In summary, while there were several cases where the variation from
test to test of the same THOR-50M ATD was greater than 10%, these cases
can be explained by either differences in physical interactions (e.g.,
contact of the head with the arm in the rear seat sled test), which can
be addressed by careful pre-test positioning of the ATD, or by the low
magnitude of the measurements, as demonstrated through the use of
normalized CV to identify cases where the variation occurs at a much
lower level than would be associated with a risk of injury.
    This is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. We
begin by explaining our methodology, and then proceed to discuss the
three different test series.
1. Methodology
    As with the qualification R&R analysis, we assessed repeatability
using the coefficient of variation. The CVs were calculated for each of
the injury criteria described in the THOR-50M injury criteria report,
as well as for peak

values from a few other key data channels: \171\ lap belt, upper
shoulder belt, and lower shoulder belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ The low-speed sled tests have fewer metrics than the
thoracic injury criteria set (11 vs. 12) because lower shoulder belt
loads were not recorded in the low-speed sled tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CV analysis was the same as in the qualification test R&R
study, with two modifications. As with the qualification test R&R
study, CVs below 5% were considered to require no further
investigation; for CVs between 5% and 10% we reviewed the results for
outliers; and for CVs greater than 10% we thoroughly investigated the
sources of variability in the test procedure and the ATD. However, our
assessment differed in two ways from the CV assessment in the
qualification R&R study.
    First, we used the population standard deviation instead of the
sample standard deviation to calculate the CV because these test series
are the only sled test series that have been run.\172\ Accordingly,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ This differs from the qualification tests, for which it is
known that the data set is a sample of a larger population (because
NHTSA and other test labs have run the qualification tests on other
THOR-50M ATDs).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.029

    Second, in addition to the CVs we also considered the normalized
CVs. A potential limitation of the CV calculation is that when the
magnitude of a given measurement is relatively low, as is the case with
off-axis sensor channels, the standard deviation can be high relative
to the mean, leading to CVs over 10%. However, this result is not
necessarily meaningful: although the amount of variation might be high
relative to the mean, it might not be high with respect to say, a
critical value of the measurement being evaluated (e.g., in the context
of a compliance test involving an ATD, it might not be high with
respect to the IARV). This was generally not an issue in the
qualification test R&R analysis because the qualification modes, test
parameters, and targets were all selected because they are meaningful
to the test mode and/or are in the primary load path, so that the
resulting measurements were generally of sufficient magnitude for a
reliable CV calculation. In sled and vehicle crash tests, on the other
hand, it is not known in advance which sensor channels will be of
sufficient magnitude for a reliable CV assessment. For this reason,
researchers often disregard high CV values when the magnitude of the
measurement is relatively low. However, determining the level of the
measurement below which CV is not reliable is inherently subjective.
    Accordingly, for CVs above 10% we also considered normalized CVs.
To calculate normalized CV, the mean ([mu]) in the CV calculation (Eqn.
1) is replaced with a meaningful, pre-determined reference value. Such
a reference value could be an IARV or a measurement value that
corresponds to an injury risk similar to the risk that would correspond
to an IARV. Because IARVs for the THOR-50M have not yet been finalized,
in most cases we calculated the normalized CV using the value
associated with a 50% risk of AIS 3+ (above the pelvis) or AIS 2+
(below the pelvis) injury as the reference value.\173\ However, there
is not a known risk function that relates belt forces to risk of
injury, so for this metric we normalized using the average shoulder
belt force from the thoracic injury criteria development data set, for
which just over 50% of the subjects sustained AIS 3+ thoracic injuries
(a denominator of 5,000 N).\174\ The normalization denominators used
for each of the measurements are shown in Table 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Fifty percent risk of a given injury severity is a widely-
used tolerance level in ATD research. IARVs specified in the FMVSS
may or may not correspond to a 50% risk.
    \174\ We used the shoulder belt force to normalize the lap belt
force because there was not meaningful lap belt force data in some
of the thoracic injury criteria development test conditions.

                      Table 12--Normalization Denominators for Calculation of Normalized CV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Metric                           Normalization factor               Normalization rationale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC15...................................  1724................................  50% risk of AIS 3+ injury.
BrIC....................................  0.96................................
Neck Tension............................  4,662 N.............................  50% risk of AIS 3+ injury when
                                                                                used in Nij risk function.
Neck Compression........................  -5,017 N............................
Nij.....................................  1.11................................  50% risk of AIS 3+ injury.
Chest Peak Res. Defl....................  51.4 mm.............................
Left Femur Axial Force..................  10,577 N............................  50% risk of AIS 2+ injury.
Right Femur Axial Force.................  10,577 N............................
Peak Femur Axial Force..................  10,577 N............................
Lap Belt Force..........................  5,000 N.............................  Average from thoracic injury
                                                                                criteria development data set.
Upper Shoulder Belt Force...............  5,000 N.............................
Lower Shoulder Belt Force...............  5,000 N.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, consider a repeated test with peak femur forces of
500 N, 1,000 N, and 1,500 N. For these tests, the calculated CV would
be 41% (standard deviation of 408 N divided by average of 1000 N),
which would require a thorough investigation of the test procedure and
ATD. However, these femur forces are all well below 10,577 N, the force
at which 50% risk of AIS 2+ injury occurs. Thus, calculating a
normalized CV may provide a more meaningful assessment. In this case,
the normalized CV would be 4% (standard deviation of 408 N divided by
50% risk of AIS 2+ injury of 10,577 N), which would require no further
investigation.
2. Thoracic Injury Criteria Development Sled Tests
    One source of data NHTSA looked at to further assess repeatability
is a sled test series conducted to develop thoracic injury criteria for
the THOR-50M. This involved conducting matched-pair tests of PMHS and a
THOR-50M ATD in a variety of sled

test conditions.\175\ This series tested the same THOR-50M unit in
three to four repeat tests in each of six different test conditions:
Gold Standard 1, 2, and 3; Rear Standard; Rear Load-limited (Rear LL);
and Rear Inflatable (Table 13).\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ Craig, M., Parent, D., Lee, E., Rudd, R., Takhounts, E.,
Hasija, V. (2020). Injury Criteria for the THOR 50th Male ATD.
Docket ID NHTSA-2019-0106-0008, available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0106-0008.
    \176\ Our testing included a seventh test condition: Far-Side
Oblique (representing the right front passenger in an oblique moving
deformable barrier crash test). The THOR-50M setup and positioning,
however, differed in each of these tests. These tests were not valid
for the purposes of the repeatability analysis, because the
differences in setup and positioning is expected to--and in fact
did--lead to a wider variation in results. Specifically, the CVs for
8 of the 15 measurements exceeded 10%, with most of these over 20%,
and some as high as 72%.

