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

Published date26 December 2019
Record Number2019-27210
SectionProposed rules
CourtNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2019)]
                [Proposed Rules]
                [Pages 70916-70927]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2019-27210]
                =======================================================================
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
                49 CFR Part 572
                [Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0023]
                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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: This document proposes 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. The
                proposed jacket revisions would 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 would
                eliminate a source of signal noise caused by fasteners within the box
                that may become loose. This rulemaking responds to a petition for
                rulemaking from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
                DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not
                later than February 24, 2020. Proposed effective date: 45 days
                following date of publication of a final rule.
                ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
                the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
                 Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
                comments.
                 Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
                Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
                Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
                 Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
                Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
                Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
                 You may also call the Docket at 202-366-9826.
                 Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
                docket number of this document.
                 Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
                additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
                Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
                document. Note: All comments received, including any personal
                information provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
                 Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
                comments received in 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).
                 Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
                information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
                copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
                to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
                at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
                addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
                claimed confidential business information, to the Docket at the address
                given above. When you send a comment containing information claimed to
                be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
                setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
                information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                 For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Peter G. Martin, Office
                of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-5668). For legal
                issues, you may contact Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel
                (telephone: 202-366-2992) (fax: 202-366-3820). Address: National
                Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
                Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington,
                DC 20590.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                Table of Contents
                I. Executive Summary
                II. Chest Jacket
                 a. Background
                 b. Existing Jackets do not Meet the Current Part 572
                Specifications
                 c. Development of the SAE J2921 Jacket Specifications (SAE
                Jacket)
                 d. NHTSA Enforcement Policy To Address Chest Jacket Issues
                 e. Proposed Modifications To Adopt the SAE Jacket
                 f. Other Issues
                 1. Mandrel
                 2. Dummy Refurbishment and Tuning of Ribs
                III. Spine Box
                 a. Background
                 b. Proposed Modifications
                IV. Testing of the SAE Jacket and Spine Box
                 a. Chest Jacket
                 1. NHTSA Evaluation
                 2. Industry Evaluation
                 b. Spine Box
                V. Lead Time
                VI. Housekeeping Amendments
                VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
                VIII. Public Participation
                I. Executive Summary
                 This document proposes changes to the Hybrid III 5th percentile
                adult female (HIII-5F) anthropomorphic test device (crash test 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.
                [[Page 70917]]
                 Among other things, Subpart O incorporates by reference several
                documents that specify the physical make-up of the dummy. This document
                proposes 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. Neither change is intended to impose new
                requirements on vehicle manufacturers.
                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 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 \1\ 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.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \1\ The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE International).
                SAE is an organization that develops technical standards based on
                best practices.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 This NPRM proposes to adopt the jacket specifications described in
                J2921, as well as a few additional specifications. We believe that
                chest jackets that have been and are being manufactured to the SAE
                J2921 design would also conform to the proposed specifications but seek
                comment on whether this is accurate. NHTSA also believes that
                additional specifications are 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.
                 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 is
                commonplace when worn parts are replaced. NHTSA tentatively concludes
                that the proposed jacket specification would assure uniformity in the
                form, fit, and function of the HIII-5F. A benefit of this is 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 manufacturers, thereby providing more
                objective test results. We also tentatively conclude 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. We seek comment on all of these
                tentative conclusions.
                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, HIII5F Spine Box Update to Eliminate Noise).
                 We propose to adopt the SAE modification, details of which are
                specified within engineering drawings provided in the J2915 information
                report. 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 does not affect or change the
                dummy's performance in any way (other than eliminate the potential for
                noise). The improved spine box addresses a shortcoming in the ATD's
                design that had to be addressed by end users disassembling the dummy,
                re-torqueing the relevant fasteners by hand before each test, and re-
                qualifying the dummy as needed. The improved spine box increases the
                quality of data and reduces maintenance and testing time.
                Lead Time
                 NHTSA proposes a 45-day effective date following date of
                publication of a final rule to make available ATDs with the new chest
                jacket and spine box for use in agency testing. Manufacturers wishing
                to test with the proposed jacket and spine box should have no
                difficulty obtaining the necessary parts. We believe that the chest
                jackets that are currently being manufactured to meet the SAE J2921
                specifications would also meet the proposed 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.
                Petition for Rulemaking
                 In 2014, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (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.\2\ 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.\3\ The contents of this response are discussed in more detail in
                subsequent sections of this notice. NHTSA has granted this petition and
                today's NPRM commences rulemaking on the issues presented by the
                petition.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \2\ Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (Feb. 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.
                 \3\ Letter from Scott Schmidt, Alliance, to NHTSA (May 11,
                2015).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                II. Chest Jacket
                a. Background
                 Today's NPRM proposes changes to the Hybrid III 5th percentile
                small female (HIII-5F) test dummy. The HIII-5F was added to Part 572 in
                2000.\4\ 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
                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). These documents can be found in Docket NHTSA-2000-
                6940 (available at www.regulations.gov).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \4\ 65 FR 10968 (Mar. 1, 2000).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 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 dummy and covers the entire thorax, including
                the shoulder assembly. It is currently specified in the parts and
                drawings document in drawings 880105-355-E, 880105-356, 880105-423, and
                880105-
                [[Page 70918]]
                424, with a call-out to it in drawing 880105-300.
