Anthropomorphic Test Devices, HIII 5TH Percentile Female Test Dummy; Incorporation by Reference, 250-265 [2024-30985]

Download as PDF 250 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 572 [Docket No. NHTSA–2024–0093] RIN 2127–AM13 Anthropomorphic Test Devices, HIII 5TH Percentile Female Test Dummy; Incorporation by Reference National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This document revises the chest jacket and spine box specifications for the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy (HIII–5F). The jacket revisions resolve discrepancies between the jacket specifications in subpart O and jackets available in the field, and ensure a sufficiently low level of variation between jackets fabricated by different manufacturers. The spine box revisions eliminate a source of signal noise caused by fasteners within the box that may become loose during sled or vehicle crash tests. This rulemaking responds to a petition for rulemaking from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective on February 18, 2025. IBR date: The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 18, 2025. Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration for this final rule must be received no later than February 18, 2025. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number in the heading of this document or by any of the following methods: • Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. • Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given under FOR lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above. When you send a submission containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Please see further information in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this preamble. • Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476) or you may visit www.transportation.gov/individuals/ privacy/privacy-act-system-recordsnotices. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its decisionmaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/ privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered. • Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Garry Brock, Office of Crashworthiness Standards; phone: (202) 366–6198. For legal issues, you may contact Ms. K. Helena Sung, Office of Chief Counsel; phone: (202) 366–2992. The mailing address of these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background a. Rulemaking History b. Chest Jacket c. Spine Box III. Summary of the Final Rule IV. Post-NPRM Measurement and Analysis V. Response to Comments a. Dimensional Targets and the Use of Mandrel b. Certification c. Annual Inspection Specification d. Other Measurement Device e. Spine Box f. Sample Size VI. Changes to Drawing Package and PADI VII. Housekeeping Amendments VIII. Lead Time IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary This final rule finalizes changes to the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female (HIII–5F) anthropomorphic test device (ATD or crash test dummy or dummy). The HIII–5F is used in frontal compliance crash tests and air bag static deployment tests, certification to which is required for certain vehicles by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. The dummy is described in 49 CFR part 572, subpart O. Among other things, subpart O incorporates by reference several documents that specify the physical make-up of the dummy. This document finalizes changes to the chest jacket and spine box specifications to address issues with the fit and availability of the jacket and a noise artifact from the spine box. Today’s rulemaking responds to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer’s (the Alliance) 2014 petition for rulemaking.1 Chest Jacket The chest jacket is a sleeveless foamfilled vinyl zippered jacket that represents human flesh, including female breasts. The chest jacket may need to be replaced because it can shrink or otherwise fall out of specification or wear out with age. Since the introduction of the HIII–5F into part 572 in 2000, none of the jackets that were manufactured met the jacket specifications specified in part 572. Since around 2006, NHTSA, in its own compliance tests, has used the brand of dummy and jacket (either First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) or Denton ATD (Denton)) used by the 1 Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (February 21, 2014). The Alliance consisted of: BMW Group; Chrysler Group LLC; Ford Motor Company; General Motors Company; Jaguar Land Rover; Mazda; Mercedes-Benz USA; Mitsubishi Motors; Porsche; Toyota; Volkswagen Group of America; and Volvo Cars. E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 vehicle manufacturer to certify the vehicle. However, these FTSS and Denton jackets are no longer being manufactured; manufacturers (or test laboratories) and NHTSA have, or will soon, run out of these jackets. In 2013, SAE 2 published an information report for the HIII–5F chest jacket, SAE J2921 JAN2013, H–III5F Chest Jacket Harmonization, describing a new jacket compatible with FTSS and Denton dummies. The NPRM proposed to adopt the jacket specifications described in SAE J2921, as well as a few additional specifications. We believed that chest jackets that have been and are being manufactured to the SAE J2921 design would also conform to the proposed specifications. NHTSA also believed that additional specifications were necessary to ensure a sufficient level of uniformity between jackets produced by different manufacturers when other manufacturers enter the market, and to prevent the variances in jacket designs that were problematic in the past from reoccurring. Based on NHTSA’s testing, the agency concluded that dummies fitted with chest jackets that satisfy the proposed specifications would perform equivalently to dummies fitted with the FTSS or Denton jackets that were previously used. A benefit of standardized jacket specifications would be that the agency would no longer have to maintain chest jackets of different designs and take steps to match the compliance test jacket with that specified by the vehicle manufacturer, thereby providing more objective test results. Spine Box The spine box is the dummy’s steel backbone. It is located in the dummy’s thorax, which consists of six bands that simulate human ribs. Since the mid2000s, industry and NHTSA have been aware of a signal noise artifact in the signals from the accelerometers in the thorax during sled and crash tests originating in the spine box. The source of the noise is fasteners that become loose during normal use. In 2011 SAE published an information report for a spine box modification (SAE J2915 AUG2011, H–III5F Spine Box Update to Eliminate Noise). We proposed to adopt the SAE J2915 modification. The proposed revisions would add plates to the side of the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play from the assembly. The modification would not 2 The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE International). SAE is an organization that develops technical standards based on best practices. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 affect or change the dummy’s performance in any way (other than eliminate the potential for noise). The improved spine box would address a shortcoming in the ATD’s design that had to be addressed by end users disassembling the dummy, re-torquing the relevant fasteners by hand before each test, and re-qualifying the dummy as needed. The improved spine box would increase the quality of data and reduce maintenance and testing time. Summary of Final Rule NHTSA received comments from Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. (HIS), the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (the Alliance), and Ms. Sial (an individual commenter). All commenters were generally supportive of the NPRM, with a few measurement specification recommendations. The final rule adopts most of the NPRM’s proposed specifications, with minor changes to ensure a sufficiently low level of variation among jackets based on analysis of post-NPRM measurement data and commenters’ data. For the jacket, the agency updates the values of some dimensions to reflect more closely the larger pool of measurement data acquired since the NPRM. We also increase the dimensional tolerances in several places because the proposed tolerances were unnecessarily small. Additionally, a limited number of dimensions are revised to become ‘‘reference only’’ dimensions (which are useful during inspections) because the larger pool of data revealed that there were not consistent reference measurement points associated with them. For the spine box, the final rule adjusts the mass specification slightly to reflect a small increase in mass due to the material that is added. Furthermore, the rule’s effective date is 45 days after the final rule’s publication date. The final rule change is not intended to impose new requirements on vehicle manufacturers. We believe currently manufactured chest jackets meet the SAE J2921 specifications and meet the finalized specifications. We also believe that the parts to implement the spine box fix are available, as are newly manufactured replacement spine boxes that incorporate the fix. Manufacturers wishing to test with the finalized jacket and spine box should have no difficulty obtaining the necessary parts. The costs associated with this rulemaking are limited to those associated with acquiring new dummy parts. We conclude that the finalized changes would not necessitate the purchasing of any parts that would not PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 251 have been purchased in the normal course of business in the absence of the finalized changes. This final rule is not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O.12866. II. Background a. Rulemaking History In 2014, the Alliance petitioned NHTSA to incorporate the new SAE jacket into part 572 per SAE Information Report J2921 and revise the spine box as described in SAE Information Report J2915.3 NHTSA subsequently sent a letter to the Alliance asking for clarification on several points. The Alliance responded to NHTSA’s request with a supplemental letter dated May 11, 2015.4 NHTSA granted this petition. On December 26, 2019, NHTSA published a NPRM (84 FR 70916) to revise the chest jacket and spine box specifications for the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy (HIII– 5F) set forth in Part 572— Anthropomorphic Test Devices. NHTSA proposed to adopt the jacket specifications described in SAE J2921, as well as several additional specifications for the jacket’s contour that are not contained in SAE J2921. The NPRM comment period closed on February 24, 2020. HIS requested a ninety-day extension to the NPRM comment period to collect data regarding the proposed additional chest jacket specifications while also ensuring a sufficient sample size.5 On June 2, 2020, the agency extended the comment period until August 3, 2020 (85 FR 33617). NHTSA also published a set of instructions on how to record jacket measurements in the rulemaking docket.6 The instructions were written for lab technicians to record the jacket measurements. They were the same jacket measurements as those proposed in the NPRM but conveyed in more comprehensible format than in the NPRM. After the extended comment period in August 2020, HIS and the Alliance submitted additional measurement data and recommendations to the NPRM. After issuing the NPRM, NHTSA continued to collect measurement data on newly purchased jackets to check whether the dimensions and tolerances proposed were being met by SAE jackets already in the field. For the final rule, the agency also examined all 3 Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (February 21, 2014). 4 Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (May 11, 2015). 5 NHTSA–2019–0023–004. 6 NHTSA–2019–0023–007. E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 252 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations measurement data provided by the commenters. b. Chest Jacket The HIII–5F chest jacket is a sleeveless foam-filled vinyl zippered jacket that represents human flesh, including female breasts. The chest jacket is zipped onto the underlying dummy and covers the entire thorax, including the shoulder assembly. The HIII–5F was added to part 572 in 2000.7 The HIII–5F is used in frontal compliance crash tests and air bag static deployment tests, certification to which is required for certain vehicles by FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. The HIII–5F dummy is described in 49 CFR part 572, subpart O. This subpart contains regulatory text describing the qualification procedures and requirements for the dummy. Subpart O also incorporates several other documents by reference. Those documents describe the physical makeup of the dummy, and include a parts list, a set of engineering drawings, and a document entitled, Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI).8 The NPRM proposed changes to the chest jacket specifications to address known issues with the shape and availability of the jacket. Existing Jackets Do Not Meet the Current Part 572 Specifications The chest jacket, along with the HIII– 5F, was developed under the auspices of SAE. When subpart O was created in 2000, jackets for the HIII–5F were being produced solely by FTSS. Soon thereafter, Applied Safety Technologies Corporation, which later became Denton, began to manufacture HIII–5F dummies and jackets. The jackets FTSS and Denton produced did not conform to all aspects of the part 572 specifications; in addition, jackets produced by each manufacturer differed from those produced by the other.9 The differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets, and between those jackets and the part 572 specifications, are the result of a variety of factors. For one, the subpart O jacket drawing, which consists of two sheets, contains errors and ambiguities. The dimensions for the breast locations 7 65 FR 10968 (March 1, 2000). documents can be found in Docket NHTSA–2000–6940 (available at www.regulations.gov). 9 Both Transport Canada and the Alliance found dimensional differences between the two brands of jackets. The 2019 NPRM (84 FR 70916) provides more details on the specific differences and manufacturing design choices contributing to the discrepancies. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 8 These VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 are not consistent between the two sheets, and the overall shape is not consistent, either. These inconsistences and ambiguities contributed to dimensional differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets. In 2003, FTSS submitted a petition for rulemaking to revise the jacket dimensions to correspond to the dimensions of the jackets then being produced by FTSS.10 NHTSA denied this petition.11 The agency stated that while dummies with the FTSS and Denton jackets performed somewhat differently from dummies with jackets that conformed with the part 572 specifications, the dimensional differences did not have a significant effect on dummy performance as long as the seat belt was properly positioned.12 However, studies of the jacket by Transport Canada and the Alliance in the mid-2000s found that FTSS and Denton dummies performed differently in the types of testing specified in FMVSS No. 208.13 FMVSS No. 208 specifies a variety of different dynamic (crash) and static (out-of-position) requirements using the HIII–5F.14 Development of the SAE J2921 Jacket Specifications (SAE Jacket) These differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets led SAE, in 2006, to establish a task force to develop a harmonized jacket compatible with both companies’ versions of the HIII–5F jacket (for ease of reference, referred to in this document as the ‘‘SAE jacket’’). In 2010, FTSS and Denton merged to form HIS. The merger meant that HIS became the only significant dummy manufacturer and what had begun as an effort to specify the design of a ‘‘harmonized’’ jacket became an effort for HIS to simply design and produce a jacket that could fit existing Denton and FTSS dummies as well as newly manufactured HIS dummies. 10 Letter from FTSS to NHTSA (dated December 30, 2003). 11 71 FR 45427 (August 9, 2006). 12 Id. See also letter from FTSS to NHTSA (August 28, 2006). 13 Transport Canada’s research found that the FTSS and Denton dummies performed differently with respect to chest deflection in both full-scale rigid barrier crash tests and in out-of-position testing. Suzanne Tylko et al., 2006, The Effect of Breast Anthropometry on the Hybrid III 5th Female Chest Response, Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 50 (November 2006), p. 390. The Alliance similarly reported research by vehicle manufacturers. Letter from the Alliance (January 31, 2006), p. 1, 8–9. In 2005 the Alliance presented these issues to NHTSA and documented them in a 2006 letter. See also Tylko et al., 2006, A Comparison of Hybrid III 5th Female Dummy Chest Responses in Controlled Sled Trials, SAE Technical Paper Series, 2006–01–0455. 14 See, e.g., FMVSS No. 208 S15 (rigid barrier test requirements); S25 (out-of-position requirements). PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 SAE published an information report for the harmonized jacket in 2013 (SAE J2921 JAN2013 supra). An update to this information report was published in March 2023 (SAE J2921 MAR2023). This update does not alter any of the technical specifications. The J2921 jacket is currently offered for sale by HIS and JASTI–USA, Inc., the U.S. affiliate of JASTI Co., LLC, a manufacturer of dummies and test equipment headquartered in Japan. NHTSA Enforcement Policy To Address Chest Jacket Issues The discrepancies among the available jackets brands (principally from FTSS and Denton) can lead to different compliance test results with different jackets. In 2006, the Alliance requested that NHTSA, in its compliance testing program, use the same dummy brand (Denton or FTSS) the vehicle manufacturer used in its certification of a particular make/model. NHTSA adopted this requested practice. Recent events render this approach of maintaining both FTSS and Denton jackets obsolete and necessitate further action by NHTSA. After the merger of FTSS and Denton, HIS indicated that it would maintain production of the FTSS and Denton brand versions of the jackets so that they could be used as spare parts on the existing FTSS and Denton dummies.15 However, in 2015 HIS discontinued production of the original FTSS and Denton chest jacket designs and now sells only the SAE jacket, identified as part number 880105–355– H.16 Over the past few years, NHTSA has received requests from several vehicle manufacturers for NHTSA to conduct its compliance tests using the SAE jacket. NHTSA has asked manufacturers to identify the jacket (Denton, FTSS or SAE) for NHTSA to use in its compliance testing. However, because chest jackets shrink or otherwise fall out of specification or wear out with age, NHTSA’s stock of FTSS and Denton jackets is running out, and NHTSA has only a limited supply. The Alliance has informed NHTSA that its members are facing the same issue. Thus, the issues of jacket availability and which jacket designs are acceptable for use in compliance tests have become more urgent. 15 The Brand Harmonization of the Hybrid III 5th Small Female Crash Test Dummy 880105–000, The ATD Harmonization Task Group, Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc., July 2012. 16 Identified as part number 880105–355–H. This is the part number of the engineering drawing of the jacket that appears in SAE J2921. Hybrid-III 5th Small Female Dummy, 880105–000–H Brand Harmonized Parts Catalog, Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc., August 2018. E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Testing of the SAE Jacket 17 The development of the SAE jacket included was a preliminary jacket in 2011 and then a final version in 2013. NHTSA and others tested both versions of the SAE jackets to assess ATD performance with the new components. The studies compared the dimensions of the jackets and evaluated the performance of dummies fitted with the jackets in different tests (sled tests, outof-position tests, and some of the subpart O qualification tests). The studies found that dummies fitted with SAE-designed jackets (both the 2011 and 2013 versions) performed essentially the same as dummies fitted with pre-existing FTSS and Denton (non-SAE) jackets with respect to dummy injury metrics and other responses (with one exception). While some common refurbishment may be needed when fitting the jacket onto an older dummy, the tests demonstrated that once an older dummy was retrofitted with a new J2921 jacket, all parts on the dummy conformed dimensionally to the proposed subpart O engineering drawings. Proposed Modifications In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to amend the chest jacket specifications in subpart O’s regulatory text to incorporate by reference new versions of the drawing package, parts list and PADI. The proposed changes reflect the J2921 jacket design in which the breast contours are blended more gradually into the torso, compared to the current subpart O design where the breast contours are more sharply defined. NHTSA proposed to adopt the specifications in SAE J2921 (Figures 4– 6 in SAE J2921, which are engineering drawings of the SAE jacket design). However, we also proposed adding additional specifications for the jacket’s contour that are not contained in SAE J2921. Our proposed additional specifications for the jacket’s contour adds breadth, depth, and circumference dimensions at different section levels of the jacket on the main assembly drawing of the dummy (880105–000, Rev. N, Sheet 5). Dimensions are specified for a jacket fitted/worn on a dummy, i.e., measurements would be recorded on the jacket as fitted/worn on a dummy positioned on the same flatback bench as what is currently shown on 880105–000, Rev. N, Sheet 5. The additional dimensional specifications were intended to define the outer shape of the thorax and to preclude belt 17 See 2019 NPRM Section IV (84 FR 70921– 70922) for a more detailed summary of NHTSA and industry evaluation of the chest jacket. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 routing discrepancies. The information included additional views of the chest jacket at various cross sections. In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the proposed jacket specification would ensure uniformity in the form, fit, and function of the HIII– 5F. We also tentatively concluded that the proposed jacket specifications would encompass existing jackets that have been built to the SAE J2921 specifications; the proposed specifications were developed in light of such existing jackets. c. Spine Box The spine box of the HIII–5F is the dummy’s steel backbone. It is located in the dummy’s thorax, which consists of six bands that simulate human ribs. The bands are made of spring steel, and a thick layer of graphite is bonded to each band to provide damping when the bands are deflected, thus giving them humanlike properties. On the posterior aspect of the thorax, the bands are affixed to the spine box. The spine box is currently specified in the parts and drawings document in drawings 880105–1000, and SA572–S28 with callouts in 880105–300 and the PADI (p. 21). In the mid-2000s, the SAE Task Force began an effort—in parallel with its efforts on the chest jacket—to find and eliminate a source of signal noise that sometimes emanated from the HIII–5F spine box. Alliance members determined that the noise was caused by loosening of six socket head cap screws attaching the spine box to the lower spine. Due to a design shortcoming, repeated crash testing loosened the screws so that they rattled against the inner walls of the through holes. This rattling led to artifacts in the signals of the accelerometers in the thorax during sled and crash tests. The problem affected FTSS and Denton units alike. Testing laboratories have been addressing this problem by disassembling the dummy and inspecting and tightening the screws routinely. As a long-term solution, SAE developed an alteration to improve the spine box. Specifically, it recommended adding plates to the side of the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play from the assembly. The alteration prevents the screws from loosening and eliminates the signal noise. NHTSA and others tested the new spine box fix as it was being developed. In 2011 SAE published an information report for the spine box modification (SAE J2915 AUG2011). This information report was revised in May 2022 (SAE J2915 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 253 MAY2022). The updated information report does not contain any technical changes to the design and focuses on minor formatting and typographical changes. Spine Box Testing NHTSA’s 2011 study and the SAE task force 18 showed that the spine modification had completely eliminated the noise emanating from the chest without affecting the response of the dummy in any other way. The study found that the spine boxes manufactured by different manufacturers were identical, suggesting that the spine box alterations are sufficiently specified. The study also concluded that the spine box was durable (did not loosen over repeated testing). Proposed Modifications In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to change the spine box specifications to permanently fix the signal noise problem. The new versions of the drawing package, parts list, and PADI proposed for incorporation by reference include the SAE J2915 (Jan 2011) 19 specifications for the improved spine box. The proposed revisions would add plates to the side of the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play from the assembly. The modification would increase the quality of data and reduce maintenance and testing time. The modification would not affect or change the dummy’s performance in any way (other than eliminate the potential for noise).20 III. Summary of the Final Rule After analysis of post-NPRM measurement data and commenters’ data, this final rule adopts most of the NPRM’s proposed specification with minor changes to ensure a sufficiently 18 Reported in SAE J2915. the time of the NPRM, the most current SAE J2915 was the January 2011 version. Since the NPRM publication, this information report was revised in May 2022 (SAE J2915 May2022). The updated information report does not contain any technical changes to the design, and focuses on minor formatting and typographical changes. 20 We note that the current subpart O ATD can be a valid test dummy without installing the new spine box, i.e., users can address the signal noise problem by disassembling the dummy and inspecting and tightening the screws by hand on a routine basis. However, NHTSA believes that these efforts must be taken regularly to ensure that the ATD’s thoracic data are not affected by the spine box signal noise, and that test evaluators should carefully review test data for signs of artifacts in the signals of the thorax accelerometers. As an alternative to checking bolt tightness on existing units or replacing the entire spine box, end-users, at their discretion, may opt to modify (rather than replace) their dummy’s spine box as prescribed by SAE J2915. However, NHTSA’s proposal does not include specifications for the modification. 19 At E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 254 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 low level of variation between jackets fabricated by different manufacturers. The final rule revises the chest jacket and spine box specifications in subpart O that correct previous errors and ambiguities. A summary of the engineering changes is outlined in section VI and a full discussion of the engineering changes to the HIII–5F dummy, as discussed in this final rule, is found in a separate document docketed.21 For the jacket, the agency updates the values of some jacket dimensions to reflect more closely the larger pool of measurement data acquired since the NPRM. We also increase the dimensional tolerances in several places because the proposed tolerances were unnecessarily small. Additionally, a limited number of dimensions are revised to become ‘‘reference only’’ dimensions (which are useful during inspections) because the larger pool of data revealed that there were not consistent reference measurement points associated with them. Such ‘‘reference only’’ measurements are not required to be met by a compliant dummy. The additions and changes to the NPRM specifications will ensure uniformity in the form, fit, and function of the HIII–5F.22 For the spine box, NHTSA adjusts the mass specification slightly to reflect additional material that is added. No other changes are made for the spine box outside of the modification of the mass specification.23 Consistent with the NPRM, NHTSA has decided not to incorporate the mandrel 24 or the fit check procedure outlined in J2921. This final rule’s updates to subpart O provide the necessary dimensions for the jacket. If there is a concern regarding shrinking of the jacket, measurements can be taken to confirm dimensionality. It would be up to the individual measurement taker whether to utilize the mandrel as part of 21 Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List, Engineering Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), Subpart O Regulatory Text, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2023. 22 A full discussion of the data collected and updates made to the jacket dimensions and tolerances is described in a separate document docketed, Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix B, Chest Jacket Analysis. 23 A full discussion of the data collected, and updates made to the thorax weight, can be found in separate docketed document in Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule Appendix A, Spine Box Analysis. 24 SAE J2921 describes a mandrel to assess the fit of the jacket. Because jackets tend to shrink over time, the mandrel was developed to assess jacket fit as it ages. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 the jacket fit check. In the Alliance’s supplemental submission to NHTSA, the Alliance clarified that it was not requesting that the agency specify use of the mandrel. In the NPRM, the agency tentatively decided not to incorporate the mandrel or the fit check procedure outlined in J2921 and asked for comments on the mandrel. Commenters recommended using the mandrel when taking measurements of the jacket dimensions. NHTSA disagrees with the need to include a mandrel. Both the NPRM and post-NPRM analyses have been shown to meet the dimensional requirements by recording measurements on unworn jackets that were set up in the specified configuration without use of the mandrel. We recognize that when the proposed jacket is used on an existing dummy, the dummy may require some amount of re-tuning or refurbishment to pass the part 572 subpart O qualifications tests, but this need is common when worn parts are replaced. As SAE mentioned, the mandrel was intended to be used only to test the fit of the jacket as the jacket ages. As such, the mandrel can be used as an optional inspection device. Overall measurement data confirms that the proposed and final rule jacket specifications encompass existing jackets that have been built to the SAE J2921 specifications. Therefore, the final rule effectively remains the same as the proposed rule. IV. Post-NPRM Measurement and Analysis After the NPRM publication, NHTSA continued to collect measurement data on newly purchased jackets to check whether the dimensions and tolerances proposed (including those derived from J2921 drawings and the new section dimensions added by NHTSA) were being met by SAE jackets already in the field. We also examined all measurement data provided by the commenters. Here, we provide a summary of the measurement and final rule changes. A full discussion of the process and the data collected can be found in a separate document being placed in the docket for this rulemaking.25 In defining the jacket in the NPRM, we proposed ‘‘unworn’’ dimensional requirements and ‘‘worn’’ dimensional requirements. The ‘‘unworn’’ dimensional measurements are taken on the jacket as a standalone component on the benchtop, while the ‘‘worn’’ 25 Post NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix B— Chest Jacket Analysis. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 measurements are taken on the underlying dummy. Additional measurements were included to our pool of ‘‘worn’’ and ‘‘unworn’’ data.26 From this body of data, the final rule largely adopted the proposal with adjusted dimensions and tolerances to ensure that jackets in the field achieve an acceptable degree of conformity while still assuring a high level of uniformity. For the ‘‘unworn’’ requirements, we are replacing the old, 2002 part 572 subpart O engineering drawings of the jacket with new drawings based on the drawings contained within SAE J2921. For the ‘‘worn’’ requirements, we specify additional dimensional requirements for the jacket’s contours that are not contained in SAE J2921. They include dimensions for the jacket’s breadth, depth, and circumference at different section levels. Detailed specification changes are described in the January 2023 Engineering Changes document.27 ‘‘Unworn’’ Measurements The drawings containing the ‘‘unworn’’ measurements have several updates to account for a larger set of data.28 Updates have also been made to create reference dimensions for some measures. Review of the data provided in comments to the NPRM revealed that HIS had not reported all of the dimensional measurements of the jacket. Of the ‘‘unworn’’ dimensional data that HIS reported, HIS data were shown to be within the tolerances specified closely with the final rule.29 In other words, the additional NHTSA measurements and the October HIS data, when viewed independently, both confirm each other. The shape and configuration of the jacket defined in the final rule is identical to that of the engineering drawing contained within SAE J2921. As noted previously, NHTSA’s engineering drawing incorporates several additional ‘‘unworn’’ dimensions that are needed to fully specify the jacket and preclude variations between future jackets fabricated by different manufacturers. NHTSA’s additional dimensional requirements include arm hole 26 Id. at 25. at 21. Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List, Engineering Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2023. 28 Id. at 25. 29 Id. at 25. 27 Id. E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations specifications and reference (ref) dimensions for the breast location. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 ‘‘Worn’’ Measurement The ‘‘worn’’ dimensional requirements have four section levels specified for the jacket when fitted on the underlying HIII–5F dummy positioned on the same flat-back bench as what is currently shown on 880105– 000, Rev. J, Sheet 5. The dimensional specifications define the outer shape of the thorax to preclude belt routing discrepancies that were the source of the thorax deflection differences described above. The requirements are also needed to ensure a sufficiently low level of variation between future jackets fabricated by different manufacturers. The final rule updates the tolerances for the breadth and circumference measurements. With a few exceptions, all existing new SAE jackets were demonstrated to be within the dimensional requirements in the final rule. The final rule demonstrates that current SAE jackets now in the field conform to the new subpart O dimensional requirements. However, the final rule does not guarantee that all new jackets will fit properly on all underlying HIII–5F units. Similar to all other device measurements, diligence is needed to select a jacket for a particular dummy to ensure that all jacket-ondummy requirements are met. NHTSA reviewed the provided data from HIS regarding the ‘‘worn’’ measurements and noted some recurring inconsistencies with NHTSA’s own data.30 V. Response to Comments In the NPRM, we sought comment on the proposed specifications, including the dimensions not specified in the SAE J291 report. We sought information and data on whether existing jackets built to SAE J2921 on existing dummies will meet the proposed specifications. NHTSA also sought comment on what (if any) additional information, such as tolerance specifications, is needed to fully specify the jacket to ensure that jackets produced by different manufacturers perform equivalently. We also sought comment on the proposed approach of specifying dimensions for the jacket as fitted on a dummy, including whether additional subpart O qualification tests are necessary. Section IV addresses the specific dimensional specifications based on post-NPRM measurement data analysis. 30 A further discussion and analysis of the provided data is shown in Appendices B and C of the Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule, a separately docketed document. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 255 The use of the mandrel for taking dimensional measurements of the jacket represents a new use for the mandrel and was not part of the petition for rulemaking. The Alliance’s supplemental submission to NHTSA clarified that it was not requesting that the agency specify the use of the mandrel.32 The NPRM sought comments on the mandrel’s use in SAE J2921. The SAE J2921 design used the mandrel for a fit check when the jacket has shrunk. The comments received proposed using the mandrel in a new way: to take dimensional measurements of the jacket in lieu of placing the jacket on the underlying dummy. There are several technical reasons why the mandrel is not adopted in the final rule. Overall, NHTSA disagrees with the need for a mandrel to meet the final jacket measurement specifications but agrees it can be used as an optional inspection device. When the jacket is being prepared for testing, entities subject to FMVSS testing are free to use the mandrel as an inspection device for shrinking of the jacket or when configuring the unworn jacket before taking certain measurements. However, NHTSA will not include the mandrel in subpart O nor will it specify use of the mandrel. Based on NHTSA’s overall assessment of the data provided, the agency believes that the ‘‘worn’’ and ‘‘unworn’’ dimensions specified in the final rule remain sufficient for a determination of acceptable jacket size, without the need for a mandrel. NHTSA was able to record all the measurements in both a ‘‘worn’’ and ‘‘unworn’’ state for the dummy within tolerances, except for a few instances. The purpose of an engineering drawing is to record and convey the dummy’s requirements which is to be used in FMVSS testing. The drawings must include sufficient information to enable production planning, manufacture, assembly, testing, and inspection of individual parts and assemblies. The entire jacket-on-dummy assembly is specified by part 572, not just the individual parts. The jacket itself is made of a flexible material that is placed over the underlying dummy. The contour locations of the jacket relative to a vehicle shoulder belt are affected by the underlying structure of the dummy. Thus, those dimensions are specified on the assembly drawing of the dummy, known as ‘‘worn’’ dimensions when the jacket is fitted/ zipped on the underlying dummy structure. It is important for the drawings to include the underlying dummy, to ensure that the external dimensions of the assembled dummy are consistent and within tolerance. Checking dimensional measures when the jacket is off the underlying dummy, 31 Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix C— Response and Analysis of Comments Received. 32 See Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (Feb. 21, 2014); Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (May 11, 2015). This section will focus on the commenters’ specific approach of specifying jacket dimensions. Further discussion of the comments can be found in a separately docketed document.31 a. Dimensional Targets and the Use of Mandrel The mandrel was developed and described in the SAE information report (SAE J2921) describing the harmonized jacket. In the SAE report, it was noted that the jackets tend to shrink over time. The mandrel was developed to assess jacket fit as it ages. There are reference marks on the back, bottom, and top of the mandrel that serve as indicators that the jacket has shrunk to the point where a replacement is recommended. In the NPRM, NHTSA considered the need for the mandrel and tentatively decided not to incorporate the mandrel in the fit check procedure outlined in SAE J2921, but did request comment. Comment In response to the NPRM, comments recommended a new use of the mandrel, outside of the initial design. Both HIS and the Alliance commented that the mandrel should be incorporated and used for taking dimensional measurements of the jacket. Concerns were raised regarding some of the measurements to be taken when the jacket is zipped onto the underlying dummy (worn) and difficulty in reliably obtaining those measurements. These concerns were based on the need to measure the jacket and obtain dimensional measurements within the tolerances. Commenters recommended the use of the mandrel as a tool to constrain the torso and take all measurements on/with the mandrel. The commenters noted that the mandrel would provide a repeatable means to set up the jacket for dimensional measurement. Commenters cited a need to have the mandrel to ensure jacket measurement consistency and cited poor Gage repeatability and reproducibility when the mandrel was not used. Response PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 256 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations even with the use of the mandrel, is not sufficient. In addition to exterior dimensions of the full dummy assembly, individual parts are also specified on separate engineering drawings. The part drawings specify the construction and material of the jacket. They also specify jacket dimensions that do not depend on the underlying dummy. These dimensions are referred to as the ‘‘unworn’’ dimensions. For the jacket, the ‘‘unworn’’ dimensions, together with the ‘‘worn’’ assembly dimensions, are needed to ensure uniformity of the dummy as a whole. A separate jacket drawing is needed, just as separate drawings for other parts are needed. Thus, it is appropriate to have dimensions for the jacket on separate jacket-only drawings in the ‘‘unworn’’ condition. NHTSA analyzed both our own data and the commenters’ data. Both datasets have shown that the finalized specifications were achieved consistently within the tolerance ranges. Thus, the specifications ensure that current and future chest jackets will have sufficient uniformity. Notably, NHTSA’s own measurements were recorded without the aid of a mandrel and still met the final rule specifications. This result confirms the validity of NHTSA’s specifications without the use of mandrel. NHTSA’s analysis of its post-NPRM data and commenters’ measurement data is further detailed in section IV. The use of the mandrel, if implemented in subpart O, would require new drawings with dimensions and tolerances to properly and repeatably specify the mandrel. This need would likely create new discrepancies. While J2921 depicts a drawing of the mandrel, it does not provide details or dimensions on the shape of the mandrel. Also, neither J2921 nor the commenters provided an objective fit criterion for a mandrel or mandrel-specific test procedure. Without the exact specification of the mandrel, contrary to the commenters’ suggestion, the introduction of a new device here would create more variation for the jacket. NHTSA also disagrees with the commenters’ use of Gage repeatability and reproducibility (Gage R&R) analysis as further support that a mandrel is needed. A gage is a device used to obtain measurement. Here, a mandrel is described by SAE as a fit check device, not a measurement device. The purpose of a Gage R&R analysis is to assess the quality of the measurement system if there is reason to believe the measurement discrepancy is due to the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 measurement device itself. Because NHTSA’s proposed and final specification of dummy parts and assemblies does not introduce a new measurement device, NHTSA did not perform a Gage R&R. Analysis of Gage R&R is further discussed under the agency’s response to comment section on the use of another measurement device. It is important to note that just because a measurement is not within tolerances, it does not necessarily mean that the jacket is out of specification or cannot be used. For the ‘‘worn’’ dimensions in particular, the dimensions are affected by how the jacket is placed over the underlying dummy structure. If the specified dimensions are not met initially, the jacket can be adjusted and the measurements taken again. Note 7 on drawing 880105–000, Complete Assembly, confirms this possibility: ‘‘If the z-coordinates of the A-Pts are not within 5 mm of the target height of 10.23 in. (265 mm), re-seat the jacket be rolling it fore/aft against the shoulder to move the z-coordinate closer to the target height while maintaining the position of the H-point. The re-seated jacket shall rest in contact with the underlying shoulder pads with no gap between the pads and the jacket or between the pads and the clavicle castings.’’ b. Certification The Alliance recommended the use of the mandrel as part of the jacket production process. Specifically, the Alliance noted that the jacket should be certified by its manufacturer on the mandrel and using a 3D measurement device such as a Faro arm. Response Dummy jacket certification requirement is not within NHTSA’s authority and role. NHTSA does not certify the ATDs specified in part 572, nor does NHTSA certify any of the components used in the ATDs. NHTSA specifies the ATDs in part 572 used for FMVSS testing. Part 572 specifications lay out the technical aspects of the ATD. ATD manufacturers produce the ATD and can choose to make a dummy meeting those specification. Then, under the self-certification process, motor vehicle original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) self-certify compliance with applicable FMVSS—in this case, FVMSS No. 208.33 OEMs could choose to incorporate a mandrel as part of their certification process. 33 See PO 00000 49 CFR part 567. Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 c. Annual Inspection Specification HIS and the Alliance recommended an annual check of jackets by users with a measurement of eight critical dimensions on the mandrel. These eight critical measurements would check for shrinkage that could occur over time as a jacket ages. Response While the final rule is not including the mandrel as part of the fit check procedures to the HIII–5F jacket specification, OEMs and testing labs are not prohibited from using the mandrel as an optional device part of their routine inspection process. Part 572 specifies the parts used on the dummy, but it does not specify any maintenance schedule or discuss any states of disrepair. Generally, other than the specifications in PADIs, there are no annual inspection criteria included. NHTSA will not be including additional inspection parameters as part of the PADI. d. Other Measurement Device HIS and the Alliance recommended that NHTSA stipulate that all measurements should be recorded using a digital Faro arm, or equivalent Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) system. HIS reasoned that measurements taken by standard gages are not sufficiently definitive, as evidenced by poor Gage repeatability and reproducibility results. Response Specification of a specific measurement technique, such as the use of a CMM system, is not included in part 572. Part 572 defines the dimensions of the dummy and provides the PADI and qualification procedures to ensure it is responding as expected. Part 572 does not dictate the equipment used to take those measurements. Nonetheless, NHTSA carried out an assessment by comparing operator measurements of multiple jackets using basic levels and calipers vs. the more sophisticated Faro arm.34 A Faro arm is a digital device that records precise three-dimensional coordinates. It is a brand name for a type of CMM.35 The digital measurement device often provides a more precise means to record measurement but such a device may not always be available. 34 Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix C– Response and Analysis of Comments Received. 35 Compared to conventional devices (measuring tables, calipers, dial gauges) a CMM device provides a convenient and oftentimes more precise means to record measurements. E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations NHTSA’s assessment had two objectives. The first was to determine whether both the digital device and the conventional device,36 in this case a caliper here, could achieve the proposed jacket specification within the tolerance. The second objective was to determine whether there is a significant difference/ deviation between the measurements taken by the two gages that the final rule requires gage-specific information. NHTSA’s gage device analysis showed that both types of measuring devices met the finalized nominal target value. In other words, both devices can properly measure the finalized jacket specifications. Although the Faro arm did have slightly more consistency than using the calipers, there is no significant difference in the use of Faro versus the conventional gage. Instead, NHTSA found that the jacket setup, rather than the measuring device itself, had an impact on the measurements taken. To remedy this inconsistency, the final rule contains a new stipulation on the assembly drawing to reposition the jacket (880105–000, Complete Assembly, Hybrid HIII–5F). For the final rule, NHTSA is not requiring a specific gage to use for jacket measurements. It is not uncommon for different labs to use different techniques. Even with different measurement techniques, NHTSA’s analysis has demonstrated it is possible to successfully measure the dimensions of the jackets. General care when placing the jacket onto the dummy can ensure it is consistently placed for measurement. Measurement with a CMM or calipers has been shown to yield consistent results that meet the final rule jacket specifications. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 e. Spine Box HIS supported NHTSA’s proposed adoption of the SAE spine box to eliminate the mechanical noise from the chest accelerometers while preserving the dynamic response. However, based on HIS’s review of fourteen ATDs, HIS requested NHTSA update the mass specification from one of the drawing documents (880105–000(-H) Sheet 6) to account for the additional mass from the bolt plates added to the spine box. Response NHTSA evaluated the ATDs that had the old spine box replaced (the original FTSS and Denton units) and newer HIII–5F units that incorporated the proposed SAE spine box design. After evaluation of weight measurements 36 Examples of conventional devices include measuring tables, calipers, and dial gauges. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 257 from existing and new ATDs,37 NHTSA is adopting the mass specification change, specifically the upper torso assembly segment weight specification. It was noted that the plates added a small additional weight to the torso of the dummy and could cause the specifications to fall outside of the tolerance. While the final rule also adopts the SAE chest jacket design, the jacket’s mass is not different from the prior FTSS and Denton versions. Consequently, the torso mass difference is due to the added bolt plates. The increase in torso mass specification is adopted in two places in the assembly engineering drawing in 880105–000(-H) Sheet 6. reviewing of comments received that included jacket measurement data, the agency continued to collect additional measurements to check whether the dimensions and tolerances proposed (including those derived from J2921 drawings and the new section dimensions added by NHTSA) were being met by SAE jackets already in the field for the final rule. Continuing to obtain jacket measurements allowed the agency to establish an average measurement and tolerance of the dimensions for finalized drawings and ensure that the finalized tolerances and dimensions achieve an acceptable degree of consistency, conformity, and uniformity. f. Sample Size Ms. Sial, an individual commenter, supported NHTSA’s jacket specification update. However, to obtain a measurement that more accurately reflects the average U.S. women, Ms. Sial recommended basing the new proposed chest jacket dimension on a larger sample size, such as the mean body measurement data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). VI. Changes to the Drawing Package and PADI Response When NHTSA develops a new crash test dummy, the agency updates the dummy anthropometry to consider human anthropometry measurements, such as those maintained by the CDC (among other factors). However, this rulemaking is not a revision to the anthropometry of the dummy for a new crash test dummy; therefore, a revision to the basic anthropometry of the dummy is outside of the scope of the final rule. Rather, the NPRM and now final rule resolves discrepancies between the jacket specifications in subpart O and jackets available in the field. The jacket specifications are developed from SAE J2921 to update the current crash test dummy’s engineering components. These changes ensure a sufficiently low level of variation between jackets fabricated by different manufacturers. Ideally, dummy jackets should have identical dimensions. However, there are measurement variabilities due to differences in manufacturing, set up, and measurement processes. Thus, jacket specifications include tolerances to account for measurement variability. For the NPRM, NHTSA conducted its own measurements and testing for the proposal. Following the NPRM and 37 Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix A— Spine Box Analysis. PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 NHTSA proposed to amend the subpart O regulatory text to incorporate by reference new versions of the drawing package, parts list and PADI. The final rulemaking closely reflects the revisions in the NPRM. Some new revisions have been added in the final rule. Below is a summary of the changes. All revisions are fully described in more detail in a separate document being placed into the docket for this rulemaking.38 Chest Jacket Drawing For the final rule, NHTSA’s new drawings, the Chest Flesh Assembly (880105–355–H, Sheets 1 and 2) and the Sternum Pad (880105–356–H), include some dimensional changes to reflect a larger pool of data. New reference dimensions are also added for the jacket. NHTSA also revises drawing 880105–000, Complete Assembly, 5th Female, Rev J, Sheet 5 to add jacket dimensions at various cross sections and revise the call-out to the jacket in drawing 880105–300 to reference the new drawing. We are also making some corresponding changes to the PADI. To summarize the changes to the new drawing package, the drawings in which the chest jacket is currently specified (880105–355–E, 880105–356, 880105– 423, and 880105–424) are replaced with: • 880105–355–H, Rev B, Chest Flesh Assembly, Sheet 1 • 880105–355–H, Rev B, Chest Flesh Assembly, Sheet 2 • 880105–356–H, Rev C, Sternum Pad 38 Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List, Engineering Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2023. E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 258 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 880105–000, Complete Assembly, Hybrid III 5th Female In the final rule, sheet 5 is redrawn to reflect the NPRM and final rule note changes. The dimensions remain the same as in the NPRM. Changes from the NPRM include that in note 5, the tolerances are updated on the section dimensions based on post-NPRM data to achieve an acceptable degree of conformity while still ensuring a high level of uniformity. For note 6, metric dimensions are given to aid in clarity. For note 7, a description is added for how to properly adjust the jacket fit on the dummy to aid in setup. 880105–000, Complete Assembly, Hybrid III 5th Female, Sheet 6, Assembly Weights Table Upper torso assembly with jacket (see Table 1 for parts included). Was: 26.50 ± 0.30 lbs (12.02 ± 0.14 kg) Now: 26.90 ± 0.30 lbs (12.20 ± 0.14 kg) Total dummy weight. Was: 108.03 ± 2.00 lbs (49.05 kg ± 0.91 kg) Now: 108.43 ± 2.00 lbs (49.18 kg ± 0.91 kg) Spine box torso mass specification is updated following further comment analysis. Specifically, the nominal value is shifted from to 26.90 ± .30 lbs. from 26.50 ± .30lbs. This change will allow the corridor to shift upwards of 0.40 lbs and the total dummy weight from 108.03 ± 2.50 lbs to 108.43 ± 2.50 lbs. The final rule’s weight specification would not affect or change the dummy’s performance in any way (other than eliminate the potential for noise). The final rule also corrects an old metric conversion error between pounds and kilograms. Specifically, the old metric conversion for 108.03 lbs. was incorrectly listed at 49.05 kg. It should have been 49.00 kg. The changes to the affected drawings are described in more detail in a separate document being placed into the docket for this rulemaking.39 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Jacket PADI The PADI provides specifications on how to assemble the dummy above and beyond the engineering drawings. Given the dummy is frequently dissembled, the PADI includes a check on the exterior dimension to ensure that all assemblies and fitted parts are properly installed on the reassembled dummy. 39 Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List, Engineering Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2023. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 This exterior dimension corresponds to the specification changes to Drawing No. 880105–000, Complete assembly, 5th female, Rev. N, Sheet 5. In addition, the mass tables are removed from the PADI as they are already present within the drawing package. Detailed changes are further specified in the separate document being docketed.40 Spine Box The new versions of the drawing package, parts list, and PADI incorporated by reference include the SAE J2915 specifications for the improved spine box. The final rule revisions add plates to the side of the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play from the assembly. NHTSA’s new engineering part and assembly drawings include the revised spine box to replace the current spine box drawings with the following: • 880105–1045, Rev C, Hybrid III 5th Female Thoracic Spine Upgrade, Sheets 1–3 • 880105–1047, HIII–5F Plate, Thoracic Spine Upgrade • SID–070–6, Rev B, DOT–SID, Modified 5/16–18 x 5/8″ SHCS VII. Housekeeping Amendments In the final rule, NHTSA adopts all of the proposed housekeeping and other amendments to subpart O below. 1. NHTSA amends the title of subpart O to add the word ‘‘adult’’ between ‘‘5th percentile’’ and ‘‘female’’ for clarity. 2. The agency removes the words ‘‘Alpha Version’’ from the title of subpart O. During adoption of some of the subparts of part 572 NHTSA had decided that referring to the alpha, beta, etc., ‘‘versions’’ of the test dummies would better distinguish a current version of an ATD from a previous version. The agency later decided this naming convention was not helpful and has not followed it. Accordingly, for the final rule, NHTSA removes ‘‘Alpha Version’’ from the title of subpart O since the naming convention is no longer used. 3. This final rule revises subpart O’s references to SAE J211 parts 1 and 2 and to SAE J1733 to refer to updated versions of the standards. SAE J211 is revised with improved diagrams for defining the dummy coordinate system, and corrections to minor mistakes in print. New information and recommendations for data system grounding, sensor cable shielding, and minimizing the effects of transducer resonance are included. Clarifications on data processing are also included. J1733 is revised with improved 40 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 diagrams for defining the dummy coordinate system (for the HIII–5F, the system itself is unchanged). VIII. Lead Time In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to make subpart O—the specifications for the chest jacket and spine box—effective 45 days after the publication of the final rule. The Alliance commented that the 45day lead time is not sufficient time for the adoption of the new proposed chest jacket and spine box specification. The commenter noted that NHTSA did not account for the time needed for compliance testing. Instead of a 45-day effective date, the Alliance suggested a lead time of five years,41 and that until the effective date, the new specification be optional. Response After consideration of the comment and post-NPRM analysis of the proposed and final specification, NHTSA believes the 45-day lead time remains sufficient because the agency does not believe that testing under FMVSS No. 208 would be significantly affected by the final rule. FMVSS No. 208 specifies that NHTSA is to use the subpart O dummy in its compliance tests. As discussed previously, if manufacturers are not using the final rule’s jacket for certification, NHTSA will ask manufacturers to identify an FTSS or Denton jacket for NHTSA to use in its compliance testing. This rulemaking does not change any existing process for vehicle certification with the manufacturer-identified jackets. This rulemaking solely adds the new jacket specifications to part 572 and in turn for FMVSSS No. 208 testing. This final rule does not impose any new requirements on anyone. Some vehicle manufacturers already use the SAE jackets on the ATD. Moreover, because none of the dummy jackets that are currently in use correspond to the existing subpart O specifications, there should be no issue with taking an existing dummy out of conformity with the implementation of this rule. Post-NPRM measurement included new SAE jackets that are currently used in the field and conformed to the final rule specifications. The improved spine box is not expected to affect dummy performance because the revision only acts to remove the unwanted artifact of loose bolts rattling. 41 In its February 21, 2014 petition, the Alliance recommended that compliance with the new specifications should be optional for a period of five years. E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations Manufacturers wishing to test with the final rule’s jacket and spine box should have no difficulty obtaining the necessary parts. In the Alliance’s supplemental petition letter, the Alliance indicated that all parts associated with the proposed jacket and spine box changes are available, and there should not be any difficulties meeting anticipated demand. NHTSA believes that the introduction of the new parts is part of the normal maintenance of jackets as it ages and it would not create any significant increases in the workload necessary to maintain the dummies. Lastly, a shortened lead time is desirable because the changes are beneficial for testing laboratories. We believe that the final rule’s jacket and spine box changes will likely lead to diminished laboratory technician workload. A common jacket design will eliminate the need to deal with multiple jacket versions. The new spine box will also lighten laboratory workload by eliminating the need to re-torque the bolts between tests. With respect to levels of effort and technician training needed to modify and maintain the new jacket and spine box, the Alliance indicated in its supplemental letter that both modifications are well within the technical competency of existing laboratory technicians. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14904, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures NHTSA has considered the potential impact of this final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order 13563, DOT Order 2100.6A, and the Department of Transportation’s regulatory policies and procedures. This final rule is not considered to be significant under the Department of Transportation’s regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). As stated in 49 CFR 572.3, Application, part 572 does not in itself impose duties or liabilities on any person. It only serves to describe the test tools that measure the performance of occupant protection systems. Thus, this part 572 final rule itself does not impose any requirements on anyone. Businesses are affected only if they choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. Because the economic impacts of this rule are minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary. This final rule finalizes changes to the specifications of the HIII–5F chest jacket and spine box. For entities testing with the dummy, the finalized revisions are VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 intended to resolve issues with the fit and availability of the jacket and a noise artifact from the spine box. Neither change would impose new requirements on vehicle manufacturers. With respect to benefits, the dummy would not change in any way other than to improve its usability and objectivity. This rulemaking benefits the public by specifying a more objective test tool, which lessens the burden of dummy end-users in performing tests and interpreting test results. It also benefits vehicle manufacturers by providing certainty about which test jacket and spine box NHTSA will use in compliance tests with the HIII 5th percentile adult female ATD, and assurance about the continued availability of the jacket. This rulemaking benefits NHTSA as the agency would no longer have to maintain test jackets of different designs and take steps to match the compliance test jacket with that specified by the vehicle manufacturers. Specifying the new test jacket and spine box ensures the long-term availability of a test jacket for compliance tests. The costs associated with this rulemaking are limited to those associated with acquiring new dummy parts. We conclude that the finalized changes would not necessitate the purchasing of any parts that would not have been purchased in the normal course of business in the absence of the finalized changes. We do not believe the finalized chest jacket changes will impose any additional costs compared to what would have been expended if we did not adopt the proposed changes. Because a chest jacket eventually wears out, it must be replaced. Dummy refurbishments and part replacements are a routine part of ATD testing. The agency understands that industry has essentially run out of its supply of the older FTSS and Denton jackets. We further understand that industry has been replacing worn-out FTSS and Denton jackets with new jackets built to the SAE J2921 specifications. While the FTSS and Denton jackets are not consistent with the finalized specifications, we believe that chest jackets built to the SAE J2921 specifications would meet the finalized specifications. Because industry and testing labs need to replace the chest jacket in the regular course of business—regardless of whether the proposed changes are adopted—and the only available replacement chest jackets conform to the finalized specifications, we believe the finalized chest jacket PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 259 specifications would not impose any additional costs on industry.42 The revised spine box, which is not typically replaced during routine maintenance, costs about $3,000.43 End users do not have to purchase a revised spine box. They can compensate for the design shortcoming of the current spine box by disassembling the dummy and re-torquing the relevant fasteners by hand before each test. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The finalized revisions are intended to resolve issues with the fit and availability of the jacket and a noise artifact from the spine box. Neither change would impose new requirements on vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA does not believe the final rule would lead to any reduction in harmonization. Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, 42 For the HIII–5F, a new jacket costs about $1,300. This is an updated estimate from the NPRM’s approximate cost of $850. If a new jacket is installed on an existing dummy, additional refurbishments or tuning of that dummy may be needed for it to pass the subpart O qualification tests. Depending on the condition and age of the dummy, several other parts may need to be replaced at a cost of up to $10,000. However, dummy refurbishments and part replacements are an inherent part of testing and many of the additional parts are often replaced on a regular schedule. In other words, some of the parts would eventually be replaced, and the costs of the replacement parts can be amortized over a number of tests. 43 This cost was originally estimated to be approximately $600 during the NPRM stage. This estimation has been updated for the final rule. E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 260 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This final rule is not subject to the Executive order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. Incorporation by Reference Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1 CFR part 51), an agency, as part of a proposed rule that includes material incorporated by reference, must summarize material that is proposed to be incorporated by reference and must discuss the ways the material proposed to be incorporated by reference is reasonably available to interested parties or how the agency worked to make materials available to interested parties. At the final rule stage, regulations require that the agency seek formal approval, summarize the material that it incorporates by reference in the preamble of the final rule, discuss the ways that the materials is reasonably available to interested parties, and provide other specific information to the Office of the Federal Register. In this rule, NHTSA incorporates by reference updated versions of a parts list, a set of drawings, and a manual into 49 CFR part 572, subpart O. After seeking comments and the agency’s measurement analysis, we believe the updated versions contain additional specifications and illustrations that are helpful for end users who are attempting to qualify the ATD. This material is published by NHTSA. The contents of the documents are summarized in section VI above, and the documents incorporated by reference are placed in the docket for this rulemaking for interested parties to review. The following updated parts list, drawings, and a manual appear in the amendatory text of this document and earlier versions were previously approved for the locations in which these updated versions appear now: Parts and Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart O, Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII–5F), revised December 2022; Engineering Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O, Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Small Adult Female Test Dummy (HIII–5F), revised December 2022; Procedures for the Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy (HIII–05F), revised June 2022. This final rule also incorporates updated versions of SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 parts 1 and 2 and SAE VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 J1733. Older versions of these documents were previously incorporated by reference into subpart O. The changes in the updated versions are summarized in section VII above and under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act rulemaking analysis below. The versions previously incorporated by reference are available in SAE International’s online reading room.44 The updated versions incorporated by reference in this final rule are available for review at NHTSA and are available for purchase from SAE International at https://www.sae.org. NHTSA has placed a copy of the parts list, set of drawings, and manual in the docket for this final rule. Interested persons can obtain a copy of the material or view the material online by accessing www.regulations.gov; phone: (877) 378–5457; or by contacting NHTSA’s Chief Counsel’s Office at the phone number and address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. The material is also available for inspection at the Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC; phone: (202) 366–9826. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has examined this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 44 www.sae.org/standards/reading-room. PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance. The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law. 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. If and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency’s ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency has examined the nature (i.e., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this rule and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend this rule to preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law will not conflict with the minimum standard adopted here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action. Severability The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9. It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 the application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is unaffected. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small Government jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity ‘‘which operates primarily within the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). The Act requires agencies to prepare and make available an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) describing the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities. An RFA is not required if the head of the agency certifies that the proposed or final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The head of the agency has made such a certification with regard to this final rule. The factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set forth below. Although the agency is not required to issue an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, this section discusses many of the issues that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis would address. Section 603(b) of the Act specifies the content of an RFA. Each RFA must contain: 1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered; 2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for a final rule; 3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the final rule will apply; 4. A description of the projected reporting, recording keeping and other compliance requirements of a final rule including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; 5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the final rule; 6. Each final regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a description of any significant alternatives to the final rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small entities. A description of the reason why action by the agency is being considered VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 and the objectives of, and legal basis for, the final rule are discussed at length earlier in this document. NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the revisions to the test dummy will not impose any requirements on anyone. NHTSA will use the revised ATD in agency testing but will not require anyone to manufacture the dummy or to test motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment with it. Further, small vehicle manufacturers that choose to test with the 5th percentile adult female dummy will not be significantly impacted by this rulemaking. The final rule will simply replace the chest jacket and spine box now used with the test dummy with more up-to-date equipment. Since chest jackets must periodically be replaced on the test dummy because they wear out, this amendment will not significantly affect end users of the ATD (they will continue to do what they already do). Similarly, the change to the new spine box will not significantly affect small vehicle manufacturers. It entails a simple one-time replacement where the old part would be switched out with the new. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities, such as promulgation of rules, that do not involve or lead directly to construction). This rulemaking, which finalizes changes to the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female (HIII–5F) anthropomorphic test device (ATD or crash test dummy), is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking. Civil Justice Reform With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 261 preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement. Pursuant to this order, NHTSA notes as follows: The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This rulemaking does not establish any information collection requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), ‘‘all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.’’ 45 However, if the use of such technical standards would be ‘‘inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, a Federal agency or department may elect to use technical standards that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.’’ 46 Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies such as SAE. The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. Circular A–119 45 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 110 Stat. 775 (1996), at section 12(d)(1). 46 Id. at section 12(d)(3). E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 262 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 directs that evaluating whether to use a voluntary consensus standard should be done on a case-by-case basis.47 An agency should consider, where applicable, factors such as the nature of the agency’s statutory mandate and the consistency of the standard with that mandate.48 SAE has published information reports on the HIII 5th percentile adult female’s chest jacket and spine box which today’s rule incorporates by reference in full. The foregoing sections of this document discuss in detail SAE’s work in these areas: SAE J2921 (Chest Jacket) and SAE J2915 (Spine Box). This rule includes a few specifications beyond SAE J2921; the preamble explains NHTSA’s belief that they are necessary to ensure a sufficient level of uniformity between jackets produced by different manufacturers going forward, and to prevent discrepancies in jacket designs from reoccurring in the future. In addition, the following voluntary consensus standards have been used in developing this final rule: • SAE Recommended Practice J211/ 1_202208 (August 2022), Electronic Instrumentation; • SAE Recommended Practice J211/ 2_202204 (April 2022), Photographic Instrumentation; and • SAE J1733_201811 (November 2018), Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by States, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995) in any one year. Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for 2022 results in $177 million (111.416/75.324 = 1.48). The assessment may be included in conjunction with other assessments, as it is here. This rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the UMRA. This rule does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49 CFR part 572 by adding specifications for a new test jacket and 47 Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A–119, ¶ 5(a)(i), Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities (Jan. 26, 2016). 48 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 spine box for the 5th percentile adult female dummy that NHTSA uses in agency compliance tests. This rule will affect only those businesses that choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. This rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments of more than $177 million annually. UMRA requires the agency to select the ‘‘least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.’’ As discussed above, the agency considered alternatives to the final rule and has concluded that the requirements are the most cost-effective alternatives that achieve the objectives of the rule. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. NHTSA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule does not meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to be considered a major rule. The rule will be effective forty-five days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Regulation Identifier Number The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4) As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found in the Abstract section of the Department’s Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at https://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId= 202404&RIN=2127-AM13. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit www.dot.gov/privacy.html. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: • Have we organized the material to suit the public’s needs? • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn’t clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us with your views. NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain language in promulgating this final rule. Please inform the agency if you can suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language. Submission of Confidential Information You should submit a redacted ‘‘public version’’ of your comment (including redacted versions of any additional documents or attachments). This ‘‘public version’’ of your comment should contain only the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do this. You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth the information specified in part 512. This information includes the materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to § 512.8; and a certificate, pursuant to § 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A. You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one unredacted E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations ‘‘confidential version’’ of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.6, the words ‘‘ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION’’ or ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS’’ (as applicable) must appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ‘‘[ ].’’ You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one redacted ‘‘public version’’ of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.5(a)(2), the redacted ‘‘public version’’ should include redactions of any information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the only information that should be unredacted is information for which you are not seeking confidential treatment). NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to the agency under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for confidential treatment to NHTSA’s headquarters. The request should be sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov. You may either submit your request via email or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to Helena Sung at Helena.Sung@dot.gov. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572 Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 572 as follows: PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 572 continues to read as follows: ■ lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. Subpart O—Hybrid III 5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy 2. Revise the heading of subpart O to read as set forth above. ■ ■ 3. Revise § 572.130 to read as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 § 572.130 Incorporation by reference. Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at NHTSA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact NHTSA at: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; phone: (202) 366–2588; website: www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa/electronicreading-room. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/ cfr/ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@ nara.gov. The material may be obtained from the following sources: (a) NHTSA Technical Information Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; phone: 202– 366–2588; website: https:// www.nhtsa.gov. (1) Engineering Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III 5th Percentile Small Adult Female Test Dummy, December 2022 (the Engineering Drawings); IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 572.132, 572.133, 572.134, 572.135, 572.136, and 572.137. (2) Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy, December 2022 (the Parts/Drawings List); IBR approved for § 572.131. (3) Procedures for the Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII–05F), June 2022 (the PADI); IBR approved for § 572.131. (b) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096; phone: 1–877–606–7323; website: https://www.sae.org. (1) SAE Recommended Practice J211– 1, Instrumentation for Impact Test; Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation, August 2022 (SAE J211–1); IBR approved for § 572.137. (2) SAE Recommended Practice J211– 2, Instrumentation for Impact Tests— Part 2: Photographic Instrumentation, April 2022 (SAE J211–2); IBR approved for § 572.137. (3) SAE J1733, Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing, November 2018; IBR approved for § 572.137. ■ 4. Amend § 572.131 by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2); ■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 263 c. Redesignating table A as ‘‘Table 1 to § 572.131(a)—Drawings List for Engineering Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III 5th Percentile Small Adult Female Test Dummy’’. The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ § 572.131 General description. (a) * * * (1) The Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130), including the drawings listed in table 1 to § 572.131(a); (2) The Parts/Drawings List (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130); and (3) The PADI (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130). * * * * * ■ 5. Amend § 572.132 by adding introductory text, revising paragraph (a), and removing the heading to paragraph (c). The addition and revision read as follows: § 572.132 Head assembly and test procedure. All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130). (a) The head assembly for this test consists of the complete head (drawing 880105–100X), a six-axis neck transducer (drawing SA572–S11) or its structural replacement (drawing 78051– 383X), and 3 accelerometers (drawing SA572–S4). * * * * * ■ 6. Amend § 572.133 by: ■ a. Adding introductory text; ■ b. Revising paragraph (a), the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(i), and the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(i); ■ c. Removing the heading to paragraph (c); ■ d. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)(ii); and ■ e. Redesignating Table B—Pendulum Pulse as ‘‘Table 2 to § 572.133— Pendulum Pulse’’. The revisions and addition read as follows: § 572.133 Neck assembly and test procedure. All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130). (a) The neck assembly for the purposes of this test consists of the assembly of components shown in drawing 880105–250. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 264 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations (b) * * * (1) * * * (i) Plane D, referenced in figure O1 to this subpart O, shall rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal centerline between 77 degrees and 91 degrees. * * * * * * * * (2) * * * (i) Plane D, referenced in figure O2 to this subpart O, shall rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal centerline between 99 degrees and 114 degrees. * * * * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Mount the head-neck assembly, defined in paragraph (b) of this section, on the pendulum described in figure 22 in 49 CFR part 572 so that the midsagittal plane of the head is vertical and coincides with the plane of motion of the pendulum as shown in figure O1 to this subpart O for flexion tests and figure O2 to this subpart O for extension tests. (4) * * * (ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an acceleration vs. time pulse which meets the velocity change as specified in table 2 to § 572.133. Integrate the pendulum acceleration data channel to obtain the velocity vs. time curve. * * * * * ■ 7. Amend § 572.134 by adding introductory text, revising paragraph (a), removing the heading to paragraph (c), and revising paragraph (c)(3). The addition and revisions read as follows: lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 § 572.134 Thorax assembly and test procedure. All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130). (a) The thorax (upper torso) assembly consists of the part of the torso assembly shown in drawing 880105–300. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Seat and orient the dummy on a seating surface without back support as shown in figure O3 of this subpart O, with the limbs extended horizontally and forward, parallel to the midsagittal plane, the midsagittal plane vertical within ±1 degree and the ribs level in the anterior-posterior and lateral directions within ±0.5 degrees. * * * * * ■ 8. Revise and republish § 572.135 to read as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 § 572.135 Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test procedure. All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130). (a) The test objective is to determine the stiffness effects of the lumbar spine (drawing 880105–1096), and abdominal insert (drawing 880105–434), on resistance to articulation between the upper torso assembly (drawing 880105– 300) and the lower torso assembly (drawing 880105–450). (b)(1) When the upper torso assembly of a seated dummy is subjected to a force continuously applied at the head to neck pivot pin level through a rigidly attached adaptor bracket as shown in figure O4 of this subpart O according to the test procedure set out in paragraph (c) of this section, the lumbar spineabdomen assembly shall flex by an amount that permits the upper torso assembly to translate in angular motion relative to the vertical transverse plane 45 ±0.5 degrees at which time the force applied must be not less than 320 N (71.5 lbf) and not more than 390 N (87.4 lbf), and (2) Upon removal of the force, the torso assembly must return to within 8 degrees of its initial position. (c) The test procedure for the upper/ lower torso assembly is as follows: (1) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 °C (66 and 78 °F) and a relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test. (2) Assemble the complete dummy (with or without the legs below the femurs) and attach to the fixture in a seated posture as shown in figure O4 of this subpart O. (3) Secure the pelvis to the fixture at the pelvis instrument cavity rear face by threading four 1⁄4 inch cap screws into the available threaded attachment holes. Tighten the mountings so that the test material is rigidly affixed to the test fixture and the pelvic-lumbar joining surface is horizontal. (4) Attach the loading adapter bracket to the spine of the dummy as shown in figure O4 of this subpart O. (5) Inspect and adjust, if necessary, the seating of the abdominal insert within the pelvis cavity and with respect to the torso flesh, assuring that the torso flesh provides uniform fit and overlap with respect to the outside surface of the pelvis flesh. (6) Flex the dummy’s upper torso three times between the vertical and until the torso reference plane, as shown PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 in figure O4 of this subpart O, reaches 30 degrees from the vertical transverse plane. Bring the torso to vertical orientation and wait for 30 minutes before conducting the test. During the 30-minute waiting period, the dummy’s upper torso shall be externally supported at or near its vertical orientation to prevent it from drooping. (7) Remove all external support and wait two minutes. Measure the initial orientation angle of the torso reference plane of the seated, unsupported dummy as shown in figure O4 of this subpart O. The initial orientation angle may not exceed 20 degrees. (8) Attach the pull cable and the load cell as shown in figure O4 of this subpart O. (9) Apply a tension force in the midsagittal plane to the pull cable as shown in figure O4 of this subpart O at any upper torso deflection rate between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second, until the angle reference plane is at 45 ±0.5 degrees of flexion relative to the vertical transverse plane. (10) Continue to apply a force sufficient to maintain 45 ±0.5 degrees of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the highest applied force during the 10second period. (11) Release all force at the attachment bracket as rapidly as possible, and measure the return angle with respect to the initial angle reference plane as defined in paragraph (c)(6) of this section 3 minutes after the release. ■ 9. Amend § 572.136 by adding introductory text, revising paragraph (a), removing the heading to paragraph (c), and revising paragraph (c)(2). The addition and revisions read as follows: § 572.136 Knees and knee impact test procedure. All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130). (a) The knee assembly for the purpose of this test is the part of the leg assembly shown in drawing 880105–560. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) Mount the test material and secure it to a rigid test fixture as shown in figure O5 of this subpart O. No part of the foot or tibia may contact any exterior surface. * * * * * ■ 10. Amend § 572.137 by adding introductory text and revising the paragraph (m) introductory text and paragraph (n) to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Rules and Regulations § 572.137 Test conditions and instrumentation. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130). * * * * * (m) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing devices installed in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 dummy and in the test apparatus specified by this part shall be recorded in individual data channels that conform to SAE J211–1 and SAE J211– 2 (both incorporated by reference, see § 572.130), except as noted, with channel classes as follows: * * * * * (n) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity shall conform PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 265 to SAE J1733 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130). * * * * * Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501. Adam Raviv, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. 2024–30985 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM 03JAR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 250-265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30985]