                       Table 13--THOR-50M Thoracic Injury Criteria Development Test Matrix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Nominal test
                   TSTNO                         TSTREF       speed  (km/h)    Test condition name, description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11117......................................           S0156              40  Gold Standard 1: flat rigid seat,
11118......................................           S0157                   standard lap and shoulder belts,
11119......................................           S0158                   knees restrained, right front
                                                                              passenger restraint geometry.
11120......................................           S0159              30  Gold Standard 2: flat rigid seat,
11121......................................           S0160                   force-limited shoulder belt and
11122......................................           S0161                   standard lap belt, knees
                                                                              restrained, right front passenger
                                                                              restraint geometry..
11514......................................        UVAS0309              30  Gold Standard 3: flat rigid seat
11515......................................        UVAS0310                   angled 30 degrees
11516......................................        UVAS0311                   counterclockwise, force-limited
11517......................................        UVAS0312                   shoulder belt and standard lap
                                                                              belt, knees restrained, right
                                                                              front passenger restraint
                                                                              geometry.
11143......................................           S0199              48  Rear Standard: rear passenger in
11144......................................           S0200                   2004 Ford Taurus buck; 3-point
11145......................................           S0201                   standard belt.
11140......................................           S0196              48  Rear LL: rear passenger in 2004
11141......................................           S0197                   Ford Taurus buck; 3-point load-
11142......................................           S0198                   limited belt with pretensioner.
11137......................................           S0193              48  Rear Inflatable: rear passenger in
11138......................................           S0194                   2004 Ford Taurus buck; 3-point
11139......................................           S0195                   inflatable force-limited belt with
                                                                              pretensioner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: All tests were on THOR-50M S/N 9207. These tests are available in the NHTSA biomechanics database.

    We calculated CVs and normalized CVs for each of the injury
criteria described in the THOR-50M injury criteria report, as well as a
few other key data channels, for a total of 12 metrics for each of the
six test conditions. See Table 14 (CVs) and Table 12 (normalization
denominators). Sixty-five of the seventy-two CVs calculated were below
10%, while seven CVs were 10% or above.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.030

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    We believe that this data supports our tentative conclusion that
the THOR-50M is sufficiently objective for inclusion in Part 572.
Almost all the CVs were below 10%, and many were at or below 5%. For
the seven CVs at or above 10%, we believe that these do not indicate
that the dummy does not yield repeatable results. These seven
measurements with CVs above 10% were: Gold Standard 1 condition for
neck compression, Nij, and lap belt load; rear-seat standard belt
condition neck tension; rear-seat load-limited condition for BrIC and
neck compression; and rear-seat inflatable belt condition for
HIC15). When normalized, however, none of these CVs were
above 10%. This suggests that the variability in these measurements
would not likely lead to variability in actual testing outcomes. The
variability in these measurements is much lower than the magnitudes of
these measurements that would be used as an IARV specified in FMVSS No.
208.
    For instance, the individual measurements for neck compression in
the Gold Standard 1 tests were -394 N, -427 N, and -328 N. These have
an average of -383 N and a standard deviation of 41 N, resulting in an
unadjusted CV of 11%. While this is greater than 10%--potentially
suggesting that the source of this variability needs investigation--
these measurements are all much lower in

magnitude than the compression force that would result in a 50% risk of
AIS 3+ injury (-5017 N). When the standard deviation is compared to
this compression force instead of the average neck compression, we
obtain a normalized CV of 0.8%. This suggests that the magnitudes of
the neck compression measurements are low compared to the magnitude of
compression that corresponds to a meaningful injury risk.
    There was one measurement for which the unadjusted CV was below 10%
but the normalized CV was above 10%: the peak lap belt force in the
rear-seat inflatable belt condition, which had a normalized CV of
11.7%. In this instance, the average lap belt load (6,701 N) was higher
than the normalizing denominator (5,000 N), resulting in an inflated
normalized CV. As stated earlier, there is not a known risk function
that relates belt forces to risk of injury, so this elevated normalized
CV is not of particular concern.
    Otherwise, the highest normalized CV occurred in the BrIC
measurement in the rear seat load-limited and pretensioned condition
(9.6%). This appears to result from inconsistent initial positioning of
the left arm, which is more of a test procedure concern than a THOR-50M
concern.
3. Low-Speed Belted Sled Tests
    Another source of data NHTSA looked at to assess repeatability is a
sled test series conducted to assess the performance of THOR-50M in
low-speed belted conditions. These tests were based on the rigid
barrier, perpendicular impact belted crash test specified in FMVSS No.
208 for the HIII-50M. Sled tests were conducted at crash pulses
representing three frontal rigid barrier impact velocities (24, 32, and
40 km/h) (15, 20, and 25 mph). This range of speeds was selected
because FMVSS No. 208 specifies a speed of up to 56 km/h (35 mph) for
this crash test, and air bag deployment thresholds are typically around
24 km/h (15 mph); we spanned the 24-40 km/h (15-25 mph) range and
selected a mid-point of 32 km/h (20 mph) to conduct a crash test and
get a crash pulse. In each test, the THOR-50M was seated in either the
driver or right front passenger seating locations of a buck
representing a mid-sized passenger car.\177\ Three tests were conducted
at each impact velocity, for a total of 9 tests. The test buck was
created from an actual vehicle, and included seat belts, front air
bags, knee-bolsters, and pretensioners. The test matrix and additional
information about the test setup is provided in Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ A HIII-50M was seated in the other front outboard seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the thoracic injury criteria development test series, both
CVs and normalized CVs (Table 15) were calculated for each of the
relevant injury metrics described in the THOR-50M Injury Criteria
Report, as well as femur and seat belt loads, for 11 metrics for each
of the six test conditions. Of these 66 CVs, 31 were under 5%, 17 were
between 5% and 10%, and 18 were above 10%.
    We believe that this data supports our tentative conclusion that
THOR-50M is sufficiently objective to include in Part 572. Most of the
CVs were under 10% and many were under 5%. None of the 18 measurements
for which the CV was above 10% had a normalized CV over 10%, and only
five were above 5%. This is not surprising, as the low-speed belted
test condition presents a low likelihood of injury. Thus, while there
may be variations in the injury metrics, these variations are small
relative to the values that would represent a meaningful injury risk.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.031

4. Low-Speed Unbelted Sled Tests
    Another source of data NHTSA looked at to assess repeatability is a
sled test series conducted to assess the performance of THOR-50M in a
low-speed unbelted condition. Sled tests were conducted at crash pulses
representing two frontal rigid barrier impact velocities, 32 km/h (20
mph) and 40 km/h (25 mph), with the THOR-50M in both the driver and
right front passenger seating locations of a test buck. Three tests
were conducted at each impact velocity. The test buck was identical to
that used in the low-speed belted tests except for some minor
modifications. The test matrix and additional information about the
test setup is provided in Appendix E.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.032