                 This NPRM proposes changes to the chest jacket specifications to
                address known issues with the shape and availability of the jacket.
                b. 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.\5\ At the time Subpart O was created in 2000, jackets
                were being produced by FTSS. Soon thereafter, Applied Safety
                Technologies Corporation, which later became Denton, began to
                manufacture HIII-5F dummies and jackets.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \5\ The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE International).
                SAE is an organization that develops technical standards based on
                best practices.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The jackets FTSS and Denton produced did not conform to all aspects
                of the Part 572 specifications; in addition, jackets produced by each
                manufacturer also differed from each other. Both Transport Canada and
                the Alliance found dimensional differences between the two brands of
                jackets. In particular, the breast location differed, and the Denton
                jacket was longer.\6\ Transport Canada's research also found that
                neither jacket matched the Part 572 specifications, though the Denton
                jacket dimensions were generally closer.\7\ For example, the breasts on
                the FTSS jacket were lower than in the codified specifications.\8\ Both
                Transport Canada and the Alliance concluded that the codified jacket
                specifications did not contain sufficient information about the shape
                and placement of the breasts to assure uniformity in the production of
                jackets between jacket manufacturers.\9\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \6\ Letter from the Alliance to NHTSA (Jan. 31, 2006) (Alliance
                letter), p. 8; Suzanne Tylko et al., 2006, The Effect of Breast
                Anthropometry on the Hybrid III 5th Female Chest Response, Stapp Car
                Crash Journal, Vol. 50 (Nov. 2006), p. 390.
                 \7\ Tylko et al. 2006, supra, p. 392.
                 \8\ Id. at p. 392.
                 \9\ Id., Alliance letter, p. 6.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets, and between
                those jackets and the Part 572 specifications, are the result of a
                variety of factors. For one, the Subpart O jacket drawing, which
                consists of two sheets, contains errors and ambiguities. The dimensions
                for the breast locations are not consistent between the two sheets, and
                the overall shape is not consistent, either. These inconsistences and
                ambiguities contributed to dimensional differences between the FTSS and
                Denton jackets.
                 In addition, design choices by FTSS and Denton also contributed to
                the discrepancies. When NHTSA added the dummy and jacket to Part 572 in
                2000, the engineering drawings for the jacket came from SAE. However,
                the jacket specifications did not match the actual jacket that FTSS was
                making. During the dummy development period, FTSS made a manufacturing
                decision to lower the breasts to change the lay of the shoulder
                belt.\10\ FTSS later informed NHTSA that it had also increased the
                jacket depth by \1/2\ inch to improve fit.\11\ These changes were not
                reflected in the specifications that were ultimately incorporated by
                reference in Part 572 in 2000 (8801054-355-E, Rev. D). With respect to
                the Denton jacket, discrepancies between it and the Part 572
                specifications arose after Subpart O was established, when Denton began
                producing dummies and jackets using their own molding processes. The
                Denton jacket more closely matched the Subpart O drawing than FTSS's,
                but did not conform wholly to it.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \10\ 71 FR 45427 (Aug. 9, 2006) (notice of denial of petition
                for rulemaking).
                 \11\ Letter from FTSS to NHTSA (Aug. 28, 2006) (responding to
                NHTSA's notice of denial).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 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.\12\ NHTSA denied this petition.\13\ The agency
                stated that while dummies with the FTSS and Denton jackets performed
                somewhat differently than 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.\14\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \12\ Letter from FTSS to NHTSA (dated December 30, 2003).
                 \13\ 71 FR 45427 (Aug. 9, 2006).
                 \14\ Id. See also letter from FTSS to NHTSA (Aug. 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.\15\
                FMVSS No. 208 specifies a variety of different dynamic (crash) and
                static (out-of-position) requirements using the HIII-5F.\16\ 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. It concluded that
                the dimensional differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets
                ``influences belt placement and affects contact with airbag modules
                during out-of-position testing . . . these differences confound the
                interpretation of chest response and adversely affect the validity of
                the test instrument.'' \17\ The Alliance in a 2006 letter to NHTSA
                similarly reported research by vehicle manufacturers demonstrating that
                ``significant variations in chest jacket dimensions between the Denton
                and FTSS ATD[s] . . . may produce different test results when evaluated
                in the NHTSA-1 & NHTSA-2 Out-of-Position Driver FMVSS 208 Tests.'' \18\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \15\ Tylko et al. (Nov. 2006), supra, p. 390; letter from the
                Alliance (Jan. 31, 2006), supra, p. 8. 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.
                 \16\ See, e.g., S15 (rigid barrier test requirements); S25 (out-
                of-position requirements).
                 \17\ Tylko et al. 2006, The Effect of Breast Anthropometry on
                the Hybrid III 5th Female Chest Response, Stapp Car Crash Journal,
                Vol. 50 (Nov. 2006), supra, p. 393.
                 \18\ Alliance letter to NHTSA (Jan. 31, 2006), supra, pp. 1, 9.
                In 2005 the Alliance presented these issues to NHTSA and documented
                them in a 2006 letter.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                c. 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 (for
                ease of reference, referred to in this document as the ``SAE jacket'').
                The main goal of the task force was to develop a jacket design such
                that both FTSS and Denton could produce a single, interchangeable
                jacket compatible with both companies' versions of the HIII-5F. The
                task force also developed a device (referred to as a mandrel) to check
                jacket fit as the jacket ages (it is known that the jacket shrinks over
                time).