[[Page 250]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0093]
RIN 2127-AM13

Anthropomorphic Test Devices, HIII 5TH Percentile Female Test
Dummy; Incorporation by Reference

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document revises the chest jacket and spine box
specifications for the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy
(HIII-5F). The jacket revisions resolve discrepancies between the
jacket specifications in subpart O and jackets available in the field,
and ensure a sufficiently low level of variation between jackets
fabricated by different manufacturers. The spine box revisions
eliminate a source of signal noise caused by fasteners within the box
that may become loose during sled or vehicle crash tests. This
rulemaking responds to a petition for rulemaking from the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective on February 18, 2025.
IBR date: The incorporation by reference of certain material listed
in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
February 18, 2025.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration for
this final rule must be received no later than February 18, 2025.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document or by any of the following methods:
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must
refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted
to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all
petitions received will be posted without change to
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit
any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit
your complete submission, including the information you claim to be
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you
should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above. When you send a submission containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Please see further
information in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this
preamble.
Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents received
into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476) or you may visit www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. In accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these comments, without
edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.
In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage
commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization;
however, submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not
commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully
considered.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background
documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time
or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Mr. Garry Brock, Office of Crashworthiness Standards; phone: (202) 366-
6198. For legal issues, you may contact Ms. K. Helena Sung, Office of
Chief Counsel; phone: (202) 366-2992. The mailing address of these
officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
a. Rulemaking History
b. Chest Jacket
c. Spine Box
III. Summary of the Final Rule
IV. Post-NPRM Measurement and Analysis
V. Response to Comments
a. Dimensional Targets and the Use of Mandrel
b. Certification
c. Annual Inspection Specification
d. Other Measurement Device
e. Spine Box
f. Sample Size
VI. Changes to Drawing Package and PADI
VII. Housekeeping Amendments
VIII. Lead Time
IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

