[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5931-5939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2308]


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

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:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 5932]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ That final rule adopting the ES-2re into 49 CFR part 572 was 
published December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75303, Docket No. NHTSA-04-
25441).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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[Oslash]5.0, M[Oslash]6.0, M[Oslash]6, and 
M[Oslash]2.5. Eliminate the [Oslash] symbol.'' NHTSA agrees and would 
remove the [Oslash] symbol from the dimensions listed by FTSS.
    2. ``Drawing 175-3502, Pivot Stop Plate, Left. Fix typographical 
error on Note <greek-i>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 
``[Oslash]20.03'' be replaced with ``[Oslash]20.03 <plus-minus> 
0.10'' since this dimension cannot be controlled to a tolerance of 
<plus-minus> 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 <plus-
minus>0.05 tolerance on the ``[Oslash]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 
``[Oslash]20.03 <plus-minus> 0.05'' dimension could also lead to 
interference, so we have changed it to ``[Oslash]20.05 <plus-minus> 
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 <plus-minus> 0.0001'' and 
``48.3000 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-
minus> 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 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 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

[[Page 5933]]

dimension ``[Oslash]20.03'' be replaced with ``[Oslash]20.03 <plus-
minus> 0.10'' since this dimension cannot be controlled to <plus-
minus> 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 [Oslash]20.03 dimension should be increased to 
<plus-minus>0.10. Furthermore, we have changed the dimension to 
``[Oslash]20.05 <plus-minus> 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: ``[Oslash]5.0'', ``90.0'', ``5.0'', and ``21.2 <plus-minus> 
0.2'' be replaced with these dimensions: ``[Oslash]5'', ``90'', ``5'', 
``21.2 <plus-minus> 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[deg]. 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 = 1\3/4\''.''
    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 [Oslash][Oslash]24)'' and ``(2x 
[Oslash]14)''. These dimensions should be listed as ``(2x [Oslash]24)'' 
and ``(2x14)''. Removal of extra or redundant [Oslash] 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 [Oslash][Oslash]24) dimension should be 
changed to (2x [Oslash]24) and that (2x [Oslash]14) should be changed 
to (2x14).
    15. ``Drawing 175-9013, Bearing. The drawing has a reference to 
Note <greek-i>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[deg]'' be replaced with ``91.4 +0/-0.2'', ``66.0 +0/-
0.2'', and ``4 x 9.7 x 45[deg]'' 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 <plus-
minus> 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.


[[Page 5934]]


    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:
    <bullet> The 8.28 millimeter (mm) (32.6 inch (in)) dimension should 
be 828 mm (32.6 in);
    <bullet> The 4.8 mm (188 in) dimension should be 4.8 mm (0.188 in);
    <bullet> The 198.6 mm (7.75 in) dimension should be 196.8 mm (7.75 
in).
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 5935]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE10.027

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

[[Page 5936]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ With 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 Sec.  572.33, revise Figure 22 following paragraph (c)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  572.33  Neck.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *

[[Page 5938]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE10.028

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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 
Sec.  572.180, which includes the technical drawings and specifications 
described in Drawing 175-0000, the titles of which are listed in Table 
A;

[[Page 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 Sec.  572.180,
    (3) A listing of available transducers-crash 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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