                 In 2010, FTSS and Denton merged to form Humanetics. Humanetics
                continued the jacket harmonization work of its predecessor companies.
                However, the merger meant that Humanetics was the only dummy
                manufacturer involved with drafting the SAE information report.
                Therefore, what began as an effort to specify the design of a
                ``harmonized'' jacket that could be produced by any manufacturer became
                an effort for Humanetics to simply design and produce a jacket that
                could fit existing Denton and FTSS dummies as well as newly
                manufactured Humanetics dummies.
                 During jacket development, Humanetics (under the auspices of SAE)
                refined the jacket design to account for various issues. NHTSA testing
                of early iterations of the jacket showed that an HIII-5F dummy fitted
                with it did not pass the Part 572 Subpart O torso flexion qualification
                test. (The results of this testing are discussed below in Section IV.)
                Humanetics addressed this issue by tapering the thickness of the
                [[Page 70919]]
                jacket around the lower circumference where it interacts with the
                pelvis flesh.
                 SAE published an information report for the jacket in 2013 (SAE
                J2921 JAN2013 supra). The SAE jacket is intended to be compatible with
                all existing dummy brands (although, as explained later in this
                preamble, a dummy might need some tuning or refurbishing to meet
                Subpart O qualification requirements with the jacket). The J2921 jacket
                is currently offered for sale by Humanetics and JASTI-USA, Inc., the
                U.S. affiliate of JASTI Co., LLC, a manufacturer of dummies and test
                equipment headquartered in Japan.
                d. NHTSA Enforcement Policy To Address Chest Jacket Issues
                 Since the introduction of the HIII-5F in 2000, the available
                jackets brands (principally from FTSS and Denton) did not match each
                other, and neither exactly matched the Part 572 specifications. Such
                differences 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 by maintaining qualified dummies
                (and jackets) from both FTSS and Denton and has tracked which brand was
                used in the certification of vehicles the agency tests.
                 Recent events render this approach obsolete and necessitate further
                action by NHTSA. After the merger of FTSS and Denton, Humanetics
                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.\19\ However, in 2015
                Humanetics discontinued production of the original FTSS and Denton
                chest jacket designs. According to its product catalog, Humanetics now
                sells only the SAE jacket, identified as part number 880105-355-H.\20\
                This is the part number of the engineering drawing of the jacket that
                appears in SAE J2921.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \19\ 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.
                 \20\ 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 did not agree to these requests, and instead
                required manufacturers to identify an FTSS or Denton jacket 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.
                 Today's proposal is intended to resolve these issues by commencing
                amending the Part 572 specifications for the jacket to include the
                specifications set out in J2921. The proposal also includes a few
                specifications we developed that are intended to ensure that jackets
                produced by different manufacturers perform equivalently on all dummy
                brands. We believe that new jackets currently produced by Humanetics
                meet both the specifications in J2921 and the additional
                specifications.
                e. Proposed Modifications To Adopt the SAE Jacket
                 We propose to amend the chest jacket specifications in Subpart O.
                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.
                 We propose to adopt the specifications in SAE J2921 (Figures 4-6,
                which are engineering drawings of the SAE jacket design). However, we
                also propose 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. J, Sheet 5).
                Dimensions are specified for a jacket worn on a dummy, i.e.,
                measurements would be recorded on the jacket as worn on a dummy
                positioned on the same flat-back bench as what is currently shown on
                800105-000, Rev. J, Sheet 5. The additional dimensional specifications
                are intended to define the outer shape of the thorax and to preclude
                belt routing discrepancies. The information includes additional views
                of the chest jacket at various cross sections.
                 We tentatively believe these additional specifications are
                necessary to ensure a sufficiently low level of variation between
                jackets produced by different manufacturers. We note that the jacket
                drawing contained within SAE J2921 JAN2013 has less specificity than
                the current Subpart O drawing, 880105-355-E, Rev. D. In the final J2921
                report, there are no dimensions, reference or otherwise, defining the
                breast size or the arm hole size and location. Also, the taper shown in
                J2921 (added after the 2011 draft to mitigate binding in the torso
                flexion test) is pictorial only, with no dimensions. The SAE report
                also does not indicate whether the specifications are for the jacket on
                its own or as fitted on a dummy. The agency is concerned that this
                overall lack of specificity could result in the production of jackets
                of vastly different shapes, but still meeting the drawing
                specifications of J2921. As was the case with the old FTSS and Denton
                jackets and the current Part 572 specifications, this lack of
                specificity could lead to differences in performance between dummies,
                which this proposal intends to resolve.
                 We also tentatively conclude 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. However, we believe that
                the older FTSS or Denton jackets would not conform to the proposed
                specifications (for example, the circumference at the different section
                levels).
                 NHTSA proposes to amend the Subpart O regulatory text to
                incorporate by reference new versions of the drawing package, parts
                list and PADI. These changes are described in more detail in a separate
                document being placed in the docket for this rulemaking.\21\ That
                document also includes the engineering drawings identified above.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \21\ Engineering Change Proposal, 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, November 2019.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 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) would be 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
                 The Chest Flesh Assembly (880105-355-H, Sheets 1 and 2) and the
                Sternum
                [[Page 70920]]
                Pad (880105-356-H) are derived from the reprints of drawings contained
                in SAE J2921 (Jan 2013). We would also revise drawing 800105-000,
                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 would also make
                some corresponding changes to the PADI.
                 NHTSA tentatively concludes that the proposed jacket specification
                will assure uniformity in the form, fit, and function of the HIII-5F.
                Based on testing the agency conducted with the SAE chest jacket (see
                section IV below, Testing of the SAE jacket and spine box), NHTSA
                tentatively concludes that dummies fitted with jackets built to the
                proposed specifications would pass the Subpart O qualification tests
                and would not result in different compliance test outcomes. This
                applies to both newly manufactured dummies as well as older, existing
                dummies fitted with the new jacket. When a new jacket is fitted to an
                existing (old) dummy (made by either FTSS and Denton), we believe there
                will be no significant change in performance in static out-of-position
                air bag deployment tests and in full scale vehicle crash tests,
                assuming the Subpart O qualification requirements are met. (Although,
                as discussed in the section below, when an existing FTSS or Denton
                dummy is fitted with a new jacket, the dummy may need to be re-tuned or
                refurbished in order to conform to all Subpart O qualification
                requirements. Such retuning or refurbishing is expected when fitting a
                new part to an existing dummy generally.)
                 We seek comment on the proposed specifications, including the
                proposed additional specifications. We seek information and data on
                whether existing jackets built to SAE J2921 on existing dummies will
                meet the proposed specifications. NHTSA also seeks comment on what (if
                any) additional information, such as tolerance specifications, is
                needed to fully specify the jacket in order to ensure that jackets
                produced by different manufacturers perform equivalently. We also seek
                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.
                 We will continue to collect measurement data on newly purchased
                jackets to check whether the dimensions and tolerances specified herein
                (including those derived from J2921 drawings and the new section
                dimensions added by NHTSA) are being met by SAE jackets already in the
                field. We will also examine all measurement data provided to us. For
                the final rule, we may adjust the dimensions and tolerances to assure
                that jackets in the field achieve an acceptable degree of conformity
                while still assuring a high level of uniformity.
                f. Other Issues
                1. Mandrel
                 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). 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.
                 Use of the mandrel, if implemented in Subpart O, would constitute a
                new qualification requirement with a new test procedure. However, J2921
                does not provide a test protocol or an objective fit criterion. Also,
                while J2921 depicts a drawing of the mandrel, it does not provide
                details or dimensions on the shape of the mandrel.
                 In its supplemental submission to NHTSA, the Alliance clarified
                that it was not requesting that the agency specify use of the mandrel;
                instead, the mandrel is an optional inspection device for test labs and
                is not intended for inclusion in Subpart O. NHTSA has considered the
                need for the mandrel and has tentatively decided not to incorporate the
                mandrel or the fit check procedure outlined in J2921. We seek comment
                on this.
                2. Dummy Refurbishment and Tuning of Ribs
                 When a new jacket is introduced, a dummy on which it is installed
                may need some amount of refurbishment or tuning in order to pass the
                Subpart O qualification tests.
                 The degree to which the dummy needs refurbishment may vary.
                Refurbishment refers to replacing damaged parts with new parts. Some
                individual dummies require more new parts than others to pass the
                qualification tests with the SAE jacket. In its testing, NHTSA replaced
                parts such as the upper leg flesh, the thorax bib, and the molded
                pelvis. NHTSA found that FTSS dummies required more frequent
                refurbishment than Denton dummies. In addition, Information Report SAE
                J2921 states that when a new jacket is fitted to an older dummy, the
                thickness of rib damping material may need to be re-tuned for the dummy
                to conform to the Part 572 thorax assembly qualification requirements.
                In its supplemental submission, the Alliance describes a procedure for
                tuning the ribs by shaving off damping material. The amount of tuning
                varies depending on the dummy brand and the specific jacket.
                 In its own testing, rather than shaving damping material, NHTSA
                simply replaced the ribs (along with other parts) when the agency
                retrofitted the J2921 jacket to one of its older dummies. Nonetheless,
                under certain conditions, shaving the damping material remains an
                option if end-users so desire. Shaving off damping material acts to
                lower the force generated in the torso impact qualification test.
                Because there is no easy way for end-users to add damping material,
                ribs must be replaced if the force is too low. A replacement rib must
                have an ample thickness of damping material in order to be shaved.
                 The need to refurbish or tune existing dummies to obtain passing
                qualification results is not out of the ordinary. To put this in
                perspective, whenever a dummy of any type is assembled (not just a
                HIII-5F) it must usually be adjusted to some degree in order to conform
                to all Part 572 qualification requirements. After repeated use in full
                scale vehicle tests, a part may need to be replaced if it has become
                worn or damaged. When a new part is introduced (such as the jacket of
                the HIII-5F), replacement of other parts is sometimes needed so that
                the dummy can pass all qualification requirements.
                III. Spine Box
                a. Background
                 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 (pg. 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
                [[Page 70921]]
                screws so that they rattled against the inner walls of the through
                holes. This 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. (This research is discussed below.)