This final rule finalizes changes to the Hybrid III 5th percentile
adult female (HIII-5F) anthropomorphic test device (ATD or crash test
dummy or dummy). The HIII-5F is used in frontal compliance crash tests
and air bag static deployment tests, certification to which is required
for certain vehicles by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 208, Occupant crash protection. The dummy is described in 49 CFR
part 572, subpart O.
Among other things, subpart O incorporates by reference several
documents that specify the physical make-up of the dummy. This document
finalizes changes to the chest jacket and spine box specifications to
address issues with the fit and availability of the jacket and a noise
artifact from the spine box. Today's rulemaking responds to the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer's (the Alliance) 2014 petition for
rulemaking.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (February 21,
2014). The Alliance consisted of: BMW Group; Chrysler Group LLC;
Ford Motor Company; General Motors Company; Jaguar Land Rover;
Mazda; Mercedes-Benz USA; Mitsubishi Motors; Porsche; Toyota;
Volkswagen Group of America; and Volvo Cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chest Jacket

The chest jacket is a sleeveless foam-filled vinyl zippered jacket
that represents human flesh, including female breasts. The chest jacket
may need to be replaced because it can shrink or otherwise fall out of
specification or wear out with age. Since the introduction of the HIII-
5F into part 572 in 2000, none of the jackets that were manufactured
met the jacket specifications specified in part 572. Since around 2006,
NHTSA, in its own compliance tests, has used the brand of dummy and
jacket (either First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) or Denton ATD
(Denton)) used by the

[[Page 251]]

vehicle manufacturer to certify the vehicle. However, these FTSS and
Denton jackets are no longer being manufactured; manufacturers (or test
laboratories) and NHTSA have, or will soon, run out of these jackets.
In 2013, SAE \2\ published an information report for the HIII-5F chest
jacket, SAE J2921 JAN2013, H-III5F Chest Jacket Harmonization,
describing a new jacket compatible with FTSS and Denton dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE International).
SAE is an organization that develops technical standards based on
best practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NPRM proposed to adopt the jacket specifications described in
SAE J2921, as well as a few additional specifications. We believed that
chest jackets that have been and are being manufactured to the SAE
J2921 design would also conform to the proposed specifications. NHTSA
also believed that additional specifications were necessary to ensure a
sufficient level of uniformity between jackets produced by different
manufacturers when other manufacturers enter the market, and to prevent
the variances in jacket designs that were problematic in the past from
reoccurring. Based on NHTSA's testing, the agency concluded that
dummies fitted with chest jackets that satisfy the proposed
specifications would perform equivalently to dummies fitted with the
FTSS or Denton jackets that were previously used. A benefit of
standardized jacket specifications would be that the agency would no
longer have to maintain chest jackets of different designs and take
steps to match the compliance test jacket with that specified by the
vehicle manufacturer, thereby providing more objective test results.

Spine Box

The spine box is the dummy's steel backbone. It is located in the
dummy's thorax, which consists of six bands that simulate human ribs.
Since the mid-2000s, industry and NHTSA have been aware of a signal
noise artifact in the signals from the accelerometers in the thorax
during sled and crash tests originating in the spine box. The source of
the noise is fasteners that become loose during normal use. In 2011 SAE
published an information report for a spine box modification (SAE J2915
AUG2011, H-III5F Spine Box Update to Eliminate Noise).
We proposed to adopt the SAE J2915 modification. The proposed
revisions would add plates to the side of the spine box, with bolts
countersunk into the plate to remove any play from the assembly. The
modification would not affect or change the dummy's performance in any
way (other than eliminate the potential for noise). The improved spine
box would address a shortcoming in the ATD's design that had to be
addressed by end users disassembling the dummy, re-torquing the
relevant fasteners by hand before each test, and re-qualifying the
dummy as needed. The improved spine box would increase the quality of
data and reduce maintenance and testing time.

Summary of Final Rule

NHTSA received comments from Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.
(HIS), the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (the Alliance), and Ms.
Sial (an individual commenter). All commenters were generally
supportive of the NPRM, with a few measurement specification
recommendations.
The final rule adopts most of the NPRM's proposed specifications,
with minor changes to ensure a sufficiently low level of variation
among jackets based on analysis of post-NPRM measurement data and
commenters' data. For the jacket, the agency updates the values of some
dimensions to reflect more closely the larger pool of measurement data
acquired since the NPRM. We also increase the dimensional tolerances in
several places because the proposed tolerances were unnecessarily
small. Additionally, a limited number of dimensions are revised to
become ``reference only'' dimensions (which are useful during
inspections) because the larger pool of data revealed that there were
not consistent reference measurement points associated with them. For
the spine box, the final rule adjusts the mass specification slightly
to reflect a small increase in mass due to the material that is added.
Furthermore, the rule's effective date is 45 days after the final
rule's publication date. The final rule change is not intended to
impose new requirements on vehicle manufacturers. We believe currently
manufactured chest jackets meet the SAE J2921 specifications and meet
the finalized specifications. We also believe that the parts to
implement the spine box fix are available, as are newly manufactured
replacement spine boxes that incorporate the fix. Manufacturers wishing
to test with the finalized jacket and spine box should have no
difficulty obtaining the necessary parts.
The costs associated with this rulemaking are limited to those
associated with acquiring new dummy parts. We conclude that the
finalized changes would not necessitate the purchasing of any parts
that would not have been purchased in the normal course of business in
the absence of the finalized changes. This final rule is not
significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under E.O.12866.

II. Background

a. Rulemaking History

In 2014, the Alliance petitioned NHTSA to incorporate the new SAE
jacket into part 572 per SAE Information Report J2921 and revise the
spine box as described in SAE Information Report J2915.\3\ NHTSA
subsequently sent a letter to the Alliance asking for clarification on
several points. The Alliance responded to NHTSA's request with a
supplemental letter dated May 11, 2015.\4\ NHTSA granted this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (February 21,
2014).
\4\ Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (May 11,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 26, 2019, NHTSA published a NPRM (84 FR 70916) to
revise the chest jacket and spine box specifications for the Hybrid III
5th Percentile Female Test Dummy (HIII-5F) set forth in Part 572--
Anthropomorphic Test Devices. NHTSA proposed to adopt the jacket
specifications described in SAE J2921, as well as several additional
specifications for the jacket's contour that are not contained in SAE
J2921.
The NPRM comment period closed on February 24, 2020. HIS requested
a ninety-day extension to the NPRM comment period to collect data
regarding the proposed additional chest jacket specifications while
also ensuring a sufficient sample size.\5\ On June 2, 2020, the agency
extended the comment period until August 3, 2020 (85 FR 33617). NHTSA
also published a set of instructions on how to record jacket
measurements in the rulemaking docket.\6\ The instructions were written
for lab technicians to record the jacket measurements. They were the
same jacket measurements as those proposed in the NPRM but conveyed in
more comprehensible format than in the NPRM. After the extended comment
period in August 2020, HIS and the Alliance submitted additional
measurement data and recommendations to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ NHTSA-2019-0023-004.
\6\ NHTSA-2019-0023-007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After issuing the NPRM, NHTSA continued to collect measurement data
on newly purchased jackets to check whether the dimensions and
tolerances proposed were being met by SAE jackets already in the field.
For the final rule, the agency also examined all

[[Page 252]]

measurement data provided by the commenters.

b. Chest Jacket

The HIII-5F chest jacket is a sleeveless foam-filled vinyl zippered
jacket that represents human flesh, including female breasts. The chest
jacket is zipped onto the underlying dummy and covers the entire
thorax, including the shoulder assembly. The HIII-5F was added to part
572 in 2000.\7\ The HIII-5F is used in frontal compliance crash tests
and air bag static deployment tests, certification to which is required
for certain vehicles by FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 65 FR 10968 (March 1, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The HIII-5F dummy is described in 49 CFR part 572, subpart O. This
subpart contains regulatory text describing the qualification
procedures and requirements for the dummy. Subpart O also incorporates
several other documents by reference. Those documents describe the
physical make-up of the dummy, and include a parts list, a set of
engineering drawings, and a document entitled, Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ These documents can be found in Docket NHTSA-2000-6940
(available at www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NPRM proposed changes to the chest jacket specifications to
address known issues with the shape and availability of the jacket.
Existing Jackets Do Not Meet the Current Part 572 Specifications
The chest jacket, along with the HIII-5F, was developed under the
auspices of SAE. When subpart O was created in 2000, jackets for the
HIII-5F were being produced solely by FTSS. Soon thereafter, Applied
Safety Technologies Corporation, which later became Denton, began to
manufacture HIII-5F dummies and jackets.
The jackets FTSS and Denton produced did not conform to all aspects
of the part 572 specifications; in addition, jackets produced by each
manufacturer differed from those produced by the other.\9\ The
differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets, and between those
jackets and the part 572 specifications, are the result of a variety of
factors. For one, the subpart O jacket drawing, which consists of two
sheets, contains errors and ambiguities. The dimensions for the breast
locations are not consistent between the two sheets, and the overall
shape is not consistent, either. These inconsistences and ambiguities
contributed to dimensional differences between the FTSS and Denton
jackets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Both Transport Canada and the Alliance found dimensional
differences between the two brands of jackets. The 2019 NPRM (84 FR
70916) provides more details on the specific differences and
manufacturing design choices contributing to the discrepancies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2003, FTSS submitted a petition for rulemaking to revise the
jacket dimensions to correspond to the dimensions of the jackets then
being produced by FTSS.\10\ NHTSA denied this petition.\11\ The agency
stated that while dummies with the FTSS and Denton jackets performed
somewhat differently from dummies with jackets that conformed with the
part 572 specifications, the dimensional differences did not have a
significant effect on dummy performance as long as the seat belt was
properly positioned.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Letter from FTSS to NHTSA (dated December 30, 2003).
\11\ 71 FR 45427 (August 9, 2006).
\12\ Id. See also letter from FTSS to NHTSA (August 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, studies of the jacket by Transport Canada and the Alliance
in the mid-2000s found that FTSS and Denton dummies performed
differently in the types of testing specified in FMVSS No. 208.\13\
FMVSS No. 208 specifies a variety of different dynamic (crash) and
static (out-of-position) requirements using the HIII-5F.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Transport Canada's research found that the FTSS and Denton
dummies performed differently with respect to chest deflection in
both full-scale rigid barrier crash tests and in out-of-position
testing. Suzanne Tylko et al., 2006, The Effect of Breast
Anthropometry on the Hybrid III 5th Female Chest Response, Stapp Car
Crash Journal, Vol. 50 (November 2006), p. 390. The Alliance
similarly reported research by vehicle manufacturers. Letter from
the Alliance (January 31, 2006), p. 1, 8-9. In 2005 the Alliance
presented these issues to NHTSA and documented them in a 2006
letter. See also Tylko et al., 2006, A Comparison of Hybrid III 5th
Female Dummy Chest Responses in Controlled Sled Trials, SAE
Technical Paper Series, 2006-01-0455.
\14\ See, e.g., FMVSS No. 208 S15 (rigid barrier test
requirements); S25 (out-of-position requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Development of the SAE J2921 Jacket Specifications (SAE Jacket)
These differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets led SAE, in
2006, to establish a task force to develop a harmonized jacket
compatible with both companies' versions of the HIII-5F jacket (for
ease of reference, referred to in this document as the ``SAE jacket'').
In 2010, FTSS and Denton merged to form HIS. The merger meant that
HIS became the only significant dummy manufacturer and what had begun
as an effort to specify the design of a ``harmonized'' jacket became an
effort for HIS to simply design and produce a jacket that could fit
existing Denton and FTSS dummies as well as newly manufactured HIS
dummies.
SAE published an information report for the harmonized jacket in
2013 (SAE J2921 JAN2013 supra). An update to this information report
was published in March 2023 (SAE J2921 MAR2023). This update does not
alter any of the technical specifications. The J2921 jacket is
currently offered for sale by HIS and JASTI-USA, Inc., the U.S.
affiliate of JASTI Co., LLC, a manufacturer of dummies and test
equipment headquartered in Japan.
NHTSA Enforcement Policy To Address Chest Jacket Issues
The discrepancies among the available jackets brands (principally
from FTSS and Denton) can lead to different compliance test results
with different jackets. In 2006, the Alliance requested that NHTSA, in
its compliance testing program, use the same dummy brand (Denton or
FTSS) the vehicle manufacturer used in its certification of a
particular make/model. NHTSA adopted this requested practice.
Recent events render this approach of maintaining both FTSS and
Denton jackets obsolete and necessitate further action by NHTSA. After
the merger of FTSS and Denton, HIS indicated that it would maintain
production of the FTSS and Denton brand versions of the jackets so that
they could be used as spare parts on the existing FTSS and Denton
dummies.\15\ However, in 2015 HIS discontinued production of the
original FTSS and Denton chest jacket designs and now sells only the
SAE jacket, identified as part number 880105-355-H.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The Brand Harmonization of the Hybrid III 5th Small Female
Crash Test Dummy 880105-000, The ATD Harmonization Task Group,
Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc., July 2012.
\16\ Identified as part number 880105-355-H. This is the part
number of the engineering drawing of the jacket that appears in SAE
J2921. Hybrid-III 5th Small Female Dummy, 880105-000-H Brand
Harmonized Parts Catalog, Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.,
August 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the past few years, NHTSA has received requests from several
vehicle manufacturers for NHTSA to conduct its compliance tests using
the SAE jacket. NHTSA has asked manufacturers to identify the jacket
(Denton, FTSS or SAE) for NHTSA to use in its compliance testing.
However, because chest jackets shrink or otherwise fall out of
specification or wear out with age, NHTSA's stock of FTSS and Denton
jackets is running out, and NHTSA has only a limited supply. The
Alliance has informed NHTSA that its members are facing the same issue.
Thus, the issues of jacket availability and which jacket designs are
acceptable for use in compliance tests have become more urgent.

[[Page 253]]

Testing of the SAE Jacket \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See 2019 NPRM Section IV (84 FR 70921-70922) for a more
detailed summary of NHTSA and industry evaluation of the chest
jacket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The development of the SAE jacket included was a preliminary jacket
in 2011 and then a final version in 2013. NHTSA and others tested both
versions of the SAE jackets to assess ATD performance with the new
components.
The studies compared the dimensions of the jackets and evaluated
the performance of dummies fitted with the jackets in different tests
(sled tests, out-of-position tests, and some of the subpart O
qualification tests). The studies found that dummies fitted with SAE-
designed jackets (both the 2011 and 2013 versions) performed
essentially the same as dummies fitted with pre-existing FTSS and
Denton (non-SAE) jackets with respect to dummy injury metrics and other
responses (with one exception). While some common refurbishment may be
needed when fitting the jacket onto an older dummy, the tests
demonstrated that once an older dummy was retrofitted with a new J2921
jacket, all parts on the dummy conformed dimensionally to the proposed
subpart O engineering drawings.
Proposed Modifications
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to amend the chest jacket
specifications in subpart O's regulatory text to incorporate by
reference new versions of the drawing package, parts list and PADI. The
proposed changes reflect the J2921 jacket design in which the breast
contours are blended more gradually into the torso, compared to the
current subpart O design where the breast contours are more sharply
defined.
NHTSA proposed to adopt the specifications in SAE J2921 (Figures 4-
6 in SAE J2921, which are engineering drawings of the SAE jacket
design). However, we also proposed adding additional specifications for
the jacket's contour that are not contained in SAE J2921. Our proposed
additional specifications for the jacket's contour adds breadth, depth,
and circumference dimensions at different section levels of the jacket
on the main assembly drawing of the dummy (880105-000, Rev. N, Sheet
5). Dimensions are specified for a jacket fitted/worn on a dummy, i.e.,
measurements would be recorded on the jacket as fitted/worn on a dummy
positioned on the same flat-back bench as what is currently shown on
880105-000, Rev. N, Sheet 5. The additional dimensional specifications
were intended to define the outer shape of the thorax and to preclude
belt routing discrepancies. The information included additional views
of the chest jacket at various cross sections.
In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the proposed jacket
specification would ensure uniformity in the form, fit, and function of
the HIII-5F. We also tentatively concluded that the proposed jacket
specifications would encompass existing jackets that have been built to
the SAE J2921 specifications; the proposed specifications were
developed in light of such existing jackets.

