Proposed Rule2026-19370
Part 572; Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint 50th Percentile Adult Male Dummy (THOR-50M)
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 22, 2026
Effective
September 22, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This document supplements NHTSA's September 2023 notice of proposed rulemaking to amend NHTSA's regulations to include an advanced crash test dummy (the Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR) 50th percentile adult male) by requesting comment on specifying an additional spine configuration and an alternative to the face foam, and announcing the availability of additional documents.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60068-60076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19370]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 572
[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0031]
RIN 2127-AM20
Part 572; Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Test Device for Human
Occupant Restraint 50th Percentile Adult Male Dummy (THOR-50M)
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document supplements NHTSA's September 2023 notice of
[[Page 60069]]
proposed rulemaking to amend NHTSA's regulations to include an advanced
crash test dummy (the Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR)
50th percentile adult male) by requesting comment on specifying an
additional spine configuration and an alternative to the face foam, and
announcing the availability of additional documents.
DATES: The documents referenced in this notification will be available
in the docket as of September 22, 2026. You should submit your comments
early enough to be received not later than October 22, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
<bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility: Docket Management, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Suite W58-213, Washington, DC 20590.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket Management, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Suite W58-213, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there
to help you, please call (202) 366-9826 or (202) 366-9317 before
coming.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number identified in the heading of this document.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. You may also
access the docket at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room
W58-213, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826 or
202-366-9317.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section
of this document.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under the
Regulatory Analyses section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Garry Brock at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f787e6d6d66317d6d707c745f7b706b31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096e687b7b70276b7b666a62496d667d276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>. For legal issues, you may contact
John Piazza at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eca6838482c2bc858d96968dac888398c28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="561c393e3878063f372c2c371632392278313920">[email protected]</span></a>. You can reach these officials by
phone at 202-366-1810. Address: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On September 7, 2023, NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend NHTSA's regulations to include an advanced
crash test dummy, the Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR)
50th percentile adult male (THOR-50M).\1\ The dummy represents an adult
male of roughly average height and weight and is designed for use in
frontal crash tests. The documentation for the dummy, including
engineering drawings, qualification procedures and specifications, and
procedures for assembly, disassembly, and inspection (PADI), would be
incorporated by reference in 49 CFR part 572, Anthropomorphic Test
Devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 88 FR 61896.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 2024, NHTSA published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) \2\ to announce the availability of additional
research reports and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) supplementing
the September 2023 NPRM. The research reports described NHTSA's
evaluation of alternative configurations of the THOR-50M, including an
alternative shoulder design to the patented SD-3 shoulder and an
alternative thoracic deflection measurement instrumentation, and
presented further analysis of an in-dummy data acquisition system.
Under the MOU, no restrictions will apply to copyrighted designs and
drawings used as part of a NHTSA final rule issued under 49 CFR part
572 upon the effective date of the final rule. Similarly, no
restrictions will apply to a patented design used as part of a NHTSA
final rule issued under 49 CFR part 572 upon effective date of the
final rule, if the final rule does not specify the use of another
design as an alternative to the patented design. Based on the MOU,
NHTSA tentatively concluded that it would be preferable if the final
rule specifies only the SD-3 shoulder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 89 FR 56251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the NPRM, and in response to the NPRM comments, NHTSA has
evaluated additional modifications to the dummy. The main modifications
proposed in this notice are specifying the four-position spine as an
alternative or replacement for the proposed spine and an updated face
insert as an alternative to the proposed face foam. NHTSA is also
proposing a minor modification to the upper arm to address a durability
concern. These supplemental proposals are discussed below.