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    As with the thoracic injury criteria development and belted test
series, CVs and normalized CVs were calculated for each of the relevant
injury metrics described in the THOR-50M Injury Criteria Report, as
well as femur loads, for nine metrics for each of the two crash pulses.
Of these 36 CVs, 12 were less than 5%, 20 were between 5% and 10%, and
four were above 10% (Table 16).
    We believe this supports our tentative conclusion that the THOR-50M
is objective. Almost all the CVs were under 10%, and many were under
5%. Three of the four measurements with a CV over 10% had a normalized
CV under 10% (neck tension for driver 32 km/h and RFP 40km/h, and
HIC15 for RFP 40 km/h), suggesting that the variation is
small relative to the values that would represent a meaningful injury
risk. The low magnitudes of neck tension occur because there is no
torso restraint in these unbelted tests, so that the tension force
acting on the neck due to the deceleration of the torso is minimal
(below 500 N). The HIC15 measurements were relatively low
because the frontal air bags minimized the contact of the head with
hard surfaces or at least decelerated the head before contact. The
highest average HIC15 (360) occurred in the right front
passenger 40 km/h condition, where individual measurements of 309, 349,
and 423 resulted in a standard deviation of 47.3 and a CV of 13.1.
    Only one of those four measurements that had a CV over 10% also had
a normalized CV over 10% (BrIC in the Driver 40 km/h condition, 14%).
NHTSA's analysis of the test procedure and ATD revealed that the
variation in this case appears to result from a difference in head
interaction with the sun visor and underlying roof structure, brought
about by small differences in the timing and/or position of the head at
the time of contact. This variation could be brought on by initial
position differences, differences in interaction of the pelvis and
thighs with the seat cushion during initial forward translation, or
differences in knee interaction with the knee bolster and/or knee
bolster air bag. For additional information on this analysis, see
Appendix E.
    There was one measurement with a relatively low CV, but an
associated normalized CV above 10%. This occurred for the Nij
measurement in the

driver 40 km/h condition, where the CV was 4.7% and the normalized CV
was 10.7%. Because we normalized by the value of Nij associated with a
50% injury risk, this indicates that the average value of Nij from the
three tests in the driver 40 km/h condition were above an Nij
associated with 50% risk of injury. Closer inspection of the data
revealed several peaks that cannot be explained by the interaction of
the dummy with the restraint system and vehicle interior. This suggests
possible damage to a load cell or cabling. For additional information
on this analysis, see Appendix E.

VII. Overall Usability and Performance

    NHTSA's extensive testing with the THOR-50M has also enabled it to
assess THOR-50M's overall usability and performance. This includes
durability, ease and frequency of maintenance, and how the ATD fits and
responds in the vehicle environment. We discuss these issues in the
sections that follow.

A. Assembly and Qualification

    Based on NHTSA's experience with the dummy at VRTC, assembling the
THOR-50M following the instructions in the PADI takes roughly 80 hours,
as detailed in Table 17.
    We note that NHTSA treats its THOR-50M units not so much as a
serialized dummy, but as a set of serialized parts and sub-assemblies.
NHTSA's THOR-50M units typically undergo a routine breakdown and
inspection after each application; when the dummy is reassembled,
different parts may be introduced (for example, if a part needed to be
refurbished before it could be used again). In addition, parts or sub-
assemblies may be taken out of service at regular intervals and set
aside to await preventative maintenance. For example, a head and neck
sub-assembly (both of which are serialized) may be taken out of service
at regular intervals and set aside to await preventative maintenance;
once clear, the head and neck sub-assembly may end up in another
serialized dummy. Therefore, a serialized dummy does not typically
define the dummy well because different parts are constantly being
interchanged. The parts and assemblies which are serialized, either by
the manufacturer or by NHTSA upon delivery of a new ATD or part, are
listed in Appendix C.

Table 17--Estimated Time To Carry Out Assembly and Associated Procedures
                     Described in the THOR-50M PADI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           PADI assembly time
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Time
                   Body region or procedure                      (hrs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head.........................................................          4
Neck.........................................................          8
Spine........................................................          4
Thorax.......................................................          8
Shoulder.....................................................          4
Upper Abdomen................................................          4
Lower Abdomen................................................          4
Pelvis.......................................................          8
Upper Leg....................................................          4
Lower Extremity..............................................          8
Arm..........................................................          4
Jacket and Clothing..........................................          4
Bundling Cables..............................................          4
Polarity Check...............................................          4
Documentation................................................          8
                                                              ----------
    Total....................................................         80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on NHTSA's experience at VRTC, a complete qualification test
series of 24 tests takes roughly 80 hours, assuming that the
qualification specifications are met (Table 18). If the qualification
specifications are not met, it may take additional time to inspect,
replace parts where necessary, and re-test. Table 19 describes the
equipment required to carry out the THOR-50M qualification tests, along
with the associated setup procedures. Some of this equipment is the
same or similar to the equipment required for qualification of ATDs
currently defined in Part 572. For example, the THOR-50M qualification
procedures for the neck and the upper thorax use the same equipment as
used in qualification of the HIII-50M. For equipment not currently
defined in Part 572, the necessary drawings are included in the THOR-
50M drawing package with two exceptions: the impactors for the face
qualification test and upper leg and knee qualification tests. We
believe that existing impactors (such as the knee impact probe for the
HIII-5F \178\) can be modified or ballasted to achieve the required
mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 49 CFR 572.137(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE23.033

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

                              Table 19--Equipment Required for Qualification Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Test fixture description  [0.02 kg, 0.25 mm]            Reference              Section(s)               Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid disk impactor 23.36 kg, 152.4 mm   CFR Title 49, Sec.                   4, 7, 8  Head, Upper Thorax, Lower
 diameter disk.                           572.36(a); DL500-325.                         Thorax.
Rigid disk impactor 13.0 kg, 152.4 mm    THOR-50M Qualification                     5  Face.
 diameter disk.                           Procedures, Section 5.2.
Neck pendulum..........................  Figure A-2; CFR Title 49,     6.6, 6.7, 6.8,  Neck Torsion, Neck
                                          Sec.   572.33(c)3.                      6.9   Frontal Flexion, Neck
                                                                                Extension, Neck Lateral
                                                                                Flexion.
THOR neck twist fixture................  DL472-1000...............                6.6  Neck Torsion.
Lower abdomen probe face assembly......  DL472-3000...............                  9  Abdomen.
Rigid disk impactor 12.0 kg, 76.2 mm     THOR-50M Qualification                    11  Upper Leg, Knee.
 diameter disk.                           Procedures, Section 11.2.
Dynamic impactor.......................  TLX-9000-013.............         12, 13, 14  Ankle Inversion and
                                                                                Eversion, Ball of Foot,
                                                                                Heel.
External positioning bracket...........  TLX-9000-016M............             12, 14  Ankle Inversion and
                                                                                Eversion, Heel.
Dynamic inversion/eversion bracket.....  TLX-9000-015.............                 12  Ankle Inversion and
                                                                                Eversion.
Lower leg mounting bracket assembly....  DL472-4100...............             12, 13  Ankle Inversion and
                                                                                Eversion, Ball of Foot
Lower leg zero bracket.................  DL472-3500...............                3.4  Ankle Rotary
                                                                                Potentiometer Zeroing
                                                                                Procedure.
Achilles fixture complete assembly.....  DL472-4000...............                3.5  Achilles Cable Adjustment
                                                                                Procedure.
Load cell mounting assembly............  DL472-4200...............                3.5  Achilles Cable Adjustment
                                                                                Procedure.
Knee slider load distribution bracket    DL472-5000...............                 11  Knee.
 assembly.
Tibia adaptor..........................  DL472-4300...............                 14  Heel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Durability and Maintenance