c. Spine Box

The spine box of the HIII-5F is the dummy's steel backbone. It is
located in the dummy's thorax, which consists of six bands that
simulate human ribs. The bands are made of spring steel, and a thick
layer of graphite is bonded to each band to provide damping when the
bands are deflected, thus giving them humanlike properties. On the
posterior aspect of the thorax, the bands are affixed to the spine box.
The spine box is currently specified in the parts and drawings document
in drawings 880105-1000, and SA572-S28 with call-outs in 880105-300 and
the PADI (p. 21).
In the mid-2000s, the SAE Task Force began an effort--in parallel
with its efforts on the chest jacket--to find and eliminate a source of
signal noise that sometimes emanated from the HIII-5F spine box.
Alliance members determined that the noise was caused by loosening of
six socket head cap screws attaching the spine box to the lower spine.
Due to a design shortcoming, repeated crash testing loosened the screws
so that they rattled against the inner walls of the through holes. This
rattling led to artifacts in the signals of the accelerometers in the
thorax during sled and crash tests. The problem affected FTSS and
Denton units alike. Testing laboratories have been addressing this
problem by disassembling the dummy and inspecting and tightening the
screws routinely.
As a long-term solution, SAE developed an alteration to improve the
spine box. Specifically, it recommended adding plates to the side of
the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play
from the assembly. The alteration prevents the screws from loosening
and eliminates the signal noise. NHTSA and others tested the new spine
box fix as it was being developed. In 2011 SAE published an information
report for the spine box modification (SAE J2915 AUG2011). This
information report was revised in May 2022 (SAE J2915 MAY2022). The
updated information report does not contain any technical changes to
the design and focuses on minor formatting and typographical changes.
Spine Box Testing
NHTSA's 2011 study and the SAE task force \18\ showed that the
spine modification had completely eliminated the noise emanating from
the chest without affecting the response of the dummy in any other way.
The study found that the spine boxes manufactured by different
manufacturers were identical, suggesting that the spine box alterations
are sufficiently specified. The study also concluded that the spine box
was durable (did not loosen over repeated testing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Reported in SAE J2915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Modifications
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to change the spine box specifications
to permanently fix the signal noise problem. The new versions of the
drawing package, parts list, and PADI proposed for incorporation by
reference include the SAE J2915 (Jan 2011) \19\ specifications for the
improved spine box. The proposed revisions would add plates to the side
of the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any
play from the assembly. The modification would increase the quality of
data and reduce maintenance and testing time. The modification would
not affect or change the dummy's performance in any way (other than
eliminate the potential for noise).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ At the time of the NPRM, the most current SAE J2915 was the
January 2011 version. Since the NPRM publication, this information
report was revised in May 2022 (SAE J2915 May2022). The updated
information report does not contain any technical changes to the
design, and focuses on minor formatting and typographical changes.
\20\ We note that the current subpart O ATD can be a valid test
dummy without installing the new spine box, i.e., users can address
the signal noise problem by disassembling the dummy and inspecting
and tightening the screws by hand on a routine basis. However, NHTSA
believes that these efforts must be taken regularly to ensure that
the ATD's thoracic data are not affected by the spine box signal
noise, and that test evaluators should carefully review test data
for signs of artifacts in the signals of the thorax accelerometers.
As an alternative to checking bolt tightness on existing units or
replacing the entire spine box, end-users, at their discretion, may
opt to modify (rather than replace) their dummy's spine box as
prescribed by SAE J2915. However, NHTSA's proposal does not include
specifications for the modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the Final Rule

After analysis of post-NPRM measurement data and commenters' data,
this final rule adopts most of the NPRM's proposed specification with
minor changes to ensure a sufficiently

[[Page 254]]

low level of variation between jackets fabricated by different
manufacturers. The final rule revises the chest jacket and spine box
specifications in subpart O that correct previous errors and
ambiguities. A summary of the engineering changes is outlined in
section VI and a full discussion of the engineering changes to the
HIII-5F dummy, as discussed in this final rule, is found in a separate
document docketed.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 5th Percentile
Female Test Dummy, Part 572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List,
Engineering Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), Subpart O Regulatory Text,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the jacket, the agency updates the values of some jacket
dimensions to reflect more closely the larger pool of measurement data
acquired since the NPRM. We also increase the dimensional tolerances in
several places because the proposed tolerances were unnecessarily
small. Additionally, a limited number of dimensions are revised to
become ``reference only'' dimensions (which are useful during
inspections) because the larger pool of data revealed that there were
not consistent reference measurement points associated with them. Such
``reference only'' measurements are not required to be met by a
compliant dummy. The additions and changes to the NPRM specifications
will ensure uniformity in the form, fit, and function of the HIII-
5F.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ A full discussion of the data collected and updates made to
the jacket dimensions and tolerances is described in a separate
document docketed, Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female
Test Dummy Final Rule, Appendix B, Chest Jacket Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the spine box, NHTSA adjusts the mass specification slightly to
reflect additional material that is added. No other changes are made
for the spine box outside of the modification of the mass
specification.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ A full discussion of the data collected, and updates made
to the thorax weight, can be found in separate docketed document in
Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule
Appendix A, Spine Box Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the NPRM, NHTSA has decided not to incorporate the
mandrel \24\ or the fit check procedure outlined in J2921. This final
rule's updates to subpart O provide the necessary dimensions for the
jacket. If there is a concern regarding shrinking of the jacket,
measurements can be taken to confirm dimensionality. It would be up to
the individual measurement taker whether to utilize the mandrel as part
of the jacket fit check. In the Alliance's supplemental submission to
NHTSA, the Alliance clarified that it was not requesting that the
agency specify use of the mandrel. In the NPRM, the agency tentatively
decided not to incorporate the mandrel or the fit check procedure
outlined in J2921 and asked for comments on the mandrel. Commenters
recommended using the mandrel when taking measurements of the jacket
dimensions. NHTSA disagrees with the need to include a mandrel. Both
the NPRM and post-NPRM analyses have been shown to meet the dimensional
requirements by recording measurements on unworn jackets that were set
up in the specified configuration without use of the mandrel. We
recognize that when the proposed jacket is used on an existing dummy,
the dummy may require some amount of re-tuning or refurbishment to pass
the part 572 subpart O qualifications tests, but this need is common
when worn parts are replaced. As SAE mentioned, the mandrel was
intended to be used only to test the fit of the jacket as the jacket
ages. As such, the mandrel can be used as an optional inspection
device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ SAE J2921 describes a mandrel to assess the fit of the
jacket. Because jackets tend to shrink over time, the mandrel was
developed to assess jacket fit as it ages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall measurement data confirms that the proposed and final rule
jacket specifications encompass existing jackets that have been built
to the SAE J2921 specifications. Therefore, the final rule effectively
remains the same as the proposed rule.

IV. Post-NPRM Measurement and Analysis

After the NPRM publication, NHTSA continued to collect measurement
data on newly purchased jackets to check whether the dimensions and
tolerances proposed (including those derived from J2921 drawings and
the new section dimensions added by NHTSA) were being met by SAE
jackets already in the field. We also examined all measurement data
provided by the commenters. Here, we provide a summary of the
measurement and final rule changes. A full discussion of the process
and the data collected can be found in a separate document being placed
in the docket for this rulemaking.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Post NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy
Final Rule, Appendix B--Chest Jacket Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In defining the jacket in the NPRM, we proposed ``unworn''
dimensional requirements and ``worn'' dimensional requirements. The
``unworn'' dimensional measurements are taken on the jacket as a
standalone component on the benchtop, while the ``worn'' measurements
are taken on the underlying dummy. Additional measurements were
included to our pool of ``worn'' and ``unworn'' data.\26\ From this
body of data, the final rule largely adopted the proposal with adjusted
dimensions and tolerances to ensure that jackets in the field achieve
an acceptable degree of conformity while still assuring a high level of
uniformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the ``unworn'' requirements, we are replacing the old, 2002
part 572 subpart O engineering drawings of the jacket with new drawings
based on the drawings contained within SAE J2921. For the ``worn''
requirements, we specify additional dimensional requirements for the
jacket's contours that are not contained in SAE J2921. They include
dimensions for the jacket's breadth, depth, and circumference at
different section levels. Detailed specification changes are described
in the January 2023 Engineering Changes document.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Id. at 21. Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Female Test Dummy, Part 572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts
List, Engineering Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, January 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Unworn'' Measurements

The drawings containing the ``unworn'' measurements have several
updates to account for a larger set of data.\28\ Updates have also been
made to create reference dimensions for some measures. Review of the
data provided in comments to the NPRM revealed that HIS had not
reported all of the dimensional measurements of the jacket. Of the
``unworn'' dimensional data that HIS reported, HIS data were shown to
be within the tolerances specified closely with the final rule.\29\ In
other words, the additional NHTSA measurements and the October HIS
data, when viewed independently, both confirm each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Id. at 25.
\29\ Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shape and configuration of the jacket defined in the final rule
is identical to that of the engineering drawing contained within SAE
J2921. As noted previously, NHTSA's engineering drawing incorporates
several additional ``unworn'' dimensions that are needed to fully
specify the jacket and preclude variations between future jackets
fabricated by different manufacturers. NHTSA's additional dimensional
requirements include arm hole

[[Page 255]]

specifications and reference (ref) dimensions for the breast location.

``Worn'' Measurement

The ``worn'' dimensional requirements have four section levels
specified for the jacket when fitted on the underlying HIII-5F dummy
positioned on the same flat-back bench as what is currently shown on
880105-000, Rev. J, Sheet 5. The dimensional specifications define the
outer shape of the thorax to preclude belt routing discrepancies that
were the source of the thorax deflection differences described above.
The requirements are also needed to ensure a sufficiently low level of
variation between future jackets fabricated by different manufacturers.
The final rule updates the tolerances for the breadth and
circumference measurements. With a few exceptions, all existing new SAE
jackets were demonstrated to be within the dimensional requirements in
the final rule. The final rule demonstrates that current SAE jackets
now in the field conform to the new subpart O dimensional requirements.
However, the final rule does not guarantee that all new jackets will
fit properly on all underlying HIII-5F units. Similar to all other
device measurements, diligence is needed to select a jacket for a
particular dummy to ensure that all jacket-on-dummy requirements are
met. NHTSA reviewed the provided data from HIS regarding the ``worn''
measurements and noted some recurring inconsistencies with NHTSA's own
data.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ A further discussion and analysis of the provided data is
shown in Appendices B and C of the Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th
Percentile Female Test Dummy Final Rule, a separately docketed
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Response to Comments

In the NPRM, we sought comment on the proposed specifications,
including the dimensions not specified in the SAE J291 report. We
sought information and data on whether existing jackets built to SAE
J2921 on existing dummies will meet the proposed specifications. NHTSA
also sought comment on what (if any) additional information, such as
tolerance specifications, is needed to fully specify the jacket to
ensure that jackets produced by different manufacturers perform
equivalently. We also sought comment on the proposed approach of
specifying dimensions for the jacket as fitted on a dummy, including
whether additional subpart O qualification tests are necessary.
Section IV addresses the specific dimensional specifications based
on post-NPRM measurement data analysis. This section will focus on the
commenters' specific approach of specifying jacket dimensions. Further
discussion of the comments can be found in a separately docketed
document.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy
Final Rule, Appendix C--Response and Analysis of Comments Received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dimensional Targets and the Use of Mandrel

The mandrel was developed and described in the SAE information
report (SAE J2921) describing the harmonized jacket. In the SAE report,
it was noted that the jackets tend to shrink over time. The mandrel was
developed to assess jacket fit as it ages. There are reference marks on
the back, bottom, and top of the mandrel that serve as indicators that
the jacket has shrunk to the point where a replacement is recommended.
In the NPRM, NHTSA considered the need for the mandrel and
tentatively decided not to incorporate the mandrel in the fit check
procedure outlined in SAE J2921, but did request comment.
Comment
In response to the NPRM, comments recommended a new use of the
mandrel, outside of the initial design. Both HIS and the Alliance
commented that the mandrel should be incorporated and used for taking
dimensional measurements of the jacket. Concerns were raised regarding
some of the measurements to be taken when the jacket is zipped onto the
underlying dummy (worn) and difficulty in reliably obtaining those
measurements. These concerns were based on the need to measure the
jacket and obtain dimensional measurements within the tolerances.
Commenters recommended the use of the mandrel as a tool to constrain
the torso and take all measurements on/with the mandrel. The commenters
noted that the mandrel would provide a repeatable means to set up the
jacket for dimensional measurement. Commenters cited a need to have the
mandrel to ensure jacket measurement consistency and cited poor Gage
repeatability and reproducibility when the mandrel was not used.
Response
The use of the mandrel for taking dimensional measurements of the
jacket represents a new use for the mandrel and was not part of the
petition for rulemaking. The Alliance's supplemental submission to
NHTSA clarified that it was not requesting that the agency specify the
use of the mandrel.\32\ The NPRM sought comments on the mandrel's use
in SAE J2921. The SAE J2921 design used the mandrel for a fit check
when the jacket has shrunk. The comments received proposed using the
mandrel in a new way: to take dimensional measurements of the jacket in
lieu of placing the jacket on the underlying dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (Feb. 21,
2014); Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (May 11, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several technical reasons why the mandrel is not adopted
in the final rule. Overall, NHTSA disagrees with the need for a mandrel
to meet the final jacket measurement specifications but agrees it can
be used as an optional inspection device. When the jacket is being
prepared for testing, entities subject to FMVSS testing are free to use
the mandrel as an inspection device for shrinking of the jacket or when
configuring the unworn jacket before taking certain measurements.
However, NHTSA will not include the mandrel in subpart O nor will it
specify use of the mandrel.
Based on NHTSA's overall assessment of the data provided, the
agency believes that the ``worn'' and ``unworn'' dimensions specified
in the final rule remain sufficient for a determination of acceptable
jacket size, without the need for a mandrel. NHTSA was able to record
all the measurements in both a ``worn'' and ``unworn'' state for the
dummy within tolerances, except for a few instances.
The purpose of an engineering drawing is to record and convey the
dummy's requirements which is to be used in FMVSS testing. The drawings
must include sufficient information to enable production planning,
manufacture, assembly, testing, and inspection of individual parts and
assemblies. The entire jacket-on-dummy assembly is specified by part
572, not just the individual parts. The jacket itself is made of a
flexible material that is placed over the underlying dummy. The contour
locations of the jacket relative to a vehicle shoulder belt are
affected by the underlying structure of the dummy. Thus, those
dimensions are specified on the assembly drawing of the dummy, known as
``worn'' dimensions when the jacket is fitted/zipped on the underlying
dummy structure. It is important for the drawings to include the
underlying dummy, to ensure that the external dimensions of the
assembled dummy are consistent and within tolerance. Checking
dimensional measures when the jacket is off the underlying dummy,

[[Page 256]]

even with the use of the mandrel, is not sufficient.
In addition to exterior dimensions of the full dummy assembly,
individual parts are also specified on separate engineering drawings.
The part drawings specify the construction and material of the jacket.
They also specify jacket dimensions that do not depend on the
underlying dummy. These dimensions are referred to as the ``unworn''
dimensions. For the jacket, the ``unworn'' dimensions, together with
the ``worn'' assembly dimensions, are needed to ensure uniformity of
the dummy as a whole. A separate jacket drawing is needed, just as
separate drawings for other parts are needed. Thus, it is appropriate
to have dimensions for the jacket on separate jacket-only drawings in
the ``unworn'' condition.
NHTSA analyzed both our own data and the commenters' data. Both
datasets have shown that the finalized specifications were achieved
consistently within the tolerance ranges. Thus, the specifications
ensure that current and future chest jackets will have sufficient
uniformity. Notably, NHTSA's own measurements were recorded without the
aid of a mandrel and still met the final rule specifications. This
result confirms the validity of NHTSA's specifications without the use
of mandrel. NHTSA's analysis of its post-NPRM data and commenters'
measurement data is further detailed in section IV.
The use of the mandrel, if implemented in subpart O, would require
new drawings with dimensions and tolerances to properly and repeatably
specify the mandrel. This need would likely create new discrepancies.
While J2921 depicts a drawing of the mandrel, it does not provide
details or dimensions on the shape of the mandrel. Also, neither J2921
nor the commenters provided an objective fit criterion for a mandrel or
mandrel-specific test procedure. Without the exact specification of the
mandrel, contrary to the commenters' suggestion, the introduction of a
new device here would create more variation for the jacket.
NHTSA also disagrees with the commenters' use of Gage repeatability
and reproducibility (Gage R&R) analysis as further support that a
mandrel is needed. A gage is a device used to obtain measurement. Here,
a mandrel is described by SAE as a fit check device, not a measurement
device. The purpose of a Gage R&R analysis is to assess the quality of
the measurement system if there is reason to believe the measurement
discrepancy is due to the measurement device itself. Because NHTSA's
proposed and final specification of dummy parts and assemblies does not
introduce a new measurement device, NHTSA did not perform a Gage R&R.
Analysis of Gage R&R is further discussed under the agency's response
to comment section on the use of another measurement device.
It is important to note that just because a measurement is not
within tolerances, it does not necessarily mean that the jacket is out
of specification or cannot be used. For the ``worn'' dimensions in
particular, the dimensions are affected by how the jacket is placed
over the underlying dummy structure. If the specified dimensions are
not met initially, the jacket can be adjusted and the measurements
taken again. Note 7 on drawing 880105-000, Complete Assembly, confirms
this possibility: ``If the z-coordinates of the A-Pts are not within 5
mm of the target height of 10.23 in. (265 mm), re-seat the jacket be
rolling it fore/aft against the shoulder to move the z-coordinate
closer to the target height while maintaining the position of the H-
point. The re-seated jacket shall rest in contact with the underlying
shoulder pads with no gap between the pads and the jacket or between
the pads and the clavicle castings.''

b. Certification

The Alliance recommended the use of the mandrel as part of the
jacket production process. Specifically, the Alliance noted that the
jacket should be certified by its manufacturer on the mandrel and using
a 3D measurement device such as a Faro arm.
Response
Dummy jacket certification requirement is not within NHTSA's
authority and role. NHTSA does not certify the ATDs specified in part
572, nor does NHTSA certify any of the components used in the ATDs.
NHTSA specifies the ATDs in part 572 used for FMVSS testing. Part 572
specifications lay out the technical aspects of the ATD. ATD
manufacturers produce the ATD and can choose to make a dummy meeting
those specification. Then, under the self-certification process, motor
vehicle original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) self-certify compliance
with applicable FMVSS--in this case, FVMSS No. 208.\33\ OEMs could
choose to incorporate a mandrel as part of their certification process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See 49 CFR part 567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Annual Inspection Specification

HIS and the Alliance recommended an annual check of jackets by
users with a measurement of eight critical dimensions on the mandrel.
These eight critical measurements would check for shrinkage that could
occur over time as a jacket ages.
Response
While the final rule is not including the mandrel as part of the
fit check procedures to the HIII-5F jacket specification, OEMs and
testing labs are not prohibited from using the mandrel as an optional
device part of their routine inspection process.
Part 572 specifies the parts used on the dummy, but it does not
specify any maintenance schedule or discuss any states of disrepair.
Generally, other than the specifications in PADIs, there are no annual
inspection criteria included. NHTSA will not be including additional
inspection parameters as part of the PADI.

d. Other Measurement Device

HIS and the Alliance recommended that NHTSA stipulate that all
measurements should be recorded using a digital Faro arm, or equivalent
Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) system. HIS reasoned that
measurements taken by standard gages are not sufficiently definitive,
as evidenced by poor Gage repeatability and reproducibility results.
Response
Specification of a specific measurement technique, such as the use
of a CMM system, is not included in part 572. Part 572 defines the
dimensions of the dummy and provides the PADI and qualification
procedures to ensure it is responding as expected. Part 572 does not
dictate the equipment used to take those measurements. Nonetheless,
NHTSA carried out an assessment by comparing operator measurements of
multiple jackets using basic levels and calipers vs. the more
sophisticated Faro arm.\34\ A Faro arm is a digital device that records
precise three-dimensional coordinates. It is a brand name for a type of
CMM.\35\ The digital measurement device often provides a more precise
means to record measurement but such a device may not always be
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy
Final Rule, Appendix C-Response and Analysis of Comments Received.
\35\ Compared to conventional devices (measuring tables,
calipers, dial gauges) a CMM device provides a convenient and
oftentimes more precise means to record measurements.