II. Four-Position Spine
The NPRM version of the THOR-50M spine contains a posture
adjustment joint known as the lumbar spine pitch change mechanism
(original spine), which allows the posture of the THOR-50M to be
adjusted into various seating configurations in three-degree
increments, including, but not limited to, four designated positions
(erect, neutral, slouched, and super slouched). The NPRM also proposed
an alternate configuration that accommodates use of an in-dummy data
acquisition system (DAS).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The proposed specifications were based on, but not
necessarily limited to, the system installed in the majority of the
NHTSA fleet of THOR-50M anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) equipped
with in-dummy DAS, which was manufactured by Diversified Technical
Systems (DTS), under their product name ``SLICE6.'' The SLICE6 is
not explicitly specified or called out by name, so that another
system fitting with the defined specifications could also be
utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original spine differs from the spine in THOR-50M units used in
the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP). Euro NCAP TB026
specifies a four-position lumbar spine box (four-position spine) that
allows the spine to be set only in four distinct positions (erect,
neutral, slouched, and super slouched). The four-position spine design
accommodates the in-dummy installation of some DAS brands by providing
a mounting surface for data loggers. Additional modifications to
support cable routing and DAS
[[Page 60070]]
attachments are made throughout the dummies. THOR-50M units utilized in
Euro NCAP are configured with a four-position spine and an in-dummy
DAS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Previous versions of this document were referred to as TB
026, but it has been referred to as CP 106 since 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is aware of two versions of the four-position spine, both of
which are approved by Euro NCAP.\5\ Humanetics Innovative Solutions
(Humanetics) manufactures a version of the four-position spine which
contains patented elements.\6\ Kistler Group (Kistler) manufactures a
different version of the four-position spine (i.e., the specifications
differ) for which Kistler does not hold a patent. NHTSA explained in
the NPRM that it had tentatively decided not to specify the four-
position spine because it had not tested with that spine, it was
patented, and the original spine was more adjustable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Previous versions of this document were referred to as TB
029, but it has been referred to as G 003-1 and G 002-3 since 2026.
\6\ U.S. Patent No US9965977 and EP3040960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. NPRM Comments on the Proposed Spine Specification
NHTSA received several comments on the proposed original spine
specification in response to the NPRM. Several commenters (Automotive
Safety Council [ASC], Partnership for Dummy Biomechanics [PDB],
Mercedes-Benz Research and Development North America [Mercedes],
General Motors [GM], Autoliv, Volkswagen [VW], the Alliance for
Automotive Innovation [Auto Innovators], and Humanetics) requested that
NHTSA align with Euro NCAP and allow use of the four-position spine.
Commenters noted what they viewed as advantages of the four-position
spine.
ASC, Auto Innovators, and GM commented that the four-position spine
is easier to change with reduced risk of positioning errors. VW added
that the four-position spine can be adjusted by a single user, whereas
adjustment of the original spine requires an additional user. PDB, GM,
and VW commented that incorrect adjustment of the original spine can
result in damage. ASC, GM, and Autoliv commented that the positions
available in the four-position spine are adequate for most
applications, including qualification tests, a wide variety of crash
test protocols, and global NCAP load cases.
ASC, PDB, Mercedes, VW, Autoliv, and Humanetics commented that the
four-position spine allows integration of additional in-dummy DAS that
are not possible with the original spine. Mercedes and VW commented
further that the four-position spine is required for use of in-dummy
DAS based on a central DAS device (recorder) such as the Kistler
Digital Transducer Interface (DTI) system.
Mercedes stated that it has extensive experience testing with a
four-position spine and found the design to be equivalent to the
original spine. It noted that all its THOR-50M dummies use a four-
position spine manufactured by Kistler, which differs from the four-
position spine manufactured by Humanetics. Mercedes commented and
provided supporting evidence that the Kistler four-position spine has
the same weight and center of gravity (CG) as the original spine. VW
also commented that the four-position spine has the same geometry and
dynamic properties as the original spine.
Humanetics commented that the weight, CG location, and moment of
inertia (MOI) in its four-position spine closely match the original
spine, and ASC and Humanetics commented that the proposed and four-
position spines should provide equivalent performance if set in the
same position. Humanetics provided data from qualification tests
showing that dummies in both the four-position spine and original spine
configurations meet the qualification specifications for the head,
upper thorax, lower thorax, and abdomen test modes.
B. Additional NHTSA Research
In light of the NPRM comments, NHTSA has investigated whether the
four-position spine is equivalent \7\ to the original spine. NHTSA is
docketing two documents related to this effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In this context, equivalent means that the dummy components
would provide the same form, fit, and function, and ultimately
dummies in either configuration would provide the same results from
a full-scale vehicle crash test. Two components would be considered
equivalent if the variation in results from a given test is within
the expected test-to-test variability of the test. In other words,
the results of the test would not be dependent on which
configuration of the dummy was tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is an additional research report that is being placed in the
crashworthiness research docket.\8\ The report provides an analysis of
the Humanetics four-position spine and its equivalence to the original
spine specified in the 2023 drawing package. NHTSA analyzed equivalence
by comparing a dummy with the four-position spine to dummies with the
original spine. This included comparison of the mass, CG, and MOI;
responses in qualification tests; responses in Gold Standard 1 and 2
sled tests; \9\ and responses in frontal vehicle crash tests. The
testing showed equivalence between the original spine and the four-
position spine within expected test-to-test variation. NHTSA also
conducted some of these same tests on a dummy manufactured by Kistler
and equipped with the Kistler four-position spine. However, NHTSA
encountered issues with durability of the dummy during testing and was
therefore unable to evaluate the Kistler four-position spine fully.