                In 2011 SAE published an information report for the spine box
                modification (SAE J2915 AUG2011, supra).
                b. Proposed Modifications
                 We propose 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 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. We
                propose 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 5/16-18x5/8'' SHCS
                 All three drawings are derived from the reprints of drawings
                contained within SAE J2915 (Jan 2011). We discuss the changes in detail
                in the document docketed for this NPRM, supra.\22\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \22\ Engineering Change Proposal, 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, November 2019.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The modification would increase the quality of data and reduce
                maintenance and testing time. The modification does not affect or
                change the dummy's performance in any way (other than eliminate the
                potential for noise).\23\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \23\ 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.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                IV. Testing of the SAE Jacket and Spine Box
                 NHTSA and others tested the SAE jacket and spine box to assess ATD
                performance with the new components. NHTSA's evaluation of the jacket
                and spine box was presented at the 2011 ESV Conference and in a 2011
                paper. The agency conducted several types of tests using HIII-5F
                dummies retrofitted with jackets built to the then-most current version
                of the SAE specifications being developed (SAE J2921 was still in draft
                status); one jacket was made by FTSS, and one was made by Denton).
                Industry also evaluated the jacket and spine box. The results of this
                research are briefly summarized below.
                a. Chest Jacket
                1. NHTSA Evaluation
                 In 2011 NHTSA published a study that evaluated preliminary versions
                of the SAE jacket produced by FTSS and Denton.\24\ It compared the
                dimensions of the jackets and evaluated the performance of dummies
                fitted with the jackets in sled tests, out-of-position tests, and some
                of the Subpart O qualification tests. It found that dummies fitted with
                jackets built to the SAE design under development 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).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \24\ McFadden J.D., Striklin J.L. (2011), Evaluation of the
                Hybrid III 5th female modified chest jacket and spine box, Paper No.
                11-0334, 2011 ESV Conference.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The study found that the two brands of preliminary SAE jackets were
                identical in appearance (with some slight variations) and compared well
                to a draft version of the SAE drawings.
                 Qualification tests prescribed in Subpart O, including those most
                likely to be influenced by the jacket (the thorax impact test and the
                quasi-static torso flexion test) were also carried out. All of those
                Subpart O qualification requirements were met for all dummy
                configurations with one exception: When either an FTSS dummy or a
                Denton dummy was fitted with the SAE jacket, the dummy did not meet the
                pull force requirement for the torso flexion test. During the flexion
                test, the jacket tended to bind at the waist when the dummies were
                pitched forward into the 45-degree test position. The added resistance
                due to the binding caused the pull force to exceed the specified limit
                of 390 N. The study concluded that further work on the jacket was
                needed to address the torso flexion test results. The SAE jacket was
                subsequently redesigned to address this.
                 NHTSA also conducted sled tests similar in severity to a frontal
                rigid barrier crash test (35 mph, peak acceleration of 28 Gs) and
                static, low-risk out-of-position air bag deployments. NHTSA found that
                dummies fitted with the jackets built to the SAE design under
                development performed essentially the same as dummies fitted with pre-
                existing FTSS and Denton jackets with respect to dummy injury metrics
                and other responses, including those most likely to be affected by the
                chest jacket (chest deflection and acceleration).
                 When SAE finalized the jacket design and issued SAE J2921 in 2013,
                NHTSA purchased new jackets (from Humanetics and JASTI-USA) to ensure
                they would fit properly on the agency's existing FTSS and Denton HIII-
                5F dummies, and that ``passing'' results could be obtained in the torso
                flexion and thorax impact qualification tests. In all instances, the
                agency was able to demonstrate passing results for both these
                qualification tests (some dummy refurbishment was needed to pass the
                test, but as noted above, refurbishment of an ATD when a new part is
                fitted is a common operating procedure). See Table 2.
                [[Page 70922]]
                 Table 2--NHTSA Torso Flexion Tests, 2013-14
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Return angle Max force
                 Dummy Initial difference, @45 deg Rotation
                 Dummy mfg serial No. Jacket Trial Test site angle (deg) final--init. during 10 rate (deg/ Test date
                 (deg) sec (N) sec)
                 [1 to 20] [-8 to +8] [320 to [0.5 to
                 390] 1.5]
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                FTSS refurb.............................. F416 HIS DM9396 1 VRTC 15.4 3.6 331 1.03 5/28/2013
                 2 VRTC 15.3 3.8 325 0.98 5/28/2013
                 3 VRTC 16.4 2.7 352 0.96 5/28/2013
                FTSS refurb.............................. F416 HIS DM9432 1 VRTC 15.3 3.8 324 0.97 5/28/2013
                 2 VRTC 16.1 3.1 345 0.95 5/28/2013
                 3 VRTC 15.8 3.4 346 0.98 5/28/2013
                FTSS refurb.............................. F416 JASTI 129 1 VRTC 14.7 4.5 363 0.97 5/28/2013
                 2 VRTC 15.2 4.2 355 0.94 5/28/2013
                 3 VRTC 15.5 4.1 355 0.99 5/29/2013
                FTSS refurb.............................. F515 JASTI 129 1 TRC 16.3 2.8 326 0.94 5/6/2014
                 2 TRC 16.4 3.0 324 0.96 5/6/2014
                 3 TRC 16.4 3.6 343 0.91 5/6/2014
                FTSS refurb.............................. F515 HIS DM9369 1 TRC 15.6 4.1 389 0.91 5/6/2014
                 2 TRC 15.8 4.1 352 0.92 5/7/2014
                 3 TRC 15.9 3.9 337 0.88 5/7/2014
                Denton refurb............................ D137 HIS DM9432 1 TRC 13.7 3.5 374 1.04 7/15/2014
                 2 TRC 14.1 3.5 377 1.02 7/15/2014
                 3 TRC 14.0 3.6 367 1.01 7/15/2014
                Denton refurb............................ D137 JASTI 129 1 TRC 12.7 5.1 360 0.87 7/16/2014
                 2 TRC 13.3 4.5 359 0.94 7/17/2014
                 3 TRC 14.2 3.9 353 0.96 7/18/2014
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Note: Jackets reflect the design described in the final version of SAE J2921 (2013).
                 In summary, these tests demonstrated that old dummies (FTSS and
                Denton versions) that were fitted with the SAE jacket would pass the
                Subpart O qualification requirements. 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.
                 NHTSA did not perform re-tests of the sled and out-of-position test
                series performed for the 2011 study with the final version of the SAE
                jacket. The final revision only reduced the length of the sternal pad
                and tapered the lower portion of the jacket. These changes affect the
                dummy response in extreme thorax flexion as seen in the torso flexion
                qualification test. Because this condition was not manifested in either
                the sled or out-of-position test series, NHTSA believes the effects of
                the taper and shorter sternal pad would have been negligible.
                Nonetheless, NHTSA believes that the revisions to the jacket design
                were necessary; when extreme flexion does occur, the torso response
                must be preserved.
                2. Industry Evaluation
                 The Alliance's supplement to its rulemaking petition and SAE J2921
                also indicate that the SAE jacket performs equivalently to the Denton
                and FTSS jackets.
                 The SAE report shows that the SAE jacket has not affected thorax
                biofidelity. It shows that the force vs. deflection plots for the 6.7
                m/s thorax impact tests with the SAE jackets were within the
                biofidelity corridors that served as design targets for the original
                dummy design. The plots demonstrate that the SAE jacket has not
                affected dummy response.
                 The Alliance submitted information in its supplemental letter
                demonstrating that the SAE jacket can pass the Subpart O thorax impact
                tests. However, we note that both the Alliance and SAE J2921 indicate
                that the thickness of rib damping material may need to be adjusted for
                the dummy to conform to the Part 572 qualification requirement for the
                thorax assembly when a new SAE jacket is placed on an old dummy. The
                Alliance, in its supplemental submission, clarified how and why this
                adjustment is made. Due to high batch-to-batch variability of the rib
                damping material, the dynamic performance of the rib is specified and
                not the thickness. New ribs are shipped with the expectation that some
                tuning (shaving down some rib damping material) is required to bring
                the dummy into acceptable performance corridors depending upon the
                chest jacket used. The interchangeability varies with the brand and
                dummy condition, so adjustments may be necessary when switching
                jackets.
                 The testing also indicated that the final version of the SAE jacket
                could pass the Subpart O torso flexion test. Testing by both SAE and
                Alliance members found, as did NHTSA, that the first iteration of the
                SAE jacket (made in 2011) registered high pull forces in the torso
                flexion test. Testing of the final version of the jacket showed,
                however, that it was able to pass the torso flexion test. Both SAE
                J2921 and the Alliance's supplemental submission indicate that when a
                new SAE jacket is fitted to an older dummy, some refurbishment of the
                dummy may be needed in order for it and the new jacket to perform
                properly.
                b. Spine Box
                 NHTSA's 2011 study 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.
                 Testing undertaken for the SAE task force and reported in SAE J2915
                also showed that the new spine box had equivalent performance to the
                existing spine box and did not loosen over repeated testing.
                V. Lead Time
                 NHTSA proposes to make the changes effective 45 days after
                publication of a final rule. This means that Subpart O--the
                specifications for the chest jacket and spine box--will be changed on
                that date. FMVSS No. 208 specifies that NHTSA is to use the Subpart O
                dummy in its compliance tests. Thus, starting on the effective date of
                the final rule, under FMVSS No. 208 the HIII 5th percentile adult
                female dummy would be used
                [[Page 70923]]
                with the new SAE jacket and spine box in NHTSA's tests.\25\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \25\ In its February 21, 2014 petition, the Alliance recommended
                that compliance with the new specifications should be optional for a
                period of five years. NHTSA seeks comment on whether this is still
                necessary or appropriate.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 NHTSA believes the 45-day lead time would be sufficient because we
                do not believe that testing under FMVSS No. 208 would be significantly
                affected by the final rule. Vehicle manufacturers already use the SAE
                jacket 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. We also believe that
                jackets built to SAE J2921 that are currently used in the field would
                conform to the proposed 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.
                 Manufacturers wishing to test with the proposed jacket and spine
                box should have no difficulty obtaining the necessary parts. NHTSA
                asked the Alliance to assess the cost and availability of obtaining the
                parts associated with the proposed changes. In its supplemental 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.
                 We also tentatively conclude that a shortened lead time is
                desirable because the proposed changes are beneficial for testing
                laboratories. We believe that the proposed jacket and spine box changes
                would likely lead to diminished laboratory technician workload. A
                common jacket design would eliminate the need to deal with multiple
                jacket versions. The new spine box would 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. It
                also stated that the introduction of the new parts will not create any
                significant increases in the workload necessary to maintain the
                dummies.
                VI. Housekeeping Amendments
                 The agency proposes the following housekeeping and other amendments
                to Subpart O.
                 1. NHTSA proposes to amend the title of Subpart O to add the word
                ``adult'' between ``5th percentile'' and ``female'' for clarity.
                 2. The agency proposes to remove 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, we would like to remove ``Alpha Version'' from the title
                of Subpart O since the naming convention is no longer used.
                 3. This NPRM proposes to revise Subpart O's references to SAE J211
                parts 1 and 2 and to SAE J1733 to refer to the most up-to-date 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).
                VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
                Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Order 2100.6
                 We have considered the potential impact of this proposed rule under
                Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and DOT Order 2100.6, and have
                determined that it is nonsignificant. This rulemaking document was not
                reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.
                We have considered the qualitative costs and benefits of this NPRM
                under the principles of E.O. 12866.
                 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 proposed 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 NPRM proposes changes to the specifications of the HIII-5F
                chest jacket and spine box. For entities testing with the dummy, the
                proposed 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 tentatively conclude that
                the proposed 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 proposed changes.
                 We do not believe the proposed chest jacket changes would 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 proposed specifications, we believe that chest
                jackets built to the SAE J2921 specifications would meet the proposed
                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 proposed specifications, we believe the
                proposed chest jacket
                [[Page 70924]]
                specifications would not impose any additional costs on industry.\26\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \26\ For the case of the HIII-5F, a new jacket costs about $850.
                If a new jacket is installed on an existing dummy, additional
                refurbishments or tuning of that dummy may be needed in order 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 $600. 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-
                torqueing the relevant fasteners by hand before each test.
                Executive Order 13771
                 Executive Order 13771, titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
                Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an
                executive department or Agency publicly proposes for notice and comment
                or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least
                two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new
                incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent
                permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only
                those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order
                12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these
                requirements. As discussed above, this rule is not a significant rule
                under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, is not subject to the
                offset requirements of 13771.
                Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
                 The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
                provides, in part:
                 The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
                differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address
                similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
                regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
                counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
                American businesses to export and compete internationally. In
                meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
                environmental, 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. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
                eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
                requirements.
                 The proposed 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 proposal would lead to any reduction in
                harmonization.
                Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
                 Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to develop an accountable
                process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
                officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
                federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
                implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
                that 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 has analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the
                principles and criteria set forth in E.O. 13132. The agency has
                determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism
                implications to warrant consultation and the preparation of a
                federalism assessment.
                National Environmental Policy Act
                 NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
                Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
                significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
                Executive Order 12988 (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.
                Regulatory Flexibility Act
                 Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
                as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
                (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed
                or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
                regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule
                on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and
                small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of the agency
                certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
                substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
                Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small
                business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
                within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
                 NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
                Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rulemaking
                action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
                number of small entities. This action would not have a significant
                economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
                revisions to the test dummy would not impose any requirements on
                anyone. NHTSA would use the revised ATD in agency testing but would 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 would
                not be significantly impacted by this rulemaking. The proposal would
                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 would 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 would not significantly affect small vehicle
                manufacturers. It entails a simple one-time replacement where the old
                part would be switched out with the new.
                Incorporation by Reference
                 Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1
                CFR 51.5(a)), an agency, as part of a proposed rule that includes
                material incorporated by reference, must summarize material that
                [[Page 70925]]
                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.
                 This proposed rule would incorporate by reference updated versions
                of a parts list, drawings, and a manual into 49 CFR part 572, subpart
                O. This material is published by NHTSA (with permission from SAE
                International). The contents of the documents are summarized in
                Sections II.e and III.b, above, and a draft of the documents that would
                be incorporated by reference has been placed in the docket for this
                rulemaking for interested parties to review.
                 This proposed rule would also incorporate updated versions of SAE
                Recommended Practice J211/1 parts 1 and 2 and SAE J1733. Older versions
                of these documents are already incorporated by reference into Subpart
                O. The changes in the updated versions are summarized in Section VI,
                above. The version currently incorporated by reference is available in
                SAE International's online reading room.\27\ The updated version is
                available for review at NHTSA and is available for purchase from SAE
                International.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \27\ https://www.sae.org/standards/reading-room.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
                 Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
                (NTTAA) (Public Law 104-113), ``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.'' 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
                this Agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
                Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
                standards.
                 SAE has published information reports on the HIII 5th percentile
                adult female's chest jacket and spine box which today's proposal
                incorporates 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). To the extent the NPRM has a few specifications
                beyond SAE J2921, we explain our 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 NPRM:
                 SAE Recommended Practice J211/1_201403 (March 2014),
                ``Electronic Instrumentation;''
                 SAE Recommended Practice J211/2_201406 (June 2014),
                ``Photographic Instrumentation''; and
                 SAE J1733_201811 (November 2018), ``Sign Convention for
                Vehicle Crash Testing.''
                Paperwork Reduction Act
                 Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
                seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
                Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
                conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This rulemaking would
                not establish any new information collection requirements.
                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
                more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with
                base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross
                domestic product price deflator for 2013 results in $142 million
                (109.929/75.324 = 1.42). The assessment may be included in conjunction
                with other assessments, as it is here.
                 This proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the
                UMRA. This proposed 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 NPRM would affect only those businesses that
                choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. This proposed rule is not
                likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments
                of more than $100 million annually.
                Plain Language
                 Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require 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 include them
                in your comments on this proposal.
                Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
                 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.
                Privacy Act
                 Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
                received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
                submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
                of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
                complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
                April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
                VIII. Public Participation
                How do I prepare and submit comments?
                 To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the
                Docket, please include the Docket Number found in the heading of this
                document in your comments.