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

[[Page 257]]

NHTSA's assessment had two objectives. The first was to determine
whether both the digital device and the conventional device,\36\ in
this case a caliper here, could achieve the proposed jacket
specification within the tolerance. The second objective was to
determine whether there is a significant difference/deviation between
the measurements taken by the two gages that the final rule requires
gage-specific information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Examples of conventional devices include measuring tables,
calipers, and dial gauges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's gage device analysis showed that both types of measuring
devices met the finalized nominal target value. In other words, both
devices can properly measure the finalized jacket specifications.
Although the Faro arm did have slightly more consistency than using the
calipers, there is no significant difference in the use of Faro versus
the conventional gage.
Instead, NHTSA found that the jacket setup, rather than the
measuring device itself, had an impact on the measurements taken. To
remedy this inconsistency, the final rule contains a new stipulation on
the assembly drawing to reposition the jacket (880105-000, Complete
Assembly, Hybrid HIII-5F).
For the final rule, NHTSA is not requiring a specific gage to use
for jacket measurements. It is not uncommon for different labs to use
different techniques. Even with different measurement techniques,
NHTSA's analysis has demonstrated it is possible to successfully
measure the dimensions of the jackets. General care when placing the
jacket onto the dummy can ensure it is consistently placed for
measurement. Measurement with a CMM or calipers has been shown to yield
consistent results that meet the final rule jacket specifications.

e. Spine Box

HIS supported NHTSA's proposed adoption of the SAE spine box to
eliminate the mechanical noise from the chest accelerometers while
preserving the dynamic response. However, based on HIS's review of
fourteen ATDs, HIS requested NHTSA update the mass specification from
one of the drawing documents (880105-000(-H) Sheet 6) to account for
the additional mass from the bolt plates added to the spine box.
Response
NHTSA evaluated the ATDs that had the old spine box replaced (the
original FTSS and Denton units) and newer HIII-5F units that
incorporated the proposed SAE spine box design. After evaluation of
weight measurements from existing and new ATDs,\37\ NHTSA is adopting
the mass specification change, specifically the upper torso assembly
segment weight specification. It was noted that the plates added a
small additional weight to the torso of the dummy and could cause the
specifications to fall outside of the tolerance. While the final rule
also adopts the SAE chest jacket design, the jacket's mass is not
different from the prior FTSS and Denton versions. Consequently, the
torso mass difference is due to the added bolt plates. The increase in
torso mass specification is adopted in two places in the assembly
engineering drawing in 880105-000(-H) Sheet 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ Post-NPRM Analysis, HIII 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy
Final Rule, Appendix A--Spine Box Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Sample Size

Ms. Sial, an individual commenter, supported NHTSA's jacket
specification update. However, to obtain a measurement that more
accurately reflects the average U.S. women, Ms. Sial recommended basing
the new proposed chest jacket dimension on a larger sample size, such
as the mean body measurement data from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC).
Response
When NHTSA develops a new crash test dummy, the agency updates the
dummy anthropometry to consider human anthropometry measurements, such
as those maintained by the CDC (among other factors). However, this
rulemaking is not a revision to the anthropometry of the dummy for a
new crash test dummy; therefore, a revision to the basic anthropometry
of the dummy is outside of the scope of the final rule. Rather, the
NPRM and now final rule resolves discrepancies between the jacket
specifications in subpart O and jackets available in the field. The
jacket specifications are developed from SAE J2921 to update the
current crash test dummy's engineering components. These changes ensure
a sufficiently low level of variation between jackets fabricated by
different manufacturers.
Ideally, dummy jackets should have identical dimensions. However,
there are measurement variabilities due to differences in
manufacturing, set up, and measurement processes. Thus, jacket
specifications include tolerances to account for measurement
variability. For the NPRM, NHTSA conducted its own measurements and
testing for the proposal. Following the NPRM and reviewing of comments
received that included jacket measurement data, the agency continued to
collect additional measurements to check whether the dimensions and
tolerances proposed (including those derived from J2921 drawings and
the new section dimensions added by NHTSA) were being met by SAE
jackets already in the field for the final rule. Continuing to obtain
jacket measurements allowed the agency to establish an average
measurement and tolerance of the dimensions for finalized drawings and
ensure that the finalized tolerances and dimensions achieve an
acceptable degree of consistency, conformity, and uniformity.

VI. Changes to the Drawing Package and PADI

NHTSA proposed to amend the subpart O regulatory text to
incorporate by reference new versions of the drawing package, parts
list and PADI. The final rulemaking closely reflects the revisions in
the NPRM. Some new revisions have been added in the final rule. Below
is a summary of the changes. All revisions are fully described in more
detail in a separate document being placed into the docket for this
rulemaking.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 5th Percentile
Female Test Dummy, Part 572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List,
Engineering Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, January 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chest Jacket Drawing

For the final rule, NHTSA's new drawings, the Chest Flesh Assembly
(880105-355-H, Sheets 1 and 2) and the Sternum Pad (880105-356-H),
include some dimensional changes to reflect a larger pool of data. New
reference dimensions are also added for the jacket. NHTSA also revises
drawing 880105-000, Complete Assembly, 5th Female, Rev J, Sheet 5 to
add jacket dimensions at various cross sections and revise the call-out
to the jacket in drawing 880105-300 to reference the new drawing. We
are also making some corresponding changes to the PADI.
To summarize the changes to the new drawing package, the drawings
in which the chest jacket is currently specified (880105-355-E, 880105-
356, 880105-423, and 880105-424) are replaced with:

880105-355-H, Rev B, Chest Flesh Assembly, Sheet 1
880105-355-H, Rev B, Chest Flesh Assembly, Sheet 2
880105-356-H, Rev C, Sternum Pad

[[Page 258]]

880105-000, Complete Assembly, Hybrid III 5th Female

In the final rule, sheet 5 is redrawn to reflect the NPRM and final
rule note changes. The dimensions remain the same as in the NPRM.
Changes from the NPRM include that in note 5, the tolerances are
updated on the section dimensions based on post-NPRM data to achieve an
acceptable degree of conformity while still ensuring a high level of
uniformity. For note 6, metric dimensions are given to aid in clarity.
For note 7, a description is added for how to properly adjust the
jacket fit on the dummy to aid in setup.

880105-000, Complete Assembly, Hybrid III 5th Female, Sheet 6, Assembly
Weights Table

Upper torso assembly with jacket (see Table 1 for parts included).

Was: 26.50 0.30 lbs (12.02 0.14 kg)
Now: 26.90 0.30 lbs (12.20 0.14 kg)

Total dummy weight.

Was: 108.03 2.00 lbs (49.05 kg 0.91 kg)
Now: 108.43 2.00 lbs (49.18 kg 0.91 kg)

Spine box torso mass specification is updated following further
comment analysis. Specifically, the nominal value is shifted from to
26.90 .30 lbs. from 26.50 .30lbs. This change
will allow the corridor to shift upwards of 0.40 lbs and the total
dummy weight from 108.03 2.50 lbs to 108.43
2.50 lbs. The final rule's weight specification would not affect or
change the dummy's performance in any way (other than eliminate the
potential for noise).
The final rule also corrects an old metric conversion error between
pounds and kilograms. Specifically, the old metric conversion for
108.03 lbs. was incorrectly listed at 49.05 kg. It should have been
49.00 kg. The changes to the affected drawings are described in more
detail in a separate document being placed into the docket for this
rulemaking.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Engineering Changes, Revision K, Hybrid III 5th Percentile
Female Test Dummy, Part 572, Subpart O, Changes to: Parts List,
Engineering Drawing Package, Procedure for the Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, January 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jacket PADI

The PADI provides specifications on how to assemble the dummy above
and beyond the engineering drawings. Given the dummy is frequently
dissembled, the PADI includes a check on the exterior dimension to
ensure that all assemblies and fitted parts are properly installed on
the reassembled dummy. This exterior dimension corresponds to the
specification changes to Drawing No. 880105-000, Complete assembly, 5th
female, Rev. N, Sheet 5. In addition, the mass tables are removed from
the PADI as they are already present within the drawing package.
Detailed changes are further specified in the separate document being
docketed.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spine Box

The new versions of the drawing package, parts list, and PADI
incorporated by reference include the SAE J2915 specifications for the
improved spine box. The final rule revisions add plates to the side of
the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play
from the assembly. NHTSA's new engineering part and assembly drawings
include the revised spine box to replace the current spine box drawings
with the following:

880105-1045, Rev C, Hybrid III 5th Female Thoracic Spine
Upgrade, Sheets 1-3
880105-1047, HIII-5F Plate, Thoracic Spine Upgrade
SID-070-6, Rev B, DOT-SID, Modified 5/16-18 x 5/8'' SHCS

VII. Housekeeping Amendments

In the final rule, NHTSA adopts all of the proposed housekeeping
and other amendments to subpart O below.
1. NHTSA amends the title of subpart O to add the word ``adult''
between ``5th percentile'' and ``female'' for clarity.
2. The agency removes the words ``Alpha Version'' from the title of
subpart O. During adoption of some of the subparts of part 572 NHTSA
had decided that referring to the alpha, beta, etc., ``versions'' of
the test dummies would better distinguish a current version of an ATD
from a previous version. The agency later decided this naming
convention was not helpful and has not followed it. Accordingly, for
the final rule, NHTSA removes ``Alpha Version'' from the title of
subpart O since the naming convention is no longer used.
3. This final rule revises subpart O's references to SAE J211 parts
1 and 2 and to SAE J1733 to refer to updated versions of the standards.
SAE J211 is revised with improved diagrams for defining the dummy
coordinate system, and corrections to minor mistakes in print. New
information and recommendations for data system grounding, sensor cable
shielding, and minimizing the effects of transducer resonance are
included. Clarifications on data processing are also included. J1733 is
revised with improved diagrams for defining the dummy coordinate system
(for the HIII-5F, the system itself is unchanged).

VIII. Lead Time

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to make subpart O--the specifications
for the chest jacket and spine box--effective 45 days after the
publication of the final rule.
The Alliance commented that the 45-day lead time is not sufficient
time for the adoption of the new proposed chest jacket and spine box
specification. The commenter noted that NHTSA did not account for the
time needed for compliance testing. Instead of a 45-day effective date,
the Alliance suggested a lead time of five years,\41\ and that until
the effective date, the new specification be optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ In its February 21, 2014 petition, the Alliance recommended
that compliance with the new specifications should be optional for a
period of five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response
After consideration of the comment and post-NPRM analysis of the
proposed and final specification, NHTSA believes the 45-day lead time
remains sufficient because the agency does not believe that testing
under FMVSS No. 208 would be significantly affected by the final rule.
FMVSS No. 208 specifies that NHTSA is to use the subpart O dummy in
its compliance tests. As discussed previously, if manufacturers are not
using the final rule's jacket for certification, NHTSA will ask
manufacturers to identify an FTSS or Denton jacket for NHTSA to use in
its compliance testing. This rulemaking does not change any existing
process for vehicle certification with the manufacturer-identified
jackets. This rulemaking solely adds the new jacket specifications to
part 572 and in turn for FMVSSS No. 208 testing. This final rule does
not impose any new requirements on anyone.
Some vehicle manufacturers already use the SAE jackets on the ATD.
Moreover, because none of the dummy jackets that are currently in use
correspond to the existing subpart O specifications, there should be no
issue with taking an existing dummy out of conformity with the
implementation of this rule. Post-NPRM measurement included new SAE
jackets that are currently used in the field and conformed to the final
rule specifications. The improved spine box is not expected to affect
dummy performance because the revision only acts to remove the unwanted
artifact of loose bolts rattling.

[[Page 259]]

Manufacturers wishing to test with the final rule's jacket and
spine box should have no difficulty obtaining the necessary parts. In
the Alliance's supplemental petition letter, the Alliance indicated
that all parts associated with the proposed jacket and spine box
changes are available, and there should not be any difficulties meeting
anticipated demand. NHTSA believes that the introduction of the new
parts is part of the normal maintenance of jackets as it ages and it
would not create any significant increases in the workload necessary to
maintain the dummies.
Lastly, a shortened lead time is desirable because the changes are
beneficial for testing laboratories. We believe that the final rule's
jacket and spine box changes will likely lead to diminished laboratory
technician workload. A common jacket design will eliminate the need to
deal with multiple jacket versions. The new spine box will also lighten
laboratory workload by eliminating the need to re-torque the bolts
between tests. With respect to levels of effort and technician training
needed to modify and maintain the new jacket and spine box, the
Alliance indicated in its supplemental letter that both modifications
are well within the technical competency of existing laboratory
technicians.

IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14904, Executive Order 13563,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the potential impact of this final rule under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14094, Executive Order 13563,
DOT Order 2100.6A, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This final rule is not considered to be
significant under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
As stated in 49 CFR 572.3, Application, part 572 does not in itself
impose duties or liabilities on any person. It only serves to describe
the test tools that measure the performance of occupant protection
systems. Thus, this part 572 final rule itself does not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses are affected only if they choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy. Because the economic impacts of
this rule are minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary.
This final rule finalizes changes to the specifications of the
HIII-5F chest jacket and spine box. For entities testing with the
dummy, the finalized revisions are intended to resolve issues with the
fit and availability of the jacket and a noise artifact from the spine
box. Neither change would impose new requirements on vehicle
manufacturers.
With respect to benefits, the dummy would not change in any way
other than to improve its usability and objectivity. This rulemaking
benefits the public by specifying a more objective test tool, which
lessens the burden of dummy end-users in performing tests and
interpreting test results. It also benefits vehicle manufacturers by
providing certainty about which test jacket and spine box NHTSA will
use in compliance tests with the HIII 5th percentile adult female ATD,
and assurance about the continued availability of the jacket. This
rulemaking benefits NHTSA as the agency would no longer have to
maintain test jackets of different designs and take steps to match the
compliance test jacket with that specified by the vehicle
manufacturers. Specifying the new test jacket and spine box ensures the
long-term availability of a test jacket for compliance tests.
The costs associated with this rulemaking are limited to those
associated with acquiring new dummy parts. We conclude that the
finalized changes would not necessitate the purchasing of any parts
that would not have been purchased in the normal course of business in
the absence of the finalized changes.
We do not believe the finalized chest jacket changes will impose
any additional costs compared to what would have been expended if we
did not adopt the proposed changes. Because a chest jacket eventually
wears out, it must be replaced. Dummy refurbishments and part
replacements are a routine part of ATD testing. The agency understands
that industry has essentially run out of its supply of the older FTSS
and Denton jackets. We further understand that industry has been
replacing worn-out FTSS and Denton jackets with new jackets built to
the SAE J2921 specifications. While the FTSS and Denton jackets are not
consistent with the finalized specifications, we believe that chest
jackets built to the SAE J2921 specifications would meet the finalized
specifications. Because industry and testing labs need to replace the
chest jacket in the regular course of business--regardless of whether
the proposed changes are adopted--and the only available replacement
chest jackets conform to the finalized specifications, we believe the
finalized chest jacket specifications would not impose any additional
costs on industry.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ For the HIII-5F, a new jacket costs about $1,300. This is
an updated estimate from the NPRM's approximate cost of $850. If a
new jacket is installed on an existing dummy, additional
refurbishments or tuning of that dummy may be needed for it to pass
the subpart O qualification tests. Depending on the condition and
age of the dummy, several other parts may need to be replaced at a
cost of up to $10,000. However, dummy refurbishments and part
replacements are an inherent part of testing and many of the
additional parts are often replaced on a regular schedule. In other
words, some of the parts would eventually be replaced, and the costs
of the replacement parts can be amortized over a number of tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The revised spine box, which is not typically replaced during
routine maintenance, costs about $3,000.\43\ End users do not have to
purchase a revised spine box. They can compensate for the design
shortcoming of the current spine box by disassembling the dummy and re-
torquing the relevant fasteners by hand before each test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ This cost was originally estimated to be approximately $600
during the NPRM stage. This estimation has been updated for the
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides
that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and
that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary
and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and
compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared
challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.
The finalized revisions are intended to resolve issues with the fit
and availability of the jacket and a noise artifact from the spine box.
Neither change would impose new requirements on vehicle manufacturers.
NHTSA does not believe the final rule would lead to any reduction in
harmonization.

Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria,

[[Page 260]]

we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by us.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.

Incorporation by Reference

Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1
CFR part 51), an agency, as part of a proposed rule that includes
material incorporated by reference, must summarize material that is
proposed to be incorporated by reference and must discuss the ways the
material proposed to be incorporated by reference is reasonably
available to interested parties or how the agency worked to make
materials available to interested parties. At the final rule stage,
regulations require that the agency seek formal approval, summarize the
material that it incorporates by reference in the preamble of the final
rule, discuss the ways that the materials is reasonably available to
interested parties, and provide other specific information to the
Office of the Federal Register.
In this rule, NHTSA incorporates by reference updated versions of a
parts list, a set of drawings, and a manual into 49 CFR part 572,
subpart O. After seeking comments and the agency's measurement
analysis, we believe the updated versions contain additional
specifications and illustrations that are helpful for end users who are
attempting to qualify the ATD. This material is published by NHTSA. The
contents of the documents are summarized in section VI above, and the
documents incorporated by reference are placed in the docket for this
rulemaking for interested parties to review. The following updated
parts list, drawings, and a manual appear in the amendatory text of
this document and earlier versions were previously approved for the
locations in which these updated versions appear now: Parts and
Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart O, Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Small
Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII-5F), revised December 2022;
Engineering Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O, Hybrid III Fifth Percentile
Small Adult Female Test Dummy (HIII-5F), revised December 2022;
Procedures for the Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI), Hybrid
III Fifth Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy (HIII-05F), revised June
2022.
This final rule also incorporates updated versions of SAE
Recommended Practice J211/1 parts 1 and 2 and SAE J1733. Older versions
of these documents were previously incorporated by reference into
subpart O. The changes in the updated versions are summarized in
section VII above and under the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act rulemaking analysis below. The versions previously
incorporated by reference are available in SAE International's online
reading room.\44\ The updated versions incorporated by reference in
this final rule are available for review at NHTSA and are available for
purchase from SAE International at https://www.sae.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

NHTSA has placed a copy of the parts list, set of drawings, and
manual in the docket for this final rule. Interested persons can obtain
a copy of the material or view the material online by accessing
www.regulations.gov; phone: (877) 378-5457; or by contacting NHTSA's
Chief Counsel's Office at the phone number and address in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. The material is
also available for inspection at the Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC; phone: (202) 366-9826.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

NHTSA has examined this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance. The express preemption provision described
above is subject to a savings clause under which compliance with a
motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not
exempt a person from liability at common law. 49 U.S.C. 30103(e).
Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action
against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted
by the express preemption provision are generally preserved.
NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS
would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort
law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. If and when such a conflict does exist--for example, when
the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard--the
State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier
v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this
end, the agency has examined the nature (i.e., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this rule and finds
that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum
safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend this rule to preempt
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers. Establishment of a higher standard by means of
State tort law will not conflict with the minimum standard adopted
here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption
of a State common law tort cause of action.

Severability

The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9.
It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and

[[Page 261]]

the application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is
unaffected.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small
Government jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration's
regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a
business entity ``which operates primarily within the United States.''
(13 CFR 121.105(a)).
The Act requires agencies to prepare and make available an initial
and final regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) describing the impact
of proposed and final rules on small entities. An RFA is not required
if the head of the agency certifies that the proposed or final rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The head of the agency has made such a certification with
regard to this final rule.
The factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set
forth below. Although the agency is not required to issue an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, this section discusses many of the
issues that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis would address.
Section 603(b) of the Act specifies the content of an RFA. Each RFA
must contain:
1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for a
final rule;
3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the final rule will apply;
4. A description of the projected reporting, recording keeping and
other compliance requirements of a final rule including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record;
5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the final
rule;
6. Each final regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a
description of any significant alternatives to the final rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small
entities.
A description of the reason why action by the agency is being
considered and the objectives of, and legal basis for, the final rule
are discussed at length earlier in this document.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rulemaking
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
revisions to the test dummy will not impose any requirements on anyone.
NHTSA will use the revised ATD in agency testing but will not require
anyone to manufacture the dummy or to test motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment with it. Further, small vehicle manufacturers that
choose to test with the 5th percentile adult female dummy will not be
significantly impacted by this rulemaking. The final rule will simply
replace the chest jacket and spine box now used with the test dummy
with more up-to-date equipment. Since chest jackets must periodically
be replaced on the test dummy because they wear out, this amendment
will not significantly affect end users of the ATD (they will continue
to do what they already do). Similarly, the change to the new spine box
will not significantly affect small vehicle manufacturers. It entails a
simple one-time replacement where the old part would be switched out
with the new.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 U.S.C.
4336, and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that this rule
is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning
and administrative activities, such as promulgation of rules, that do
not involve or lead directly to construction). This rulemaking, which
finalizes changes to the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female (HIII-
5F) anthropomorphic test device (ATD or crash test dummy), is not
anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain
approval from the OMB for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. This rulemaking does not
establish any information collection requirements as defined by the OMB
in 5 CFR part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry
out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and
departments.'' \45\ However, if the use of such technical standards
would be ``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, a
Federal agency or department may elect to use technical standards that
are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.''
\46\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies such as SAE. The NTTAA directs the agency to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. Circular
A-119

[[Page 262]]

directs that evaluating whether to use a voluntary consensus standard
should be done on a case-by-case basis.\47\ An agency should consider,
where applicable, factors such as the nature of the agency's statutory
mandate and the consistency of the standard with that mandate.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, 110 Stat. 775 (1996), at section 12(d)(1).
\46\ Id. at section 12(d)(3).
\47\ Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-119, ]
5(a)(i), Federal Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities (Jan. 26, 2016).
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAE has published information reports on the HIII 5th percentile
adult female's chest jacket and spine box which today's rule
incorporates by reference in full. The foregoing sections of this
document discuss in detail SAE's work in these areas: SAE J2921 (Chest
Jacket) and SAE J2915 (Spine Box). This rule includes a few
specifications beyond SAE J2921; the preamble explains NHTSA's belief
that they are necessary to ensure a sufficient level of uniformity
between jackets produced by different manufacturers going forward, and
to prevent discrepancies in jacket designs from reoccurring in the
future.
In addition, the following voluntary consensus standards have been
used in developing this final rule:
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1_202208 (August 2022),
Electronic Instrumentation;
SAE Recommended Practice J211/2_202204 (April 2022),
Photographic Instrumentation; and
SAE J1733_201811 (November 2018), Sign Convention for
Vehicle Crash Testing.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by States, local,
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of
1995) in any one year. Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross
domestic product price deflator for 2022 results in $177 million
(111.416/75.324 = 1.48). The assessment may be included in conjunction
with other assessments, as it is here.
This rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the UMRA.
This rule does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because it
does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49 CFR part 572 by
adding specifications for a new test jacket and spine box for the 5th
percentile adult female dummy that NHTSA uses in agency compliance
tests. This rule will affect only those businesses that choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy. This rule would not result in
expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments of more than $177
million annually.
UMRA requires the agency to select the ``least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule.'' As discussed above, the agency considered alternatives
to the final rule and has concluded that the requirements are the most
cost-effective alternatives that achieve the objectives of the rule.

Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. NHTSA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule does not
meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to be considered a major rule. The
rule will be effective forty-five days after the date of publication in
the Federal Register.

Regulation Identifier Number

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

Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry
for this rulemaking at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2127-AM13.

Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of all documents received
into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.
NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in promulgating this final rule. Please inform the agency if
you can suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.

Submission of Confidential Information

You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments). This ``public version'' of your comment should contain
only the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made
and from which those portions for which confidential treatment is
claimed has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to
do this.
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in part 512. This information includes the
materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in
more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to Sec. 512.8;
and a certificate, pursuant to Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted

[[Page 263]]

``confidential version'' of the information for which you are seeking
confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.6, the words ``ENTIRE
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must appear at
the top of each page containing information claimed to be confidential.
In the latter situation, where not all information on the page is
claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information for which
confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment).
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
[email protected]. You may either submit your request via email
or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the
request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to
Helena Sung at [email protected].

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

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

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES

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 1.95.

Subpart O--Hybrid III 5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy

0
2. Revise the heading of subpart O to read as set forth above.

0
3. Revise Sec. 572.130 to read as follows:

Sec. 572.130 Incorporation by reference.

Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this
subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than
that specified in this section, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) must publish a document in the Federal Register
and the material must be available to the public. All approved material
is available for inspection at NHTSA and at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). Contact NHTSA at: 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590; phone: (202) 366-2588; website:
www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa/electronic-reading-room. For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email [email protected]. The
material may be obtained from the following sources:
(a) NHTSA Technical Information Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
Washington, DC 20590; phone: 202-366-2588; website: https://www.nhtsa.gov.
(1) Engineering Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Small Adult Female Test Dummy, December 2022 (the
Engineering Drawings); IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.132,
572.133, 572.134, 572.135, 572.136, and 572.137.
(2) Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Small Adult Female Crash Test Dummy, December 2022 (the
Parts/Drawings List); IBR approved for Sec. 572.131.
(3) Procedures for the Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI)
of the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII-
05F), June 2022 (the PADI); IBR approved for Sec. 572.131.
(b) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
15096; phone: 1-877-606-7323; website: https://www.sae.org.
(1) SAE Recommended Practice J211-1, Instrumentation for Impact
Test; Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation, August 2022 (SAE J211-1); IBR
approved for Sec. 572.137.
(2) SAE Recommended Practice J211-2, Instrumentation for Impact
Tests--Part 2: Photographic Instrumentation, April 2022 (SAE J211-2);
IBR approved for Sec. 572.137.
(3) SAE J1733, Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing, November
2018; IBR approved for Sec. 572.137.

0
4. Amend Sec. 572.131 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and
0
c. Redesignating table A as ``Table 1 to Sec. 572.131(a)--Drawings
List for Engineering Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Small Adult Female Test Dummy''.
The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec. 572.131 General description.

(a) * * *
(1) The Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.130), including the drawings listed in table 1 to Sec. 572.131(a);
(2) The Parts/Drawings List (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.130); and
(3) The PADI (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.130).
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec. 572.132 by adding introductory text, revising paragraph
(a), and removing the heading to paragraph (c). The addition and
revision read as follows:

Sec. 572.132 Head assembly and test procedure.

All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are
contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.130).
(a) The head assembly for this test consists of the complete head
(drawing 880105-100X), a six-axis neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11)
or its structural replacement (drawing 78051-383X), and 3
accelerometers (drawing SA572-S4).
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec. 572.133 by:
0
a. Adding introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a), the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(i),
and the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(i);
0
c. Removing the heading to paragraph (c);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)(ii); and
0
e. Redesignating Table B--Pendulum Pulse as ``Table 2 to Sec.
572.133--Pendulum Pulse''.
The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec. 572.133 Neck assembly and test procedure.

All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are
contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.130).
(a) The neck assembly for the purposes of this test consists of the
assembly of components shown in drawing 880105-250.
* * * * *

[[Page 264]]

(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Plane D, referenced in figure O1 to this subpart O, shall
rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the
pendulum's longitudinal centerline between 77 degrees and 91 degrees. *
* *
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Plane D, referenced in figure O2 to this subpart O, shall
rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the
pendulum's longitudinal centerline between 99 degrees and 114 degrees.
* * *
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Mount the head-neck assembly, defined in paragraph (b) of this
section, on the pendulum described in figure 22 in 49 CFR part 572 so
that the midsagittal plane of the head is vertical and coincides with
the plane of motion of the pendulum as shown in figure O1 to this
subpart O for flexion tests and figure O2 to this subpart O for
extension tests.
(4) * * *
(ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an
acceleration vs. time pulse which meets the velocity change as
specified in table 2 to Sec. 572.133. Integrate the pendulum
acceleration data channel to obtain the velocity vs. time curve.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec. 572.134 by adding introductory text, revising paragraph
(a), removing the heading to paragraph (c), and revising paragraph
(c)(3). The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 572.134 Thorax assembly and test procedure.

All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are
contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.130).
(a) The thorax (upper torso) assembly consists of the part of the
torso assembly shown in drawing 880105-300.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Seat and orient the dummy on a seating surface without back
support as shown in figure O3 of this subpart O, with the limbs
extended horizontally and forward, parallel to the midsagittal plane,
the midsagittal plane vertical within 1 degree and the ribs
level in the anterior-posterior and lateral directions within 0.5 degrees.
* * * * *

0
8. Revise and republish Sec. 572.135 to read as follows:

Sec. 572.135 Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test
procedure.

All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are
contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.130).
(a) The test objective is to determine the stiffness effects of the
lumbar spine (drawing 880105-1096), and abdominal insert (drawing
880105-434), on resistance to articulation between the upper torso
assembly (drawing 880105-300) and the lower torso assembly (drawing
880105-450).
(b)(1) When the upper torso assembly of a seated dummy is subjected
to a force continuously applied at the head to neck pivot pin level
through a rigidly attached adaptor bracket as shown in figure O4 of
this subpart O according to the test procedure set out in paragraph (c)
of this section, the lumbar spine-abdomen assembly shall flex by an
amount that permits the upper torso assembly to translate in angular
motion relative to the vertical transverse plane 45 0.5
degrees at which time the force applied must be not less than 320 N
(71.5 lbf) and not more than 390 N (87.4 lbf), and
(2) Upon removal of the force, the torso assembly must return to
within 8 degrees of its initial position.
(c) The test procedure for the upper/lower torso assembly is as
follows:
(1) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature
between 18.9 and 25.6 [deg]C (66 and 78 [deg]F) and a relative humidity
between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
(2) Assemble the complete dummy (with or without the legs below the
femurs) and attach to the fixture in a seated posture as shown in
figure O4 of this subpart O.
(3) Secure the pelvis to the fixture at the pelvis instrument
cavity rear face by threading four \1/4\ inch cap screws into the
available threaded attachment holes. Tighten the mountings so that the
test material is rigidly affixed to the test fixture and the pelvic-
lumbar joining surface is horizontal.
(4) Attach the loading adapter bracket to the spine of the dummy as
shown in figure O4 of this subpart O.
(5) Inspect and adjust, if necessary, the seating of the abdominal
insert within the pelvis cavity and with respect to the torso flesh,
assuring that the torso flesh provides uniform fit and overlap with
respect to the outside surface of the pelvis flesh.
(6) Flex the dummy's upper torso three times between the vertical
and until the torso reference plane, as shown in figure O4 of this
subpart O, reaches 30 degrees from the vertical transverse plane. Bring
the torso to vertical orientation and wait for 30 minutes before
conducting the test. During the 30-minute waiting period, the dummy's
upper torso shall be externally supported at or near its vertical
orientation to prevent it from drooping.
(7) Remove all external support and wait two minutes. Measure the
initial orientation angle of the torso reference plane of the seated,
unsupported dummy as shown in figure O4 of this subpart O. The initial
orientation angle may not exceed 20 degrees.
(8) Attach the pull cable and the load cell as shown in figure O4
of this subpart O.
(9) Apply a tension force in the midsagittal plane to the pull
cable as shown in figure O4 of this subpart O at any upper torso
deflection rate between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second, until the angle
reference plane is at 45 0.5 degrees of flexion relative to
the vertical transverse plane.
(10) Continue to apply a force sufficient to maintain 45 0.5 degrees of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the highest
applied force during the 10-second period.
(11) Release all force at the attachment bracket as rapidly as
possible, and measure the return angle with respect to the initial
angle reference plane as defined in paragraph (c)(6) of this section 3
minutes after the release.

0
9. Amend Sec. 572.136 by adding introductory text, revising paragraph
(a), removing the heading to paragraph (c), and revising paragraph
(c)(2). The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 572.136 Knees and knee impact test procedure.

All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are
contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.130).
(a) The knee assembly for the purpose of this test is the part of
the leg assembly shown in drawing 880105-560.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Mount the test material and secure it to a rigid test fixture
as shown in figure O5 of this subpart O. No part of the foot or tibia
may contact any exterior surface.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec. 572.137 by adding introductory text and revising the
paragraph (m) introductory text and paragraph (n) to read as follows:

[[Page 265]]

Sec. 572.137 Test conditions and instrumentation.

All assemblies and drawings referenced in this section are
contained in the Engineering Drawings (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.130).
* * * * *
(m) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing devices installed
in the dummy and in the test apparatus specified by this part shall be
recorded in individual data channels that conform to SAE J211-1 and SAE
J211-2 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.130), except as
noted, with channel classes as follows:
* * * * *
(n) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity shall conform to
SAE J1733 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.130).
* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.
Adam Raviv,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-30985 Filed 1-2-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.