Accordingly, the test report only includes information from testing the
Humanetics four-position spine. However, information on the tests of
the Kistler four-position spine can be found in NHTSA's crash test
database.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``THOR-50M Four-Position Spine System Evaluation'' in Docket
No. NHTSA-2019-0106. As NHTSA explained in the NPRM, it is placing
the documentation and reports in the research docket and not the
rulemaking docket but nevertheless intends these documents to be
included in the rulemaking record for this rulemaking action. See
further explanation in 88 FR at 61904.
\9\ The Gold Standard conditions are simplified sled tests used
in biofidelity assessment and development of thoracic injury
criteria. The Gold Standard 1 condition uses a 40 km/h 12g peak
pulse, a standard lap and shoulder belt, and a rigid knee restraint.
The Gold Standard 2 condition uses a 30 km/h 9g peak pulse, a 3 kN
load-limited shoulder belt, a standard lap belt, and a rigid knee
restraint.
\10\ Available at: <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/research-testing-databases/#/biomechanics">https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/research-testing-databases/#/biomechanics</a>, test numbers: 15258, 15259, 15260,
15261, 15265, 15266, 15267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other document NHTSA is placing in the research docket contains
updated dummy drawings reflecting the component changes necessary to
incorporate the four-position spine, as well as additional minor
modifications for an in-dummy DAS system.\11\ These drawings show the
overall assembly of the four-position spine and in-dummy DAS
components. (The drawing package that is being docketed includes all
the dummy drawings, not just those that have changes related to the
four-position spine and in-dummy DAS.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``THOR-50th Percentile Male with In-Dummy DAS Frontal Crash
Test Dummy (THOR-50M with In-Dummy DAS) Drawings, External
Dimensions, and Mass Properties'' in Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Spine Specification
In light of the NPRM comments and the supplemental research
described above and in the docketed documents, NHTSA is now proposing
to specify the Humanetics four-position spine as a permitted optional
configuration.\12\ If NHTSA were to adopt this proposal, there would be
two separate drawing packages: one for the original spine and one for
the four-position spine. NHTSA could perform compliance tests using a
[[Page 60071]]
dummy with either configuration. The four-position spine configuration
contains modifications to incorporate an in-dummy DAS, as described in
the research report. The specifications for the in-dummy DAS are
generic, so that any conforming in-dummy DAS could be installed.
Humanetics' four-position spine was designed to accommodate multiple
DAS brands; it would accommodate the SLICE6 DAS, as well as other
brands. The four-position spine configuration would not accommodate an
external DAS. This is because NHTSA's understanding is that users,
including the test labs that NHTSA utilizes, prefer an in-dummy DAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Because the specifications for the Humanetics and Kistler
four-position spines are not identical, the proposed specification
would not accommodate the Kistler four-position spine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should users desire to test with an external DAS, the originally
proposed drawing package with the original spine--which accommodates an
external DAS--would still be incorporated into part 572. However, under
this supplemental proposal, the configuration consisting of the
original spine with an in-dummy DAS that was proposed in the NPRM would
not be incorporated into part 572; the four-position spine with an in-
dummy DAS would take its place. Again, this is because NHTSA is unaware
of demand from users to test with this configuration, and the agency
would prefer to test with the four-position spine utilizing an in-dummy
DAS, which also enables harmonization with Euro NCAP ATDs.
Under this supplemental proposal, Humanetics would not need to
provide either a notice of abandonment or letter of non-enforcement
with respect to patented spine elements because the original spine
would also be specified as a permissible alternate configuration.\13\
NHTSA has generally avoided specifying patented components or
copyrighted designs in part 572 without securing agreement from the
rights-holder for the free use of the item, licensing it on reasonable
terms, or developing an alternative unencumbered by any rights claims.
In this case, because there would be an alternative configuration (the
original spine) free of any intellectual property claims, NHTSA
tentatively believes that specifying a patented component would be
acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 89 FR 56251 (July 9, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though NHTSA is now proposing to specify the original spine and the
Humanetics four-position spine as permissible configurations, NHTSA is
also considering two other regulatory options.
One regulatory alternative would be to specify only the Humanetics
four-position spine. Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
Humanetics would provide either a notice of abandonment or letter of
non-enforcement. The advantage of this approach (in addition to the
advantages of the four-position spine) would be that, even though the
two configurations are believed to be equivalent, it would rule out any
possible variation between the two configurations in the event that
NHTSA compliance testing was conducted using a different configuration
than an OEM used for self-certification. The disadvantages would be
that NHTSA and other industry members may already have THOR-50M dummies
configured with the original spine, and would need to perform costly
updates to these dummies to use them for compliance or self-
certification purposes.
The other regulatory alternative would be to specify only the
original spine. The advantage of this approach would minimize the risk
of disparate outcomes if different configurations were used in
compliance and self-certification testing. It would also reduce risk in
that NHTSA has more experience testing with the original spine
configuration than the four-position spine configuration. The
disadvantages would be that the benefits of the four-position spine
would not be realized.
NHTSA seeks comment on all aspects of this supplemental proposal
and regulatory alternatives. NHTSA also seeks comments and any
additional data on the equivalency between the Humanetics four-position
spine and the original spine.
D. Technical Data Package
NHTSA is docketing an alternative dummy drawing package that
specifies the four-position spine assembly and other modifications
related to the in-dummy DAS.\14\ Therefore, if NHTSA adopts the
proposal, there would be two dummy drawing packages: one with the
original spine and an external DAS, and one with the four-position
spine and an in-dummy DAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``THOR-50M 2026 SNPRM Drawing Packages'' in Docket No.
NHTSA-2019-0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consideration of the comments that it receives in response to
this SNPRM, NHTSA will make changes to the qualification procedures and
PADI previously submitted as materials Incorporated by Reference. If
NHTSA decides to include the four-position spine, NHTSA would also
update the qualification procedures and PADI accordingly. For the
qualification procedures, this would involve adding a section for
setting the four-position spine, similar to the discussion currently in
section 3, ATD Adjustment. For the PADI, this would include adding a
section describing how to install the four-position spine in place of
the original spine and a discussion of components which can be switched
to incorporate in dummy DAS. If NHTSA decides not to include the
original spine, references to the original spine will be removed from
both documents. NHTSA intends to update the references to the material
incorporated by reference in the final rule regulatory text, but make
no other changes to the regulatory text proposed in the September 2023
NPRM.
III. Face Insert
The NPRM proposed use of a confor memory foam (confor face foam)
between the head skin and the face load cells on the skull. As the NPRM
explained, the confor face foam has a few characteristics that
necessitate care in qualification and crash testing. In the face impact
qualification test, a fully-assembled THOR-50M is seated on a table and
impacted on the face with rigid impactor. The test assesses the head CG
accelerometers \15\ at a level of severity similar to that expected
from vehicle crash tests. The qualification procedure specifies
acceptance intervals (consisting of minimum and maximum values) for the
peak probe force and peak head CG resultant acceleration. The foam
progressively degrades after each impact so that the peak probe force
and peak head resultant acceleration increases with each test. If the
response of the confor face foam is initially below the lower bound of
the acceptance interval, repeated tests can therefore bring it within
the acceptance interval. A recovery period is needed after a dynamic
impact to allow the foam to recover (partially). NHTSA's current
protocol is to impact the confor face foam until it is within the
acceptance interval, with a 24-hour wait period between qualification
tests. After repeated impacts, the response of the foam will eventually
exceed the upper bound of the acceptance interval, so that the foam
must be replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The head CG accelerometers are used to calculate
HIC<INF>15</INF>, a head injury criterion that is based on the
integration of resultant head acceleration over a 15-millisecond
duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro NCAP does not use the face impact qualification test and
instead visually checks the confor face foams for cracking or damage.
The following section discusses the comments received on the confor
face foam; NHTSA testing to validate an alternative to the confor face
foam; and
[[Page 60072]]
NHTSA's supplemental proposal for the face insert.
A. NPRM Comments Regarding Confor Face Foam
NHTSA received a number of comments in response to the 2023 NPRM
regarding the proposed confor face foam. Mercedes, GM, PDB and Auto
Innovators commented on the face impact qualification procedure and
expressed concerns regarding the 24-hour recovery period and presence
of damage on the foam. Mercedes and Auto Innovators proposed to omit
the face impact test and to add an inspection procedure for the confor
face foam according to Euro NCAP (Euro NCAP TB026).
GM commented that the 24-hour recovery period is not practicable
for an organization that may be conducting a high volume of tests every
week. GM commented in support of the development of a more durable
facial insert. PDB commented that the conditioning/recovering time of
the confor face foam of 24 hours is too long and not practicable,
especially as this test causes serious problems (e.g., damage of the
confor face foam). PDB commented that, if the confor face foam requires
this time to recover, it should be replaced by another material. PDB
also commented that the face impact qualification test could be removed
because there is no available technical solution. PDB stated that, if
there are no injury criteria required for the face, there is not a
strong need for this test.
B. Additional NHTSA Research on Face Insert
Since the publication of the NPRM, Humanetics has developed a new
face insert as an alternative to the confor face foam. The alternative
face insert is a 3D-printed component comprised of thermoplastic
polyurethane. The design incorporates an outer shell with a patterned
infill. The face insert is designed to fit in the cavity between the
head skin and the skull of the dummy.
In response to the comments regarding concerns with recovery time
and use of the confor face foam, NHTSA has evaluated this face insert
for use in THOR-50M. NHTSA's testing demonstrated similar weight, CG,
and MOI as compared to the confor face foam. Face impact qualification
testing showed that the face insert has advantages over the confor face
foam, including that the face insert does not need to be struck
multiple times before the response is within the corridor, and does not
experience drift within the corridor with each successive impact. The
24-hour recovery period also was not necessary. Qualification testing
of three inserts also showed improved repeatability and reproducibility
compared to the confor face foam, with limited variability between
tests. Testing for durability at elevated energy did not cause damage
to the face insert or change its response when re-tested at face impact
qualification levels; the face insert therefore should not need
frequent replacement. Results from this testing are provided in a
research report NHTSA is placing in the crashworthiness research
docket.\16\ Based on this evaluation, NHTSA has tentatively concluded
that the face insert is equivalent to the confor face foam, and leads
to repeatable and reproducible measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``THOR-50M Face Insert Report'' in Docket No. NHTSA-2019-
0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Face Insert Specification
Because NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the face insert
improves on the face foam in several respects while still leading to
equivalent measurements, NHTSA is proposing to specify the face insert
(drawing 472-1405, Face Insert, THOR-50M) as an alternative to the face
foam (drawing 472-1401, Confor Foam, Face). Both the face insert and
the confor face foam would be part of the drawing package, and the PADI
would note the face insert as an alternate. The face insert drawing
defines the overall shape, external dimensions across multiple cross
sections, specifications with tolerances on mass, and performance
specifications using a quasi-static compression test. This
specification is intended to avoid over-specifying the face insert
while allowing for technology-neutral solutions. The mass, CG, and MOI
of the overall head assembly are also specified (drawing 472-0000,
sheet 5). NHTSA anticipates conducting further testing on the face
insert, including crash testing, in preparation for the final rule.
Although NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the face insert
addresses the issues present with the confor face foam and is
appropriate for inclusion in part 572, NHTSA recognizes that this is a
new component with which dummy users other than NHTSA may not be
familiar. NHTSA therefore tentatively believes it would be prudent to
retain the confor face foam in the drawing package as a permissible
optional configuration. As shown in a research report NHTSA is placing
in the crashworthiness research docket,\17\ the qualifications
specifications can be met using either the confor face foam or the face
insert, and the resulting Head Injury Criterion (HIC) values are in the
same range for both configurations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``THOR-50M Face Insert Report'' in Docket No. NHTSA-2019-
0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has also tentatively decided to retain the face impact
qualification test and not to follow Euro NCAP and specify a visual
inspection procedure. Omitting the face impact test would mean that
there is no objective method to check the system response of the head
skin, confor face foam, and remainder of the head assembly during
impact through the face. This is especially important because an impact
to the face can influence the HIC injury metric, which is based on the
resultant acceleration at the CG of the head.
NHTSA believes the Euro NCAP visual inspection procedure for the
confor face foam is not sufficient. Besides potentially lacking
objectivity,\18\ it assumes that the foam must have damage to be out of
tolerance; this ignores the situation where there is no visible damage
to the foam but the response does not meet the qualification
specifications for other reasons (e.g., damage not visible on the
exterior surface, or improper material specification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NHTSA is concerned with the difficulty in defining damage.
The foam is a deformable material, which can have shape changes
simply from handling it. There is subjectivity regarding what would
qualify as damage and when a component needs to be replaced. This
can result in the component being replaced more often than necessary
or create uncertainty if a component can be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding commenters' concern with waiting 24 hours between
qualification tests of the confor face foam, NHTSA notes that other
qualification tests can be conducted during that 24-hour span; the 24-
hour wait time is for the confor face foam, not using the ATD. In
addition, the face foam could be swapped with another one. Regarding
commenters' concerns about damage to the confor face foam, NHTSA
tentatively believes that the approach for the confor face foam
described in the NPRM (and summarized above) continues to be feasible,
should users decide to use the confor face foam instead of the face
insert.
NHTSA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal, including
any information relating to users' experience with the face insert
(e.g., usability, durability, test data, etc.), and whether the confor
face foam should be retained as an alternate specification.
IV. Upper Arm Clevis
In response to the 2023 NPRM, Humanetics commented that the
specification for the arm clevis assembly (472-3831) does not match
Humanetics'
[[Page 60073]]
current production part. Humanetics commented that, in 2018, it
implemented a design update to address a durability concern for the arm
clevis. NHTSA conducted tests to assess the range of motion and the
durability of the new upper arm clevis, finding both to be acceptable.
NHTSA has tentatively decided to update the drawing package to include
the current production upper arm clevis specified by Humanetics. NHTSA
is not aware of a patent pertaining specifically to the new upper arm
clevis design. However, the upper arm clevis is a component of the SD-3
shoulder, for which Humanetics has two patents. The SD-3 shoulder is
subject to the MOU \19\ as described in the July 2024 SNPRM.\20\ If
NHTSA adopts its tentative conclusion that it would be preferable to
specify only the SD-3 shoulder in the final rule, under the MOU
Humanetics would provide to NHTSA either a notice of abandonment of the
patent to the United States Patent and Trademark Office or a letter
stating that the patent will not be enforced against any third-party
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NHTSA-2023-0031-0021.
\20\ 89 FR 56251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Rulemaking Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT's rulemaking procedures (49 CFR
part 5). This rule does not meet the criteria of a ``significant
regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866. Therefore, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under that E.O.
NHTSA has considered the qualitative costs and benefits of the proposed
rule under the principles of E.O. 12866. For this discussion, the
reader is referred to the NPRM preamble.\21\ Although this rulemaking
does not require the use of the THOR-50M in regulatory or consumer
information crash testing, the amendments proposed in this SNPRM would
not impose any costs on those who choose to purchase and use the dummy.
For users that have already purchased a THOR-50M with the original
spine, they would not need to upgrade or purchase a new THOR-50M. For
users purchasing a new THOR-50M, the two spine options would expand the
dummy options available to manufacturers, and the four-position spine
would allow installation of an in-dummy DAS that manufacturers are
already familiar with and may already own. Furthermore, the proposed
optional face insert could reduce testing and part replacement costs
should users choose to install the optional face insert in place of the
confor foam insert. NHTSA requests comment on the costs and benefits of
the amendments proposed in this SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 88 FR 61896, 61945-46 (Sept. 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 14192
E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065
(Jan. 31, 2025)), requires that, for ``each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory
action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for
elimination.'' Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB
(Memorandum M-25-20 (Mar. 26, 2025)) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory
action as ``an action that has been finalized and has total costs less
than zero.'' This rule would define the THOR-50M in part 572, but would
not require its use, so it would not impose any regulatory burden. As
this rule would not require its use, an entity would only choose to use
and take on the costs associated with the THOR-50M if it was cost
effective.
This regulatory action provides greater flexibility which can
result in cost savings. In addition, Memorandum M-25-20 also states
that ``Regulatory activities associated with regulatory cooperation
with foreign governments that reduce costs to entities or individuals
within the United States, including at the border, or otherwise lower
the cost of regulations on the United States economy, may qualify as
E.O. 14192 deregulatory actions.'' The THOR-50M defined by this
rulemaking action, particularly as amended by this SNPRM, shares many
similarities with the test device used in foreign consumer information
programs such as Euro NCAP. Using a similar crash test dummy in the
United States would allow manufacturers to realize cost efficiencies in
vehicle design and testing. As such, NHTSA expects this rule to be an
E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides that the
regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from
those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and that,
in some cases, the differences between them might not be necessary and
might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete
internationally. It further recognizes that, in meeting shared
challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.
In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58), Global Harmonization, provides that DOT
``shall cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with foreign
governments, nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle
industry, and consumer groups with respect to global harmonization of
vehicle regulations as a means for improving motor vehicle safety.''
This proposed change would align with some, but not all, of the
specifications of the THOR-50M used internationally in NCAP programs.
The proposed use of the four-position spine would align with the Euro
NCAP THOR-50M specification.\22\ However, NHTSA is not proposing to
align with the confor face foam visual inspection procedure for reasons
explained in the preamble. NHTSA is also not proposing to align with
the use of the Hybrid III 50th lower leg and knee slider for reasons
explained in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin CP 106, Version 2.1, July
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), for any rulemaking where
publication of a proposed rule is required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other
law, agencies 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 government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is
required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
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
addition of the test dummy to part 572 would not impose any
requirements on anyone. This rulemaking only proposes to include the
dummy in NHTSA's
[[Page 60074]]
regulation for crash test dummies; it does not propose NHTSA's use of
the ATD in agency testing or to require anyone to manufacture the dummy
or to test motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment with it.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
(UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulatory
actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $214 million
(the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation
to 2026 dollars) or more in any one year. This proposed rule does not
contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II
of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private
sector of $206 million or more in any one year. Thus, the analytical
requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13175
E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with
Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal
implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed
legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed the impact of this
proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not
have Tribal implications that require consultation under E.O. 13175.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the
collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. This proposed
rule would not impose any additional information collection
requirements.
E-Government Act Compliance
NHTSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to
promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes. The E-Government Act
of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921, Dec. 17,
2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment
for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains,
or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or
substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or
disseminate information as a result of this proposed rule. Accordingly,
NHTSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.
Federalism
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to E.O. 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. Although 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final
rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.). NHTSA has determined that this rule is
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical
exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined
normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order
5610.1D Sec. 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical
exclusion (CE), the agency must also consider whether extraordinary
circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA
or EIS. Id. Sec. 9(b). Each Operating Administration (OA) of DOT may
apply CEs established in another OA's procedures. Id. Sec. 9(f). To do
so, the OA ``must evaluate the action for extraordinary circumstances
identified in the OA procedures in which the CE is established to
determine if a normally excluded action may have a significant impact
and coordinate with the originating OA to ensure that the CE is being
applied correctly.'' Id. This rulemaking, which would add a new crash
test dummy to NHTSA's regulations, is categorically excluded pursuant
to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4): ``Planning and administrative activities not
involving or leading directly to construction, such as: Training,
technical assistance and research; promulgation of rules, regulations,
directives, or program guidance; approval of project concepts;
engineering; and operating assistance to transit authorities to
continue existing service or increase service to meet routine demand.''
NHTSA has coordinated with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to
ensure that this CE is being applied correctly. NHTSA does not
anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary
circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b)(2) of E.O. 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.
NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking action and determined that it
conforms to the applicable standards in section 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. The issue of preemption is discussed above in
connection with E.O. 13132 (Federalism). NHTSA believes that this final
rule specifies clearly the changes that would be made to part 572,
defines any necessary key terms, and provides a clear legal standard
for manufacturers to follow. The amendments do not take effect
retroactively. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that an
[[Page 60075]]
individual submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``[A]ll 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 (formerly, the
Society of Automotive Engineers). The NTTAA directs this agency to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
There are no technical standards with regard to the THOR-50M spine
box.
Plain Language
E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles of plain language includes
consideration of the following questions:
<bullet> Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
<bullet> Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
<bullet> Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
<bullet> Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
<bullet> Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
<bullet> Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
<bullet> 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)
DOT assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda. 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 inform its rulemaking process better. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
<a href="http://www.dot.gov/privacy">www.dot.gov/privacy</a>. 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, or other organizations). For
information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, see <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/privacy">https://www.transportation.gov/privacy</a>.
Rule Summary
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0031, in the SUMMARY
section of this proposed rule.
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 docket
number indicated in this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA 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, NHTSA encourages you to consult
the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be
accessed at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines">https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines</a>.
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 Sec. 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for
[[Page 60076]]
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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c381d12151910522e1d1e1512130a1508063c181308521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d694c43444841037f4c4f4443425b4459576d494259034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b61646365257b626a71716a4b6f647f256c647d">[email protected]</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
NHTSA recommends 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> for more
information.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Jonathan Morrison,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-19370 Filed 9-21-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 22, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.