    In previous sections of the NPRM, we have discussed NHTSA's
biofidelity testing, qualification testing, and sled tests. In this
testing, we generally observed that THOR-50M stood up well during
testing and required maintenance consistent with existing Part 572
ATDs. In addition to that testing, NHTSA has conducted a variety of
other tests over the last several years as development of THOR-50M has
progressed. With respect to evaluating THOR's durability and
maintenance needs, three series of tests are especially useful because
they subject the THOR-50M to more severe or challenging crashes:
elevated energy qualification tests; OMDB testing; and unbelted FMVSS
No. 208 tests. We discuss this testing in the sections that follow.
1. Elevated Energy Qualification Test Series
    In order to assess THOR-50M's durability, NHTSA conducted an
additional series of qualification tests at elevated energy levels (for
example, impactor velocities that exceeded the levels specified in the
qualification test procedures).\179\ A series of five tests was
conducted for each of the qualification test modes (except, as
explained below, the abdomen). The first test in each set was a
baseline test performed according to the qualification, except that if
the response measurement did not either represent at least a 50% risk
of injury or have a magnitude greater than the mean plus one standard
deviation of the same measurement in a set of 18 oblique vehicle crash
tests,\180\ the test speed was increased until either of those targets
were met; this was then considered the baseline speed. There were two
test modes where the test speed specified in the qualification
procedures did not reach either of these targets: upper leg impact and
heel impact.\181\ The next three tests were at speeds corresponding to
energy level increases of 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent. A
final baseline test was then performed at the prescribed qualification
test velocity. The results were considered to show acceptable
durability if the final baseline test demonstrated a response similar
to the initial baseline test and within the qualification targets, and
visual inspection revealed no damage to any of the dummy components.
For a majority of the qualification test modes, durability was found to
be acceptable. No visible damage was observed in any of the tested
components after the series of five tests. Two exceptions to these
findings occurred in the face and the abdomen qualification test modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2020).
THOR-50M Durability Report. Regulations.gov Docket ID NHTSA-2019-
0106-0003, available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0106-0003.
    \180\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., Ames, E., 2015. NHTSA oblique
crash test results: vehicle performance and occupant injury risk
assessment in vehicles with small overlap countermeasures. In:
Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference for the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (No. 15-0108). Available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/NHTSA-2019-0106-0008/attachment_1.pdf.
    \181\ The increase in energy of the upper leg impact test was
later implemented in the revised qualification procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the face impact test, the final baseline peak probe force and
peak head CG resultant acceleration were higher than the qualification
specifications. This is consistent with the results of the
qualification R&R study (Section VI.A). While not ideal, we believe
that, because this is now a known issue, it can be managed with the
replacement of a face foam insert when the face qualification test
results are higher in magnitude than the qualification specification.
Moreover, the deterioration in the face foam insert probably would not
meaningfully affect crash test results because, in a vehicle test, more
energy will likely be absorbed by a vehicle interior component and/or
restraint system compared to the rigid qualification impact probe.
However, NHTSA would consider specifying a different face foam material
or design that had improved durability, as long as the material or
design does not introduce unintended consequences such as negatively
impacting biofidelity, changes to the inertial properties of the head,
degradation of repeatability and reproducibility, overall usability, or
other concerns.
    We did not conduct elevated-energy tests for the abdomen because
the qualification test already demonstrates a higher energy condition
than a vehicle crash test. Accordingly, impacts at a

higher energy level could cause damage due to exhausting the stroke of
the abdomen instrumentation. Moreover, this would not be meaningful as
it would represent a loading condition not representative of the front
seat vehicle crash test environment. However, we do recognize that our
testing has shown that damage to the abdomen deflection instrumentation
can occur in vehicle crash test environments where submarining is
possible, such as reclined rear seats. For example, several rear seat
sled tests were conducted at VRTC in 2015 in which the IR-TRACCs
installed in the abdomen experienced dislodged internal retaining rings
and damage including pinched cables. These issues are believed to have
resulted from interaction of the IR-TRACC tubes with the foam inserts
inside of the lower abdomen bag. To address this, the lower abdomen
sewing assembly (472-4763) was redesigned in late 2015, and an
inspection procedure was added to the drawing package (472-8320) to
ensure that the lower abdomen foam inserts remain aligned once
installed in the assembled lower abdomen bag.
    We seek comment on these issues, especially on alternative
equivalent face foams.
2. Oblique OMDB Test Series
    In developing THOR-50M, NHTSA ran a series of full-vehicle oblique
tests with a moving deformable test barrier (OMDB).\182\ Three crash
tests were conducted on the same make/model vehicle (a 2016 Mazda CX-5)
at three different test facilities. ATDs were seated in both front
outboard seats and were fully qualified. Two THOR-50M ATDs were
successfully implemented in a total of nine vehicle crash tests, with
qualification tests before and after each set of three tests. In this
test condition, there were no signs of damage beyond normal wear and
tear, and there were no sensor failures that were critical to the
calculation of injury risk. The dummies were inspected after each test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Saunders, J., & Parent, D. (2018). Repeatability and
reproducibility of oblique moving deformable barrier test procedure
(No. 2018-01-1055). SAE Technical Paper, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0106-0005. The discussion
here briefly summarizes some of the relevant results from this
report. This testing is not being considered as an evaluation of the
ATD's repeatability and reproducibility because in order to provide
a meaningful ATD R&R analysis, control of the test conditions must
be exercised. Component tests, such as the qualification tests, are
more readily controlled and thus may be expected to provide the best
estimates of a dummy's R&R. Sled testing provides an efficient
alternative to vehicle crash testing and offers insight into the
dummy's performance as a complete system. In full-vehicle crash
testing, however, the variation contributed by the vehicle (e.g.,
variation in structural materials) and the overall test procedure
make it difficult to identify the variability attributable to the
dummy itself. Additionally, the severity of the test conditions
utilized for R&R assessment must also be considered. For example, if
the test conditions are so severe that the responses are near or
beyond the dummy's mechanical limits or electronic capacity, then
the corresponding R&R analysis may not be meaningful. See generally
Rhule et al (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were no signs of damage beyond normal wear and tear, and no
part replacements were necessary. We did observe some sensor anomalies
or failures to sensors, but almost all the sensors that failed were
non-critical--for example off-axis channels (e.g., right femur X-axis
force) or sensors not used in the calculation of injury criteria (e.g.,
lower neck load cell, foot accelerometers). See Appendix F. Such sensor
anomalies can also occur in other Part 572 ATDs, such as the HIII-50M
and HIII-05F used in Frontal NCAP testing. In the past six years of
Frontal NCAP testing, there was an average of one failed ATD sensor
channel per crash test (0.68  1.08), with five of those
instances occurring in a critical channel.
    Many of these anomalies were the results of loose Amphenol pins.
These are the electrical contacts inside of the connectors used to
interface the THOR-50M umbilical cables with the specific data
acquisition system of the test facility. These connectors are used to
prevent the need for cutting wires and attaching lab-specific
connectors each time an ATD is sent to a new facility with a different
data acquisition system. In practice, ATDs sent to test facilities for
the execution of regulation or consumer information testing will often
remain on-site for an extended period of time, which makes laboratory-
specific connectors more feasible. Such issues would not exist for
THOR-50M ATDs with in-dummy data acquisition systems. Many of the
sensor failures that occurred were in non-critical instrumentation, for
example off-axis channels or sensors not used in the calculation of
injury criteria. For research tests, a larger number of sensors are
recorded for the sake of completeness and post-test investigation; in a
regulatory or consumer information testing environment, these channels
may not be recorded. If the user does want to record such sensors, they
would need to be repaired or replaced before pre-test qualification for
the next vehicle crash test.
    The only sensor anomalies related to the calculation of injury
criteria were in the chest and abdomen, but, once linearized, scaled,
filtered, and converted to three-dimensional resultant deflection local
spine coordinate system, these ``blips'' were no longer evident; thus
they would not influence the calculation of injury risk for this
occupant. These voltage drops are characteristic of the abrupt
decreases in the IR-TRACC voltage time-history described in Section
III.E.2. See Appendix F.
3. FMVSS No. 208 Unbelted Vehicle Crash Tests
    NHTSA performed a series of unbelted vehicle crash tests required
in FMVSS No. 208. The results are briefly summarized in this section
and are discussed in more detail in the referenced paper.\183\ FMVSS
No. 208 specifies a frontal crash test into a rigid barrier with the
barrier angle at 0 degrees to  30 degrees at between 20 mph
(32 km/h) and 25 mph (40 km/h), inclusive, with an unbelted 50th
percentile male dummy seated at either front outboard seat.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., Martin, P., 2023. THOR-50M
Fitness Assessment In FMVSS No. 208 Unbelted Crash Tests. In:
Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference for the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (No. 23-0339). Available at: https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000339.pdf.
    \184\ S14.5.2; S5.1.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA ran two sets of tests. First, we ran this test at the highest
regulatory speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) for crash geometries of 30 degrees
to the left, 30 degrees to the right, and perpendicular (12 tests).
Second, we ran a modified version of this test, with an elevated speed
of 48 km/h (30 mph) for crash geometries of 30 degrees to the left and
right (six tests). We tested with two different THOR-50M ATDs, both
manufactured by Humanetics and built to the 2018 drawing package
(except that one ATD (EG2595) was fitted with the proposed optional in-
dummy DAS). For these tests, the laboratory test procedures for FMVSS
No. 208 \185\ were followed, with the exception of the seating
procedure, for which the Revised THOR 50th Percentile Male Dummy
Seating Procedure \186\ was followed. The ATD was instrumented so that
all injury criteria defined for the HIII-50M in FMVSS No. 208 and in
the THOR-50M Injury Criteria Report could be calculated. A total of 19
tests were run on four different vehicle models

(the Honda Accord, Mazda CX-5, Chevrolet Equinox, and Ford Escape).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2008).
Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection,
TP208-14.
    \186\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2020).
Revised THOR 50th Percentile Male Dummy Seating Procedure, June
2019. Regulations.gov Docket ID NHTSA-2019-0106-0006, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0106-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This study showed that the THOR-50M, when exercised in unbelted
frontal rigid barrier testing, experienced only minor issues. We
performed a full set of qualification tests before the test series, a
partial qualification test series \187\ after each test, and a full
qualification test series halfway through the test series. In all
cases, the THOR-50Ms met the qualification specifications without need
for part replacement or other refurbishment. In addition, each ATD was
inspected after each test for damage and to investigate sensor
anomalies. While no parts were found to be in need of replacement,
there were some sensor anomalies and damage. One of the ATDs did not
experience any sensor anomalies or damage during testing, while the
other ATD experienced some sensor anomalies that were repairable, while
others were not. The sensors that were not repaired were non-critical
channels (for example, the left tibia mid-shaft X-axis accelerometer),
thus a decision was made to continue testing instead of repairing or
replacing the sensors, which would have caused delays in the test
schedule. The quantity and severity of sensor anomalies were similar to
those experienced in testing with the HIII-50M, especially considering
increased sensor count and level of complexity of the THOR-50M. Aside
from minor wear and tear (e.g., scrapes on the top of the head skin of
one ATD were noted after one test) there was no damage to either ATD
and both met all qualification specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ To maximize efficiency, the partial qualification test
series only included the tests that did not require any disassembly
of dummy components: head, upper thorax, lower thorax, lower
abdomen, and left/right upper leg. The face impact test was not
included because direct impact to the face was not expected during
this test series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these observations, NHTSA tentatively concludes that THOR-
50M is sufficiently durable for use in FMVSS No. 208 unbelted testing,
even at an elevated closing speed. Overall, this unbelted test series
provides additional assurance that the THOR-50M units are durable and
stand up well under testing, with the amount of wear and tear normal
for our test dummies, and that NHTSA's THOR-50M design specifications
have resulted in highly uniform and durable units.

C. Sensitivity to Restraint System Performance

    NHTSA's testing with the THOR-50M has also highlighted its ability
to detect differences in restraint system performance. One example of
this occurred in the Oblique OMDB testing described above in Section
VII.B.2.\188\ This testing involved vehicles of the same model and
model year with a THOR-50M seated in each front outboard seat. In one
series of tests which included three Oblique OMDB crash tests of the
same vehicle make and model, the THOR-50Ms seated in the right front
passenger seat showed a much wider variation in injury assessment
values related to head injury risk than the THOR-50Ms seated in the
driver's seat. A thorough investigation of the test data, including
inspection of the high-speed video, revealed that the right front
passenger air bag did not function consistently to manage the ride-down
of the occupant: the high-speed images revealed differences in air bag
deployment, interaction between the head and the air bag, and contact
between the head and the instrument panel. Inspection of the air bag
revealed tears in the air bags in two of the three tests, with the
largest tears associated with the highest injury assessment
values.\189\ This is one example of how the innovative features of the
THOR-50M can help lead to improved vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Saunders, J., & Parent, D. (2018). Repeatability and
reproducibility of oblique moving deformable barrier test procedure
(No. 2018-01-1055).
    \189\ These results were shared with the vehicle manufacturer,
which instituted a series of modifications. In a later test of the
vehicle, there were no passenger air bag tears evident, and the head
injury criteria were similar to those measured in the previous tests
that did not appear to result in air bag tears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Intellectual Property

    While there is no specific prohibition on specifying a patented
component, copyrighted design, or name-brand product in Part 572, NHTSA
has been mindful of the legislative history of the Safety Act and its
own responsibility under statute to make all information, patents, and
developments related to a research and development activity available
to the public where it makes more than a minimal contribution to the
activity.\190\ This understanding has guided dummy development at NHTSA
for many years and explains why NHTSA has not incorporated into final
rules materials owned by third parties except in rare cases (discussed
below). The legislative history of the Safety Act shows that while
Congress explicitly declined to include a provision preventing use of
patents by the agency in standards, Congress did ``assume[ ] that the
Secretary is not likely to adopt a standard which can be met only by
using a single patented device, and that the Secretary would, before
doing so, take steps to obtain an understanding from the patent holder
that he would supply the item or grant licenses on reasonable terms.''
\191\ In addition, NHTSA itself plays a significant role in the
testing, evaluation and performance verification of dummies and
provides a substantial amount of information to the public to identify
the basis for improvement in testing devices to ensure the
repeatability and reproducibility of results. The outcome of the
agency's involvement has been an interest in making sure the test
device is available for use without restriction to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ 49 U.S.C. 30182(f).
    \191\ S. Rep. No. 89-1301, at 15, reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N.
2709, 2723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be clear, there are also several potential concerns with
specifying proprietary components. They may be modified by the
proprietary source such that original is no longer available, and the
new part no longer fits. The proprietary source may alter the part in
ways that change the response of the dummy, such that dummies with the
newer part do not provide the same response as dummies with the older
part. Components produced by only one manufacturer are not subject to
competitive sales pressures. And the manufacturer of a sole-source part
may simply cease manufacturing the part.
    For these reasons, NHTSA has generally avoided specifying in Part
572 patented components or copyrighted designs without either securing
agreement from the rights-holder for the free use of the item or to
license it on reasonable terms \192\ or developing an alternative
unencumbered by any rights claims.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ See, e.g., 38 FR 8455 (Apr. 2, 1973) (NPRM for the initial
50th percentile male dummy) (``To the knowledge of this agency, the
only patent on a component of the specified dummy is one on the knee
held by Alderson, and that company has stated to the NHTSA that it
will license production under its patent for a reasonable
royalty.'')
    \193\ See, e.g., 65 FR 17180, 17187 (Mar. 31, 2000) (final rule
for twelve-month-old child dummy) (declining to incorporate a
copyrighted PADI developed by an ATD manufacturer and instead
incorporating a NHTSA-authored PADI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier in the preamble (Section III), we are specifying
some patented parts but not without specifying suitable alternates
where no intellectual property claims apply. We briefly discuss these
below.

Shoulder

    As explained earlier, we are proposing to include two alternative
shoulder specifications: the SD-3 shoulder and the alternate shoulder.
    Humanetics has two patents on the SD-3 shoulder: one describes a
mechanical shoulder joint assembly and the other describes an upper arm

assembly with a load cell.\194\ The shoulder joint is formed using a
pivot connected to a spring element inside of a housing, which has an
adjustable element to control the friction of the joint. Humanetics is
currently the sole manufacturer of the SD-3 shoulder in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ U.S. Patent Nos. 9,514,659 (upper arm assembly) and
9,799,234 (shoulder joint assembly).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to avoid potential concerns with specifying a patented
part as the sole specification, NHTSA has developed an alternative to
the SD-3 shoulder. The alternate shoulder does not include the
adjustable friction element, and does not use a coil, clock, or watch
spring mechanism. Instead, the alternate shoulder design uses a molded
rubber cylinder acting as a torsion bar. The response of the rubber
cylinder can be tuned by both changes in material and changes in
geometry, such as removal of material to create voids of different
sizes and shapes. This lack of a friction adjustment in the alternate
shoulder is a change in the functional aspect of the design.
Accordingly, with the significant differences noted, we are proposing
to specify the use of either the alternate shoulder or the SD-3
shoulder.

Chest Instrumentation

    NHTSA is proposing the IR-TRACC and the S-Track as permissible
alternate instrumentation. While NHTSA is not aware of any patent
protection on the IR-TRACC, it is manufactured only by Humanetics.
There is a patent on the S-Track, and NHTSA's understanding is that the
S-Track is currently manufactured only by ATD-LabTech, which was
recently acquired by Humanetics.
    We believe that specifying the design such that either the IR-TRACC
or the S-Track could be used would be sufficient to ensure
instrumentation availability to dummy users. We seek comment on this.

IX. Consideration of Alternatives

    NHTSA is not aware of a 50th percentile male ATD intended for use
in frontal or frontal oblique crash tests and more advanced than the
HIII-50M, other than the THOR-50M. Throughout this document we have
discussed various alternative configurations, specifications, and tests
that we have considered in developing the proposal and on which we are
seeking comment.
    As discussed in more detail in the rulemaking analyses section,
Executive Order 13609 provides that international regulatory
cooperation can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences
in regulatory requirements. Similarly, Sec.  24211 of the
Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act \195\ instructs DOT to
harmonize the FMVSS with global regulations to the maximum extent
practicable (for example, to the extent that harmonization would be
consistent with the Safety Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only regulatory authority or consumer ratings program we are
aware of that currently uses the THOR-50M is Euro NCAP. Euro NCAP TB026
references the August 2018 drawing package,\196\ the September 2018
Qualification Procedures,\197\ and the August 2018 PADI.\198\ Although
TB026 largely follows these documents, it does depart from them in
several ways. Those differences have been identified and discussed in
the relevant sections of the preamble and are summarized in Table 20.
The tentative reasons for those differences are explained in detail in
the relevant section of the preamble. In general, we believe that those
differences are justified given NHTSA's experience testing with the
THOR-50M in frontal rigid barrier and frontal oblique vehicle crash
test modes, and the necessity of ensuring that a dummy specified for
use in regulatory compliance testing be objectively specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Sec.  1.1.
    \197\ Sec.  2.1.
    \198\ Sec.  3.1.

Table 20--Summary of Differences Between the THOR-50M as Proposed and as
                     Specified for Use in Euro NCAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Issue                    Proposal            Euro NCAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design & Construction:
    Split shoulder pad..........  Not proposed......  Under
                                                       consideration.
    Spine.......................  Spine Pitch Change  Four-Position
                                   Joint.              Spine Box.
    Lower Leg...................  THOR-specific       HIII-50M lower
                                   lower leg.          leg.
Instrumentation:
    S-Track/IR-TRACC............  IR-TRACC or S-      IR-TRACC, S-Track,
                                   Track.              or KIR-TRACC
                                                      Does not specify
                                                       the systems part-
                                                       by-part with
                                                       engineering
                                                       drawings.
    In-dummy DAS................  Permitted as        TB026 requires an
                                   optional            in-dummy DAS.
                                   configuration       TB029 currently
                                   with part-by-part   does not specify
                                   engineering         any specific in-
                                   drawings            dummy DAS,
                                   compatible with     although earlier
                                   the SLICE6 and      versions of TB029
                                   any other           did specify a few
                                   similarly-          different
                                   configured system.  approved in-dummy
                                                       DAS systems.
                                                      Does not specify
                                                       the systems part-
                                                       by-part with
                                                       engineering
                                                       drawings.
Qualification Tests:
    Acceptance interval midpoint  Based on R&R test   Basis not
                                   data.               identified in
                                                       TB026.
    Acceptance interval width...   10%    Varies from 1% to 10%.
    Upper thorax................  Ratio of Z-axis to  Specifies ratio of
                                   X-axis deflection   Z-axis to X-axis
                                   not specified as    deflection as
                                   test parameter.     test parameter.
    Face impact test............  Specified.........  Not specified.
    Knee slider.................  Specified.........  Certified to SAE
                                                       J2876.
Lower legs......................  Ankle inversion/    Certified to Annex
                                   eversion; Ball of   10 of ECE
                                   foot; heel.         Regulation No.
                                                       94.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Lead Time

    Since this rulemaking action itself would not impose requirements
on anyone, we are proposing that the final rule would be effective on
publication in the Federal Register.

XI. Incorporation by Reference

    Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1
CFR 51.5(a)), an agency, as part of a final rule that includes material
incorporated by reference, must summarize in the preamble of the final
rule the material it incorporates by reference and discuss the ways the
material is reasonably available to interested parties or how the
agency worked to make materials available to interested parties.
    In this proposed rule, NHTSA incorporates by reference a technical
data package for the THOR-50M. The technical data package consists of
two-dimensional engineering drawings and a parts list; procedures for
assembly, disassembly, and inspection (PADI); and qualification
procedures. Copies of these documents are available in the research
docket identified earlier in this document. Interested persons can
download a copy of the materials or view the materials online by
accessing www.Regulations.gov. The material is also available for
inspection at the Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC Telephone: 202-366-
9826. If the proposed rule is finalized, final versions of these
documents would be placed in a docket that would be readily available
to the public online (via regulations.gov) and in-person at DOT
headquarters.
    Although agency-created documents are presumptively ineligible for
incorporation by reference, they may be approved for incorporation by
the Office of the Federal Register if they (among other things) consist
of criteria, specifications, or illustrations; are reasonably available
to the class of persons affected; are easy to handle; and possesses
other unique or highly unusual qualities.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ See 1 CFR 51.7(b) (``The Director will assume that a
publication produced by the same agency that is seeking its approval
is inappropriate for incorporation by reference. A publication
produced by the agency may be approved, if, in the judgment of the
Director, it meets the requirements of paragraph (a) and possesses
other unique or highly unusual qualities. A publication may be
approved if it cannot be printed using the Federal Register/Code of
Federal Regulations printing system.''); (a)(2)(i)(``published data,
criteria, standards, specifications, techniques, illustrations, or
similar material''); (a)(3)(``reasonably available to and usable by
the class of persons affected''); (a)(3)(i)(``The completeness and
ease of handling of the publication'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe these documents (which were created by NHTSA) meet these
criteria. Except for the qualification procedures, NHTSA typically
incorporates these elements of the technical data package by reference.
NHTSA has not typically incorporated the qualification procedures by
reference. Doing so is a departure from the other ATDs currently
specified in Part 572, for which the qualification tests are set out in
full in the regulatory text in each of the relevant paragraphs
(corresponding to that ATD) in part 572. We are proposing a separate
qualification procedures document for the THOR-50M because the THOR-50M
qualification procedures involve procedures that are made clearer by
photographs and diagrams that are not amenable to publication in the
CFR.\200\ We believe this extra level of detail will be helpful for end
users who are attempting to qualify the ATD. We seek comment on this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ The qualification procedures document states that the
photographs are provided for reference only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 14094, and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this regulatory action under
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.\201\ This
rulemaking action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under E.O. 12866. It is also not considered ``of special note to
the Department'' under DOT Order 2100.6A. We have considered the
qualitative costs and benefits of the proposed rule under the
principles of E.O. 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ 49 CFR, Part 5, Subpart B; Department of Transportation
Order 2100.6A, Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures, June 7, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document would amend 49 CFR part 572 by adding design and
performance specifications for an advanced test dummy representative of
a 50th percentile adult male that the agency would possibly use in
FMVSS No. 208 front crash tests and for research purposes. This Part
572 proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone.
Businesses are affected only if they choose to manufacture or test with
the dummy.
    There are benefits associated with this rulemaking but they are not
readily quantifiable. The THOR-50M is an advanced dummy with advantages
over existing dummies with respect to biofidelity, instrumentation,
injury prediction, and evaluation of vehicle performance. The dummy is
currently used for testing by Euro NCAP, and may be incorporated in ECE
R137. It is also likely being used by vehicle and restraint
manufacturers for testing, research, and development.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is considering a proposal to incorporate the
THOR-50M into FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' for use in
frontal crash compliance testing at the manufacturers' option.\202\
This contemplated rulemaking action would permit manufacturers to
direct NHTSA to use the THOR-50M in belted and unbelted barrier crash
testing of the vehicles they produce instead of the HIII-50M ATD in
NHTSA's compliance tests. Incorporating the dummy in Part 572 will
enable manufacturers and others to streamline testing, choosing to use
THOR-50M in place of the HIII-50M, potentially reducing the number of
tests they run, and leveraging the value of the tests they do run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ FMVSS No. 208 THOR-50M Compliance Option (RIN 2127-AM21),
Fall 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions;
Department of Transportation, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202304&RIN=2127-AM21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incorporating the THOR-50M into Part 572 would also have other
benefits beyond use in NHTSA's compliance testing. The ability of the
THOR-50M to potentially monitor additional injury modes and its
improved biofidelity may facilitate the development and introduction of
innovative occupant crash protection features. While the purpose of
Part 572 is to ``describe the anthropomorphic test devices that are to
be used for compliance testing of motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment with motor vehicle safety standards,'' it also serves as a
definition of the ATD for other purposes as well, such as consumer
information crash testing, standards and regulations in other
transportation modes, and research. As such, it would be to the benefit
of government, academia, and the multi-modal transportation industry to
include a definition of the THOR-50M ATD in Part 572. In addition, the
availability of this dummy in a regulated format would be beneficial by
providing a suitable, stabilized, and objective test tool to the safety
community for use in better protecting occupants in frontal impacts.
    The costs associated with the THOR-50M only affect those who choose
to use the THOR-50M. This rule would not impose any requirements on
anyone. If incorporated into FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA would use the dummy
in its compliance testing of the requirements

at the option of a regulated entity, but regulated entities are not
required to use the dummy or assess the performance of their products
in the manner specified in the FMVSSs.
    NHTSA has found that the cost of a THOR-50M corresponding to the
2023 drawing package has been approximately $550,000 to $750,000
depending on whether an in-dummy DAS is installed and the level of
instrumentation. The minimum set of instrumentation needed for
qualification testing includes 66 channels. If the S-Track were used
instead of the IR-TRACC, the total cost would be roughly the same.
    In addition to these costs, as with any ATD, dummy refurbishments
and part replacements are an inherent part of ATD testing. Various
parts will likely have to be refurbished or replaced, but we generally
do not know which parts are likely to be worked on the most. As we note
in the NPRM, however, the face foam appears to need more frequent
replacement but this should not add appreciably to the overall cost.
Because the dummies are designed to be reusable, costs of the dummies
and of parts can be amortized over a number of tests. While the
expected maintenance costs for the THOR-50M are expected to be higher
than those for less complex dummies such as the HIII-50M, these costs
are expected to be similar to advanced dummies such as the WorldSID.
    There are minor costs associated with conducting the qualification
tests. Most of the qualification fixtures are common with those used to
qualify other Part 572 dummies (including the neck pendulum and the
probes used in the head, upper thorax and lower thorax tests). Some
additional equipment unique to the THOR-50M may be fabricated from
drawings within the technical data package, for an estimated cost of
about $50,000. This includes the cost to fabricate the torsion fixture
for the neck torsion test, the lower abdomen probe face assembly,
impact probes not used for other Part 572 dummies (or weighted collars
to achieve the specified mass), and test apparatus for the lower leg
tests (including the dynamic impactor, external positioning bracket,
dynamic inversion/eversion bracket, lower leg mounting bracket, lower
leg zero bracket, Achilles fixture, load cell mounting assembly, knee
slider load distribution bracket, and tibia adapter). The costs of the
instrumentation equipment needed to perform the qualification tests
amounts to about an additional $4,400 (two angular rate sensors, $850
apiece; two test probe accelerometers, $800 apiece; one rotary
potentiometer, $1,100).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 13045 and 13132 (Federalism)

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The following voluntary consensus standards have been used in
developing the THOR-50M:
     SAE J211-1, Instrumentation for impact test--Part 1:
Electronic Instrumentation, Version 2014-03-31
     SAE J1733, Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing,
Version 2007-11-02.
     SAE J2570, Performance specifications for anthropomorphic
test device transducers, Version 2009-08-12.
     SAE J2876, Low Speed Knee Slider Test Procedure for the
Hybrid III 50th Male Dummy, Version 2015-05-07.
     ISO-MME Task Force, 2015-04-15 proposed mnemonic codes for
the THOR-50M.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by States, local
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of
1995) in any one year. Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross
domestic product price deflator for 2022 results in $177 million
(111.416/75.324 = 1.48). The assessment may be included in conjunction
with other assessments, as it is here. UMRA requires the agency to
select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.''
    This proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the
UMRA. This proposed rule does not meet the definition of a Federal
mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49
CFR part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for a 50th
percentile adult male frontal crash test dummy that the agency could
use in FMVSS No. 208 and for research purposes. This proposed rule
would affect only those businesses that choose to manufacture or test
with the dummy. It would not result in costs of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) to either State, local, or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or to the private sector.

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

    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

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

XIII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the agency
name and the docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) in
your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    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 upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish the Docket 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, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
    You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in Part 512. This includes the materials for
which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail
below); supporting information, pursuant to Part 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Part 512.4(b) and Part 512, Appendix A.
    You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Part 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
    You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Part 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment).
    NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under Part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
[email protected]. You may either submit your request via email
or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the
request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to
John Piazza at [email protected].

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.

Proposed Regulatory Text

    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. Add Subpart X, consisting of Sec. Sec.  572.220 through 572.221, to
read as follows:
Subpart X--THOR-50M 50th Percentile Male Frontal Impact Test Dummy
Secs.
572.220 Incorporation by reference.
572.221 General description.

Subpart X--THOR-50M 50th Percentile Male Frontal Impact Test Dummy

Sec.  572.220  Incorporation by reference.

    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. This
material is available for inspection at the Department of
Transportation, the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), and in electronic format through regulations.gov. Contact DOT
at: Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations. To locate the material on regulations.gov, search for
Docket No. NHTSA-202X-XXXX. The material may be obtained from the
source:
    (a) NHTSA Technical Information Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (1) A drawing package entitled, ``THOR-50th Percentile Male with
Alternate Shoulders Frontal Crash Test Dummy (THOR-50M Male w/Alt.
Shoulders) Drawings, External Dimensions, and Mass Properties,'' dated
(and revised) January 2023 (Drawings and Specifications); IBR approved
for Sec.  572.221.
    (2) A parts list entitled, ``Parts List, THOR-50th Percentile Male
Frontal Crash Test Dummy with Alternate Shoulders (THOR-50M w/Alt.
Shoulders)'' dated (and revised) January 2023 (Parts List); IBR
approved for Sec.  572.221.
    (3) A procedures document entitled ``THOR 50th Percentile Male
(THOR-50M) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection
(PADI)'' dated (and revised) June 2023 (PADI); IBR approved for Sec.
572.221.

    (4) A procedures document entitled ``THOR 50th Percentile Male
(THOR-50M) Qualification Procedures and Requirements'' dated (and
revised) April 2023 (Qualification Procedures); IBR approved for Sec.
572.221.

Sec.  572.221  General description.

    (a) The THOR-50M 50th percentile male test dummy is defined by the
following materials:
    (1) The Drawings and Specifications (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  572.220);
    (2) The Parts List (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.220);
    (3) The PADI (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.220);
    (4) The Qualification Procedures (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  572.220).

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.4, and 501.
Ann Carlson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-19008 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P