory 

policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, 

February 26, 1979). This proposed rule 

would only correct or make slight 

changes to some of the drawings of the 

ES–2re test dummy. These changes 

would not affect the cost of the dummy. 

Because the economic impacts of this 

proposal are so minimal, no further 

regulatory evaluation is necessary. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a proposed or final rule, it 

must prepare and make available for 

public comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions), 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR part 121 define a small business, 

in part, as a business entity ‘‘which 

operates primarily within the United 

States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

We have considered the effects of this 

rulemaking under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the 

proposed rulemaking action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because 

correcting or making minor changes to 

the drawings would not impose any 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP05FE10.027</GPH>
5936 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2With respect to the safety standards, the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemptive provision: ‘‘When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this 

chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State 

may prescribe or continue in effect a standard 

applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if 

the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 

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

the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of 

implied preemption: State requirements imposed 

on motor vehicle manufacturers, including 

sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of 

an NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict 

is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the 

Constitution makes their State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor 

Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

requirements on anyone. NHTSA would 

not require anyone to manufacture or 

redesign the dummy. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s 

proposed rule pursuant to Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications because the 

proposed rule does not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This proposed 

rule would not impose any 

requirements on anyone. Businesses 

would be affected only if they choose to 

manufacture or test with the dummy. 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

proposed rule. NHTSA’s safety 

standards can have preemptive effect in 

at least two ways. This proposed rule 

would amend 49 CFR part 572 and is 

not a safety standard.2 If this proposed 

Part 572 rule becomes final, it would 

not impose any requirements on 

anyone. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule would not have 

any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30103, whenever a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

State may not adopt or maintain a safety 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance which is not identical to 

the Federal standard, except to the 

extent that the State requirement 

imposes a higher level of performance 

and applies only to vehicles procured 

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 

forth a procedure for judicial review of 

final rules establishing, amending, or 

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid control 

number from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule 

would not have any requirements that 

are considered to be information 

collection requirements as defined by 

the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

NHTSA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. There are no voluntary 

consensus standards relevant to this 

proposed rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, Federal requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted for inflation 

with base year of 1995). Before 

promulgating an NHTSA rule for which 

a written statement is needed, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires the 

agency to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any unfunded mandates under the 

UMRA. This proposed rule would not 

meet the definition of a Federal mandate 

because it would not impose 

requirements on anyone. It would 

amend 49 CFR part 572 by correcting or 

making minor changes to some of the 

drawings for a test dummy that the 

agency uses. If this proposed rule 

becomes final, it would affect, in a small 

manner, only those businesses that 

choose to manufacture or test with the 

dummy. It would not result in costs of 

$100 million or more to either State, 

local, or Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

—Has the agency organized the material 

to suit the public’s needs? 

—Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

—Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

—Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

—Would more (but shorter) sections be 

better? 

—Could the agency improve clarity by 

adding tables, lists, or diagrams? 

—What else could the agency do to 

make this rulemaking easier to 

understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this NPRM. 

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. 

VI. Public Participation 

How Do I Prepare and Submit 

Comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5937 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit your comments by any 

of the methods provided above under 

ADDRESSES. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. 

Further, note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

How Do I Submit Confidential Business 

Information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit a copy from which you have 

deleted the claimed confidential 

business information to the Docket 

using any of the methods given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (49 CFR part 

512.) 

Will the Agency Consider Late 

Comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

the Docket receives before the close of 

business on the comment closing date 

indicated above under DATES. To the 

extent possible, we will also consider 

comments that the Docket receives after 

that date. If the Docket receives a 

comment too late for us to consider in 

developing a final rule (assuming that 

one is issued), we will consider that 

comment as an informal suggestion for 

future rulemaking action. 

How Can I Read the Comments 

Submitted by Other People? 

You may read the comments received 

by the Docket at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. The hours of the 

Docket are indicated above in the same 

location. You may also see the 

comments on the Internet. To read the 

comments on the Internet, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572 

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by 

reference. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR 

part 572 as follows: 

PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC 

TEST 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 1.50. 

Subpart E—Hybrid III Test Dummy 

2. In § 572.33, revise Figure 22 

following paragraph (c)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 572.33 Neck. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

* * * * * 

Subpart U—ES–2re Side Impact Crash 

Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult 

Male 

3. Section 572.180 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1), the 

introductory text of paragraph (a)(2), 

and paragraph (c)(1), to read as follows: 

§ 572.180 Incorporated materials. 

(a) * * * 

(1) A parts/drawing list entitled, 

‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart 

U, Eurosid 2 with Rib Extensions 

(ES2re), September 2009,’’ 

(2) A drawings and inspection 

package entitled ‘‘Parts List and 

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid 

2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha 

Version), September 2009,’’ consisting 

of: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 

Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib 

Extensions (ES2re) referred to in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Parts 

List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, 

Eurosid 2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, 

Alpha Version) referred to in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section, and the PADI 

document referred to in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section, are available in 

electronic format through 

Regulations.gov and in paper format 

from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New 

RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20879, telephone 

(301) 670–0090. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 572.181 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 572.181 General description. 

(a) The ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test 

Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult Male, is 

defined by: 

(1) The drawings and specifications 

contained in the ‘‘Parts List and 

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid 

2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha 

Version), September 2009,’’ 

incorporated by reference in § 572.180, 

which includes the technical drawings 

and specifications described in Drawing 

175–0000, the titles of which are listed 

in Table A; 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP05FE10.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5939 

TABLE A 

Component assembly Drawing No. 

Head Assembly ........................ 175–1000 

Neck Assembly Test/Cert ......... 175–2000 

Neck Bracket Including Lifting 

Eyebolt .................................. 175–2500 

Shoulder Assembly ................... 175–3000 

Arm Assembly-Left ................... 175–3500 

Arm Assembly-Right ................. 175–3800 

Thorax Assembly with Rib Extensions ................................. 175–4000 

Abdominal Assembly ................ 175–5000 

Lumbar Spine Assembly .......... 175–5500 

Pelvis Assembly ....................... 175–6000 

Leg Assembly, Left ................... 175–7000–1 

Leg Assembly, Right ................ 175–7000–2 

Neoprene Body Suit ................. 175–8000 

(2) ‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 

Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib 

Extensions (ES2re), September 2009,’’ 

containing 9 pages, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.180, 

(3) A listing of available transducerscrash test sensors for the ES–2re Crash 

Test Dummy is shown in drawing 175– 

0000 sheet 4 of 6, dated February 2008, 

incorporated by reference in § 572.180, 

(4) Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of 

the ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test 

Dummy, February 2008, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.180, 

(5) Sign convention for signal outputs 

reference document SAE J1733 

Information Report, titled ‘‘Sign 

Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing’’ 

dated December 1994, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.180. 

(b) Exterior dimensions of ES–2re test 

dummy are shown in drawing 175–0000 

sheet 3 of 6, dated February 2008. 

(c) Weights of body segments (head, 

neck, upper and lower torso, arms and 

upper and lower segments) and the 

center of gravity location of the head are 

shown in drawing 175–0000 sheet 2 of 

6, dated February 2008. 

* * * * * 

Issued: January 29, 2010. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2308 Filed 2–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS