Document ID: NHTSA-2011-0175-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Anthropomorphic Test Devices: Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
Posted Date: 2012-02-27T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11651-11676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4129]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0175]
RIN 2127-AJ49

Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes regulations setting forth 
specifications and qualification requirements for a Hybrid III 10-year-
old size child test dummy (HIII-10C). In a companion document published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, NHTSA is adopting use 
of the dummy to test child restraints recommended for children weighing 
more than 65 pounds (lb) for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standard for child restraint systems. The HIII-10C dummy enables 
NHTSA to assess the performance of child restraint systems in 
restraining children in the 8- to 12-year-old age range.

DATES: Effective date: April 27, 2012. The incorporation by reference 
of the publications listed in the rule has been approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of April 27, 2012.
    If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your 
petition must be received by April 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, 
Washington, DC 20590. For more information, see Section V, Rulemaking 
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Peter Martin, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202-
366-5668) (fax 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre 
Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992) (fax 
202-366-3820). The mailing address for these officials is the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petitions for reconsideration of this rule: 
The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the 
electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by 
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the 
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor

[[Page 11652]]

union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78).

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    a. 2005 NPRM
    b. Developments Since 2005
    c. Summary of Decision
III. Summary of Comments
IV. Response to Comments
    a. Functionality of the HIII-10C as a Part 572 ATD
    1. Chin-to-Chest Contact
    2. Shock Emanating From Shoulder and Neck
    i. Shoulder Revision
    ii. Lower Neck Revision
    3. Stiffness of Vinyl Insert
    4. Dummy Availability
    b. Durability of the HIII-10C
    1. Proximal Femur
    2. Bib Assembly
    3. Shoulder Rotation Stop Screws
    4. Agency Part Replacement Records
    i. Pelvis Helicoil Insert
    ii. Neck and Ribcage Replacement
    iii. Other Replacements
    5. Durability Summary
    c. Qualification Procedures and Requirements
    1. Response Corridors
    i. Head
    ii. Neck
    iii. Thorax
    iv. Torso Flexion
    v. Knee Impact
    2. Summary of Qualification Requirements
    3. Impact Probes
    4. Instrumentation
    i. Rotary Potentiometers
    ii. Sternum Displacement
    d. Technical Data Package
    1. Changes to the Engineering Drawings and PADI
    2. Organization of Materials
    i. Searchable Text
    ii. Order of Engineering Drawings
    iii. Part Quantity Specification
    iv. Part Numbering Scheme
    3. Specifications for Soft Parts
    4. Use of 3D Computer Renderings
    e. Other
    1. Labeling the Dummy as a ``Ten Year Old''
    2. Best Practices for Belt Routing
    3. Abdominal Injury Correlates
    4. Repeatability in Systems Testing
    f. Dummy Development Efforts
    1. Hybrid III Child Dummy Revisions--Abdomen and Pelvis
    2. Pediatric Research
    3. Status of HIC
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    The agency has determined that the HIII-10C dummy, configured as 
described in this document, is a suitable and useful test device for 
quantitative assessment of child restraint systems (CRSs) and other 
safety devices for older children. The dummy, with a weight of 35.2 
kilograms (kg) (77.6 pounds (lb)) and sitting height of 71 centimeters 
(28 inches), is ideally suited to test the upper load and height limits 
of safety restraints for children.
    The dummy is specified by this rule by a technical data package 
(TDP) consisting of a set of engineering drawings, a parts list, and a 
set of procedures for assembly, disassembly, and inspection (PADI) of 
the dummy. Additionally, this rule amends 49 CFR part 572 to specify 
qualification requirements for the dummy, to assure that the HIII-10C 
responses are within established performance corridors, and further 
ensure the uniformity of dummy assembly, structural integrity, 
consistency of response and adequacy of instrumentation. The TDP and 
qualification requirements assure that HIII-10C dummies are uniform in 
their design, construction and kinematics.
    The drawings and the PADI for the HIII-10C are available for 
examination in the docket for this final rule. Technical reports and 
other materials pertaining to this final rule have also been placed in 
the docket for this final rule.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on which this final rule 
is based was published July 13, 2005 (70 FR 40281).
    The agency is concurrently publishing in this issue of the Federal 
Register a final rule to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems'' (49 CFR 571.213), to adopt 
use of the HIII-10C dummy in agency compliance tests of CRSs. (RIN 
2127-AL10, formerly RIN 2127-AJ44.)
    The final rules bring to a close NHTSA's work on Public Law 107-
318, 116 Stat. 2772 (``Anton's Law''), which contained provisions for 
NHTSA to develop and evaluate a test dummy that represents a 10-year-
old child for use in testing CRSs. Public Law 107-318 required us to 
initiate rulemaking on the Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD), a mandate 
we satisfied in 2005 when we published an NPRM to adopt the HIII-10C 
into FMVSS No. 213.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 70 FR 51720 (August 31, 2005). Among other matters, Public 
Law 107-318 directed NHTSA to evaluate an anthropomorphic test 
device (ATD) that simulates a 10-year-old child for use in testing 
CRSs and to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of the 
ATD. NHTSA addressed other provisions of Public Law 107-318 in 
earlier agency actions. These actions are discussed in the preamble 
of the August 31, 2005 NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When we published the 2005 proposal to include the dummy in FMVSS 
No. 213, we proposed that booster seats must conform to several new 
requirements based on HIII-10C measurements, including a head injury 
criterion (HIC). As part of our assessment, we demonstrated in our pre-
proposal testing that, while most CRSs conformed to the new 
requirements, there were some failures, including those where HIC was 
exceeded. However, during extensive post-NPRM booster seat testing, 
inconsistencies in the test protocol revealed variability in the 
kinematics and measurements of the HIII-10C. In particular, the agency 
discovered that a slight perturbation in the test protocol could create 
a large change in HIC. The variability in HIC measurements is 
attributable to a design feature unique to the HIII-10C in which chin-
to-chest contact during the impact event can be excessively hard, but 
not easily controlled through CRS design.
    Subsequently, the agency devoted substantial rulemaking and 
research efforts to try to address test variability. The August 31, 
2005 (FMVSS No. 213) NPRM was followed by a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) 
published in 2008 \2\ and an SNPRM published in 2010.\3\ Throughout the 
rulemaking proceeding, NHTSA informed the public of its research 
findings, concerns and ideas about using the HIII-10C in FMVSS No. 213, 
and in turn learned from comments from research organizations, consumer 
groups, CRS, vehicle, and ATD manufacturers, and others. Considerable 
effort was devoted to revising the test protocol to eliminate 
variability in HIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 73 FR 3901 (January 23, 2008). This SNPRM proposed a seating 
procedure for the HIII-10C to minimize the chin-to-chest impacts. 
Commenters were generally unsupportive of the procedure.
    \3\ 75 FR 71648 (November 24, 2010). This second SNPRM proposed 
an alternative seating procedure for the ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The endeavor has led to a new dummy positioning procedure that 
improves test repeatability with no substantial change to the HIII-10C. 
The agency has determined that the HIII-10C is an important ATD that 
will enhance our ability to assess the performance of CRSs and other 
occupant protection systems in protecting children.\4\ In the 
accompanying FMVSS No. 213 final rule published today, we adopt the 
HIII-10C into FMVSS No. 213, but due to the recurrence of hard chin-to-
chest

[[Page 11653]]

contacts, we will not adopt HIC as an FMVSS No. 213 injury criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The HIII-10C represents children of a size heretofore not 
represented by the ATDs used in NHTSA regulations. The child ATDs in 
49 CFR part 572 that NHTSA uses for testing CRSs are ATDs 
representing a newborn infant, a 12-month-old, a 3-year-old, a 6-
year-old, and a weighted 6-year-old. In 49 CFR part 572, there is 
also specified a 5th percentile adult female ATD, which is 
approximately the size of a 12-year-old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has thus decided that the HIII-10C is a suitable device 
for use in FMVSS No. 213. The HIII-10C test dummy will provide an 
enhanced assessment of child restraint performance, and is worthy of 
adoption into 49 CFR part 572 as implemented by this final rule.

II. Background

a. 2005 NPRM

    In July 2005, NHTSA issued an NPRM proposing specifications and 
certification requirements for a new test dummy representative of a 10-
year-old child (70 FR 40281, July 13, 2005). The dummy was proposed to 
be included among the descriptions of anthropomorphic test devices in 
49 CFR part 572, so that it could be called out for use in FMVSS test 
procedures and other regulations. Concurrently, NHTSA proposed to use 
the new dummy to assess CRSs recommended for older children under FMVSS 
No. 213 (70 FR 51720, August 31, 2005). These two NPRMs are referred to 
herein as the Part 572 NPRM and the FMVSS No. 213 NPRM, respectively.

b. Developments Since 2005

    Additional rulemaking notices. Since the two NPRMs were published 
in 2005, the agency issued two supplemental NPRMs that dealt with the 
unrealistic ``chin-to-chest'' condition that occurred when the HIII-10C 
was used in the FMVSS No. 213 sled test environment. This condition was 
first observed in agency tests that led up to the 2005 NPRMs. In 
several of the tests, as the HIII-10C's head flung forward, the neck 
flexed to the point where the dummy's chin came into hard contact with 
its upper thorax. This chin-to-chest contact at times produced elevated 
head accelerations. However, in the testing that led up to the 2005 
NPRMs, we did not foresee a problem with the chin-to-chest contact 
because the majority of booster seats tested met the FMVSS No. 213 head 
injury criterion (HIC) limit of 1000.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 70 FR at 51724.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters to both NPRMs of 2005 also observed hard chin-to-chest 
contact in their own tests. Some commenters (Dorel Juvenile Group 
(Dorel), Graco Children's Products (Graco)) expressed concerns the 
chin-to-chest contact was an indication of poor spine biofidelity and 
urged NHTSA to undertake additional testing of the HIII-10C to ensure 
that the test dummy is appropriate for use in FMVSS No. 213 testing.
    Following these comments, NHTSA conducted further testing of the 
HIII-10C to investigate the chin-to-chest contact. We concurred with 
the commenters that the hard chin-to-chest contact exhibited by the 
HIII-10C in sled tests was an undesirable occurrence. The hard contact 
was unrealistic, as real-world accident data indicated that children do 
not sustain head injuries in that manner. The chin-to-chest contact is 
much less prevalent in the kinematics of actual children because the 
child's spine is more flexible than that of the ATD. The added 
flexibility of a child's spine allows greater forward translation and 
rotation of the head. When chin-to-chest contact occurs in children, it 
does not produce as hard of a contact as the dummy and does not result 
in severe injuries. Moreover, we found that HIC values produced by the 
HIII-10C were highly variable when chin-to-chest contact occurs, as the 
dummy was not designed to achieve repeatable or reproducible responses 
under this condition.
    In consideration of the likelihood of unreasonably high HIC values, 
the agency issued the 2008 SNPRM that mitigated chin-to-chest contact 
by specifying a posture that was about 10 degrees more upright than the 
HIII-10C positioned in a CRS under the original NPRM (73 FR 3901). 
However, this proposal was widely criticized in comments to the SNPRM. 
Some commenters believed that the upright positioning procedure was 
unrealistic because it did not reflect the way children actually sit in 
booster seats. Some also indicated that a belt routing system or 
harness designed for an upright ATD may introduce unwanted belt slack 
when applied to a fully reclined child. They believed this could add to 
head excursion and preclude a CRS from performing its primary function 
of properly positioning a vehicle's seat belt to a child occupant. 
Additionally, some commenters found the procedure to be cumbersome and 
difficult to follow.
    Following a test program conducted in response to these comments, 
on November 24, 2010 the agency issued a second SNPRM for positioning 
the HIII-10C (75 FR 71648). The 2010 SNPRM replaced the proposal for 
the upright positioning procedure with a procedure developed by the 
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). The 
UMTRI procedure emphasizes fitting the dummy to the CRS rather than 
achieving a specific dummy posture. In trial tests run by the agency 
using the UMTRI procedure, we found the repeatability of all test 
measurements to be greatly improved relative to those observed under 
the seating procedures we had proposed previously. Because the UMTRI 
procedure typically results in an ATD posture similar to that 
associated with the seating procedure used in the original NPRM of 
2005, chin-to-chest contact continued to occur. Thus, we proposed using 
the UMTRI procedure when positioning the HIII-10C in FMVSS No. 213 
tests, but proposed that HIC would not be used as a performance 
criterion in FMVSS No. 213 when using the HIII-10C.
    Supplemental testing. Since the NPRMs of 2005, the agency has used 
the HIII-10C in about two hundred sled tests to support the FMVSS No. 
213 SNPRMs, to address the comments to the Part 572 NPRM, and to arrive 
at the final configuration of the dummy. We have acquired four 
additional HIII-10C units to add to our repeatability and 
reproducibility assessment. In this period since 2005, we have made a 
comprehensive assessment of the ATD to examine the many issues brought 
up in comments received on the four rulemaking proposals.
    The test results permitted us to examine and evaluate the 
consistency of the data and adequacy of the dummy in a broad range of 
CRSs available in the market. Of the approximately 80 models of booster 
seats manufactured since 2006,\6\ twenty seats from eight different 
manufacturers have been tested with the HIII-10C since the Part 572 
NPRM. Another fourteen seat models manufactured prior to 2006 have also 
been tested. This spectrum represents a good cross-section of the 
booster seat market and demonstrates well the utility of the HIII-10C 
under all installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ To assist consumers in deciding which CRS to purchase, NHTSA 
provides ease of use ratings for child seats. We attempt to select 
and rate all seats on the market. Currently, we provide about 80 
ratings of seats designed for children weighing 36.3 kg (80 lb) or 
more and manufactured since 2006. There are 23 different 
manufacturers represented in our selection of seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utility of the HIII-10C. Our supplementary testing has reaffirmed 
that the HIII-10C is a meaningful ATD for use in FMVSS No. 213 and 
merits incorporation into 49 CFR part 572 even without NHTSA's use of 
HIC as an FMVSS No. 213 pass/fail criterion. Additional qualification 
data obtained since 2005 has confirmed the high level of repeatability 
and reproducibility that was demonstrated in the NPRM on a limited data 
set.\7\ As reported in this

[[Page 11654]]

preamble, the qualification corridors indicate outstanding dummy 
repeatability and reproducibility. Throughout the entire test 
experience, the HIII-10C has proven to be a durable test instrument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Except to the extent discussed in this document regarding 
chin-to-chest contact, NHTSA confirms the NPRM's discussion of the 
findings that the HIII-10C is a biofidelic ATD that produces 
repeatable and reproducible results. A detailed discussion of the 
HIII-10C's biofidelity can be found in the NPRM, see 70 FR at 40284. 
The repeatability and reproducibility of the HII-10C is discussed in 
the NPRM at 70 FR at 40285. Commenters did not disagree with these 
aspects of the dummy, except as discussed in this document regarding 
the chin-to-chest contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The additional data also confirms the qualification of HIII-10C-
based injury metrics. Other than HIC, all other dummy-based 
measurements used in FMVSS No. 213--head excursion, knee excursion, and 
chest acceleration--have proven to be sound metrics appropriate for CRS 
testing. A NHTSA-sponsored study published in 2008 found the head 
excursion of the HIII-10C to be very similar to a human subject in 
matched pair tests.\8\ Also, the agency has observed a strong 
correlation between knee excursion and submarining in child dummies. As 
such, knee excursion correlates indirectly with abdominal injuries. The 
limit on knee excursion prevents CRS manufacturers from controlling 
head excursion by designing their restraints so that children submarine 
in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ash, JH, Sherwood, CP, Abdelilah, Y, Crandall, JR, Parent, 
DP, Kallieris, D., ``Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Dummies with 
a Pediatric Cadaver Restrained by a Three-point Belt in Frontal Sled 
Tests,'' Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Conference 
on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, June 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The limit on chest acceleration ensures that a CRS provides a child 
with sufficient ``ride down'' or absorption of crash forces over a 
period of time in a manner that avoids injury. The revisions to the 
HIII-10C described in this preamble assure that the chest acceleration 
measurements are devoid of any signal irregularities. The HIII-10C will 
also be used in FMVSS No. 213 to assess the structural integrity of 
CRSs for older children.
    Recent agency studies have also demonstrated that the HIII-10C has 
sufficient biofidelity to be used in possible belt fit programs. Our 
research has found lap and shoulder belts to fit the HIII-10C much like 
they do a human.\9\ The dummy was found to sit in a seat like a human 
child and don the belt like a human child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Reed, M., Ebert-Hamilton, S., Klinich, K., Manary, M., Rupp, 
J., ``Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume I: Effects of Vehicle Seat 
and Belt Geometry on Belt Fit,'' UMTRI Report No. UMTRI-2008-49-1, 
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, September 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has also recently completed studies on the HIII-10C's 
utility and biofidelity in assessing submarining and abdominal 
injury.\10\ In summary, we have found the HIII-10C to be sufficiently 
biofidelic to mimic the kinematics of a belted human child. The dummy 
was found to be sensitive to a range of lap belt and torso belt 
anchorage configurations and its propensity to submarine was consistent 
with that of a belted child. Given these positive results, the agency 
is pursuing the development of an HIII-10C modification consisting of 
an abdominal insert that measures abdominal deformation, thus providing 
a direct assessment of injury risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Reed, M., Ebert-Hamilton, S., Klinich, K., Manary, M., 
Rupp, J., ``Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume II: Effect of Restraint 
Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, Seating Procedure, and Belt Fit 
on the Dynamic Response of the Hybrid III 10-year-old ATD in Sled 
Tests,'' UMTRI Report No. UMTRI-2008-49-2, University of Michigan, 
Ann Arbor, MI, September 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Summary of Decision

    The data available since 2005 support a decision that the HIII-10C 
is a suitable device for use in FMVSS No. 213. Adopting the HIII-10C in 
49 CFR part 572 enables NHTSA to expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 
213 to CRSs that are recommended for children over the current 35.2 kg 
(65 lb) weight limit in a meaningful way. There has been considerable 
interest over the years in expanding the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 
to increase the likelihood that child restraints for older children 
(e.g., booster seats) will perform adequately in a crash. This interest 
goes hand-in-hand with efforts to prolong CRS use among children who 
have outgrown their child safety seat, but who cannot adequately fit a 
vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system. Adopting the HIII-10C into 49 
CFR part 572 enhances NHTSA's ability to reduce unreasonable risks of 
traffic crashes to older children.

III. Summary of Comments

    We received comments on the Part 572 NPRM from: The American 
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia 
(CHOP), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Dorel, 
Chrysler, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers \11\ (Alliance), and 
a joint submission from ATD manufacturers First Technology Safety 
Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD (Denton) (FTSS/Denton).\12\ Some of the 
comments on the FMVSS No. 213 SNPRMs raised issues pertaining to the 
Part 572 rulemaking, which we discuss in this document as appropriate. 
Additional organizations commenting on the FMVSS No. 213 rulemaking 
include Graco, the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association (JPMA), 
and Consumers Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ At the date of the October 3, 2005 comment, the Alliance 
consisted of: BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler; Ford Motor Company; 
General Motors; Mazda; Mitsubishi Motors; Porsche; Toyota; and 
Volkswagen.
    \12\ In 2010, FTSS and Denton announced that they have merged 
into one company, Humanetics, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters were very supportive of the idea of incorporating an ATD 
representing children in the 8- to 12-year-old age range. There was 
general support for the HIII-10C's incorporation into Part 572, but as 
indicated above, concerns were raised about the chin-to-chest contact. 
Dorel expressed opposition to the adoption of the HIII-10C, citing 
concerns about the ATD's biofidelity, durability, and compatibility 
with the FMVSS No. 213 test environment. Some comments suggested 
adjustments and clarifications to the Part 572 proposed regulatory 
text, to improve the procedures for qualifying an ATD and the 
performance assessments.
    The following major categories of issues were raised: (a) 
Functionality of the HIII-10C as a Part 572 ATD; (b) durability of the 
ATD; (c) qualification procedures and requirements; (d) the TDP (the 
engineering drawings and PADI); (e) other issues (clarifying agency 
statements in the preamble); and (f) dummy development efforts. Each of 
these areas is discussed below.

IV. Response to Comments

a. Functionality of the HIII-10C as a Part 572 ATD

1. Chin-to-Chest Contact
    As described earlier in this preamble, the agency received many 
comments regarding the undesirable chin-to-chest contact exhibited by 
the HIII-10C, which is related to the biofidelity of the HIII-10C's 
spine. Dorel, the Alliance and others reported chin-to-chest contact 
during normal use of the dummy, which was believed to be brought on by 
an overly stiff thoracic spine relative to human children.
    We agree that the hard chin-to-chest contact in FMVSS No. 213 sled 
tests is an undesirable characteristic of the HIII-10C. Chin-to-chest 
contact has also been observed in tests run by the agency. In most 
cases, the time interval producing the highest calculation of HIC 
enveloped the instant when chin-to-chest contact occurred, including 
cases where head acceleration was very high. In other words, chin-to-
chest contact often caused HIC to exceed the injury assessment 
reference value (HIC36 = 1000).
    The design of the neck-to-thorax joint in the HIII-10C differs from 
other dummies in the Hybrid III family. In the other dummies, the neck 
is off-set or

[[Page 11655]]

cantilevered anterior to the thorax, which is not optimal 
anthropometrically. In the HIII-10C, the upper part of the thorax spine 
structure has been designed such that the neck-to-thorax joint is an 
in-line connection following more closely the anthropometry of a human. 
The lower neck bracket described earlier serves at the neck-to-thorax 
joint.
    The downside to the improved anthropometry is that it creates a 
``hard spot'' during chin-to-chest contact. The stiff lower neck 
bracket is where the chin comes into contact with the chest and where 
only a thin layer of soft flesh material offers any buffer. Beyond a 
few millimeters of flesh material compression, chin-to-chest contact 
forces--and head accelerations--increase exponentially. As a result, a 
small deviation in head motion causes a very large change in head 
acceleration and HIC. The change is difficult to control and may be in 
conflict with good CRS design. In some cases, HIC scores have been 
shown to improve when the torso belt fit is degraded.\13\ Since chin 
contact to the thorax is not a natural brain injury path in actual 
children, any such attempt to lessen HIC through booster seat design 
may compromise the overall safety performance of the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 2008 UMTRI Vol. 2 Report
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the non-biofidelic chin-to-chest contact, we have decided 
not to require CRSs to meet the HIC criterion when tested with the 
HIII-10C in the compliance of FMVSS No. 213, as announced in the FMVSS 
No. 213 final rule published today. When we followed the UMTRI seating 
procedure adopted in the final rule for FMVSS No. 213, we found that 
the seating procedure reduces HIC variability in repeat tests of the 
same booster seat, including those in which hard chin-to-chest contact 
occurs. However, hard chin-to-chest contact was still observed in many 
agency tests. Mitigating this effect altogether, as recommended in 
comments by Dorel, would require a major redesign of the entire thorax 
and spine, which is not feasible. Instead, the agency is concentrating 
efforts on developing an entirely new pediatric dummy for future use, 
as discussed later in this preamble.
    Nonetheless, we did make minor changes to the HIII-10C to mitigate 
some of the effects of the chin-to-chest contact in accordance with a 
recent agency study.\14\ This Part 572 final rule specifies the 
thickness of the HIII-10C's chin flesh in the inferior-superior 
direction. The new specification is aimed at lessening the variability 
of head accelerations among different dummies when chin-to-chest 
contact does occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Stammen, J., Bolte, J., Shaw, J., ``Biomechanical Impact 
Response of the Human Chin and Manubrium,'' Annals of Biomedical 
Engineering (2011, in press).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The chin flesh specification improves the functionality of the 
HIII-10C as an ATD, even though we have decided not to use HIC as an 
FMVSS No. 213 pass/fail criterion when using the dummy. HIC may 
continue to be measured in FMVSS No. 213 tests with the HIII-10C for 
research purposes, and could be used as a performance metric in other 
NHTSA programs (e.g., out-of-position (OOP) air bag tests, New Car 
Assessment Programs). Standardizing the thickness of the chin will 
improve the repeatability of the HIC measurements from different 
dummies when chin-to-chest contact occurs. Hard chin-to-chest contact 
may be a concern to researchers investigating the whipping actions of 
the head. The chin specification will better enable them to compare HIC 
measurements in tests with different dummies.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Because we are measuring HIC for research purposes, this 
final rule adopts the proposed qualification test for the HIII-10C 
head measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Shock Emanating From Shoulder and Neck
    Chrysler\16\ and Graco were concerned that spikes or ``noise'' is 
present in the signal traces of accelerometers and load cells in the 
head and upper torso of the HIII-10C. In evaluating these comments, we 
determined that the presence of these spikes has no consequence on the 
use of the HIII-10C as a regulatory tool as specified in the final rule 
for FMVSS No. 213. The only instruments within the HIII-10C that will 
be used in FMVSS No. 213 are accelerometers arranged triaxially at the 
center of gravity (CG) of the chest. In all agency tests in which these 
spikes appeared in the accelerometer signals, they were removed by the 
signal processing algorithms used to compute the chest acceleration 
criterion.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21247-0016.
    \17\ The chest acceleration criterion specified in FMVSS No. 213 
is 60 G's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The routines used to compute chest G's include a standard SAE 
International (SAE) Channel Frequency Class (CFC) 180 filter and a 3 
millisecond (ms) clip.\18\ The 3 ms clip originated in 1970 for use in 
FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' in recognition that such 
spikes are insignificant as injury contributors (35 FR 14941). The 
spikes in the data of the HIII-10C were caused by two sources other 
than by chin-to-chest contact: part-to-part contact between components 
of the shoulder assembly, and a loose fitting neck cable that 
interfered with the lower neck load cell. Spikes emanating from the 
shoulder and neck of the HIII-10C were not always completely removed by 
CFC180 filtering of the chest acceleration signals, but once they were 
``clipped'' by the 3 ms algorithm, they had no measureable effect on 
the computation of chest G's. Moreover, in most cases the time interval 
containing the peak acceleration identified by the algorithm did not 
contain the spike, which usually occurred later in the event. Thus, the 
injury reference measures for the HIII-10C's immediate use in FMVSS No. 
213 (chest acceleration, head and knee excursion) are not affected by 
this condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The 3 ms clip truncates the peak acceleration portion of a 
continuous signal having a duration less than 3 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The shock emanating from the shoulder and neck is benign in terms 
of its effect on the dummy itself (the acceleration spikes are no 
greater than 150 G's). It does not affect the kinematics of the dummy 
in any way (i.e., the head trajectory and knee excursion are 
unaffected). The magnitude of the spikes is well within the typical 
operating range of +/- 2000 G's for the specified accelerometers, so 
shock damage to the instruments is unlikely.
    Nonetheless, although the shocks do not influence the outcomes of 
FMVSS No. 213 tests, we made the following simple modifications to the 
HIII-10C's shoulder and neck to lessen the shock effect. Improving the 
ATD in this manner assures that the dummy is better suited for possible 
future uses in tests where computations for head injury assessments 
based on head accelerometer signals are more sensitive to the condition 
(e.g., OOP air bag tests).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The computation of HIC applies a higher signal filter class 
(CFC 1000 vs. CFC 180) and does not impose a 3 ms clip. The 
revisions do not affect the assessment of CRSs with regard to FMVSS 
No. 213, so this change will not delay the incorporation of the 
HIII-10C into Part 572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Shoulder Revision
    The TDP of this final rule modifies the shoulder design of the 
HIII-10C.
    Similar to a human, the shoulder of the HIII-10C provides the load 
bearing surface for the shoulder belt. On the dummy, the part that 
provides this surface is a one-piece aluminum casting that is connected 
to the spine via a yoke that extends laterally from the spine. The 
yoke-to-shoulder connection is a

[[Page 11656]]

pivot which provides medial-lateral movement (i.e., pivoting about the 
z-axis) in a direction that is dependent upon the position of the 
shoulder belt. If the belt lies close to the neck, the shoulder will 
pivot inward; if it is on the edge of the shoulder it will pivot 
outward. The piece of the shoulder casting that contains the pivot hole 
has a finger-like protrusion. As the shoulder pivots, the finger acts 
as a cam by compressing a rubber pad that is glued within the yoke. 
This provides resistance to the z-axis pivoting.
    Compared to Hybrid III adult dummies, the shoulder design of the 
HIII-10C is anthropometrically improved. For the adult dummies, the 
shoulder is an assembly of two halves that are joined medially-
laterally. The mid-joint provides the z-axis pivoting for each half. By 
eliminating the mid-joint, the HIII-10C is able to provide a more 
biofidelic interaction with the shoulder belt during a dynamic event. 
Because it is made from one part instead of two, the HIII-10C shoulder 
was able to be designed with a sloped, uniform shoulder belt bearing 
surface.
    The improved design of the HIII-10C is made possible by the new 
configuration of the upper thorax in which the offset of the neck has 
been eliminated. The HIII-10C shoulder design allows more realistic 
movement of the belt along the shoulder during a dynamic event. 
Furthermore, since the surface that bears the load of the shoulder belt 
is a one-piece casting, the designers of the dummy were able to build 
in a shoulder load cell. Although it is not currently used for 
regulatory purposes, the load cell is very useful in research and 
development activities to study belt load distributions across the 
torso.
    Notwithstanding its simpler design, the new shoulder has had 
problems over the years. In early versions of the design (pre-NPRM), 
the shoulder had a tendency to over-pivot to the point where the finger 
protrusion was bottoming out the rubber pad. In the 2001-2002 
timeframe, the shoulder went through two design revisions in an attempt 
to rectify the situation by relocating the shoulder pivot hole and 
trimming the yoke.
    As indicated by the Graco and Chrysler comments, the Part 572 NPRM 
version of the shoulder could still be improved. Before the finger 
bottoms out the pad, metal-to-metal contact occurs between the yoke and 
the shoulder in one or more places. Shock from this contact appears as 
short-duration spikes of up to 150 G's in the signals of accelerometers 
closest to the shoulder. Spikes of a lesser extent also appear in neck 
load cell signals. Chrysler ran sled tests to identify the shoulder-
yoke contact points by means of transfer paint, and reported these 
results to the agency.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the spikes, as reflected in the TDP for this final rule, 
we have revised the shoulder and yoke assembly to lessen the effect of 
the two parts bottoming out against each other. More clearance has been 
created for the shoulder to move by reconfiguring the shoulder casting 
and the yoke assembly by making them both narrower. This modification 
does not affect the biofidelity of the ATD or the reproducibility or 
repeatability of the responses because the neck response and sled 
kinematics were not affected by the shoulder revisions.
    Complete details of the modifications are described in an agency 
technical report that may be found in the docket for this final 
rule.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Revisions to the HIII-10C Technical Data Package,'' 
NHTSA, August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Lower Neck Revision
    This final rule makes simple modifications to the HIII-10C's lower 
neck load cell and fasteners associated with the neck safety cable to 
lessen the shock effect.
    The safety cable of the HIII-10C neck is common to all ATDs in Part 
572. It is a steel wire rope that runs through the center of the molded 
neck to prevent total separation of the head from the torso under an 
extreme test condition. The rope is fitted with swages at both ends: a 
ball-end at the superior end and a threaded stud-end at the inferior 
end. The ball-end is larger than the diameter of the neck's through-
hole to prevent it from passing through the neck. On the inferior end, 
a nut is used to tighten the threaded swage, which places the cable 
under tension and the molded neck under compression. A secondary jam 
nut serves as a lock. According to the NPRM and final rule 
specifications, the nut should be tightening to a torque setting of 8 
+/- 2 inch-pounds (in-lbs) before each test.
    The entire neck assembly is joined to the spine by means of a 
specialized bracket that allows the neck to be set at different forward 
tilt angles. A through-hole runs through the center of this bracket 
allowing access to the end fitting of the wire rope so that it may be 
tightened without removing the bracket from the neck. In lieu of the 
bracket, an optional part is available for the HIII-10C containing a 
lower neck load cell. It has the same general configuration as the un-
instrumented bracket, except the through hole has a smaller bore.
    Shock emanating from the neck has been observed when either the 
bracket or an optional part containing a lower neck load cell is used. 
(The load cell is not needed in tests carried out under FMVSS No. 213.) 
When the neck goes into extreme flexion (a 90 degree bend is specified 
in the qualification test), the center cable is not sufficiently taut 
to prevent its movement within the center channel of the neck. As a 
result, the steel washer and nuts on the threaded swage move within the 
free space provided by the center hole and can come into contact with 
the inner walls of the through-hole. To mitigate this condition, the 
washer has been changed from steel to nylon. Also, the lower neck load 
cell and its structural replacement have been revised since the Part 
572 NPRM. For each of these two parts, a sleeve made of soft, dampening 
material is now used to line the through-hole and prevent rattling of 
the nuts. The load cell revision also carries over the capacities 
specified in the NPRM which were increased for some channels where data 
was truncated in pre-NPRM agency tests using a previous load cell.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The revised load cell is a six-axis load cell. Maximum load 
capacities and several other load cell specifications are given on 
Drawing SA572-40 in the TDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a related problem, a premature wear problem has been observed in 
the agency's HIII-10C units and reported in comments provided by Dorel. 
The molded neck itself has two polymeric bushings, one at each end of 
the neck, through which the cable passes. The bushings prevent the 
steel rope from abrading the internal through-hole of the neck. 
However, the aforementioned cable movement tends to abrade the neck 
channel and chafe the lower polymeric cable bushing.
    To avoid problems such as those noted by Dorel, the polymeric 
bushing should be inspected on a periodic basis. The bushing is an 
inexpensive part that may be readily inspected and replaced during the 
course of running the neck qualification tests. We note that setting 
the neck cable to the proper torque is key to the longevity of the 
bushing. The torque setting is also critical to passing the 
qualification requirement for the neck. In addition, we also found that 
the torque setting of the neck cable nut significantly affects the head 
excursion and the upper neck moment within the sagittal plane (about 
the y-axis).
    We also found that, when left unchecked, the threaded stud-end 
could wear through the plastic collar and chafe the outer aluminum disc 
of the

[[Page 11657]]

molded neck after extended use. When the neck goes into extreme 
flexion, a chafed bushing can partially work its way out of the center 
through hole of the molded neck. This allows the wire rope to rub 
directly against the aluminum end plate of the neck, sending shock 
through the entire spine, which appears as noise in the signals of 
nearby sensors.
    As described earlier, the signal noise emanating from the neck has 
no consequence on the use of the HIII-10C in FMVSS No. 213 because the 
noise is removed by signal processing algorithms. Nonetheless, the 
agency has implemented simple revisions to mitigate any shock emanating 
from the shoulder and lower neck. In addition to revising the lower 
neck load cell to preclude rattling, we have taken steps to lessen the 
effects of the chafing. A new bushing has been specified in the TDP 
with an increase to the flange thickness and with a smaller inner 
diameter, which reduces the clearance of the wire rope. The inner 
diameter of the cable washer has also been decreased to prevent it from 
sliding. Details of the new load cell, bushing, and washer, along with 
their effects, are reported in NHTSA's technical report, ``Revisions to 
the HIII-10C Technical Data Package,'' August 2011.
3. Stiffness of Vinyl Insert
    Dorel indicated in its comments that it was having difficulty 
meeting the torso flexion test because the vinyl abdominal inserts it 
used were too stiff or too soft. Dorel had to mix and match inserts and 
lumbar flex joints in an attempt to pass the test. The commenter was 
concerned that the manufacturing variability for the inserts is too 
wide.
    The agency has revised the specification of the abdominal insert by 
adding new dimensional requirements that improve manufacturing 
consistency and fit. The agency has also revised the PADI to include a 
section on how to position the abdominal insert within the pelvis 
cavity when running the torso flexion test. The specified setting of 
the insert governs its interaction with the chest jacket, lumbar spine, 
and ribcage, all of which influences the outcome of the torso flexion 
test. In agency tests, the new insert setting provided sufficient 
instruction to successfully carry out the torso flexion tests without 
having to mix or match inserts.
4. Dummy Availability
    In its 2005 comments, Dorel claimed that no dummies were available 
on the market prior to the NPRMs of 2005 that satisfied the proposed 
Part 572 specifications. It listed nine changes to its version of the 
dummy relative to the version specified by the Part 572 NPRM of 2005. 
Thus, Dorel claimed that it was not given adequate opportunity to 
evaluate the proposed dummy.
    We see no merit to delaying the final rule to either FMVSS No. 213 
or Part 572 on the basis of HIII-10C availability. Several years have 
passed since the NPRMs were published in 2005, during which two 
additional NPRMs have been published on the use of the HIII-10C in 
FMVSS No. 213. This has provided commenters with ample time and 
opportunity to acquire, test, and submit comments to the docket about 
the HIII-10C. We note that in Dorel's comments to the SNPRM of 2008, it 
did not discuss any specifics on the HIII-10C other than those already 
provided in 2005 and addressed herein.

b. Durability of the HIII-10C

    In its comments, Dorel reported on observed durability problems and 
breakage of the HIII-10C in its sled tests. No other commenters noted 
any problems related to these observations or any other damage.
    As described earlier in this preamble, the agency has expanded our 
dataset of HIII-10C sled tests by about 200 tests and many more 
qualification tests since the NPRMs were published in 2005. In the 
whole of this extensive test regimen, the agency has studied many 
aspects of the dummy's performance including its functionality and 
durability. We have not observed any significant functionality or 
durability problems that would preclude the use of the HIII-10C use in 
FMVSS No. 213 or any other standardized test.
    Each problem raised by Dorel is discussed below. Also included is a 
discussion of our own part replacement records assembled during the 
course of our post-NPRM evaluation of the dummy. No further changes to 
the dummy have been implemented as a result of these observations.
1. Proximal Femur
    Dorel reported a broken casting in one of its HIII-10C units 
representing the proximal femur. Although Dorel did not describe how 
the failure occurred, we assume it was brought on by the ``flailing 
legs'' seen in FMVSS No. 213 tests. During the impact event, the lap 
belt retains the pelvis, while the legs spring forward placing a 
tensile load on the joint connecting the legs to the pelvis.
    We had observed this type of failure in testing of an earlier, pre-
NPRM version of the dummy. Since then, the dummy part representing the 
proximal femur was redesigned to eliminate the fracture problem. The 
part is now made of 4140 steel rather than C954 aluminum bronze, and a 
sharp corner stress riser has been rounded. In the photographs provided 
by Dorel, it appears that its failed unit had the older aluminum bronze 
casting. The new design was incorporated into the Part 572 NPRM version 
of the dummy and is specified in the version described in this final 
rule.
    The femur has held up in all agency tests since the change was 
implemented to the pre-NPRM version. No further change to the dummy is 
necessary.
2. Bib Assembly
    Dorel provided a picture of a torn bib assembly, without further 
discussion, in its response to the Part 572 NPRM. The extent of the 
testing to produce this damage was not described.
    The agency has not encountered any instances of torn bib assemblies 
in our extensive testing experience with the HIII-10C, but we have seen 
occasional abrasions on some bib assemblies of other Part 572 dummies. 
They were caused by the shoulder belt pressing against and eventually 
rubbing through the chest jacket during multiple severe test exposures. 
This may have been the case for Dorel, based on its general comment 
that it had performed ``65 dynamic sled tests run at DJG [Dorel 
Juvenile Group] to the new [FMVSS No.] 213 standard bench and pulse 
using the HIII-10C dummy,'' in addition to other dynamic sled tests 
conducted at a contract laboratory. Given that the tear is likely 
caused by excessive wear-and-tear, the agency has not revised the bib 
assembly.
3. Shoulder Rotation Stop Screws
    The arm of the HIII-10C is connected to the shoulder through a yoke 
that acts as a two degree of freedom joint which allows the arm to 
flex, extend, and rotate axially. Affixed to the yoke is a protrusion, 
or ``shoulder rotation stop,'' that limits the range of motion of the 
shoulder in axial rotation (i.e., it cannot complete a 360 degree 
circuit). So, when the arms of the HIII-10C flail forward and extend 
during a dynamic test, the stops prevent the arms from rotating all the 
way up and around behind the body.
    Dorel provided photos showing that the screws holding the rotation 
stop in place in its HIII-10C unit had sheared off. Dorel stated that 
it repaired the part by welding the stop into place, but the commenter 
provided no further discussion.
    The agency has not experienced this type of failure in any of our 
tests of the HIII-10C, and we do not know the

[[Page 11658]]

circumstances that led to the failure in the Dorel unit. In the absence 
of information that a problem exists or that it is recurring, we find 
no need to change the HIII-10C with regard to the shoulder stop.
4. Agency Part Replacement Records
    Since the NPRMs of 2005, NHTSA has continued to monitor the 
durability of the HIII-10C, as we do routinely with all of our ATDs. A 
summary of our records is provided below. In general, a part within a 
dummy is replaced for one of two reasons: Because it was damaged during 
a test or because it has become worn and unserviceable after extensive 
use. As described below, our experience indicates that all part 
replacements were made under the latter circumstance. The records thus 
show good durability of the HIII-10C.
i. Pelvis Helicoil Insert
    Throughout our post-NPRM testing experience of about 200 sled 
tests, the agency observed only one instance of a part failure that 
appeared to have affected the outcome of the test. This failure was 
brought on by flailing legs, which caused the femur to separate from 
the pelvis due to the failure of a helicoil.\23\ ``Helicoil'' is the 
product name of a steel fastener that provides positive thread locking 
into soft metals like aluminum or bronze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This was not the proximal femur casting part reported by 
Dorel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three helicoils are inserted into the HIII-10C's aluminum pelvis 
casting so that the flange that retains the proximal head of the femur 
may be bolted directly to the casting. After one of our tests, we 
noticed that the flange had separated from the pelvis. Upon closer 
inspection, we found that a helicoil had disengaged from the pelvis. 
This failure has not recurred. Moreover, a helicoil failure is 
typically gradual as its threads loosen from the base material over 
time. A thorough pre-test inspection can usually spot helicoil 
looseness so that repairs may be made, thus mitigating the likelihood 
of a test failure. Therefore, a revision to the flange fastening system 
is unnecessary.
ii. Neck and Ribcage Replacement
    Like all ATDs in the Hybrid III family of dummies, the deformable 
parts of the HIII-10C have the shortest service lives. The two most 
often replaced parts on the HIII-10C are the ribcage and the molded 
neck. Worn ribs are usually detectable by examining them for overly 
gouged or delaminated damping material. Unserviceable molded neck 
assemblies are not noticeable by visual inspection, with the exception 
of chafed cable bushings as described earlier.
    The conditions of the ribs and neck are monitored directly through 
the Part 572 qualification procedures. In our experiences with the 
HIII-10C, the decision to remove a rib set or neck from service has 
always been made during pre-test qualification procedures when the 
thorax impact or the neck flexion/extension test qualifications cannot 
be met after a few trials. The typical service life for HIII-10C rib 
sets and neck assemblies alike are about thirty sled tests. We have not 
had a situation where failure occurred during a sled test of any kind.
iii. Other Replacements
    According to our records, flesh materials--particularly the chest 
flesh--are the only other parts that have been replaced on a recurring 
basis. As with flesh materials of all ATDs, those of the HIII-10C are 
replaced periodically as they become aged, abraded, or torn. 
Deterioration of these parts is easy to identify so that they may be 
repaired or replaced well before they deteriorate to the point where 
their condition may affect test results. They are also relatively 
inexpensive (chest flesh is the highest priced flesh material item: 
$650) and easy to service.
5. Durability Summary
    Given the record of low maintenance to our own HIII-10C units and 
the relatively few complaints noted by commenters, we consider the 
dummy to be highly suitable for use in FMVSS No. 213 in terms of its 
durability. Our records indicate that there have been relatively few 
instances of HIII-10C part replacements of any sort. When we have 
replaced parts, it has always been due to extensive service, not a 
sudden failure. Replacement of worn parts constitutes preventative 
maintenance that, when scheduled at regular intervals, will help to 
ensure valid test results.

c. Qualification Procedures and Requirements

    Qualification procedures for the HIII-10C are basically the same as 
those proposed in the Part 572 NPRM, though some of the response 
corridors have been modified in consideration of additional 
qualification test data accumulated by the agency during our post-NPRM 
test experience. We also considered in our analysis a large 
qualification test dataset provided by the Alliance, amassed by members 
of the SAE International (SAE) Dummy Testing Equipment Subcommittee 
(DTESC). The much larger data set now allows us to base the setting of 
the corridors on an enhanced statistical analysis, providing even 
better assurance that the mean and the dispersion of the responses are 
representative of the dummies that the users will have to work with in 
the field.
    Comments provided by the Alliance and echoed by FTSS/Denton 
recommended several changes to the performance corridors for the HIII-
10C. In most instances, the commenters recommended changes that were 
specified by the DTESC based on a large dataset of qualification test 
results provided by participating organizations, including Chrysler, 
Ford, and General Motors, FTSS/Denton, Delphi, MGA, and TRW. The 
Alliance also recommended changes to the specification for impact 
probes and dummy instrumentation. The comments and our response thereto 
are discussed below.
1. Response Corridors
    The corridors suggested by the Alliance are based on a range of 98 
to 275 qualification tests per body segment from about 25 dummies. The 
Part 572 NPRM corridors were based on a range of 6 to 28 qualification 
tests per component performed on 2 dummies. Post-NPRM data accumulated 
by the agency contained qualification results from an additional 4 
HIII-10C units.
    The agency analyzed the data submitted by the Alliance and found 
that the suggested corridors and the coefficients of variation (CVs) 
were generally in good agreement with agency data. This good 
correspondence lent confidence that the data were of sufficient quality 
to be considered with agency data towards the establishment of 
performance corridors. The advantage of a larger sample size is that it 
allows for consideration of such factors as lab-to-lab, operator-to-
operator, and dummy-to-dummy variability.
    Upon consideration of the larger dataset, we found that our 
original corridors proposed in the Part 572 NPRM needed only fine-
tuning. Summaries of the changes to each body region are given below. 
Full details of our analyses are contained in the technical report, 
``Development of Qualification Performance Specifications for the HIII-
10C Crash Test Dummy,'' December 2011, which has been placed in the 
docket for this final rule.
i. Head
    The head qualification test consists of dropping the head onto a 
rigid surface from a height of 376 millimeters (mm)

[[Page 11659]]

(14.8 inch (in.)). Since the HIII-10C head is a Hybrid III 5th 
percentile adult female (HIII-5F) head, the same test procedure is 
specified as in 49 CFR part 572, Subpart O, which contains the 
specification for the HIII-5F ATD. The head drop is designed for the 
forehead to impact a flat, rigid surface at the midsagittal plane. The 
head response limit in these impacts is specified between 250 and 300 
G's as proposed in the NPRM. No change was necessary to these limits, 
as the majority of data fit well and is well centered within the 
corridors.
ii. Neck
    The head and neck assembly and the test procedures are the same as 
proposed in the Part 572 NPRM. The neck is evaluated for flexion and 
extension kinematics similar to that defined in 49 CFR part 572, Figure 
15 and Figure 21. The head-neck assembly is mounted to the bottom of a 
pendulum that is being decelerated from a speed of 6.1 meter/sec (m/s) 
(20 feet/sec (ft/s)) for flexion and 5.03 m/s (16.5 ft/s) for extension 
at velocity reduction rates indicated in Table 1. The only difference 
between the final rule and the Part 572 NPRM is a corrected reduction 
in velocity specification at 10 ms for neck extension, changing from 
1.59-1.89 ft/s to 1.49-1.89 ft/s. (The metric specification was 
correct.) The 1.59 ft/s specification reflected a typographical error.

             Table 1--Neck Reduction in Impact Velocity From Initial Impact in Flexion and Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Body region                           Reduction in impact velocity from initial impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Final rule                             NPRM
             Neck (flexion)              -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                ft/s               m/s              ft/s               m/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
at 10ms.................................         1.64-2.04         5.38-6.69         1.64-2.04         5.38-6.69
at 20ms.................................         3.04-4.04        9.97-13.25         3.04-4.04        9.97-13.25
at 30ms.................................         4.45-5.65       14.60-18.53         4.45-5.65       14.60-18.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Neck (Extension)                    ft/s               m/s              ft/s               m/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
at 10ms.................................         1.49-1.89         4.89-6.20         1.59-1.89         4.89-6.20
at 20ms.................................         2.88-3.68        9.45-12.07         2.88-3.68        9.45-12.07
at 30ms.................................         4.20-5.20       13.78-17.06         4.20-5.20       13.78-17.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neck flexion. The final rule performance corridors for maximum D-
plane rotation of the head and moment decay time were revised from 
those proposed in the Part 572 NPRM. Even though the width of the D-
plane rotation corridor remained unchanged, additional agency data and 
comments by the Alliance supported a statistically justifiable shift of 
the range upward from 74-88 degrees to 76-90 degrees (the Alliance 
recommended a 76.5-88.5 degree range). The corridor for moment decay 
time was adjusted to a slightly narrower range from 85-105 ms to 86-105 
ms in the final rule. The combined NHTSA-Alliance data did not justify 
the selection of a narrower corridor suggested by the Alliance at 91-
101 ms. In light of the good fit of the new qualification data within 
the previously established limits, the peak moment range within the 
rotation corridor remains unchanged from that proposed in the NPRM at 
50-62 ms. The Alliance did not comment on this item.
    Neck extension. All three neck extension performance corridors in 
this qualification test were adjusted slightly from those proposed in 
the Part 572 NPRM. The adjustments were needed to account for data 
received from the Alliance and the additional data generated in agency 
tests. The maximum D-plane rotation corridor was widened and shifted 
downward from 99-114 degrees proposed in the NPRM to 96-115 degrees for 
the final rule. The limits suggested by the Alliance were also 96-115 
degrees.
    Also, based on the additional data, in the final rule the corridor 
for peak occipital-condyle moment during the maximum rotation interval 
is revised to (-46)-(-37) Newton-meters (N-m), as compared to (-47)-(-
35) N-m proposed in the NPRM, and (-47)-(-36) N-m recommended by the 
Alliance. The final rule specifies a moment decay time of 100-116 ms, 
as compared to 100-120 ms proposed in the NPRM, and 100-114 ms 
recommended by the Alliance.
iii. Thorax
    The thorax qualification procedure is the same as that proposed in 
the Part 572 NPRM. It specifies a 6.0 m/s (19.7 ft/s) frontal impact 
within the midsagittal plane by a 6.89 kg (15.2 lb) round faced 121 
millimeter (mm) (4.76 in) diameter probe into the mid-sternum of a 
seated dummy. Thorax impact responses are specified as the maximum 
sternum displacement, the maximum probe force at the time of maximum 
sternum displacement, the maximum probe force when the sternum 
displacement is between 20 mm and the lower bound of maximum 
displacement, and the internal hysteresis percentage between loading 
and unloading curves.
    The NPRM proposed chest deflection limits of 40.5-48.5 mm, while 
the Alliance recommended 38.5-48.5 mm. Upon consideration of the full 
dataset, our analysis has led us to set the limits at 37-46 mm for the 
final rule. This downward shift was necessitated by a stiffer response 
seen in the most recent data in both NHTSA testing and in results 
submitted by the Alliance.
    In light of the modified maximum chest deflection corridor, the 
limits of the peak probe force at maximum deflection and the peak probe 
force in the deflection transition zone (prior to the rib deflection 
reaching the lower corridor limit) were raised correspondingly. The 
former was changed from 1.83-2.33 kN in the NPRM to 2.0-2.45 kN in the 
final rule, while the latter was changed from <2.33kN in the NPRM to 
<2.52 kN in the final rule. Comparable Alliance recommendations were 
1.95-2.45 kN for peak force at maximum deflection and <2.45 kN in the 
transition zone. Limits for hysteresis proposed in the NPRM were well-
supported by the data and remained unchanged at 69-85 percent.
iv. Torso Flexion
    The torso flexion test involves the determination of bending 
resistance of the upright seated dummy's lumbar spine/mid-torso area 
when the upper torso is quasi-statically flexed from its upright seated 
posture by 35 degrees relative to a lower torso. The resistance to 
bending is defined as the highest load

[[Page 11660]]

encountered during the bending process.
    The final rule specifies a resistance of 180 to 250 N compared to 
that in the NPRM of 190-240 N. The adjustment was made in response to 
Alliance comments recommending a range of 178-249 N. The final rule 
limits are in near agreement with the Alliance recommendation, and are 
well supported by the combined Alliance-NHTSA data set. The final rule 
also specifies that upon removal of the flexion force the torso, the 
torso is required to return to within 8 degrees of its initial 
position. This is the same requirement that was proposed in the NPRM. 
Commenters did not recommend a revision to this requirement.
v. Knee Impact
    The knee impact test is the same as that proposed in the Part 572 
NPRM, consisting of a 2.1 m/s (6.9 ft/s) impact by a 1.91 kg (4.21 lb) 
flat-faced 76.2 mm (3.0 in.) diameter rigid probe into the knee of a 
HIII-10C leg assembly (including the tibia and foot), where the distal 
end of the femur is mounted rigidly to a reaction mass. For the final 
rule, the corridor for the force applied to the knee by the impactor is 
specified to be between 2.6 and 3.2 kN, as compared to 2.56 to 3.14 kN 
in the NPRM. The final rule specification is in agreement with 
recommendations made by the Alliance.
2. Summary of Qualification Requirements
    A summary of performance specifications for the entire dummy, 
including those proposed in the Part 572 NPRM and those advocated by 
the Alliance, is provided in Table 2. Based on our analysis, the agency 
data were found in most instances to be in reasonably good agreement 
with the corridors suggested by the Alliance corridors. For 
measurements where our analysis of the data did not justify setting the 
corridors at Alliance recommendations, we searched for the best 
justifiable accommodation of both datasets within the limits of the 
biofidelity data.
    As a general rule, performance corridors were set around  3 standard deviations from the mean for measurements with a CV<3 
percent, at  2 standard deviations from the mean for 
measurements with a CV from 3 to 5 percent, and at  10 
percent from the mean for measurements with a CV from 5 to 10 percent.
    Table 2 indicates that all of the data leading to CVs for the final 
rule are within the 10 percent limit. Accordingly, all of the dummy 
based measurements related to their projected use as Injury Assessment 
Reference Values (IARVs) meet the requirements for inclusion into Part 
572.

                            Table 2--Final Rule Qualification Corridors and Comparison With NPRM and Alliance Recommendations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Alliance     Full alliance/NHTSA dataset
                     Test                         Response measurement or test     Final rule       NPRM        suggested  -----------------------------
                                                            parameter               corridor      corridor      corridor      Mean      S.D.       %CV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head drop.....................................  Acceleration (g)................       250-300       250-300       250-300       271      11.6      4.29
Neck pendulum, flexion........................  Max D-plane rotation (deg)......         76-90         74-88     76.5-88.5     83.05      3.28      3.95
                                                Peak O-C moment (N-m)...........         50-62         50-62           n/a     55.38      3.30      5.96
                                                Moment decay time to 10 N-m (ms)        86-105        85-105        91-101     96.63      3.88      4.01
Neck pendulum, extension......................  Max D-Plane rotation (deg)......        96-115        99-114        96-115     105.4      4.35      4.12
                                                Peak O-C moment (N-m)...........   (-46)-(-37)   (-47)-(-35)   (-47)-(-36)     -41.8      2.37      5.67
                                                Moment decay to -10 N-m (ms)....       100-116       100-120       100-114     107.2      3.17      2.95
Thorax pendulum impact........................  Sternum displacement (mm).......         37-46     40.5-48.5     38.5-48.5      41.3       2.1      5.04
                                                Peak probe force defining the         2.0-2.45     1.83-2.33     1.95-2.45     2.227     0.113      5.06
                                                 displacement corridor (kN).
                                                Peak probe force during the time         <2.52         <2.33         <2.45     2.287     0.154      6.74
                                                 when sternum displ. is 20 to
                                                 40.5 mm (kN).
                                                Thorax hysteresis...............        69-85%        69-85%        69-85%      80.3       2.3      2.91
Torso flexion.................................  Peak force at 35 deg from              180-250       190-240       178-249     213.3      18.7       8.8
                                                 vertical (N).
                                                Return angle (degrees)..........      < 8, >-8      < 8, >-8  ............       5.2       1.7    note 1
Knee impact...................................  Peak force (kN).................       2.6-3.2     2.56-3.14     2.60-3.20      2.92     0.157      5.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The %CV does not apply to this measurement since the nominal requirement of zero degrees renders a %CV of infinite magnitude.

3. Impact Probes
    For the dummies specified in Part 572 before 2000, impact probes 
used in qualification testing were assumed to take the form of a nearly 
perfect cylinder that could be specified by a material, weight, and 
diameter. In practice, a perfectly cylindrical probe is rare. Also, the 
addition of several new child dummies to 49 CFR part 572 called for a 
new assortment of lighter probes that were even more difficult to 
design in a pure cylindrical form due to their low weight. This created 
a situation where testing laboratories maintained a limited assortment 
of probe bodies, and then attained the proper probe characteristics by 
interchanging probe faces.
    Beginning with our final rule for the Hybrid III 6-year-old child 
dummy (HIII-6C) in January 2000, the agency began to specify the 
minimum mass moment of inertia (MOI) and free air resonance for the 
various probes used in Part 572 qualification testing. This assured 
that vibratory effects were not present and that various probe 
configurations did not introduce differences in dummy response due to 
probe shape variations. At the same time, laboratories retained ample 
latitude to design impact probes. For the HIII-10C, the Part 572 NPRM 
specified a minimum mass moment of inertia as well.
    In its comment, the Alliance took issue with our proposed 
specifications. It pointed out that the minimum thorax and knee 
pendulum mass moments of inertia as proposed in the NPRM at 2,040 kg-
cm\2\ and 140 kg-cm\2\, respectively, were higher than those 
recommended by the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family Task Group. In its 
comments, the Alliance included thorax and knee qualification data 
collected from multiple test facilities indicating minimal performance 
differences in qualification tests despite a variety of

[[Page 11661]]

test probes with different MOIs. It recommended that we revise our 
minimum specification to 1,463 kg-cm\2\ for the thorax probe and 117 
kg-cm\2\ for the knee probe, as was called out in the original SAE 
specification of the dummy.
    In our analysis of Alliance data, we examined round-robin tests 
performed on the same knee (or thorax) to isolate the effect of the 
different probe MOI on the response of that part. By only considering 
these tests, we eliminated the possibility that dummy reproducibility 
would confound the response data. Also, we only considered data from 
the sources where MOIs were known. Though it submitted test data from 
several laboratories, the Alliance provided probe MOIs from just three 
sources.
    In comparing qualification test data using the Alliance probes with 
the lowest MOIs against data using our own probes, we found peak force 
measurements to be consistently lower with the Alliance probes. We note 
that the Alliance knee probe with the lowest MOI was still above our 
lower limit (152 kg-cm\2\ vs. 140 kg-cm\2\), and the Alliance thorax 
probe with the lowest MOI was only narrowly under our limit (1,960 kg-
cm\2\ vs. 2,040 kg-cm\2\). Given the trend towards lower force response 
with lower MOIs and that the majority of Alliance probes are already 
within our MOI specification, the agency will not revise the probe 
specifications.
4. Instrumentation
i. Rotary Potentiometers
    The Alliance pointed out an omission to the filter specification 
for rotary potentiometers that are typically used in the neck flexion 
and extension qualification tests. The potentiometers are used to 
measure the rotation of the head relative to the pendulum. The agency 
inadvertently overlooked the filter call-out in the Part 572 NPRM. We 
have revised the specification to include a 60 CFC call-out as was 
recommended by the Alliance. This call-out is consistent with SAE J211 
and that of other Part 572 ATD specifications.
ii. Sternum Displacement
    The Alliance pointed out that the CFC 180 filter specification for 
sternum displacement was not consistent with the SAE Recommended 
Practice J211, Rev. Mar 95, ``Instrumentation for Impact Tests--Part 
1--Electronic Instrumentation,'' (SAE J211). It noted that Hybrid III 
dummies specified in 49 CFR part 572 subparts N (HIII-6C) and O (HIII-
5F) call for the use of a CFC 600 filter for sternum displacement. This 
was a mistake in the Part 572 NPRM. We have revised the final rule to 
specify a CFC 600 filter for sternum displacement potentiometer 
signals.

d. Technical Data Package

    The HIII-10C as specified herein is essentially the same as that 
defined in the Part 572 NPRM. A few minor revisions to the TDP have 
come about as a result of our experiences during extensive use of 
multiple HIII-10C dummies in the post-NPRM tests of booster seats. The 
revisions were corrective in nature; they do not affect the response of 
the dummy other than to remove unwanted artifacts. These include 
changes associated with improved functionality to the shoulder, neck 
cable bushing, and chin as described earlier. In addition, several 
typographical errors and other mistakes in print were uncovered. 
Comments associated with the TDP are discussed below.
1. Changes to the Engineering Drawings and PADI
    FTSS/Denton requested a number of changes to the engineering 
drawings and PADI. These requests were echoed by the Alliance. For the 
most part, we agree with FTSS/Denton's requests and we have revised the 
TDP accordingly. The revisions are all aimed at manufacturing, 
machining, assembly, and inspection of dummy parts. They fell into four 
categories: errors, dimensioning changes, clarifications expressed in 
notes, and changes associated with the introduction of new part 
numbers.
    Errors consisted of misnumberings, typographical errors, and other 
mistakes in print.
    An example of a dimension change can be seen on the Shoulder Yoke 
Assembly, drawing 420-3430. For this part, the yoke was widened by 
0.003 inches. This minor change provides the proper clearance needed to 
account for tolerance stack up so that the arm may always be attached 
to the shoulder without force-fitting.
    An example of a clarifying revision is the added set of dimensions 
placed on sheet 3 of drawing 420-0000, Complete Assembly, HIII-10C. 
These reference dimensions indicate the location of safety belt 
plateaus on the dummy's shoulder and pelvis. They are useful when 
inspecting the dummy in accordance with the instructions provided in 
the PADI and when conducting the torso flexion qualification test. This 
additional information does not alter the dummy's design or its 
construction.
    In the TDP proposed in the Part 572 NPRM, many parts were 
identified with part numbers associated with other ATDs. In the final 
drawing package we assigned new part numbers to these parts, using the 
HIII-10C's ``420'' prefix, to identify these as HIII-10C parts. This 
was strictly a documentation change to better identify HIII-10C parts 
and did not affect the construction of the dummy in any way. However, 
it did generate many drawing revisions since many of the newly assigned 
part numbers are referenced on many HIII-10C drawings.
    None of the revisions affect the performance of the HIII-10C in 
qualification testing or in FMVSS No. 213. Therefore, they are not 
discussed exhaustively in this document. A full accounting of the 
revisions can be found in the supplementary technical report cited 
earlier, ``Revisions to the HIII-10C Technical Data Package,'' NHTSA, 
August 2011.
2. Organization of Materials
i. Searchable Text
    FTSS/Denton and the Alliance recommended that the part numbers be 
searchable in electronic PDF drawing files. The agency concurs that it 
would be an improvement for text to be searchable in the electronic PDF 
drawing files to facilitate use. Accordingly, the agency has converted 
the drawing files to an electronic format with searchable text 
capability. A searchable text is now available in the electronic 
drawing files.
ii. Order of Engineering Drawings
    FTSS/Denton and the Alliance recommended that the drawing package 
be arranged into ascending order by part number. We disagree. We 
believe that the drawing package should be left in segment order to be 
able to quickly identify parts belonging to a particular segment 
cluster. Moreover, the numbering system should be consistent with the 
PADI to facilitate inspection and service of the dummy. Given that the 
drawing package is electronically searchable, it will be an easy matter 
for users to search for drawings and order them in the manner they 
prefer. Accordingly, the HIII-10C drawing package remains ordered by 
body segment (as proposed in the Part 572 NPRM).
iii. Part Quantity Specification
    The HIII-10C parts list is arranged such that each assembly is 
listed together with its associated parts. In many instances the same 
part (such as a fastener) is used on multiple assemblies and is thus 
listed more than

[[Page 11662]]

once on the parts list. The parts list proposed in the Part 572 NPRM 
only identifies how many times a part is used on the assembly 
immediately preceding it on the list, not the entire dummy. FTSS/Denton 
and the Alliance recommend that the parts list should include a column 
giving the total quantity of that part in the dummy the first time it 
appears on the list. The agency agrees that such information would be 
useful for procurement of parts and servicing of the dummy. 
Accordingly, a column has been added in the parts list showing the 
total number of times a part appears in the dummy.
iv. Part Numbering Scheme
    A number of HIII-10C dummy parts are common with parts of other 
dummies. For example, the HIII-10C has the same head as the HIII 5th 
female, but the TDP's for each dummy have their own numbering scheme 
with different part numbers for the head. FTSS/Denton commented that it 
believes the same part numbers should be used for identical parts. This 
comment was echoed by the Alliance.
    The agency has not revised our part numbering scheme as recommended 
by FTSS/Denton. If the same part numbers were used, substantial 
documentation problems could be encountered. A revision to the design 
of a shared part may be needed for one dummy, but detrimental to the 
function of another dummy. A distinct numbering system, by cross-
referencing the shared part numbers, poses no such problems.
    The main benefits of using identical part numbers are related to 
part inventory control and sequencing of production processes. For 
dummy manufacturers like FTSS/Denton, the economics of production may 
be aided by a numbering scheme that identifies common parts so that 
batch processing of identical parts could be scheduled readily. 
However, we believe that interested parties can realize these 
advantages easily enough by developing their own internal part 
numbering scheme as they see fit. This may be cross-referenced against 
the HIII-10C TDP without resorting to a common part numbering scheme 
for Part 572.
3. Specifications for Soft Parts
    The Alliance and FTSS/Denton recommended that the agency and 
industry work together to define dimensions that are critical to 
controlling performance of the vinyl, rubber, and other deformable 
parts and to identify suitable measurement jigs and part tolerances. 
The Alliance cited the jacket of the 49 CFR part 572 subpart O Hybrid 
III 5th percentile adult female dummy as an example of unwanted 
reproducibility variations among dummy manufacturers. FTSS/Denton 
requested further that the agency work directly with them to set 
longevity specifications for the useful life of deformable parts. 
Citing customer dissatisfaction, FTSS/Denton was concerned that vinyl 
and rubber ATD components typically shrink or change shape over time.
    We do not believe it is feasible or practical for NHTSA to 
undertake the work suggested by the commenters at this time, nor is it 
necessary for the HIII-10C. The HIII-10C was developed cooperatively 
under the direction of the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family Task Force to 
limit the variability of parts. At the time, FTSS and Denton 
collaborated jointly on the design. SAE provided the general 
specifications, and the two manufacturers shared the responsibility of 
designing the hardware and producing the prototypes. The cooperation 
assured that variations in reproducibility were avoided.
    Even before the companies merged, HIII-10C parts built by FTSS and 
Denton had a good record of reproducibility and interchangeability, as 
highlighted in the Part 572 NPRM. Now that the two companies have 
merged, HIII-10C vinyl and rubber parts can be created from a common 
set of molds, thus precluding any variability in the form and fit of 
soft parts. As for longevity, the decision on when to replace worn 
HIII-10C parts should be based on conformity to part specifications and 
qualification testing.
4. Use of 3D Computer Renderings
    The Part 572 NPRM mentioned that ``three-dimensional engineering 
aids are available from the NHTSA Web site for complex dummy part 
dimensions. While these aids are not part of this specification, they 
can be used by the public for reference purposes.'' These aids take the 
form of computer-aided design (CAD) files that appear as three-
dimensional (3D) renderings of various parts. They were received by 
NHTSA from the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family Task Group in 2004 at the 
time we received the two-dimensional (2D) engineering drawings.\24\ The 
Alliance commented that it believes that the 3D renderings should be 
formally entered into Part 572 to specify the HIII-10C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Two sets of 3D renderings were received: one originating 
from FTSS and the other from Denton before the merger of the two 
companies into Humanetics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we see much merit to 3D renderings, we will not implement 
the suggestion to enter them into Part 572. We understand that all 
contemporary ATD designs originate using CAD tools which are valuable 
assets to designers and researchers. Within NHTSA, CAD files of ATDs 
have been used in our research activities to construct finite element 
models to simulate dummies in dynamic events. We have also used them to 
investigate possible ATD design modifications and to study static 
interactions with seat belts and vehicle interiors.
    However, 3D CAD renderings are not currently used for regulatory 
purposes in Part 572. As applied within our research activities, a 3D 
computer rendering is akin to an actual part. But the part alone--
without dimensions or any other information--cannot be used to specify 
itself. Part specifications communicate information on how to fabricate 
and verify the part. This is done by applying dimensions and tolerances 
to parts, along with information on material, surface finish, and other 
features required by the specification-holder. The most objective way 
to convey this information is to render the part on a standard 2D 
engineering drawing, showing multiple views of the part when necessary. 
Drawing standards have long been developed to systematically and 
unambiguously convey this information, as reflected in Part 572 
engineering drawings of ATDs. Thus, the 2D drawings ultimately serve to 
specify ATD parts.
    Neither the Alliance nor FTSS/Denton (the originator of the 3D 
renderings) has proposed a systematic and unambiguous means by which 
the 3D renderings may be used to specify ATDs. Until such a means is 
devised, we will not include them in 49 CFR part 572 to specify the 
HIII-10C. Our basis for acceptance of the dummy will continue to be 
conformance to 2D drawings, together with the qualification test 
requirements in Part 572.
    We continue to believe that 3D renderings serve as very helpful 
engineering aids as described in the NPRM and hold promise in 
specifying ATD parts. However, in the case of the 3D renderings of the 
HIII-10C received from the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family Task Group, the 
agency will not post the CAD files on our Web site. Upon further review 
of these renderings, we have found many instances where they do not 
conform to the 2D specifications shown on drawings. Since we cannot 
vouch for their accuracy, we decline to post them.

[[Page 11663]]

e. Other

    In response to some of the comments, this section clarifies or 
explains some of the statements in the preamble of the Part 572 NPRM. 
These clarifications do not affect the regulatory text or TDP 
specifying the HIII-10C for incorporation into Part 572.
1. Labeling the Dummy as a ``Ten Year Old''
    As noted earlier in this preamble, among the ATDs described in 49 
CFR part 572, the HIII-10C successfully fills the size gap between the 
existing HIII-6C and the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female dummy. 
The majority of the commenters were supportive of the use of the HIII-
10C. However, AAP noted that the height and weight of the HIII-10C do 
not correspond to an average 10-year-old child as indicated by growth 
charts published by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). AAP stated 
that, according to growth charts from 2000, the HIII-10C falls into the 
50th-75th percentile in weight, but at 130 centimeters (cm) tall, it is 
only in the 5th-10th percentile in standing height. AAP believed that 
these proportions do not represent any average human child and may 
better represent a nine-year-old child than a ten-year-old. This 
comment was echoed by Advocates. Although neither organization objected 
to the use of the dummy in the FMVSS, both apparently believe that the 
discrepancy in the proportions of the HIII-10C may confuse or mislead 
the general public on the applicability of booster seats. Thus, both 
organizations believe the agency should explain how we defined ``ten-
year-old'' as it relates to human children and the description of the 
HIII-10C.
    Agency response. The target design for the HIII-10C dummy was an 
ATD that was suitable for assessing CRSs rated for children weighing 
about 36.3 kg (80 lb). At 35.4 kg (78 lb), the HIII-10C fulfills this 
objective. As such, the design intent of the dummy was not to conform 
rigorously to the anthropometry of a child of a particular age, weight, 
or height percentile. Furthermore, the sitting height--not the standing 
height--is of primary importance when evaluating booster seats because 
the overlay of the seat belt system onto the dummy is depended on its 
seated posture. As pointed out by AAP, the sitting height of the HIII-
10C falls into the same growth chart range for sitting height as it 
does for weight.
    Nevertheless, the agency believes that the proportions of the HIII-
10C are more consistent with an average 10-year-old than indicated by 
AAP's comments. Characteristic dimensions and segment weights of the 
HIII-10C are based on the anthropometry of the average 10-year-old as 
identified by Mertz et al.,\25\ to which the dummy is shown to match 
closely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Mertz HJ, Jarrett K, Moss S, Salloum M, ZhaoY, The Hybrid 
III 10-Year-Old Dummy, Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 45, November 
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, we note that our declared standing height of 130 cm is 
only an approximation, not a direct measurement. The HIII-10C has no 
one-to-one correspondence with the heights shown on CDC growth charts. 
The CDC reference for standing height is one that is taken when 
subjects are maximally erect. Like all full ATDs in Part 572, the HIII-
10C is a sitting dummy. Since it cannot be placed in a standing 
position, its ``standing height'' cannot be measured directly. Instead, 
it is approximated by summing the lengths of its body segments. 
However, since the dummy is constructed to represent a reclined and 
supported seated posture, not an erect posture, the summed lengths 
underestimate the CDC standing height. This means that if an actual 
child with sitting dimensions equal to those of the HIII-10C stood in a 
maximally erect posture, his/her height would probably be greater than 
130 cm.
2. Best Practices for Belt Routing
    In citing a 2005 paper by Tylko and Dalmotas,\26\ the Alliance 
observed that the chest deflection of the HIII-10C in the booster seat 
was higher than it was when it was used without the booster seat. In 
the non-booster test, the belt was routed close to the neck where that 
the dummy's central sternal potentiometer was not sensitive to high 
belt loading. (This insensitivity is common to all ATDs in the Hybrid 
III family of dummies.) The Alliance has asked the agency to raise 
awareness of this issue so that the positive effects of booster seats 
are not mistakenly maligned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Tylko S, Dalmotas D (2005), ``Protection of Rear Seat 
Occupants in Frontal Crashes,'' Proceedings of the 19th 
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 05-258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency response. As a point of clarification, we note that an 
injury criterion based on chest deflection is not included in FMVSS No. 
213. Further, we also note that the authors of the study make the point 
that limiting the analysis to chest responses could lead to false 
conclusions, and that multiple injury metrics should be used, not just 
chest deflection.
    The agency agrees that low chest deflections alone are not always a 
good indicator of a safe condition. Low deflections often accompany 
cases of submarining and high knee excursion. Low chest deflections can 
also occur when the belt migrates laterally off the shoulder so that 
the thorax is not held back and head excursion is exceedingly high. 
This exemplifies why multiple injury metrics are usually needed to 
evaluate a safety system. For FMVSS No. 213, we assess booster seats by 
evaluating the HIII-10C's chest acceleration, head excursion, and knee 
excursion concurrently. The agency does not believe that either FMVSS 
No. 213 or the HIII-10C promotes a poor booster seat design in which 
the shoulder belt is routed close to the neck. As discussed in this 
rulemaking, we have found that the HIII-10C dummy adequately 
distinguishes good vs. bad belt routing in the CRS test environment.
3. Abdominal Injury Correlates
    The August 31, 2005 NPRM on FMVSS No. 213 discussed NHTSA's work 
developing abdominal injury criteria for the HIII-10C, including our 
work on the ``abdominal injury ratio'' (AIR), which uses impulse 
calculations from the iliac compressive and lumbar shear forces to 
identify dummy kinematics associated with submarining. A high AIR value 
occurs with diminished iliac loads in the presence of high lumbar shear 
loads. This indicates that the belt may have slipped off the iliac and 
the dummy may have submarined. Thus, greater AIR values correlate 
indirectly to abdominal injuries.
    In comments to the Part 572 NPRM, Advocates requested that the 
agency implement AIR until such time as an alternative abdominal injury 
measure has been established.
    Agency response. AIR was not proposed in the FMVSS No. 213 NPRM or 
SNPRMs due to limited data and is not included in the final rule. We 
note that AIR is empirical; it is not founded upon the biomechanics of 
injury. (I.e., reduced iliac loads do not cause abdominal injuries. 
They only identify instances where a belt may have slipped into the 
abdomen of the dummy, which may or may not lead to injury.) If the AIR 
criterion were to be imposed, CRS manufacturers could maximize iliac 
loads to achieve a good AIR score. We have concerns about criteria that 
encourage high loads of any sort, as this could potentially increase 
injury risk in another body region or produce some other unexpected 
consequence.
    For immediate use now, the agency has adopted the use of a 
correlate to abdominal injuries, i.e., knee excursion. The final rule 
for FMVSS No. 213 imposes limits on knee excursion and

[[Page 11664]]

head excursion for the HIII-10C. The limit on knee excursion prevents 
restraint manufacturers from controlling head excursion by designing 
their restraints so that children submarine excessively during a crash. 
The agency has observed a strong correlation between knee excursion and 
submarining in the child dummies.\27\ Ultimately, a direct 
biomechanically-based measure of abdominal deformation provides the 
best means to assess abdominal injuries. Our research plan for the 
HIII-10C includes developing a pelvis and abdominal modification that 
will provide such a measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Klinich, K., Reed, M., Orton, N., Manary, M., Rupp, J., 
``Optimizing Protection for Rear Seat Occupants: Assessing Booster 
Performance with Realistic Belt Geometry Using the Hybrid III 6YO 
ATD,'' UMTRI Report, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, March 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Repeatability in Systems Testing
    In the Part 572 NPRM, the agency reported on a series of 
repeatability tests using a dynamic sled. The tests were carried out 
using a specialized booster seat designed for repeated use. Dorel 
commented that they cannot follow this protocol when certifying its own 
seats. Dorel also commented that our repeatability tests seemed to 
assure a best-case outcome in terms of dummy injury metrics.
    Agency response. Dorel may have misconstrued our reporting of these 
tests as a mandate for additional procedures necessary to qualify the 
HIII-10C and certify booster seats. This was not our intent. The series 
of tests were not directly applicable to compliance testing of booster 
seats. The purpose of the sled tests was to evaluate the repeatability 
and durability of the HIII-10C dummy kinematics in a pulse approaching 
FMVSS No. 213 severity. The tests were not to create a best-case 
scenario for injury reference values. We chose to use a rigid bench 
seat in conjunction with a limited number of CRS models to minimize the 
effects of set-up related variables which otherwise could interfere 
with the assessment of the dummy's own true consistency.

f. Dummy Development Efforts

1. Hybrid III Child Dummy Revisions--Abdomen and Pelvis
    Citing the significance of abdominal injuries in children and the 
lack of instrumentation in the HIII-10C, both CHOP and Advocates urged 
the agency to redouble our efforts to come up with an appropriate means 
to assess abdominal injuries with the dummy. Dorel, AAP, and UMTRI also 
commented on importance of assessing abdominal injuries.
    Since the NPRMs of 2005, NHTSA has been actively involved in two 
principal research efforts aimed at improving abdominal injury 
assessment in Hybrid III child ATDs. The two efforts focus on the 
development of a biofidelic, instrumented abdomen along with an 
appropriately proportioned pelvis.
    One effort involves a concept for a fluid-filled abdomen that was 
reported in 2001.\28\ Since then, it has been developed into a silicone 
shell filled with silicone gel with instrumentation to measure 
deformation. The shell takes the form of an insert that fills the 
abdominal cavity of the HIII-6C. The abdominal insert has proven to be 
reasonably biofidelic when compared with the response of an age-matched 
animal surrogate.\29\ The other effort involves the modification of a 
standard HIII-6C pelvis to more closely reflect child anthropometry 
based on data collected by UMTRI on child participants.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Rouhana et al. (2001), ``Development of a Reusable, Rate-
sensitive Abdomen for the Hybrid III Family of Dummies,'' Stapp Car 
Crash Journal, V45.
    \29\ Kent R, Stacey S, Kindig M, Forman J, Woods W (2006), 
``Biomechanical Response of the Pediatric Abdomen, Part 1: 
Development of an Experimental Model and Quantification of 
Structural Response to Dynamic Belt Loading,'' Stapp Car Crash 
Journal, V50, 2006-22-0001.
    \30\ Klinich, K et al. (2010), ``Development and Testing of a 
More Realistic Pelvis for the Hybrid III 6-Year-Old ATD,'' Traffic 
Injury Prevention, 11:606-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has also begun work with an SAE working group devoted to 
integrating abdomen and pelvis technology into the HIII-6C (the SAE 
dummy abdomen pelvis round robin (DAPRR) working group (August 2008)). 
In DAPRR, NHTSA is facilitating the development of prototype pelves 
using UMTRI design criteria \31\ to develop a biofidelic retrofit 
package suitable for assessing pediatric abdominal injuries. Round-
robin testing of the prototypes is planned for 2012. The HIII-6C is the 
primary target of the developing modifications given the greater use 
rates of six-year-olds vs. ten-year-olds in child restraint systems 
regulated by FMVSS No. 213. The new pelvis and abdomen designs could 
possibly be transitioned to the ten-year-old size through dimensional 
scaling and considerations for biomechanical response differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Reed MP, Sochor MM, Rupp JD, Klinich KD, Manary MA (2009), 
``Anthropometric Specification of Child Crash Dummy Pelves through 
Statistical Analysis of Skeletal Geometry,'' Journal of 
Biomechanics, V42: 1143-1145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Pediatric Research
    CHOP, AAP, and Advocates have asked the agency to intensify our 
research efforts in child biomechanics in general. Many noted that 
current pediatric crash test dummies have been developed based on 
biofidelity requirements that were scaled from adult response data.
    Since the NPRMs of 2005, the agency has been engaged in several 
activities aimed at new child specific biofidelity requirements for use 
in the development of new frontal impact child dummies. These are 
summarized below and discussed more fully in NHTSA's Biomechanics 
Research Plan, 2011-2015.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ NHTSA's Biomechanics Research Plan, 2011-2015, Report No. 
DOT HS 811 474, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington DC, 
June 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Child anthropometry. In order to properly assess a child's 
interaction with a booster seat and belt system, we are building a 
child anthropometry database by collecting whole-body laser scans of 3-
, 6- and 10-year-old age ranges in automotive seating positions.
    Biomechanical response. We have several projects focused on getting 
response data that is unique to the pediatric human and not scaled from 
adult data. For example, to better understand the deformation 
characteristics of a pediatric thorax, we are collecting force versus 
deflection data during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of pediatric 
hospital patients. Additionally, we are collecting data from sled tests 
of pediatric age-matched surrogates that are being used to quantify 
thoracic response and spinal kinematics.
    Biomechanics of injury. We are studying the relationship between 
local brain tissue strain and axonal injury in a prepubescent human. 
This has potential to be used for the basis of new brain injury 
criteria for children.
    Child dummy development. The agency has begun assessing current 
child ATDs (including those in the Hybrid III family as well as the Q-
series) against new pediatric response data. Our first consideration is 
the need for developing an all-new 6-year-old ATD versus enhancement of 
the existing HIII-6C. Thereafter, we will consider the need for an 
advanced 10-year-old ATD.
3. Status of HIC
    Advocates have asked the agency to work expeditiously to reinstate 
a head injury criterion for the HIII-10C.
    The agency is committed to resolving the problem that led to our 
decision to omit HIC as a criterion in FMVSS No.

[[Page 11665]]

213 when testing with the HIII-10C. The problem, explained earlier, 
stems from ATD whole-body motions that induce a hard chin-to-chest 
contact, not HIC itself. We are working to improve the ATD's chin and 
sternum designs to mitigate this effect. As described under the heading 
of child biomechanics within the NHTSA Biomechanics Research Plan,\33\ 
we are also working to attain a better understanding of pediatric body 
motions in order to engineer a biofidelic head response into an ATD. 
This includes efforts to characterize the flexibility of an adolescent 
thoracic spine and its effect on head excursion and upper neck loads. 
Furthermore, research is underway to better understand the interaction 
between the shoulder belt and clavicle and its effect on head motion. 
We are also examining the extent to which chin-to-chest contacts 
actually occur to children in booster seats in order to model the 
interaction correctly with a child ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NHTSA's Biomechanics Research Plan, 2011-2015, Report No. 
DOT HS 811 474, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington DC, 
June 2011, pp. 6-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures

    This rulemaking action has considered the impact of this regulatory 
action under E.O. 12866 and E.O.13563 and the Department of 
Transportation's (DOT) regulatory policies and procedures. This 
rulemaking action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under E.O. 12866. The rulemaking has also been determined not to 
be significant under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 
11034, February 26, 1979).
    There are benefits associated with this rulemaking but they cannot 
be quantified. The incorporation of the test dummy into 49 CFR part 572 
will permit NHTSA to use the ATD in FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing of 
CRSs for children weighing over 65 lb. In addition, the availability of 
this dummy in a regulated format will benefit safety by providing a 
more suitable, stabilized, and objective test tool to the safety 
community for use in research and development of child passenger safety 
products.
    Based on our dummy purchase contract with FTSS/Denton, the 
estimated cost of an uninstrumented HIII-10C dummy is approximately 
$35,000. Instruments necessary to qualify the dummy in accordance with 
Part 572 include 3 accelerometers for the head (about $500 apiece) and 
an upper neck load cell (about $10,000). The central sternal 
potentiometer, needed for the thorax qualification procedure, is 
included in the base cost of the dummy. For compliance testing, only 
three accelerometers are needed; they are located at the CG of the 
thorax rather than the head. All sensors required in compliance and 
certification procedures are common with other 49 CFR part 572 dummies, 
so the cost of those instruments may be defrayed to some extent for 
those who already own them. If the dummy is outfitted with all 
instrumentation up to its full capability, the total instrumentation 
cost is about $65,000 in addition to the cost of the dummy.
    This document amends 49 CFR part 572 by adding design and 
performance specifications for a test dummy representative of a ten-
year-old child that the agency will use in compliance tests of the 
Federal child restraint system safety standard, and may use for 
research purposes. This Part 572 rule does not impose any requirements 
on anyone. Businesses are affected only if they choose to manufacture 
or test with the dummy. Because the economic impacts of this final rule 
are minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed 
or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a 
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule 
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business 
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small 
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily 
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rulemaking 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the 
addition of the test dummy to Part 572 does not impose any requirements 
on anyone. NHTSA will not require anyone to manufacture the dummy or to 
test motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment with it.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13045 and 12132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is 
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.
    NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the final rule does not have federalism implications because the rule 
does not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' This rule will not impose any requirements on anyone. 
Businesses will be affected only if they choose to manufacture or test 
with the dummy.
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect 
of this final rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive effect 
in two ways. This final rule amends 49 CFR part 572 and is not a safety 
standard.\34\ This Part

[[Page 11666]]

572 final rule does not impose any requirements on anyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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 a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict 
exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State 
requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 
529 U.S. 861 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Justice Reform

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows.
    The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that 
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other 
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). This rule will not have any requirements 
that are considered to be information collection requirements as 
defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The test dummy and qualification requirements are based on the work 
of the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family Task Group (DFTG). Differences 
between the DFTG recommendations and this final rule are minor and are 
based on additional research performed by the agency and on comments to 
the NPRM.
    The following voluntary consensus standards have been used in 
developing the HIII-10C dummy:
     SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar 95, 
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic 
Instrumentation''; and,
     SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash 
Testing.''

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 
Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule 
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 
generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable 
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most 
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule.
    This final rule does not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
UMRA. This rule does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate 
because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49 CFR 
part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for a 10-year-
old test dummy that the agency will use in FMVSS No. 213 and for 
research purposes. This final rule affects only those businesses that 
choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. It would not result in 
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to 
understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please send them to 
NHTSA.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Petitions for Reconsideration of This Rule

    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search 
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets 
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the 
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as 
follows:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

0
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.

[[Page 11667]]

0
2. 49 CFR Part 572 is amended by adding a new Subpart T consisting of 
572.170--572.177 to read as follows:

Subpart T--Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C)

Sec.
572.170 Incorporation by reference.
572.171 General description.
572.172 Head assembly and test procedure.
572.173 Neck assembly and test procedure.
572.174 Thorax assembly and test procedure.
572.175 Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test 
procedure.
572.176 Knees and knee impact test procedure.
572.177 Test conditions and instrumentation.
Appendix--Figures to Subpart T of Part 572

Sec.  572.170  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this 
part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that 
specified in this section, NHTSA must publish notice of change in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved material is available for inspection at the Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, telephone 202-366-
9826, and is available from the sources listed below. The material is 
available in electronic format through Regulations.gov, call 1-877-378-
5457 or go to www.regulations.gov. It is also available for inspection 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (b) NHTSA Technical Information Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-5965.
    (1) A parts/drawing list entitled, ``Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 
Subpart T, Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C), August 
2011,'' IBR approved for Sec.  572.171.
    (2) A drawings and inspection package entitled, ``Parts List and 
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart T, Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy 
(HIII-10C), August 2011,'' IBR approved for Sec.  572.171, including:
    (i) Drawing No. 420-0000, Complete Assembly HIII 10-year-old, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  572.171, 572.172, 572.173, 572.174, 572.176, 
and 572.177.
    (ii) Drawing No. 420-1000, Head Assembly, IBR approved for Sec.  
572.171, Sec.  572.172, Sec.  572.173, and Sec.  572.177.
    (iii) Drawing No. 420-2000, Neck Assembly, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  572.171, 572.173, and 572.177.
    (iv) Drawing No. 420-3000, Upper Torso Assembly, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  572.171, 572.174, 572.175, and 572.177.
    (v) Drawing No. 420-4000, Lower Torso Assembly, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  572.171, 572.174, 572.175, and 572.177.
    (vi) Drawing No. 420-5000-1, Complete Leg Assembly--left, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  572.171, 572.176, and 572.177.
    (vii) Drawing No. 420-5000-2, Complete Leg Assembly--right, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  572.171, 572.176, and 572.177.
    (viii) Drawing No. 420-7000-1, Complete Arm Assembly--left, IBR 
approved for Sec.  572.171, and,
    (ix) Drawing No. 420-7000-2, Complete Arm Assembly--right, IBR 
approved for Sec.  572.171.
    (3) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child 
Test Dummy (HIII-10C), August 2011''; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
572.171 and 572.177.
    (c) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 
15096, call 1-877-606-7323.
    (1) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, Rev. Mar 95, ``Instrumentation 
for Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation,'' IBR approved 
for Sec.  572.177.
    (2) SAE Information Report J1733 of 1994-12, ``Sign Convention for 
Vehicle Crash Testing,'' December 1994, IBR approved for Sec.  572.177.

Sec.  572.171  General description.

    (a) The Hybrid III 10-year-old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C) is 
defined by drawings and specifications containing the following 
materials:
    (1) The parts enlisted in ``Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart T, 
Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C), August 2011'' 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170),
    (2) The engineering drawings and specifications contained in 
``Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart T, Hybrid III 10-Year-Old 
Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C), August 2011,'' which includes the 
engineering drawings and specifications described in Drawing 420-0000, 
the titles of the assemblies of which are listed in Table A, and,
    (3) A manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and 
Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-
10C), August 2011.''

                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Component assembly                       Drawing No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (i) Head Assembly..................................            420-1000
 (ii) Neck Assembly.................................            420-2000
 (iii) Upper Torso Assembly.........................            420-3000
 (iv) Lower Torso Assembly..........................            420-4000
 (v) Complete Leg Assembly--left....................          420-5000-1
 (vi) Complete Leg Assembly--right..................          420-5000-2
 (vii) Complete Arm Assembly--left..................          420-7000-1
 (viii) Complete Arm Assembly--right................          420-7000-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy 
conforms to this Subpart in every respect before use in any test.

Sec.  572.172  Head assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The head assembly for this test consists of the complete head 
(drawing 420-1000), a six-axis neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11, 
included in drawing 420-0000), or its structural replacement (drawing 
420-383X), and 3 accelerometers (drawing SA572-S4, included in drawing 
420-0000) (all incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (b) When the head assembly is dropped from a height of 376.0  1.0 mm (14.8  0.04 in) in accordance with paragraph 
(c) of this section, the peak

[[Page 11668]]

resultant acceleration at the location of the accelerometers at the 
head CG may not be less than 250 G or more than 300 G. The resultant 
acceleration vs. time history curve shall be unimodal; oscillations 
occurring after the main pulse must be less than 10 percent of the peak 
resultant acceleration. The lateral acceleration shall not exceed 15 G 
(zero to peak).
    (c) Head test procedure. The test procedure for the head is as 
follows:
    (1) Soak the head assembly in a controlled environment at any 
temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 [deg]C (66 and 78 [deg]F) and a 
relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior 
to a test.
    (2) Prior to the test, clean the impact surface of the skin and the 
impact plate surface with isopropyl alcohol, trichloroethane, or an 
equivalent. The skin of the head must be clean and dry for testing.
    (3) Suspend and orient the head assembly as shown in Figure T1. The 
lowest point on the forehead must be 376.0  1.0 mm (14.8 
 0.04 in) from the impact surface. The 1.57 mm (0.062 in) 
diameter holes located on either side of the dummy's head shall be used 
to ensure that the head is level with respect to the impact surface.
    (4) Drop the head assembly from the specified height by means that 
ensure a smooth, instant release onto a rigidly supported flat 
horizontal steel plate which is 50.8 mm (2 in) thick and 610 mm (24 in) 
square. The impact surface shall be clean, dry and have a micro finish 
of not less than 203.2 x 10-\6\ mm (8 micro inches) (RMS) 
and not more than 2032.0 x 10-\6\ mm (80 micro inches) 
(RMS).
    (5) Allow at least 2 hours between successive tests on the same 
head.

Sec.  572.173  Neck assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The neck assembly for the purposes of this test consists of the 
assembly of components shown in drawing 420-2000 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (b) When the head-neck assembly consisting of the head (drawing 
420-1000), neck (drawing 420-2000), six-channel neck transducer (SA572-
S11, included in drawing 420-0000), lower neck bracket assembly 
(drawing 420-2070), and either three uniaxial accelerometers (drawing 
SA572-S4, included in drawing 420-0000) or their mass equivalent 
installed in the head assembly as specified in drawing 420-1000 (all 
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170), is tested according to 
the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, it shall have the 
following characteristics:
    (1) Flexion. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure T2, shall rotate in 
the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline between 76 degrees and 90 degrees. During the 
time interval while the rotation is within the specified corridor, the 
peak moment, measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11, 
included in drawing 420-0000) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
572.170), about the occipital condyles may not be less than 50 N-m 
(36.9 ft-lbf) and not more than 62 N-m (45.7 ft-lbf). The positive 
moment shall decay for the first time to 10 N-m (7.4 ft-lbf) between 86 
ms and 105 ms after time zero.
    (ii) The moment shall be calculated by the following formula: 
Moment (N-m) = My - (0.01778) x (Fx).
    (iii) My is the moment about the y-axis in Newton-
meters, Fx is the shear force measured by the neck 
transducer (drawing SA572-S11) in Newtons, and 0.01778 is the distance 
in meters from the load center of the neck transducer to the occipital 
condyle.
    (2) Extension. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure T3, shall rotate 
in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline between 96 degrees and 115 degrees. During the 
time interval while the rotation is within the specified corridor, the 
peak moment, measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11, 
included in drawing 420-0000) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
572.170), about the occipital condyles may not be more than -37 N-m (-
27.3 ft-lbf) and not less than -46 N-m (-33.9 ft-lbf). The positive 
moment shall decay for the first time to -10 N-m (-7.4 ft-lbf) between 
100 ms and 116 ms after time zero.
    (ii) The moment shall be calculated by the following formula: 
Moment (N-m) = My - (0.01778) x (Fx).
    (iii) My is the moment about the y-axis in Newton-
meters, Fx is the shear force measured by the neck 
transducer (drawing SA572-S11, included in drawing 420-0000) 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170) in Newtons, and 0.01778 
is the distance in meters from the load center of the neck transducer 
to the occipital condyle.
    (3) Time zero is defined as the time of initial contact between the 
pendulum striker plate and the honeycomb material. All data channels 
shall be at the zero level at this time.
    (c) Test procedure. The test procedure for the neck assembly is as 
follows:
    (1) Soak the neck assembly in a controlled environment at any 
temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 [deg]C (69 and 72 [deg]F) and a 
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours 
prior to a test.
    (2) Torque the hex nut (drawing 420-2000, part 9000130) on the neck 
cable (drawing 420-2060) (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
572.170) to 0.9  0.2 N-m (8  2 in-lbf) before 
each test on the same neck.
    (3) Mount the head-neck assembly, defined in paragraph (b) of this 
section, on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR part 572 so 
that the leading edge of the lower neck bracket coincides with the 
leading edge of the pendulum as shown in Figure T2 for flexion tests 
and Figure T3 for extension tests.
    (4)(i) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely from a 
height to achieve an impact velocity of 6.1  0.12 m/s (20.0 
 0.4 ft/s) for flexion tests and 5.03  0.12 m/s 
(16.50  0.40 ft/s) for extension tests, measured by an 
accelerometer mounted on the pendulum as shown in Figure T2 at the 
instant of contact with the honeycomb.
    (ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an 
acceleration vs. time pulse that meets the velocity change as specified 
below. Integrate the pendulum acceleration data channel to obtain the 
velocity vs. time curve:

                                             Table B--Pendulum Pulse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Flexion                        Extension
                    Time (ms)                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        M/s            ft/s             m/s            ft/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................................       1.64-2.04       5.38-6.69       1.49-1.89       4.89-6.20
20..............................................       3.04-4.04      9.97-13.25       2.88-3.68      9.45-12.07
30..............................................       4.45-5.65     14.60-18.53       4.20-5.20     13.78-17.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11669]]

Sec.  572.174  Thorax assembly and test procedure.

    (a) The thorax consists of the part of the torso assembly 
designated as the upper torso (drawing 420-3000) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (b) When the anterior surface of the thorax of a completely 
assembled dummy (drawing 420-0000) (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  572.170) is impacted by a test probe conforming to section 
572.177 at 6.00  0.12 m/s (22.0  0.4 ft/s) 
according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section:
    (1) Maximum sternum displacement (compression) relative to the 
spine, measured with chest deflection transducer (drawing SA572-T4, 
included in drawing 420-0000) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
572.170), must be not less than 37 mm (1.46 in) and not more than 46 mm 
(1.81 in). Within this specified compression corridor, the peak force, 
measured by the impact probe as defined in section 572.177 and 
calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, shall 
not be less than 2.0 kN (450 lbf) and not more than 2.45 kN (551 lbf). 
The peak force after 20 mm (0.79 in.) of sternum displacement but 
before reaching the minimum required 37 mm (1.46 in.) sternum 
displacement limit shall not exceed 2.52 kN (567 lbf).
    (2) The internal hysteresis of the ribcage in each impact as 
determined by the plot of force vs. deflection in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section shall be not less than 69 percent but not more than 85 
percent. The hysteresis shall be calculated by determining the ratio of 
the area between the loading (from time zero to maximum deflection) and 
unloading portions (from maximum deflection to zero force) of the force 
deflection curve to the area under the loading portion of the curve.
    (3) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor 
mass and its measured deceleration.
    (c) Test Procedure. The test procedure for the thorax assembly is 
as follows:
    (1) The dummy is clothed in a form fitting cotton stretch above-
the-elbow sleeved shirt and above-the-knees pants. The weight of the 
shirt and pants shall not exceed 0.14 kg (0.30 lb) each.
    (2) Torque the lumbar cable (drawing 420-4130) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  572.170) to 0.9  0.2 N-m (8  2 in-lbf) and set the lumbar adjustment angle to 12 degrees. Set 
the neck angle to 16 degrees.
    (3) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature 
between 20.6 and 22.2 [deg]C (69 and 72 [deg]F) and a relative humidity 
between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
    (4) Seat and orient the dummy on a seating surface without back 
support as shown in Figure T4, with the limbs extended horizontally and 
forward, parallel to the midsagittal plane, the midsagittal plane 
vertical within  1 degree and the ribs level in the 
anterior-posterior and lateral directions within  0.5 
degrees.
    (5) Establish the impact point at the chest midsagittal plane so 
that the impact point of the longitudinal centerline of the probe 
coincides with the midsagittal plane of the dummy within  
2.5 mm (0.1 in) and is 12.7  1.1 mm (0.5  0.04 
in) below the horizontal-peripheral centerline of the No. 3 rib and is 
within 0.5 degrees of a horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal 
plane.
    (6) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that at the moment of 
contact the probe's longitudinal centerline falls within 2 degrees of a 
horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal plane.
    (7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no 
significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement.
    (8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other 
attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make 
contact with the dummy during the test.

Sec.  572.175  Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test 
procedure.

    (a) The test objective is to determine the stiffness of the molded 
lumbar assembly (drawing 420-4100), abdominal insert (drawing 420-
4300), and chest flesh assembly (drawing 420-3560) on resistance to 
articulation between the upper torso assembly (drawing 420-3000) and 
lower torso assembly (drawing 420-4000) (all incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  572.170).
    (b) When the upper torso assembly of a seated dummy is subjected to 
a force continuously applied at the head to neck pivot pin level 
through a rigidly attached adaptor bracket as shown in Figure T5 
according to the test procedure set out in paragraph (c) of this 
section:
    (1) The lumbar spine-abdomen-chest flesh assembly shall flex by an 
amount that permits the upper torso assembly to translate in angular 
motion relative to the vertical transverse plane 35  0.5 
degrees at which time the force applied must be not less than 180 N 
(40.5 lbf) and not more than 250 N (56.2 lbf).
    (2) Upon removal of the force, the torso assembly must return to 
within 8 degrees of its initial position.
    (c) Test Procedure. The test procedure for the upper/lower torso 
assembly is as follows:
    (1) Torque the lumbar cable (drawing 420-4130) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  572.170) to 0.9  0.2 N-m (8  2 in-lbf) and set the lumbar adjustment angle to 12 degrees. Set 
the neck angle to 16 degrees.
    (2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature 
between 20.6 and 22.2 [deg]C (69 and 72 [deg]F) and a relative humidity 
between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
    (3) Assemble the complete dummy (with or without the legs below the 
femurs) and attach to the fixture in a seated posture as shown in 
Figure T5.
    (4) Secure the pelvis to the fixture at the pelvis instrument 
cavity rear face by threading four \1/4\-inch cap screws into the 
available threaded attachment holes. Tighten the mountings so that the 
test material is rigidly affixed to the test fixture and the pelvic-
lumbar joining surface is 18 degrees from horizontal and the legs are 
parallel with the test fixture.
    (5) Attach the loading adaptor bracket to the spine of the dummy as 
shown in Figure T5.
    (6) Inspect and adjust, if necessary, the seating of the abdominal 
insert within the pelvis cavity and with respect to the chest flesh, 
assuring that the chest flesh provides uniform fit and overlap with 
respect to the outside surface of the pelvis flesh.
    (7) Flex the dummy's upper torso three times between the vertical 
and until the torso reference frame, as shown in Figure T5, reaches 30 
degrees from the vertical transverse plane. Bring the torso to vertical 
orientation and wait for 30 minutes before conducting the test. During 
the 30-minute waiting period, the dummy's upper torso shall be 
externally supported at or near its vertical orientation to prevent it 
from drooping.
    (8) Remove all external support and wait two minutes. Measure the 
initial orientation angle of the torso reference plane of the seated, 
unsupported dummy as shown in Figure T5. The initial orientation angle 
may not exceed 20 degrees.
    (9) Attach the pull cable and the load cell as shown in Figure T5.
    (10) Apply a tension force in the midsagittal plane to the pull 
cable as shown in Figure T5 at any upper torso deflection rate between 
0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second, until the angle reference plane is at 
35  0.5 degrees of flexion relative to the vertical 
transverse plane.

[[Page 11670]]

    (11) Continue to apply a force sufficient to maintain 35  0.5 degrees of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the highest 
applied force during the 10-second period.
    (12) Release all force at the attachment bracket as rapidly as 
possible, and measure the return angle with respect to the initial 
angle reference plane as defined in paragraph (c)(7) of this section 
three minutes after the release.

Sec.  572.176  Knees and knee impact test procedure.

    (a) The knee assembly for the purpose of this test is the part of 
the leg assembly shown in drawing 420-5000 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  572.170).
    (b) When the knee assembly, consisting of lower upper leg assembly 
(420-5200), femur load transducer (SA572-S10, included in drawing 420-
0000) or its structural replacement (420-5121), lower leg assembly 
(420-5300), ankle assembly (420-5400), and foot molded assembly (420-
5500) (all incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170) is tested 
according to the test procedure in subsection (c) of this section:
    (1) The peak resistance force as measured with the test probe-
mounted accelerometer must not be less than 2.6 kN (585 lbf) and not 
more than 3.2 kN (719 lbf).
    (2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor 
mass and its deceleration.
    (c) Test Procedure. The test procedure for the knee assembly is as 
follows:
    (1) Soak the knee assembly in a controlled environment at any 
temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 [deg]C (69 and 72 [deg]F) and a 
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours 
prior to a test.
    (2) Mount the test material and secure it to a rigid test fixture 
as shown in Figure T6. No part of the foot or tibia may contact any 
exterior surface.
    (3) Align the test probe so that throughout its stroke and at 
contact with the knee it is within 2 degrees of horizontal and 
collinear with the longitudinal centerline of the femur.
    (4) Guide the pendulum so that there is no significant lateral, 
vertical, or rotational movement at the time of initial contact between 
the impactor and the knee.
    (5) The test probe velocity at the time of contact shall be 2.1 
 0.03 m/s (6.9  0.1 ft/s).
    (6) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other 
attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make 
contact with the dummy during the test.

Sec.  572.177  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    (a) The following test equipment and instrumentation is needed for 
qualification as set forth in this subpart:
    (1) The test probe for thoracic impacts is of rigid metallic 
construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal 
axis. It has a mass of 6.89  0.012 kg (15.2  
0.05 lb) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 2040 kg-cm\2\ (1.81 
lbf-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG. One-third (\1/3\) of the 
weight of the suspension cables and their attachments to the impact 
probe is included in the calculation of mass, and such components may 
not exceed five percent of the total weight of the test probe. The 
impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and concentric with the 
longitudinal axis, is at least 25.4 mm (1.0 in) long, and has a flat, 
continuous, and non-deformable 121  0.25 mm (4.76  0.01 in) diameter face with a maximum edge radius of 12.7 mm 
(0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to the impact face has provisions 
for mounting of an accelerometer with its sensitive axis collinear with 
the longitudinal axis of the probe. No concentric portions of the 
impact probe may exceed the diameter of the impact face. The impact 
probe has a free air resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz, which 
may be determined using the procedure listed in the PADI (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (2) The test probe for knee impacts is of rigid metallic 
construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal 
axis. It has a mass of 1.91  0.01 kg (4.21  
0.02 lb) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 140 kg-cm\2\ (0.124 
lbf-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG. One third (\1/3\) of the 
weight of the suspension cables and their attachments to the impact 
probe may be included in the calculation of mass, and such components 
may not exceed five percent of the total weight of the test probe. The 
impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and concentric with the 
longitudinal axis, is at least 12.5 mm (0.5 in) long, and has a flat, 
continuous, and non-deformable 76.2  0.2 mm (3.00  0.01 in) diameter face with a maximum edge radius of 12.7 mm 
(0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to the impact face has provisions 
for mounting an accelerometer with its sensitive axis collinear with 
the longitudinal axis of the probe. No concentric portions of the 
impact probe may exceed the diameter of the impact face. The impact 
probe has a free air resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz, which 
may be determined using the procedure listed in the PADI (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (3) Head accelerometers have dimensions, response characteristics, 
and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA572-S4 (included in 
drawing 420-0000) and are mounted in the head as shown in drawing 420-
0000 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170), sheet 2 of 6.
    (4) The upper neck force and moment transducer has the dimensions, 
response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in 
drawing SA572-S11 (included in drawing 420-0000) and is mounted in the 
head-neck assembly as shown in drawing 420-0000 (both incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  572.170), sheet 2 of 6.
    (5) The chest deflection transducer has the dimensions and response 
characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S50 (included in drawing 
420-0000) and is mounted to the upper torso assembly as shown in 
drawing 420-0000 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170), 
sheet 2 of 6.
    (b) The following instrumentation may be required for installation 
in the dummy for compliance testing. If so, it is installed during 
qualification procedures as described in this subpart:
    (1) The thorax CG accelerometers have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S4 (included in drawing 420-0000) (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  572.170) and are mounted in the torso assembly in a triaxial 
configuration within the spine box instrumentation cavity.
    (2) The lower neck force and moment transducer has the dimensions, 
response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in 
drawing SA572-S40 (included in drawing 420-0000) and is mounted to the 
neck assembly by replacing the lower neck mounting bracket 420-2070 as 
shown in drawing 420-2000 (all incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
572.170).
    (3) The clavicle force transducers have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S41 (included in drawing 420-0000) and are mounted in the 
shoulder assembly as shown in drawing 420-3800 (both incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (4) The IR-Tracc chest deflection transducers have the dimensions 
and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S43 (included 
in drawing 420-0000) and are mounted to

[[Page 11671]]

the spine box assembly as shown in drawing 420-8000 (both incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (5) The spine and sternum accelerometers have the dimensions, 
response characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in 
drawing SA572-S4 (included in drawing 420-0000) and are mounted in the 
torso assembly in uniaxial fore-and-aft oriented configuration arranged 
as corresponding pairs in two locations each on the sternum and at the 
spine box of the upper torso assembly as shown in drawing 420-0000 
(both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170), sheet 2 of 6.
    (6) The lumbar spine force-moment transducer has the dimensions, 
response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in 
drawing SA572-S12 (included in drawing 420-0000) and is mounted in the 
lower torso assembly as shown in drawing 420-4000 (both incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (7) The iliac force transducers have the dimensions and response 
characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S13 L and R (included in 
drawing 420-0000) and are mounted in the lower torso assembly as shown 
in drawing 420-4000 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
572.170).
    (8) The pelvis accelerometers have the dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S4 (included in drawing 420-0000) and are mounted in the torso 
assembly in triaxial configuration in the pelvis bone as shown in 
drawing 420-0000 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170), 
sheet 2 of 6.
    (9) The femur force and moment transducers (SA572-S10, included in 
drawing 420-0000) have the dimensions, response characteristics, and 
sensitive axis locations specified in the appropriate drawing and are 
mounted in the upper leg assembly, replacing the femur load cell 
simulator (drawing 420-5121) as shown in drawing 420-5100 (all 
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170).
    (10) The tilt sensors have the dimensions and response 
characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S42 (included in drawing 
420-0000) and are mounted to the head, thorax, and pelvis assemblies as 
shown in drawing 420-0000 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
572.170), sheet 2 of 6.
    (c) The outputs of transducers installed in the dummy and in the 
test equipment specified by this part are to be recorded in individual 
data channels that conform to SAE Recommended Practice J211 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170) except as noted, with 
channel frequency classes as follows:
    (1) Pendulum acceleration, CFC 180,
    (2) Pendulum D-plane rotation (if transducer is used), CFC 60,
    (3) Torso flexion pulling force (if transducer is used), CFC 60,
    (4) Head acceleration, CFC 1000,
    (5) Neck forces, upper and lower, CFC 1000,
    (6) Neck moments, upper and lower, CFC 600,
    (7) Thorax CG acceleration, CFC 180,
    (8) Sternum deflection, Class 600,
    (9) Sternum and rib accelerations, Class 1000,
    (10) Spine accelerations, CFC 180,
    (11) Lumbar forces, CFC 1000,
    (12) Lumbar moments, CFC 600,
    (13) Shoulder forces, CFC 180,
    (14) Pelvis accelerations, CFC 1000,
    (15) Iliac forces, CFC 180,
    (16) Femur and tibia forces, CFC 600,
    (17) Femur and tibia moments, CFC 600.
    (d) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity are to conform to 
SAE Information Report J1733 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
572.170).
    (e) The mountings for sensing devices have no resonant frequency 
less than 3 times the frequency range of the applicable channel class.
    (f) Limb joints are set at one G, barely restraining the weight of 
the limb when it is extended horizontally. The force needed to move a 
limb segment is not to exceed 2G throughout the range of limb motion.
    (g) Performance tests of the same component, segment, assembly, or 
fully assembled dummy are separated in time by not less than 30 minutes 
unless otherwise noted.
    (h) Surfaces of dummy components may not be painted except as 
specified in this subpart or in drawings subtended by this subpart.

Appendix--Figures to Subpart T of Part 572

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 11672]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.003

[[Page 11673]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.004

[[Page 11674]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.005

[[Page 11675]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.007

[[Page 11676]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.008

    Issued on: February 16, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-4129 Filed 2-21-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C