                 Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.\28\
                NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
                comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
                [[Page 70926]]
                attach necessary additional documents to your comments, and there is no
                limit on the length of the attachments.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \28\ 49 CFR 553.21.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
                (Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the
                Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to
                search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
                 Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in
                order for substantive data to be relied on and used by NHTSA, it must
                meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT
                Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to
                consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. DOT's guidelines may
                be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
                Tips for Preparing Your Comments
                 When submitting comments, please remember to:
                 Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
                identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
                page number).
                 Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
                and substitute language for your requested changes.
                 Describe any assumptions you make and provide any
                technical information and/or data that you used.
                 If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
                you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
                reproduced.
                 Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
                suggest alternatives.
                 Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
                use of profanity or personal threats.
                 To ensure that your comments are considered by the agency,
                make sure to submit them by the comment period deadline identified in
                the DATES section above.
                 For additional guidance on submitting effective comments, visit:
                https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf.
                How can I be sure that my comments were received?
                 If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
                your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
                envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
                Management will return the postcard by mail.
                How do I submit confidential business information?
                 If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
                confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
                submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
                business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
                above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
                submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
                business information, to the docket at the address given above under
                ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
                confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
                setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
                information regulation. (49 CFR part 512)
                Will the agency consider late comments?
                 We will consider all comments received before the close of business
                on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
                possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
                that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
                in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
                consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
                action.
                How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
                 You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
                given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
                above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
                internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
                dockets.
                 Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
                continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
                available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
                we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
                You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
                comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
                List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
                 Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.
                 In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 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.
                0
                2. Revise the heading of Subpart O to read as follows:
                Subpart O--Hybrid III 5th Percentile Adult Female Test Dummy
                0
                3. Revise Sec. 572.130 to read as follows:
                Sec. 572.130 Incorporation by reference.
                 (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this
                part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
                U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
                specified in this section, NHTSA must publish a document in the Federal
                Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved
                material is available for inspection at the Department of
                Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
                SE, Washington DC 20590, telephone 202-366-9826, and is available from
                the sources listed in the following paragraphs. It is also available
                for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration
                (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
                email [email protected] or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
                 (b) NHTSA Technical Information Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
                Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-5965.
                 (1) A parts/drawing list entitled: ``Hybrid III 5th Percentile
                Adult Female Crash Test Dummy Parts List, ([date to be determined]),''
                IBR approved for Sec. 572.131.
                 (2) A drawings and specification package entitled ``Parts List and
                Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Adult Female
                Crash Test Dummy (HIII-5F) Revision K ([date to be determined]),'' IBR
                approved for Sec. 572.131, and consisting of:
                 (i) Drawing No. 880105-100X, Head Assembly, IBR approved for
                Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.132, 572.133, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
                 (ii) Drawing No. 880105-250, Neck Assembly, IBR approved for
                Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.133, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
                 (iii) Drawing No. 880105-300, Upper Torso Assembly, IBR approved
                for Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
                 (iv) Drawing No. 880105-450, Lower Torso Assembly, IBR approved for
                [[Page 70927]]
                Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
                 (v) Drawing No. 880105-560-1, Complete Leg Assembly--left, IBR
                approved for Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.135, 572.136, and 572.137;
                 (vi) Drawing No. 880105-560-2, Complete Leg Assembly--right, IBR
                approved for Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.135, 572.136, and 572.137;
                 (vii) Drawing No. 880105-728-1, Complete Arm Assembly--left, IBR
                approved for Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.134, and 572.135 as part of the
                complete dummy assembly;
                 (viii) Drawing No. 880105-728-2, Complete Arm Assembly--right, IBR
                approved for Sec. Sec. 572.131, 572.134, and 572.135 as part of the
                complete dummy assembly.
                 (3) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly,
                Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth
                Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII-5F) Revision K ([date to
                be determined]),'' IBR approved for Sec. 572.132.
                 (c) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
                15096, call 1-877-606-7323.
                 (1) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1_201403, ``Instrumentation for
                Impact Test--Part 1, Electronic Instrumentation,'' (March 2014), IBR
                approved for Sec. 572.137;
                 (2) SAE Recommended Practice J211/2_201406, ``Instrumentation for
                Impact Tests--Part 2, Photographic Instrumentation,'' (June 2014), IBR
                approved for Sec. 572.137; and
                 (3) SAE J1733_201811, ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash
                Testing,'' (November 2018), IBR approved for Sec. 572.137.
                0
                4. Amend Sec. 572.131 by revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text
                to read as follows:
                Sec. 572.131 General description.
                 (a) * * *
                 (2) Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth
                Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII 5F), Revision K ([date
                to be determined]) (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.130).
                * * * * *
                0
                5. Amend Sec. 572.137 by revsing paragraph (m) introductory text, and
                paragraph (n) to read as follows:
                Sec. 572.137 Test conditions and instrumentation.
                * * * * *
                 (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 Recommended
                Practice J211/1_201403, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1,
                Electronic Instrumentation,'' and SAE Recommended Practice J211/
                2_201406, ``Instrumentation for Impact Tests--Part 2, Photographic
                Instrumentation'' (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_201811, ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing,''
                (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.130).
                * * * * *
                 Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
                1.95 and 501.4.
                James Clayton Owens,
                Acting Administrator.
                [FR Doc. 2019-27210 Filed 12-23-19; 8:45 am]
                BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT