Thursday, December 14, 2006

Part II

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572 Anthropomorphic Test Devices; ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 50th Percentile Adult Male and SID–IIs Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 5th Percentile Adult Female; Final Rules

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Backaitis, NHTSA Office of 8. Pelvis Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 9. Other Issues National Highway Traffic Safety 202–366–4912). For legal issues, you i. Test Probe Suspension Cables and Administration may call Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office Attachments ii. Pelvis and Abdomen Pendulum Filter of Chief Counsel (telephone 202–366– 49 CFR Part 572 Requirements 2992) (fax 202–366–3820). You may iii. Temperature send mail to these officials at the V. NHTSA Crash Test Experience Docket No. NHTSA–2004–25441 National Highway Traffic Safety a. MDB Tests RIN 2127–AI89 Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., b. Oblique Pole Tests Washington, DC 20590. c. Rib Responses Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: d. Torso Back Plate Responses ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy e. Durability Table of Contents VI. Conclusions 50th Percentile Adult Male I. The ES–2re Dummy Generally Described Rulemaking Analyses and Notices AGENCY: National Highway Traffic a. Development of the Rib Extensions Appendix A to Final Rule Preamble: Specific Safety Administration (NHTSA), b. The Reference Materials for the Dummy Drawing Comments and Agency Department of Transportation (DOT). II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Responses to Those Comments III. Overview of Comments ACTION: Final rule. IV. Response to the Comments NHTSA published a notice of a. Biofidelity proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 1. ISO Technical Report 9790 Methodology proposed to upgrade Federal Motor agency’s regulation on anthropomorphic 2. NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. test devices to add specifications and b. Other Issues Relating to How Humanlike 214, ‘‘Side Impact Protection’’ (49 CFR qualification requirements for a new the Dummy Is 571.214) by, among other things, mid-size adult male crash test dummy, 1. Anthropometry of Abdominal and Pelvic adopting a dynamic pole test into the called the ‘‘ES–2re’’ test dummy. The Regions standard (May 17, 2004; 69 FR 27990; ES–2re dummy has enhanced injury 2. Sitting Height 3. ES–2re’s Representation of Large Male Docket 17694; reopening of comment assessment capabilities compared to Population period, January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2105). devices existing today, which allows for 4. Abdominal Instrumentation The proposed pole test is similar to, but a fuller assessment of the types and 5. Shoulder Design more demanding than, the one currently magnitudes of the injuries occurring in 6. Rib Deflections used optionally in FMVSS No. 201, side impacts and of the efficacy of 7. Rib Extensions ‘‘Occupant Protection in Interior countermeasures in improving occupant c. Repeatability and Reproducibility Impact’’ (49 CFR 571.201). In the protection. The agency plans to use the 1. Sample Size proposed pole test, a vehicle is ES–2re dummy in an upgraded Federal 2. Reproducibility of Pelvic Load Measurements propelled sideways into a rigid pole at Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on side 3. Sensitivity to Initial Conditions an angle of 75 degrees, at any speed up impact protection. 4. Rib Acceleration Response to 32 km/h (20 mph). The NPRM DATES: This final rule is effective d. Directional Impact Sensitivity proposed that compliance with the pole June 12, 2007. The incorporation by 1. Impact Direction test would be determined in two test reference of certain publications listed 2. Rib Binding in ISO 9790 Tests configurations, one using a test dummy in the regulations is approved by the 3. ISO 9790 Ratings for Lateral and Oblique representing mid-size adult males and Director of the Federal Register as of Impacts the other using a test dummy e. Durability June 12, 2007. If you wish to petition for f. Symmetry representing small adult females. The reconsideration of this rule, your g. Using the ES–2 Test Dummy NPRM proposed to require vehicles to petition must be received by January 29, h. Test Dummy Drawing Package protect against head, thoracic and other 2007. 1. 3-D Shape Definitions injuries as measured by the two test ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 2. Material Specifications dummies. The agency also proposed reconsideration of this rule, you should 3. Dummy Drawing Changes using the dummies in FMVSS No. 214’s i. Certification Procedures and Response refer in your petition to the docket existing moving deformable barrier Corridors (MDB) test, which simulates a vehicle- number of this document and submit 1. Overview of the Comments your petition to: Administrator, Room 2. Head Drop Test to-vehicle ‘‘T-bone’’ type intersection 1 5220, National Highway Traffic Safety 3. Neck Flexion Test crash. Administration, 400 Seventh Street, i. Neck Response Corridors SW., Washington, DC 20590. ii. Neck Pendulum Aluminum Honeycomb 1 On August 10, 2005, the President signed the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient The petition will be placed in the iii. Neck Pendulum Deceleration Filter Class Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,’’ docket. Anyone is able to search the (SAFETEA–LU), Pub. L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 electronic form of all documents iv. Nodding Block Configuration Stat. 1144), to authorize funds for Federal-aid v. Adjusting Half-Spherical Neck Screws received into any of our dockets by the highways, highway safety programs, and transit 4. Thorax programs, and for other purposes. Section 10302(a) name of the individual submitting the i. Full-Body Systems Test of SAFETEA–LU provides: comment (or signing the comment, if ii. Specifying Impact Speed in Rib Module Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection submitted on behalf of an association, Drop Test Rulemaking. business, labor union, etc.). You may iii. Recovery Time Between Successive (a) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall complete a review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Tests rulemaking proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to establish a standard Statement in the Federal Register 5. Lumbar Spine i. Response Corridors designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle published on April 11, 2000 (Volume occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you ii. Lumbar Cable Nut Adjustment impact crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final 6. Shoulder may visit http://dms.dot.gov. rule by July 1, 2008. i. Shoulder Cord Tension At the time of the enactment of § 10302(a), the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For ii. Pendulum Configuration agency’s notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade non-legal issues, you may call Stan 7. Abdomen FMVSS No. 214 was pending. The final rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75305

This document establishes the thorax, abdomen and pelvis. HIC would dummy is referred to as the ES–2re, specifications and qualification be limited to 1000 measured in a 36 with the ‘‘-re’’ suffix indicating the use requirements for the new mid-size adult millisecond time interval (HIC36). Chest of the rib extensions on the dummy. The male crash test dummy, called the ‘‘ES– deflection would be limited to not agency’s evaluation of the ES–2re 2re’’ test dummy, for use in FMVSS No. greater than 42 millimeters (mm) (1.65 dummy indicates that the rib extensions 214. The NPRM preceding this Part 572 inch (in)) for any rib. Abdominal loads successfully addressed the back plate final rule on the ES–2re dummy was would be limited to 2,500 Newtons (N) grabbing problem in the environments published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR (562 pounds). For pelvic injury, pubic in which grabbing had occurred with 55550; Docket 18864; reopening of symphysis force would be limited to the ES–2 dummy. comment period, January 12, 2005, 70 6,000 N (1,349 pounds). (See, ‘‘Injury b. The Reference Materials for the FR 2105).2 Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,’’ Dummy Docket 17694.) I. The ES–2re Dummy Generally A technical report and other materials Described The ES–2re consists of a metallic ‘‘skeleton’’ which is covered by ‘‘soft describing the ES–2re in detail have The ES–2re can be instrumented with tissue’’ consisting of rubber, plastic and been placed in the following NHTSA a wide array of sensors to better predict foam. The dummy does not have lower dockets: the docket for the September a wider range of injury potential than arms because researchers concluded 15, 2004 NPRM on the ES–2re (Docket any other currently available mid-size that lower arms on the side crash test 18864); the docket for the May 17, 2004 male side impact test dummy. The ES– dummy could interfere with the NPRM proposing the pole test upgrade 2re is technically superior to both the interaction of the side structure of a to FMVSS No. 214 (Docket 17694); and SID–H3 50th percentile male test vehicle and the dummy’s measurement the docket for today’s final rule (Docket dummy (49 CFR Part 572, subpart M) of potential harm to the thoracic and 25441). When we refer in this preamble currently used in the optional pole test pelvic regions. The ES–2re has a mass to a docket item, we will identify by of FMVSS No. 201 and the SID 50th of 72 kilograms (kg) (158.8 pounds), docket number where the item is filed. The specifications for the ES–2re percentile adult male test dummy (49 which is the mass of a 50th percentile consist of: (a) A drawing package CFR Part 572, subpart F) now used in adult male without lower arms.4 containing all of the technical details of the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214. It can The 90.0 cm seated height of the ES– the dummy; (b) a parts list; and (c) a assess the potential for head, neck, 2re is representative of adult males mid- user manual containing instructions for thoracic, abdominal, pelvic, and other size and taller. The dummy will provide inspection, assembly, disassembly, use, injuries. It can assess the potential for valuable data on the interaction of these and adjustments of dummy head injury (measuring the resultant occupants with the vehicle’s interior in components. These drawings and head acceleration, which is used to FMVSS No. 214’s side impact tests. calculate the Head Injury Criterion specifications ensure that ES–2re (HIC)); thoracic injuries in terms of a. Development of the Rib Extensions dummies will be the same in their spine and rib accelerations and rib The ES–2re is a modified version of design and construction. The drawings, deflections (chest deflection has been a European ES–2 side impact dummy, parts list and user manual are available shown to be the best predictor of which was originally developed in for examination in the NHTSA docket thoracic injuries in low-speed side Europe as the EuroSID–1 dummy in the section for this final rule (Docket impacts); abdominal injuries through late 1980s and early 1990s. The 25441). Copies of those materials may three load cells to assess the magnitude EuroSID–1 dummy is used in European also be obtained from Leet-Melbrook, of lateral and oblique forces; and pelvic Directive 96/27/EC. The EuroSID–1 Division of New RT, 18810 Woodfield injuries.3 dummy was redesigned and reevaluated Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879, Its improved biofidelity and enhanced during the late 1990s and early 2000 to telephone (301) 670–0090. injury assessment capability allows for address some problems with dummy II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking a fuller assessment of the types and performance, and was renamed the ES– (NPRM) magnitudes of the injuries occurring in 2. side impacts and a more penetrating The NPRM preceding this Part 572 The ES–2re dummy is the result of a final rule on the ES–2re dummy was evaluation of the efficacy of vehicle modification of the ES–2. Although the countermeasures installed to improve published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR ES–2 has a better design than the 55550; Docket 18864). On January 12, side impact protection than now EuroSID–1, the ES–2 has a back plate possible using other existing side 2005, in response to a petition from the that causes a part of it to ‘‘grab’’ parts Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, impact dummies. In the May 17, 2004 of a vehicle seat back in a crash test, NPRM concerning FMVSS No. 214, NHTSA reopened the comment period which alters some of the dummy for the NPRM until April 12, 2005 (70 NHTSA proposed injury criteria for the response measurements. To address the ES–2re’s injury measuring FR 2105). problem, which has also been observed The September 15, 2004 NPRM instrumentation of the dummy’s head, in the EuroSID–1, the ES–2 dummy discussed NHTSA’s tentative findings manufacturer redesigned the rib module that the ES–2re was commercially completing the rulemaking proceeding will be by adding rib extensions to the dummy. issued in the near future. available, was sufficiently biofidelic, 2 NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to The extended ribs provide a continuous had good repeatability and amend 49 CFR Part 572 to add the specifications for loading surface that nearly encircles the reproducibility of its impact responses, the small female dummy to Part 572 on December thorax of the dummy and encloses the performed well in vehicle crash tests, 8, 2004 (69 FR 70947; Docket 18865; extension of posterior gap of the ES–2 ribcage that and had good durability in evaluation comment period, March 8, 2005; 70 FR 11189). was thought to be responsible for the 3 The ES–2re can also assess load transfer programs. NHTSA believed that the ES– between the upper and the lower torso, torso seat back grabbing effect. The modified 2re could be used for both left- and interaction with the vehicle seat back, neck injuries right-side impacts. The agency also via upper and lower neck load cells; and the impact 4 A 50th percentile adult male with lower arms severity of the vehicle structure on the legs by way has a mass of approximately 78 kg (172 pounds). discussed in the NPRM that the of a femur load cell. In addition, a clavicle load cell If the ES–2re had arms, its mass would be dummy’s responses did not show is available to assess shoulder loading. equivalent. sensitivity to oblique impacts in full-

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

scale crash tests. The agency also relating to the head injury criterion express objective not to alter in any way discussed in the NPRM proposed (HIC). the ES–2 dummy’s impact response, and calibration test specifications and because the ES–2re conformed to the IV. Response to the Comments procedures. same calibration levels as the ES–2, the a. Biofidelity agency believed that the rib extension III. Overview of Comments Biofidelity is a measure of how well modifications to the ES–2 would not The agency received comments from a test device duplicates the responses of affect the ISO based biofidelity 5 different organizations: Autoliv, a human in an impact. As discussed in assessment. (Moreover, as reported in Denton ATD (DATD), First Technology the NPRM, the findings of the NHTSA Safety Systems (FTSS), Ferrari, and the the NPRM, two methods are currently available for assessing the biofidelity of Biofidelity Ranking System tests Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers appeared to confirm this assessment, as (Alliance). These comments, a dummy in side impact testing. These are: (a) An International Organization of it was established that under that summarized below, are discussed in ranking system both the ES–2 and the detail in the next section of this Standardization (ISO) procedure, referred to as ISO Technical Report (TR) ES–2re dummies had nearly identical preamble. Autoliv generally supported biofidelity levels.) 9790, which determines the biofidelity the agency’s proposal. DATD and FTSS In the NPRM, the agency stated that of a dummy by how well the dummy’s were supportive, but suggested changes a biofidelity rating of ‘‘fair,’’ at 4.6, to the drawing package, certification body segment and/or subsystem impact would be an improvement over the SID corridors, and other technical matters of responses replicate cadaver responses in and EuroSID–1, which received ratings the NPRM. Ferrari stated that it defined impact environments; and (b) a 7 of 2.3 and 4.4, respectively (Byrnes, et observed ‘‘anomalous’’ peaks in the rib NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System. al., ‘‘ES–2 Dummy Biomechanical acceleration curves occurring between The latter method determines the Responses,’’ 2002, Stapp Car Crash 67 and 73 ms after barrier impact with dummy’s biofidelity based on two Journal, Vol. 46, #2002–22–0014, p. the vehicle, which Ferrari believed were assessment measures: the ability of a 353). The agency believed that the ES– caused by insufficient rebound damping dummy to load a vehicle or some other 2 (ES–2re) ISO biofidelity rating also in the rib modules. type of an impact surface as a cadaver compared favorably to that of the SID/ The Alliance did not support the does, termed ‘‘External Biofidelity’’; and HIII, which received an overall rating of agency’s proposal. The Alliance was the ability of a dummy to replicate those 3.8.8 concerned about matters including: the cadaver responses that best predict Comment: In its comment, the biofidelity of the dummy (the injury potential, termed ‘‘Internal Alliance disagreed with NHTSA’s commenter believed that there are Biofidelity.’’ The NPRM explained that statement that the rib modifications shortcomings in the ES–2re’s shoulder, the ES–2re’s biofidelity was evaluated made to the ES–2 and resulting in the abdominal and pelvic regions, under both of these methodologies. ES–2re configuration had no effect on particularly when compared to the 1. ISO Technical Report 9790 the dummy’s ISO-based biofidelity performance of the ES–2 and the Methodology assessment. The Alliance stated that WorldSID 5 in full-vehicle tests); the testing conducted by the OSRP resulted repeatability and reproducibility of the The ISO rating system is based on a in an overall ISO score of 4.3 for the ES– ES–2re; the directional impact scale of 0 to 10, with 0 signifying total 2re, as compared to a 4.6 score for the sensitivity of the dummy; and lack of biofidelity and 10 signifying that ES–2. miscellaneous issues, such as the the body segment has a biofidelic Agency response: The Alliance symmetry of abdomen response when response much like that of a human neither provided a reference to a impacted on the right and left sides and subject. Once the ratings are established published report nor provided the durability of the ES–2re. The for each body segment, the overall supporting data related to the assertion Alliance also had comments regarding dummy’s biofidelity is calculated and that the overall ISO score for the ES–2re the proposed certification procedures its ranking determined using the is 4.3. The absence of substantiation of and corridors. The Alliance submitted a following classification scale: 0 to 2.6 the comment limits our ability to petition for rulemaking (Docket 17252) (Unacceptable); 2.6 to 4.4 (Marginal); 4.4 respond. Even so, assuming the asking NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to to 6.5 (Fair); 6.5 to 8.6 (Good); 8.6 to 10 accuracy of the comment that the rib incorporate WorldSID into 49 CFR Part (Excellent). extensions reduced the ISO-based The agency had tentatively assessed 572 and to use WorldSID in the upgrade biofidelity assessment of the ES–2 from in the NPRM that the ISO-based of FMVSS No. 214 rather than the ES– 4.6 to 4.3, or from ‘‘fair’’ to ‘‘marginal,’’ biofidelity assessment of 4.6 would 2re.6 The Alliance further suggested we nonetheless conclude that a 4.3 generally be the same for the ES–2re as that, prior to the incorporation of rating of the ES–2re is acceptable. the ES–2. The Occupant Safety Research WorldSID into 49 CFR Part 572, the ES– NHTSA believes that the side impact Partnership (OSRP) and Transport 2 dummy should be used rather than the dummy used in FMVSS No. 214 should Canada conducted biomechanical ES–2re, and only to the extent of using measure the risk of thoracic and testing on the ES–2 dummy using the the dummy to measure responses abdominal injuries, since these injuries ISO-specified methodology and test are the most prevalent injuries in side procedures. The results of these tests 5 WorldSID is the next-generation 50th percentile crashes. The ES–2 (which does not have male side impact dummy developed by industry were reported by Byrnes et al. in the the rib extensions) is not suitable for use representatives from the U.S., Europe and Japan, 2002 Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, in our compliance testing, because of its with the support of the European and Japanese in Paper No. 2002–22–0014. Because the back plate design and the problem that governments (see Docket No. 2000–17252). This ES–2re dummy’s backplate future dummy is believed by its developers to have can occur with the back plate loading better biofidelity than existing dummies, and is modifications were developed with the some seat backs and influencing the intended to better predict a wider range of injury potential in side impact testing than current 7 The NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System method 8 The biofidelity rating for the SID dummy used dummies. was reported by Rhule H., et al., in a technical in FMVSS No. 214 is 2.3. The rating for the SID/ 6 The agency’s response to the petition will be paper in the 2002 Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, HIII of 3.8, using the ISO method, reflects use of the issued in rulemaking documents relating to the p. 477, ‘‘Development of a New Biofidelity Ranking special purpose side impact HIII head and neck as FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking. System for Anthropomorphic Test Devices.’’ noted in 63 FR 41468, August 4, 1998.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75307

dummy’s rib deflection measurements. response: A smaller ratio indicating TABLE 2.—INTERNAL BIOFIDELITY The rib extensions of the ES–2re allow better biofidelity. RANKINGS OF THE ES–2 AND ES– for more accuracy in the measurement Although this method does not 2RE—Continued of rib deflections. Although the dummy establish an ‘‘absolute’’ ranking scale, with the extensions has a slightly lower, the ranks provide a relative sense of the Internal biofidelity ES–2 ES–2re yet acceptable, ISO biofidelity ranking ‘‘number of standard deviations away’’ rank than a dummy without the rib the dummy’s responses are from the extensions, the ES–2re is preferable over mean human cadaver response. Rhule Thorax—TTI ...... 1.8 conducted an analysis and found that if Abdomen ...... n/a n/a the ES–2 because it allows the agency to Pelvis ...... 2.1 2.0 measure fully the risk of thoracic and the dummy’s biofidelity ranking is abdominal injury in side crashes. We below two, then the dummy is behaving * In its comment, the Alliance pointed out an note also that a 4.3 ISO rating is an similar to the human cadaver. The error in the internal biofidelity score for the ES–2 head, contained in Table 5 of the NPRM improvement over the biofidelity rating evaluation methodology provides a (69 FR at 55554, column 3). Table 5 indicated of SID, which received a rating of 2.3 comparison of both dummy response to that the ES–2re head received a score of 1.0 (Byrnes, et al., ‘‘ES–2 Dummy cadaver response as well as a while the ES–2 scored a 1.6. As shown in this Biomechanical Responses,’’ 2002, Stapp comparison of two or more dummies. corrected Table 2, both dummies scored a 1.0 Rhule et al., supra, determined for head internal biofidelity using the NHTSA Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, #2002–22– ranking system. 0014, p. 353). The ES–2re biofidelity external and internal biofidelity rating also compares favorably to that of rankings for the ES–2 dummy. NHTSA Conclusion: Back plate loading is an the SID/HIII, which received an overall later repeated the tests for the ES–2re to undesirable feature of the ES–2 dummy rating of 3.8. Both the SID and SID/HIII determine that dummy’s biofidelity (see NHTSA Technical Report, ‘‘Design, have performed well in facilitating the rankings. Tables 1 and 2, below, provide Development, and Evaluation of the ES– installation of life-saving a summary of External Biofidelity and 2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’ May countermeasures that have substantially Internal Biofidelity rankings, 2004, NHTSA Docket No. 2004–17694– improved the safety of occupants in side respectively, for the ES–2 and the ES– 11). The rib extensions of the ES–2re crashes. 2re. The results of NHTSA’s Biofidelity have proven to reduce the likelihood of Ranking System tests indicate that the the dummy’s spine and back plate to 2. NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System ES–2 and ES–2re dummies have interact with the vehicle’s seat back. NHTSA believes that the rib extensions Further, under the NHTSA biofidelity essentially the same external and are a necessary component of the ranking system, the biofidelity rankings internal biofidelity assessment values, dummy and their inclusion has minimal for the ES–2 and ES–2re are nearly and that the rib extensions have had no effect on the dummy’s response identical. The biofidelity ranking system effect on the biofidelity of the ES–2. The biofidelity. Accordingly, we conclude developed by Rhule, H., et al., supra, overall external biofidelity scores were 2.7 and 2.6 for the ES–2 and ES–2re, that the ES–2re test dummy, with rib includes an assessment of the dummy’s extensions, will suitably duplicate the External Biofidelity and Internal respectively, while the overall internal biofidelity scores for both were 1.6. The responses of a human in FMVSS No. Biofidelity. The Overall External and 214 side impact tests. Internal Biofidelity ranks are an average testing conducted for the ranking of each of the external and internal body indicates that there exists no significant b. Other Issues Relating to How region ranks, respectively. A lower difference in the response Humanlike the Dummy Is biofidelity rank indicates a more characteristics of the ES–2 and ES–2re Commenters, primarily the Alliance, biofidelic dummy by this NHTSA dummies. raised other issues relating to the ranking method. A dummy with an humanlike qualities of the ES–2re. The External and/or Internal Biofidelity rank TABLE 1.—EXTERNAL BIOFIDELITY Alliance’s comment included a of less than 2.0 is considered to respond RANKINGS OF THE ES–2 AND ES–2RE discussion of full-vehicle tests much like a human subject. conducted by the OSRP, Toyota, and External biofidelity The NHTSA ranking system is based rank ES–2 ES–2re Transport Canada. The OSRP conducted on a variety of cadaver and dummy matched-pair full-scale vehicle tests to exposures, such as head drop tests, Overall ...... 2.7 2.6 compare the responses of the ES–2re, thorax and shoulder drop tests, thorax Head/Neck ...... 3.7 3.7 ES–2, and WorldSID in two conditions: and shoulder pendulum tests, and Shoulder ...... 1.4 1.4 (a) FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests at 33.5 whole body sled tests. The NHTSA Thorax ...... 3.2 2.9 mph of a 4-door, mid-size sedan, no air ranking system also includes abdominal Abdomen ...... 2.5 2.6 bag and a 4-door, small sedan, head/ and pelvic offset sled test conditions. Pelvis ...... 2.7 2.7 torso side air bag (SAB); and (b) oblique Each test condition has a response pole test at 20 mph, 15° impact angle, corridor derived from human cadavers TABLE 2.—INTERNAL BIOFIDELITY of a 4-door, small sedan, head/torso and assigned a weight factor based upon RANKINGS OF THE ES–2 AND ES–2RE SAB. The majority of the Alliance’s the robustness of the particular test and comments regarding the OSRP tests its similarity to full scale crash compared the ES–2re responses to those Internal biofidelity ES–2 ES–2re conditions. For each response rank of the WorldSID, to support the requirement, the cumulative variance of commenter’s opinion that the ES–2re is the dummy response relative to the Overall with T1 (w/o not as humanlike as the WorldSID. mean cadaver response (DCV) and the abdomen) ...... 1.5 We respond in this section to the Overall with Defl. (w/ cumulative variance of the mean o abdomen) ...... 1.6 1.6 issues raised by the commenters relating cadaver response relative to the mean Overall with TTI (w/o to the acceptability of the ES–2re as a plus one standard deviation (CCV) are abdomen) ...... n/a 1.6 test device for FMVSS No. 214. We will calculated. The ratio of DCV/CCV Head* ...... 1.0 1.0 not discuss whether WorldSID is a more expresses how well the dummy Thorax—T1 ...... n/a 1.5 humanlike device than the ES–2re response duplicates the mean cadaver Thorax—Delft ...... 1.7 1.8 because the WorldSID dummy is still

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

under development. As recently as the representative of the United States and footnote only states ‘‘UMTRI 1985’’ spring of 2006, the WorldSID design world populations. without a complete bibliographic was changing and has not been assessed Agency Response: In support of its reference. NHTSA believes that the for its suitability as a compliance test comment, the Alliance references a Alliance is referring to the University of instrument. In short, WorldSID will not figure in its submission that provides a Michigan Transportation Research be ready for some time to attain the coronal-plane view of the ES–2 dummy Institute (UMTRI) document advancements in side impact occupant and the WorldSID. The figure identifies ‘‘Anthropometry of Motor Vehicle protection that the agency can achieve the ES–2 pelvis breadth as 364 mm and Occupants,’’ Volume 1, 1983, performed today with the ES–2re test dummy. the abdominal breadth as 282 mm, under NHTSA contract DTNH–80–C– while the WorldSID’s corresponding 1. Anthropometry of Abdominal and 07502. In this UMTRI study, the pelvis dimensions are labeled as 420 mm and and abdominal breadths of the mid- Pelvic Regions 240 mm. (NHTSA believes that the sized adult male are reported to be 385 The Alliance believed that the Alliance made an error in its label and and 325 mm, respectively. EuroSID family, including the ES–2 and that the correct WorldSID abdomen the ES–2re test dummies, is too narrow dimension should be 340 mm.) Table 3 below, ‘‘UMTRI, ES–2re and in the abdominal and pelvic regions as In its submission, the Alliance states: WorldSID Dimensions,’’ summarizes the compared to ‘‘the UMTRI ‘‘The anthropometry of the U.S. UMTRI dimensions and compares them anthropometry,’’ whereas, the population is detailed in a study by to the corresponding dimensions in the commenter believed, WorldSID is UMTRI (1985)1. [Footnote in text.]’’ The ES–2re and WorldSID.

TABLE 3.—UMTRI, ES–2RE AND WORLDSID DIMENSIONS

Delta, Delta, Dimension UMTRI ES–2re* UMTRI vs WorldSID UMTRI vs ES–2re WorldSID

Abdomen breadth ...... 325 mm ...... 282 mm ...... ¥43 mm ..... 340 mm ...... +15 mm Pelvis breadth ...... 385 mm ...... 366 mm ...... ¥19 mm ..... 420 mm ...... +35 mm * The ES–2re dimensions are based on the Eurosid specifications derived from European anthropometric studies.

From the table, it is observed that the Agency Response: The comment did ES–2re for the intended application is ES–2re does have an abdomen and not provide any information as to why representative of the seated height of pelvis that are slightly narrower than the seating height of the ES–2re is not real people. adequate for the dummy’s intended the UMTRI target dimension. However, 3. ES–2re’s Representation of Large application.10 It appeared that the to our knowledge this is of no Male Population consequence. Discrepancies relative to commenter assumed that the WorldSID the anthropometry targets are often seating height is accurate and the ES– In the September 15, 2004 NPRM necessary to balance a number of design 2re’s seating height is erroneous because (Docket 18864), NHTSA presented issues, such as the need to fit the it does not match that of the WorldSID. injury and fatality statistics in Tables 1 dummy with electronic instrumentation NHTSA’s review of sitting height and 2 of that document. Table 1 for injury assessment capabilities, anthropometry shows that the mean represented the entire U.S. motor component durability, and repeatability value of the erect sitting height of the vehicle population. The NPRM stated, of the responses.9 The Alliance did not 50th percentile male is 911 mm ‘‘Of these [statistics in Table 1], provide any information regarding (reference UMTRI–83–53–1). The approximately 35 percent are small potential adverse effects that might designed erect sitting height of the ES– stature occupants. The remaining result from the abdomen and pelvis 2 is 909 mm (reference E/ECE/324, occupants fall into the midsize and large being slightly narrower in the coronal Regulation No. 95, October 1, 2004). segments of the population. The ES–2re plane and NHTSA is not aware of any Comparable design targets for the dummy would address the risk of injury adverse effects associated with the WorldSID are not yet published. of these occupants in side impacts.’’ The commenter’s claim. Accordingly, NHTSA attempted to measure the erect Alliance disagreed with NHTSA’s NHTSA believes that the current seating height of a sample WorldSID assertion that the ES–2re would address dummy, however, making a comparable dimensional properties of the ES–2re the risk of injury for the large-sized measurement proved to be somewhat abdomen and pelvis are satisfactory for segment of the population. The Alliance problematic. The WorldSID’s pelvis is their intended purpose. stated, ‘‘[T]he ES–2re dummy designed to have an automotive-seated anthropometry and weight are not 2. Sitting Height posture and is somewhat resistant to representative of a large male.’’ being placed into an erect posture. We Agency Response: The agency has The Alliance commented that the measured the WorldSID to have a sitting assigned benefits to the 50th percentile pelvis of the ES–2re does not account height of 850 mm. While we do not have adult male and 5th percentile adult for compression of soft tissue that data for an average seated occupant female dummies in a similar manner as occurs when a person is seated in a height, the UMTRI data indicate that the vehicle seat, and results in a seating that conducted in the advanced air bag height difference between the ES–2re 10 Also, no data was provided regarding what type final rule of FMVSS No. 208 (65 FR and WorldSID of 58 mm, with the ES– of vehicle was used or what seating procedure was 30680; May 12, 2000). The 2re seated higher. applied that resulted in the alleged 58 mm countermeasures developed for the 50th difference. Different vehicle seat configurations and percentile male are likely to benefit the materials will play an important role in the seating 9 We note that the WorldSID’s abdomen and height of the dummy and, in the absence of any 95th percentile adult male. Differences pelvis are slightly wider than the UMTRI detailed information, it was not possible for us to in height between a midsize male and dimension, which may also be inconsequential. further examine the assertion. large male occupants in the UMTRI

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75309

contoured seat study is 2.6 cm agency (see ‘‘NHTSA Fleet Testing for when compared to WorldSID head (approximately 1 inch), and in FMVSS No. 214 Upgrade MY 2004– kinematics’’ and ‘‘lower rib deflections standardized normal driving posture is 2005,’’ discussed in Section V of this [compared to WorldSID] that were 5 cm (1.96 inches) (UMTRI–83–53–1). preamble), three vehicles exhibited evenly distributed across the ribs.’’ To The above data indicate that in a loads which exceeded the IARV for the illustrate its comment, the Alliance vehicle, the head of an ES–2re dummy abdomen: the Ford 500, Chevy referenced a Figure 18 in its submission, would be lower than that of a large (95th Colorado, and Ford Expedition. Because which depicted several camera images percentile) male occupant by the current side impact dummy used in from tests on an Audi vehicle with approximately 1 to 2 inches. FMVSS FMVSS No. 214 does not measure thorax and window curtain side air bags No. 214 pole test data indicate that abdominal force, this potential injury using the ES–2re dummy and the curtain bags, at an inflated stage, come risk will be newly detected by the ES– WorldSID. The commenter also stated down far enough to cover the head of 2re. that in full-scale vehicle crash tests, the ES–2re. Since the head of the seated The commenter failed to show that ‘‘The components of force measured at 95th percentile male is higher than that the abdominal measurements of the ES– the shoulder of the ES–2re describe a of the ES–2re 50th percentile adult male 2re are problematic or deficient. The combined loading characterized by dummy, the countermeasures developed injury measuring capabilities of the ES– equivalent longitudinal and lateral to meet the test using the ES–2re 50th 2re and the WorldSID are different. The forces whereas the WorldSID forces are percentile adult male dummy are likely WorldSID IARV for abdomen is based purely lateral.’’ to provide similar benefits to the 95th on abdomen rib deflection, while the Agency Response: Test data indicate ES–2re’s IARV used in the FMVSS No. percentile adult male occupant. that the ES–2re’s shoulder is fully 214 final rule is based on loads acceptable. There is no indication of any 4. Abdominal Instrumentation measured at the abdomen (abdominal detrimental effects in vehicle crash tests The Alliance stated that OSRP force limit of 2,500 N). Limiting the load relating to the ES–2re’s shoulder design, reported that the ES–2re measured to the abdomen will lead to important such as rib flat-topping which might abdominal forces below an injury gains in occupant protection. assessment reference value (IARV) in The agency also believes that the ES– occur when the shoulder has reached its full-scale tests, whereas WorldSID 2re is well instrumented in the abdomen limit for range of motion. Further, upon measured abdominal deflections above region. The abdomen instrumentation is examination of the Alliance’s Figure 18, an IARV.11 The commenter also stated appropriately located and sensitive to we observe that: (1) The ES–2re’s that an upcoming research paper will lateral loading in the region above the shoulder and head appear to be higher report that the ES–2re is inadequately pelvis and below the ribs. ES–2re relative to the vehicle interior than that instrumented in the abdominal region, drawing number 175–0000, sheet 4 of 5, of the WorldSID; (2) the ES–2re’s allowing it to miss important vehicle provides information regarding the shoulder interacts substantially with the interactions. The Alliance stated that, in location of the abdominal load cells side curtain air bag, whereas the contrast to the ES–2re, the WorldSID with respect to the pelvis and the lower WorldSID’s shoulder does not appear to presents a continuous surface through rib of the thorax. The abdominal load contact the window curtain air bag; (3) the thorax and abdomen up to the pelvis cell extends from just below the upper the ES–2re’s head contacts the window region, that is fully instrumented in the surface of the pelvis, upward across the curtain air bag higher than does the thorax and abdomen regions to ensure abdominal region, and ends WorldSID’s head, and possibly makes that all dummy to vehicle interactions approximately 50 mm below the lower contact with the upper portion of the are measured. surface of the lower thoracic rib. The door trim. These observations indicate Agency Response: The ES–2re makes load cell provides adequate coverage for that the ES–2re and WorldSID dummies possible a more complete assessment of measuring loads imparted to the experienced different loading patterns, vehicle performance in side impacts abdominal region. consistent with the lower seated height than the SID or the SID/HIII, which will of the WorldSID. To the extent that the lead to greater side impact protection for 5. Shoulder Design WorldSID development has not yet been occupants. In a NASS study of side The Alliance referred to matched pair completed, any assessment about impact crashes, it was estimated that full-scale oblique pole tests that the differences in kinematics and impact between 8.5 percent and 21.8 percent of commenter said Transport Canada (TC) responses between the two dummies is all AIS 3+ injuries are to the abdomen conducted with the WorldSID and ES– premature. Also, scientific information of restrained near side front seat 2re. The Alliance stated that visual is not available at this time to support occupants.12 The abdominal load cells observations made in the TC study a determination as to whether the ES– are sufficiently sensitive to measure the indicated that the ES–2re shoulder 2re or the WorldSID has a better potential for injury. In an FMVSS No. ‘‘rotated significantly’’ while the shoulder design. We believe the 214 moving deformable barrier (MDB) WorldSID shoulder ‘‘deflected laterally commenter’s reference to the Compigne test described in the May 2004 NPRM inward towards the spine of the study is not relevant. The Compigne (69 FR at 28010, Docket 17694), the ES– dummy.’’ ‘‘This [WorldSID’s] motion is research studied localized pendulum 2re detected a high abdominal force in similar to the human shoulder tests run impacts to the shoulder in a controlled the Chevrolet Impala at the dummy’s by Compigne et al,’’ which, the Alliance test environment, whereas the full-scale abdominal area that was caused by an stated, showed that ‘‘the human oblique pole crashes conducted by TC intruding armrest. In full-scale vehicle shoulder deflects in oblique impact resulted in loading over a much broader oblique pole tests conducted by the instead of rotating away from the area of the dummy, with no controls on impact’’ or ‘‘compresses inward and the direction or magnitude of the 11 The Alliance did not provide any data to moves slightly backwards during loading. With regard to internal substantiate a basis for comparison among tests, loading from the front or directly from shoulder loading, the scientific such as equivalency of vehicle crash pulses or the side.’’ The Alliance stated that the literature on this subject has not intrusion patterns. 12 Samaha, R.S., Elliot, D., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact ES–2re dummy’s shoulder rotates away characterized internal shoulder loads Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test from intruding structures, which can recorded during lateral and oblique Procedures,’’ supra. lead to a ‘‘reduced excursion of the head shoulder impacts. In the studies, only

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

pendulum impact loads, an external between the two dummies are due to increased longitudinal loading of load, have been recorded. In the absence premature. the back plate. of such data, it is not possible to B. Rib Deflections of ES–2re vs. B. Load Path. The Alliance also establish a biofidelic basis for internal WorldSID in Oblique Loading. The provided comments on Toyota full-scale shoulder loads or to determine whether Alliance stated that the OSRP tests vehicle tests in which the performance the ES–2re’s or the WorldSID’s internal showed that the ES–2re exhibits lower of the ES–2 and ES–2re were compared shoulder responses better represent rib deflections than either the WorldSID for oblique pole impacts. The those of a human shoulder. or ES–2 when subjected to oblique commenter stated that during the loading in FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests, oblique pole test, the door trim 6. Rib Deflections and that Transport Canada observed separated from the back of the door and The Alliance’s comment included a ‘‘under oblique loading conditions, the struck the dummy’s torso obliquely discussion of full-vehicle tests range of WorldSID rib deflections was from the rear. The commenter believed conducted by the OSRP, Toyota, and much greater than the range of the ES– that the rib extensions in the ES–2re Transport Canada. The OSRP conducted 2re rib deflections. * * * Therefore, provide a load path not found in the matched-pair full-scale vehicle tests to WorldSID appears to be more sensitive ES–2, and thus rib deflections for the compare the responses of the ES–2re, to differences in loading along the torso ES–2re were greater than that observed ES–2, and WorldSID in two conditions: and better able to discriminate different in the ES–2. (a) FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests at 33.5 loading conditions than the ES–2re.’’ Agency Response: NHTSA believes mph of a 4-door, mid-size sedan, no air Agency Response: The observation that the rib extensions found in the ES– bag and a 4-door, small sedan, head/ that the ES–2re exhibited a different 2re represent a more humanlike torso side air bag (SAB); and (b) oblique amount of rib deflection than that of the continuous loading surface pole test at 20 mph, 15° impact angle, WorldSID and ES–2 does not indicate a configuration than that of the ES–2. of a 4-door, small sedan, head/torso shortcoming with the ES–2re.13 The Since the ES–2 does not have structural SAB. The majority of the Alliance’s ability of the ES–2re to measure rib elements at the oblique posterior comments regarding the OSRP study are deflections in a meaningful way in a location, there is nothing to impact, and comparisons of the ES–2re responses to vehicle crash test is discussed in the so it is reasonable to expect lower rib those of the WorldSID and ES–2. section, ‘‘Directional Impact deflections for oblique rear loading A. Rib Deflections of ES–2re vs. Sensitivity,’’ infra. Inasmuch as the conditions than would occur for either WorldSID in Perpendicular Impacts. WorldSID development has not been the ES–2re, or in humans, under similar The Alliance believed that in completed, specific comments about loading. perpendicular impacts, the ES–2re differences in rib deflections in oblique c. Repeatability and Reproducibility exhibited higher rib deflections than vehicle crash tests are premature. While either the WorldSID or ES–2. the agency remains committed to A dummy’s repeatability and Agency Response: We note that the proposing the incorporation of the reproducibility is typically based on the Alliance did not provide any data to WorldSID when the dummy is fully results of component tests and sled substantiate a basis for comparison developed and shown to be suitable, tests. (Repeatability is the similarity of among tests, such as equivalency of gains in occupant protection will result responses of a single dummy measured vehicle crash pulses or intrusion from use of the ES–2re in today’s side under multiple identical test conditions. patterns. Rib deflection response impact testing. Reproducibility is the smallness of variation could be attributed to response variability between different variations in crash pulse or intrusion 7. Rib Extensions dummies of the same design under patterns, which were not quantified in A. Back Plate Loads. The Alliance identical test conditions.) In the tests, the Alliance’s submission. stated that the ES–2re back plate the impact inputs as well as the test Further, with regard to the displayed reduced lateral loads and equipment are carefully controlled to comparison between the ES–2 and the increased longitudinal loads as minimize external effects on the ES–2re, an increase in rib deflection is compared to the ES–2 when tested in dummy’s response. not unexpected or surprising. The ES– FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests. Component tests are typically better 2re’s rib extensions and modified back Agency Response: The ‘‘no rib grab’’ controlled than sled and vehicle tests, plate prevent the spine box from modifications made to the ES–2 dummy and thus produce more reliable interacting with the vehicle seat. That are intended to preclude the dummy’s estimates of the dummy’s repeatability interaction had limited the lateral torso spine from acting directly as a lateral and reproducibility than is possible in translation of the ES–2 and provided an load path. Thus, it is reasonable to the latter-type tests. Component tests are unrealistic load path in the dummy. expect reduced lateral loads in the used to establish the dummy’s Loads that would be absorbed by the backplate of the ES–2re and somewhat component performance relative to the spine box of the ES–2 are directed to increased front-to-back loading as the biomechanical corridors to which each other body segments in the ES–2re, such dummy interacts with the curvature of major body segment must correctly as the thorax, and thus a greater rib the seatback. The Alliance did not offer respond. That is, if the dummy’s deflection in the ES–2re is anticipated. any supporting evidence that would component is or becomes deficient, the With regard to the comparison of ES–2re indicate that the increase in component test will identify to the user rib deflections with those of the longitudinal loads was unrealistic or that the component will not respond WorldSID, the observation that the ES– that it resulted in any type of properly in impact tests. 2re exhibited a different amount of rib detrimental effect. NHTSA is unaware Sled tests offer a method of evaluating deflection than that of the WorldSID of detrimental effects that would arise the dummy as a complete system in an does not indicate a shortcoming with environment more like a vehicle test. the ES–2re. To the extent that the 13 Furthermore, rib deflection response variation Sled tests establish the consistency of WorldSID development has not been could be attributed to variation in crash pulse or the dummy’s kinematics, its impact intrusion patterns, which were not quantified in the completed, specific comments about Alliance’s submission. We note also that the response as an assembly, and the differences in rib deflections in vehicle validity of the WorldSID’s rib deflection responses integrity of the dummy’s structure and crash tests or comparative biofidelity in a vehicle crash test has not been established. instrumentation under controlled and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75311

representative crash environment test level and the head, shoulder and displayed either excellent or good conditions. abdomen response below the 7% level. repeatability, except for the lumbar Y These levels are quite acceptable and (shear) force repeatability of dummy NPRM consistent with the repeatability norms. Serial Number (S/N) #070 falling The NPRM stated that the agency’s outside the CV acceptability boundary Sled Tests component and sled repeatability and at 14.8%. This elevated CV value for reproducibility tests were based on two To reduce test-to-test variation of sled dummy #070 also was responsible for a dummies. (See ‘‘Technical Report— pulse parameters, NHTSA tested two reproducibility assessment at 17.5%. Design, Development and Evaluation of ES–2re dummies (designated ‘‘dummy While these CV values are relatively the ES–2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’ #070’’ and ‘‘dummy #071’’) high, the agency is not considering an Docket 17694.) simultaneously on a dual occupant side injury assessment associated with this impact Hyge sled buck developed by the Component Tests response. Moreover, this response is not agency. The sled pulse was an considered to be of importance since it The component tests were conducted approximate half-sine wave, with the did not have an effect on either the on head, neck, shoulder, upper rib, peak acceleration of 12.7 g’s and magnitude of the loading or the middle rib, lower rib, abdomen, lumbar duration of approximately 80 ms. The variability of the adjacent structure spine and pelvis body regions. The impact speed was 6.7 meters per second responses, such as pubic symphysis, the repeatability assessment was made in (m/s) (22 ft/s). Two test conditions were abdomen and the T12. HIC responses terms of percent CV (Coefficient of used for the repeatability and exhibited excellent repeatability of each Variance). A CV value of less than 5 reproducibility assessment: a flat rigid dummy and reproducibility of both percent is considered excellent, 5–8 wall; and a rigid wall with abdomen dummies. In all tests, the rib percent good, 8–10 percent acceptable, offset (simulating a vehicle armrest). displacement time history provided a 14 and above 10 percent poor. The The two ES–2re dummies were exposed smooth response, with no indications of repeatability of the dummies was to two series of five Hyge sled tests, for the flat topping phenomena that had assessed in two separate series of tests. a total of 10 test exposures per dummy. been a shortcoming of previous versions In the first series, the dummy For the flat wall test condition, the of the EuroSID, EuroSID–1, and the calibrations were performed between wall was 374 mm (14.7 in) high from the prototype ES–2 dummies. sled or vehicle crash tests. In the second front edge of the seat, and 368 mm (14.5 series, the calibration tests were in) long from the back of the seat. For Rigid Wall With Abdomen Offset Test performed consecutively without any the abdomen offset test condition, the Results other intermittent tests. In the first same flat wall was used, with a The responses for the abdomen offset series, nine tests were performed with protruding 305 mm (12 in) long, 76 mm sled tests 15 provided either excellent or one of the dummies, and seven tests (3 in) thick and 83 mm (3.3 in) wide good repeatability and reproducibility, with the other. In the second series, two wooden offset block attached to the except for one test in which the lumbar newly acquired dummies were exposed wall. The offset block, simulating an moment reproducibility response had a to five sets of calibration tests each. armrest, was oriented such that it would CV value of 16.7, which is only by 1.7% Reproducibility was assessed by impact the abdomen only, above the into the poor range. While this CV value comparing the average responses of both pelvis and below the lower rib. The is high, this measurement is not dummies. objective of the abdomen offset tests was considered for injury assessment with The results of the component to provide a test environment with the EuroSID, EuroSID–1 and ES–2re repeatability tests indicated ‘‘excellent’’ severe loading of the abdominal region. dummies. Furthermore, this slightly and good repeatability for the ES–2re The sled buck incorporated a Teflon- elevated response appears not to affect dummy for all components except for covered bench seat with two Teflon- either the magnitude of the loading or the pelvis, which had a rating covered rails to support the seated the variability of the adjacent structure classification of ‘‘good,’’ and the dummies from behind. As the sled buck responses, such as pubic symphysis, the shoulder with a rating of ‘‘acceptable.’’ was accelerated, the buck slid beneath abdomen, the T12 moment and the rib The reproducibility assessment was the dummies until the dummies’ left displacement time history, without any made in terms of response differences side impacted the rigid wall. indications of flat topping. between each of the two sets of High-speed digital video cameras Based on the above, the agency dummies with respect to the mean. The were positioned in front of each dummy tentatively concluded that the rating for reproducibility takes into in order to capture head motion for use repeatability and reproducibility of the account the cumulative variabilities of in performing motion analysis of the two or more dummies and is primarily head translation. The dummies were 15 The first test in the series with dummy S/N indicative of the repeatability of the #070 was excluded. Upon review of the response instrumented with sensors to record traces after the test series was completed, it was manufacturing process of the same type principal injury indicators such as head, noted that this test resulted in significantly lower of dummy and to some extent the resultant lower spine (T12) and pelvis abdominal and lumbar loads and larger rib repeatability of design specifications, accelerations, rib deflections, displacements than in the remaining four tests. (See inspection, and test methodology. The Appendix C, Figures C.10 through .18 of the abdominal, lumbar and pubic Technical Report, Docket 18864–12, supra). Upon reproducibility assessment does not symphysis loads, and other parameters. review, the data for that test indicated that impact serve the purposes of accepting or A contact switch was positioned on the contact with the abdominal offset block appear to rejecting the dummy; rather it is an side of each dummy and on the load have slightly favored the proximity of the lower rib indication of how far the responses of rather than the middle of the abdomen, as had been wall at the location of first contact to the case in the subsequent four tests. This could different dummies could vary under indicate the precise instant of dummy have been caused either by a slight variation in the identical test conditions. The results of contact with the wall. set-up of the dummy for the test or a slight posture the pooled component tests indicate realignment during the dummy’s movement while that the neck, thorax, lumbar spine and Flat Rigid Wall Test Results approaching the impact surface. Inasmuch as the seating procedure was not varied and this pelvis responses are well below the 5% Using the dummy rating practice set aberration did not reoccur in the four subsequent forth in ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5, generally tests, this test was considered to be a legitimate 14 ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5. the responses in the flat wall tests outlier.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75312 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

ES–2re responses in flat wall and computed the coefficient of and would not indicate any deficiency abdominal offset impacts are acceptable determination (R 2) for the relationship. with the ES–2re dummy. Furthermore, (generally in the order of ‘‘excellent’’). The Alliance stated that the resulting R 2 the addition of a contact switch to the values were low and therefore expressed dummy’s arm is not specified in the 1. Sample Size concern ‘‘* * *that the pelvic load FMVSS No. 214 test procedure. Thus, Both the Alliance and Autoliv measurement of the ES-families of the effect, if any, of a contact switch on expressed concerns with the small dummies has a reproducibility shoulder response is not an issue sample size (n=2) of dummies used to issue.* * * ’’ relevant to this rulemaking proceeding. establish repeatability and Agency Response: We disagree with reproducibility of the ES–2re. The the implication that there is a need to 4. Rib Acceleration Response Alliance was concerned that only one establish controls on the ratio of force Ferrari provided comments on the dummy manufacturer was represented input to output for the pelvis ES–2re’s rib acceleration response in in the sample. The Alliance stated: ‘‘In certification test. The R 2 is not a full-scale MDB tests. Ferrari said it order to get a reasonable assessment of meaningful assessment in this case, observed ‘‘anomalous’’ peaks in the rib dummy repeatability and because the external loads account for acceleration curves that happened reproducibility, it is necessary to subject impact inputs through several portions between 67 and 73 ms after barrier six dummies, of each combination, to of the dummy, such as friction of the impact with the vehicle. Ferrari the same series of tests.’’ dummy with the seat, lumbar spine provided plots of the upper, middle, Agency Response: At the time NHTSA shear, and compression of the flesh, and lower rib acceleration responses conducted its evaluation of the ES–2re, whereas the pubic symphysis loading (Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the Ferrari only one dummy manufacturer could reflects internal loads between the two submission). The plots indicated that provide NHTSA with production-ready pelvis halves. Furthermore, the agency secondary peaks exist in the time range samples of the dummy. That said, the conducted an evaluation of the between 67 and 73 ms after barrier agency nonetheless believes that the repeatability and reproducibility of the impact with the vehicle. For the upper sample size (n=2) used for the NPRM pelvis response in both certification and rib, the peak acceleration in this time was sufficient. The repeatability and sled test environments (reference range was approximately 400 g, while reproducibility studies of the ES–2re NHTSA–2004–18864–15 and –16, the peaks for the middle and lower ribs described in the NPRM complemented respectively). In certification testing were on the order of 1,200 and 1,400 g. the repeatability and reproducibility (pendulum testing), the ES–2re Ferrari believed the peaks are work previously conducted on the ES– dummies exhibited excellent anomalous since ‘‘the dummy is still far 2 dummy. The ES–2 has been used for repeatability and reproducibility for all from the door’’ during this time period, testing and research purposes in Europe, response criteria. In the sled testing and thus the peaks ‘‘are not the result the United States and elsewhere for portion of the evaluation, both dummies of any contact of the dummy torso with years and has proven repeatable and displayed excellent repeatability and the interior surfaces.’’ Ferrari further reproducible performance. The reproducibility when exposed to the stated that the ‘‘anomalous’’ rib repeatability and reproducibility work flat-wall test condition. In the abdomen acceleration peaks were coincident with on the ES–2re built on those earlier offset sled test condition, one dummy an acceleration peak in the ‘‘VB12 assessments of the ES–2 and showed exhibited excellent repeatability, while signal,’’ which NHTSA assumes to be a that the ES–2 with the rib extensions the second dummy scored a good rating reference to the lower spine had good to excellent repeatability and for repeatability. Taking the certification acceleration. Ferrari suggested that the reproducibility. and sled test results both into account, source of the anomaly is insufficient At the same time, we recognize that the dummies’ pelvis response provided damping of the rebound motion of the valid data can potentially be gleaned excellent reproducibility. Given these rib. Ferrari did not indicate the filter from tests of additional ES–2re test findings, the agency has concluded that specifications used in processing the dummies with regard to the certification the reproducibility of the pelvic load data they analyzed. corridors used to assess performance of measurement of the ES–2re test dummy Agency Response: NHTSA has the dummy. As explained later in this is acceptable. reviewed the rib acceleration responses preamble, the agency has therefore used from a series of 10 sled tests conducted ES–2re performance data submitted by 3. Sensitivity to Initial Conditions to evaluate the repeatability and the Alliance and the SAE in The Alliance believed that the ES–2re reproducibility of the dummy’s determining the certification corridors exhibited ‘‘an unacceptable sensitivity responses (reference NHTSA Technical of this final rule, since the inclusive to initial conditions.’’ Citing an OSRP Report, ‘‘Repeatability and database is based on a larger sample size sled test study, the Alliance contended, Reproducibility of the ES–2re Dummy of ES–2re tests. ‘‘The results show differences in the in the Sled Test Environment,’’ June deflection responses depending on 2004, NHTSA Docket No. 2004–18864– 2. Reproducibility of Pelvic Load whether or not a contact switch was 16). In this review, we did not observe Measurements taped to the arm * * * ’’ any occurrence of a secondary peak The Alliance expressed concerns Agency Response: In our review of the similar to that described by Ferrari. ‘‘relative to the reproducibility of the referenced OSRP study, we did not see Further, anomalous peaks did not occur pelvic load measurement of the a discussion indicating that the test in the data from the vehicle crash tests EuroSID-family of dummies.’’ The parameters and setup procedures were conducted in support of the FMVSS No. commenter stated that it analyzed pelvic reasonably controlled in a manner that 214 NPRM (these data are discussed certification data provided by the SAE, would warrant comparison of the test later in this preamble). We note also that studying the correlation between the results. The report offers no some comments to the FMVSS No. 214 internal and external loads measured in documentation of the dummy pre-test NPRM suggested that NHTSA should the pelvic impact certification test. The positioning, nor does it provide any not adopt any injury criteria in FMVSS Alliance plotted the pubic symphysis analysis of the sled pulse or impact No. 214 associated with the ES–2re’s load (internal loads) against the speeds. Variations in these conditions resultant lower spine acceleration (for impactor force (external loads) and could produce the differences observed reasons unrelated to Ferrari’s

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75313

comments). The agency will respond to peak rib deflections when impacted perpendicular test, which indicates that this suggestion in the FMVSS No. 214 obliquely from the front (+15°), as the T12 and abdominal forces could be final rule. If the agency agrees with the compared to purely lateral impacts. The higher because initial loading is more suggestion, the ES–2re’s lower spine Alliance stated that PDB believed that through the lower part of the torso. acceleration will not be used in the the ES–2 and ES–2re are ‘‘highly We also analyzed the measurements FMVSS No. 214 compliance tests. sensitive to changes in the angle of the of the ES–2re in FMVSS No. 214 MDB impact surface,’’ whereas, the Alliance tests of a 2001 Ford Focus, 2002 d. Directional Impact Sensitivity stated, the WorldSID ‘‘is much less Chevrolet Impala equipped with a The NPRM noted that limited testing sensitive to impact direction, which is combo head/thorax side air bag for the of the ES–2re’s thorax in oblique especially important for oblique driver, and a 2004 Honda Accord pendulum impacts indicated some loading.’’ equipped with a thorax bag. Overall, the sensitivity in the rib deflection and Agency Response: There is no driver rib deflections were higher than spine acceleration responses. The biofidelic standard for rib deflection the deflections for the rear passenger NPRM noted also that the European response in oblique loading in the sled dummy. However, a different loading Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee test environment that has been environment caused the lower rib (EEVC)1 16 had also found similar published and accepted by the deflections for the ES–2re in the rear sensitivity in the ES–2’s thorax rib biomechanics community. Thus, it seat as compared to the driver. Rib compression measurements in oblique cannot be determined that the ES–2re’s deflections showed a slow rise, and the pendulum impact tests. However, response characteristics inadequately peaks occurred about 10 milliseconds NHTSA tentatively concluded in the replicate the human rib deflection later than those of the driver dummy. NPRM that the pendulum test was not response in oblique loading, or that the The loading duration was also necessarily reflective of the dynamic WorldSID’s response characteristics are considerably longer. The passenger rib interaction between impacted door and a better match to this criteria than the deflections were consistently lower occupant during the crash event. In the response of the ES–2re. It could be that towards the bottom of the ribcage. pendulum test, the loading was imposed the ribs of a human occupant would For the Focus, the driver and rear on the dummy’s ribcage in a fixed, large respond differently to oblique loads passenger T12 accelerations were oblique impact angle throughout the than it would to lateral loads. comparable. For the Impala and Accord, entire loading period as well as by an Moreover, NHTSA believes that the the rear passenger T12 acceleration was impactor that produced a very ES–2re’s rib response in vehicle crash larger than that of the driver dummy. concentrated, localized loading to the tests is fully satisfactory. Our analysis of This difference could be attributed to ribcage. The agency stated that test data the thoracic response of the ES–2re the fact that both the Impala and Accord from our full scale crash tests did not demonstrated that the dummy’s thoracic had a thorax side air bag for the driver indicate evidence of the sensitivity responses provide valid data. See position and none for the rear passenger produced in pendulum type impacts. ‘‘Comparison of title and date of ES–2 position. Comments were requested on whether Driver Dummy in Lateral vs. Oblique Use of the ES–2re dummy in vehicle dummy users have seen such effects in Pole Impacts and ES–2re Driver and crash tests did not indicate any measured responses during full scale Passenger Dummies in FMVSS No. 214 detrimental effects due to shoulder vehicle crash tests. Type MDB Crash Tests,’’ (October 2006), design, such as rib flat-topping or Citing research conducted by the placed in the docket for this final rule distortion of signals, which, if such had Partnership for Dummy Technology and (Docket 25441). As discussed in the occurred, would have showed that the Biomechanics (PDB) (the PDB is an report, we analyzed crash data from shoulder had reached its limit for range association of automobile manufacturers oblique and perpendicular pole tests of of motion or had otherwise performed and equipment suppliers) and the a 1999 Maxima and a 2001 Saturn unacceptably due to a forward motion of OSRP, the Alliance expressed concerns which were not equipped with side air the clavicles. Further, the data from the over the ES–2re’s response to oblique bag systems. The rib deflections of the tests did not show any sensitivity to impacts. In contrast, Autoliv stated ‘‘we ES–2re in the driver’s seating position oblique loading in the dummy’s do not feel that the effect of oblique were almost identical in the oblique and abdomen. The passenger abdominal loading on the ES–2 dummy rib perpendicular pole tests. The rib force for the Impala was very large deflection measurements in most full deflections of the dummies were compared to the driver abdominal force, scale crash tests is significant.’’ consistent in time and were of similar but this was due primarily to large magnitude. There was no indication of structural intrusions (the test film shows 1. Impact Direction flat-topping, binding or distortion of the the arm rest intruding into the dummy According to the Alliance, the PDB deflection signal due to oblique loading. in the MDB test). This indicates a conducted sled tests using a padded In addition, T1 driver lateral localized loading through the abdomen wall that could be rotated to provide acceleration was consistent and did not for the Impala passenger (resulting in an impact angles of 0°, +15° (oblique front), show differences between oblique and off-loading condition for the chest and, or ¥15°, (oblique rear). Each test perpendicular impacts. thus, much lower rib deflection condition (0°, +15° and ¥15°) was While both the lower spine measurements as compared to the driver repeated three times, with the ES–2, the accelerations (T12) and the summed dummy). For the Accord, the passenger ES–2re, and the WorldSID. The abdominal forces for the driver ES–2re abdominal force was larger than the commenter stated that the PDB found were higher in the oblique pole test driver abdominal force, but the that the ES–2re exhibited decreased configuration, the oblique pole test was difference could be attributed to the run at a higher impact speed than the presence of the side air bag in the driver 16 The steering committee of the EEVC is perpendicular test (20 mph versus 18 position. composed of representatives from European mph), which likely increased the In conclusion, the data show that national governments. The EEVC conducts research dummy based measurements. Also, in there is virtually no effect due to in motor vehicle safety and develops recommendations for test devices and procedures the oblique pole test, the lower part of oblique loading in the ES–2re deflection that governments can decide to adopt into national the dummy torso appears to be loaded readings in oblique pole tests as regulations. earlier in the crash event than in a compared to perpendicular pole

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75314 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

impacts, and no indication of sensitivity biofidelity as compared to the SID and Requirements for the ES–2re Dummy,’’ in MDB tests. SID–HIII dummies currently specified Sept. 2004, NHTSA Docket Number for use in FMVSS No. 214. NHTSA’s 2004–18864–17). One dummy was 2. Rib Binding in ISO 9790 Tests biofidelity evaluation using the subjected to 5 exposures and another The Alliance stated that OSRP Biofidelity Ranking System indicated was subjected to 15 impacts. subjected the ES–2re to linear impactor that the ES–2re is superior to the SID– Throughout these evaluations tests using the ISO 9790, Thorax Test 2 HIII. OSRP’s research also supports this described above, the components of methodology. Impacts were conducted conclusion in that it has shown that the each dummy were inspected for any at 0°; at forward oblique angles of +15° ES–2re is superior to the SID using the instance of excessive wear or failure. and +30°; and rearward oblique angles ISO biofidelity evaluation methodology. The dummies did not exhibit any of ¥15° and ¥30°. The commenter The ES–2re can also detect critical observable component damage or stated that, when impacted at +30°, the loading by intruding vehicle structures failure.17 ES–2re’s rib deflection response at the head and lower torso levels that Finally, in addition to the tests exhibited a delayed onset and nearly 20 are undetected by the SID. Adopting the described above, the ES–2re was mm lower peak deflection as compared ES–2re and the injury assessment subjected to 14 pole test exposures and to the lateral (0°) impacts. ‘‘These reference values associated with the risk 14 vehicle crash (MDB) test exposures observations * * * lead the OSRP to of injury to occupants will substantially without significant durability problems. conclude that the rib system of the ES– enhance the safety of occupants in side Both dummies required one new 2re initially binds when impacted from impacts. shoulder foam mid-way through the test an angle of 30 degrees forward of series. Also, one dummy required the lateral.’’ e. Durability replacement of a rib displacement Agency Response: Rib binding is Autoliv concurred with NHTSA in transducer that failed for reasons not typically observed as a flat period in the concluding that the ES–2re has ‘‘good known, and the other dummy needed a displacement-time history of the rib durability and withstands high severity new skin suit and one rib after intruding response, which is referred to as ‘‘flat- loading.’’ In contrast, citing a statement interior components cut through the topping.’’ Although the Alliance in the Part 572 NPRM regarding skin suit and damaged the skin and suggested that rib binding is occurring replacement of parts in full-scale crash foam of the rib. Collectively, these during the +30°oblique impact, the data testing (69 FR at 55556), the Alliance observations lead to the conclusion that provided by the Alliance do not exhibit expressed concern that the ES–2re the durability of the ES–2re dummy is any flat-topping in the rib deflection required replacement of ribs after ten fully acceptable for its intended use in response. NHTSA has done testing with full-scale vehicle crash tests, whereas FMVSS No. 214. the ES–2re dummy similar to the impact ‘‘[i]t is usual for a Hybrid III 50th or 5th f. Symmetry tests conducted by the OSRP and has to endure approximately 25 full vehicle not observed a delayed onset such as crash tests before requiring a full rib set The NPRM explained that NHTSA that reported by the Alliance replacement.’’ believed that the ES–2re dummy will (referencing the OSRP tests). As stated Agency Response: The durability of perform equally well, upon appropriate in the preceding section, we have also the ES–2re is fully acceptable. NHTSA conversion when struck on either side, concluded that crash test data do not conducted an extensive evaluation of i.e., in both driver (left) side and indicate evidence of the magnitude of the ES–2re dummy, which exposed two passenger (right) side crash tests. The sensitivity produced in the pendulum dummies to 10 rigid-wall sled tests and agency noted that predecessor test type impacts. Thus, we do not concur 5 repeats of each certification test. In dummy to the ES–2re (the EuroSID–1) with the OSRP’s concern of rib binding addition, one dummy was exposed to has been and still is being used in when impacted obliquely in the ISO increased severity component tests, England, Japan and Australia for right 9790 test procedure. designed specifically to assess the side impacts. The EuroSID–1 has the durability of the ES–2re. In this testing, same left to right side impact conversion 3. ISO 9790 Ratings for Lateral and the proposed certification test provisions as the ES–2re. The agency Oblique Impacts procedures were followed, except the explained that the agency’s ES–2re users The Alliance compared the ES–2re’s impact energies were increased by as manual (the Procedures for Assembly, impactor force-time histories from the much as 30 percent. The increased Disassembly and Inspection) (‘‘PADI’’) lateral and oblique impacts to the energy levels were achieved by discusses the steps needed to be taken corridor published for ISO 9790 Thorax performing the certification tests at to convert the dummy for use from the Test 2. The commenter stated that there higher velocities. The dummy was left to the right side of the vehicle. is a ‘‘fair’’ rating for the lateral impacts exposed to three repeats each of the The Alliance expressed concern for (biofidelity score = 5) and an increased severity neck and lumbar symmetry of the ES–2re’s abdomen ‘‘unacceptable’’ rating for the oblique tests; and five repeats each of the response, i.e., the dummy’s ability to forward impacts (biofidelity score = 0). shoulder, abdomen, and pelvis tests provide similar responses when Agency Response: The Alliance’s (reference NHTSA Technical Report, impacted on the right and left sides. The comments again question the dummy’s ‘‘Evaluation of the EuroSID–2re Alliance, referring to a 2002 Stapp paper oblique response characteristics. As Certification Test Repeatability and by Byrnes, et al., stated: ‘‘armrest forces previously explained, NHTSA believes Reproducibility,’’ July, 2004, NHTSA that the ES–2re’s rib response in vehicle Docket Number 2004–18864–15). Next, 17 In response to a specific comment made by the crash tests is fully acceptable for this both dummies were subjected to severe Alliance, it should be noted that dummy component durability is not a simple function of rulemaking effort. Crash test data thoracic impacts with a 23.4 kg the number of tests conducted. Test severity is a indicate that there is virtually no effect impactor at 6.7 m/s in the development much more significant factor in determining due to oblique loading on the driver ES– of a proposed full-body thorax impact component life. Any dummy, be it an ES–2re or a 2re deflection readings in oblique pole test procedure (reference NHTSA Hybrid III 50th dummy, may require rib replacement after a single test if the test severity is tests as compared to perpendicular pole Technical Report ‘‘Development of A substantial or the structural and/or occupant impacts. Furthermore, the ES–2re Full-Body Thorax Certification protection systems do not sufficiently attenuate the represents a significant improvement in Procedure and Preliminary Response energy distribution of the crash.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75315

from the right side impacts in Abdomen the back plate of the ES–2’s upper torso criterion, and not criteria assessing Test 2 were approximately 40% higher grabbed into the seat back of the vehicle, injury to the thorax, abdomen or pelvis. than those from the left side.’’ which lowered the rib deflections We are denying this request. As Agency Response: In the 2002 Stapp measured by the dummy. (‘‘Design, discussed previously, NHTSA analyzed study cited by the Alliance, thorax Development, and Evaluation of the ES– response data from matched pairs of impacts and abdomen drop tests were 2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’ May oblique and lateral pole tests with two conducted with the ES–2 (standard 2004, NHTSA Docket No. 17694–11.) non-air bag equipped vehicles. In doing version) dummy. Tests were conducted This ‘‘back plate grabbing’’ problem has so, NHTSA determined that the rib with the dummy configured for left or long existed in the ES–2 line of deflection responses in both oblique and right side impacts to evaluate the dummies. Although efforts were purely lateral tests were consistent in symmetry of the ES–2. (From review of undertaken to address the problem in time and similar in magnitude. The the paper, it is not possible to determine dummies preceding the ES–2, the back agency concluded that there is virtually the quantity of tests conducted for each plate grabbing problem has continued no effect due to oblique loading in the configuration.) The paper concluded with the ES–2. Back plate grabbing has driver ES–2re deflection readings in that the ES–2 provided symmetrical been seen within the ES–2 in the non- oblique pole tests as compared to responses in the thorax tests and in governmental European New Car perpendicular pole impacts. The data Abdomen Test 1. Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) on also do not demonstrate an indication of NHTSA does not believe that the side impact. EuroNCAP accounts for the sensitivity to oblique loading in MDB Byrnes study definitively identifies a problem by adjusting downward the tests. In sum, the data show that there shortcoming with the dummy’s consumer rating scores of vehicles when are no deficiencies with the ES–2re that reversibility characteristics. Variations back plate grabbing is deemed to have would justify limiting its injury observed in Abdomen Test 2 were occurred. assessment to that of HIC only. To the attributed to ‘‘a higher variability in the The ES–2re has rib extensions that contrary, the test data from the Impala test procedure.’’ The report noted, ‘‘The solve the back plate grabbing problem of test show that the abdominal response difference observed * * * can be the ES–2. The rib extensions provide a of the ES–2re in the rear passenger partially explained by the increased continuous loading surface that nearly position in the MDB test detected variability due to greater drop distance. encircles the thorax and encloses the critical loading by intruding vehicle Since the dummy had further to fall, it posterior gap of the ES–2 ribcage that structures at the lower torso level. In a NASS study of side impact crashes, it is more susceptible to rotating prior to was responsible for the ‘‘grabbing’’ was estimated that between 8.5 percent impact with the armrest.’’ effects. Test data show that the rib and 21.8 percent of all AIS 3+ injuries Additionally, the agency conducted extensions reduced the back plate are to the abdomen of restrained near tests to evaluate the symmetry of grabbing force to insignificant amounts side front seat occupants. (Samaha, R.S., response. In the study, the ES–2re in vehicle side impact tests that had Elliot, D., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact dummy was configured for right side previously yielded large back plate Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test impacts and certification tests were loads with the ES–2. The rib extensions Procedures’’, 18th International performed with the head, neck, did not affect rib deflection responses in Technical Conference on the Enhanced abdomen, lumbar, and pelvis, as well as tests of vehicles that had not originally Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV), a full-body thorax impact. The results yielded high back plate loads. indicated that the ES–2re dummy was Paper No. 492, 2003.) Adopting the ES– As discussed above, we have found 2re and the injury assessment reference fully capable of meeting the certification the biofidelity, repeatability, response requirements when configured values associated with the risk of injury reproducibility, and other aspects of the to an occupant’s thorax, abdomen and for right side impacts, as well as left ES–2re to be fully acceptable. In short, side impacts. Accordingly, all data pelvis will enhance the safety of considering all aspects of the ES–2re occupants in side impacts. indicate that the dummy performs well and ES–2 dummies, we conclude that when used on either side of the vehicle. the ES–2re dummy should be h. Test Dummy Drawing Package g. Using the ES–2 Test Dummy incorporated into FMVSS No. 214 rather As set forth in the NPRM, the ES–2re than the ES–2. test dummy is specified by way of a ES–2re v. ES–2 The ES–2re Should Measure More Than drawing package, parts list, user manual The Alliance supported the ES–2 HIC (PADI), and performance certification dummy as a temporary alternative test tests. The two-dimensional drawings device, pending the availability of While supporting the ES–2 over the and the PADI ensure that the dummies WorldSID. The Alliance supported the ES–2re, the Alliance stated that both test are the same in their design and ES–2 because the dummy is already dummies have design features that construction. The performance implemented in both EuroNCAP and the affect the dummies’ thoracic responses certification tests serve to establish the UN ECE-regulation 95.02 Supplement 1, and the resulting rib deflection uniformity of dummy assembly, i.e., ‘‘at least the ES–2 is harmonized measurements. According to the structural integrity, consistency of with Europe and already in widespread commenter, the ‘‘limited stroke piston/ impact response and adequacy of use.’’ cylinder mechanism’’ of the dummies instrumentation. The repeatability of the Agency Response: The ES–2re is more can bind in a lateral impact, and the dummy’s impact response in vehicle appropriate for use in FMVSS No. 214 ‘‘binding potential is further certification tests is thereby ensured. than the ES–2 dummy. As explained compounded as the lateral impact Both DATD and the Alliance above in this preamble, and in the May becomes more oblique.’’ Further, as expressed concerns regarding the lack of 2004 FMVSS No. 214 NPRM and in the discussed above in this preamble, the 3-dimensional (3–D) shape definitions September 2004 NPRM preceding this Alliance also objected to the shoulder and material specifications for the final rule, the ES–2 dummy has a design and abdomen and pelvis of the dummy. Additionally, FTSS and DATD deficiency that limits its usefulness in ES–2re and ES–2. The commenter said suggested corrections to perceived FMVSS No. 214. The agency determined that NHTSA should just require errors present in the drawing package. that, in a number of vehicle crash tests, manufacturers to meet a head protection These comments are addressed below.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75316 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

1. 3–D Shape Definitions the population intended. The dimensional patterns for the dummy DATD requested that NHTSA specify dimensions, mass distribution and range parts. of motion of dummy parts are also 3–D patterns, either physical or 2. Material Specifications electronic, for all complex dummy specified to ensure that the kinematics DATD stated that numerous drawings parts. The Alliance contended that the of the test device in a crash test lacked sufficient specification of ‘‘current drawing package does not replicates that of the human occupant materials necessary to manufacture a contain adequate detail for suppliers to and to assure that the dummy’s reproducible dummy. DATD manufacture comparable dummies. To instrumentation performs as intended. recommended that NHTSA provide allow multiple manufacturers to The PADI document also provides performance-based specifications for all produce interchangeable parts and procedures for a dummy’s assembly and materials. dummies with consistent performance, disassembly during inspection. The document insures that a dummy is Agency Response: On Aug. 2, 2005, NHTSA must provide a drawing NHTSA met with representatives of package that is sufficiently specific, assembled properly for conducting the tests. DATD to allow the manufacturer to including manufacturing tolerances. clarify their comments regarding the The drawing package for the ES–2re The performance specifications that are set forth in 49 CFR part 572 establish ES–2re drawing package. The DATD does not contain 3–D surface models.’’ comments were provided electronically Agency Response: We are denying the the impact response requirements for on August 22, 2005 in PDF format and request to provide three-dimensional the dummy. To determine the have been submitted to the docket patterns to specify the dummy. The ES– acceptability of a dummy, the dummy is (reference NHTSA–2004–18864–33 and 2re drawings are comparable in detail to inspected for its conformance to the 34). NHTSA and DATD reviewed a all other dummies previously drawing package and is tested according number of drawings and DATD incorporated into 49 CFR part 572. No to the certification tests in part 572. The provided feedback to explain why the dummy specification in part 572 agency conducts impact tests for material specifications were inadequate. contains three-dimensional patterns. individual body segments and their DATD stated that many of the material This is because three-dimensional assemblies, and on the dummy as a specifications listed in the NPRM patterns are unnecessary in inspecting whole to determine acceptance. The drawing package referenced non- whether the dummy is acceptable for impact calibration tests and associated standard, European, and/or British use in an agency test. The agency finds instrumented measurements address the material specifications. DATD two-dimensional drawing specifications accuracy and consistency of dummy recommended appending numerous sufficient to assure proper responses in crash events. material specifications with the anthropometry, composition and The two-dimensional drawings, PADI qualifying phrase ‘‘Or Equivalent.’’ assembly, and functionality of the document and impact performance 18 requirements enable the establishment DATD is correct that many of the dummy in designated crash tests. material specifications referenced The drawing package sets forth the of an objective, repeatable test device. European standards, in part due to the criteria that the agency uses to Dummies reflecting the configuration of European origin of the ES–2re. Material determine acceptability of the dummy the parts and their assemblies contained suppliers in the United States typically through an inspection process. The in these drawings have been do not certify their materials to meet the drawing package alone is not sufficient successfully used for the development European standards. Thus, maintaining to manufacture a dummy, or to ensure and evaluation of occupant protection European specifications could the interchangeability of parts between systems in a variety of simulated and potentially force U.S. dummy dummies manufactured by different full-scale crash tests. Use of the two- manufacturers to obtain materials at a business entities. Although the agency dimensional drawings limited to minimal but critical specifications higher cost. does not provide three-dimensional Appending the material specifications drawings, shape dimensions are affords dummy manufacturers an amount of flexibility to generate their with ‘‘Or Equivalent,’’ as DATD provided in the form of surface widths, suggests, could potentially provide the lengths, and circumferences. The own manufacturing and process dummy manufacturers with the drawing package specifies features that drawings and to use whatever opportunity to use alternate materials are important to establish the procedures are needed to facilitate that are functionally equivalent to the appropriate anthropometry and production, which would be European-specified materials. However, composition of the dummy. The test constrained if the drawings and other the agency is concerned that the phrase device is typically intended to be specifications were specified such as by ‘‘Or Equivalent’’ is open to wide representative of a segment of an use of three-dimensional patterns. Such interpretation. For example, would the identified population, e.g., small adult restrictions in the design and phrase ‘‘Or Equivalent’’ mean that two females or mid-size adult males. production of the test dummy by materials must have the same chemical Accordingly, the dimensions and mass government regulation is unnecessary, structure or physical properties? What of the dummy are specified to ensure may impede technology development differences, if any, are allowed between that the dummy physically represents and manufacturing innovation, and may increase the costs of test dummies and two ‘‘equivalent’’ materials and how 18 Although two-dimensional drawing crash tests. If manufacturers want more would differences be quantified? On the specifications are sufficient for agency rulemaking explicit design and manufacturing other hand, NHTSA is concerned about purposes, we will explore the feasibility of specifications and construction maintaining material specifications that developing three-dimensional scans for future instructions to enable them to cannot be readily satisfied by all of the research and development purposes. Furthermore, for a period of 180 days following publication of interchange parts among different test dummy manufacturers. Further, NHTSA this final rule, we will have available for public devices, the dummy manufacturers believes that dummy manufacturers, in inspection two (2) of the ES–2re dummies used by could work with or through technical the case of European-based material and the agency in the development of the rule. To make societies and manufacturer associations surface finish specifications, should arrangements to inspect these dummies, contact Dr. Bruce Donnelly at NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and to attain their desired objectives. have some latitude in material selection Test Center, P.O. Box B37, East Liberty, Ohio, For the aforementioned reasons, the based on functional, density and 43319, or by telephone at 1–800–262–8309. agency is not specifying three- stiffness similarities, so long as the final

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75317

product meets the drawing package to or instead of individual rib module certification response data submitted by specifications and dynamic certification tests. the Alliance/SAE in docket comments requirements in 49 CFR Part 572. are based on a much larger sample size 1. Overview of the Comments To provide the flexibility for use of than that used for the NPRM and are either European materials or U.S. based The Alliance, DATD, FTSS and statistically more significant and materials that meet the European Autoliv commented on the proposed representative of the dummies’ specifications, the agency has changed certification procedures and response response. Additionally, the Alliance/ the material ‘‘requirements’’ to material corridors. SAE data were collected at several test ‘‘references.’’ In this way, the drawing The Alliance stated that the Alliance laboratories and thus reflect lab-to-lab package can provide a starting point for and the Society of Automotive differences. In most cases, the Alliance/ material selection, but the materials Engineers (SAE) Dummy Testing SAE data are normally distributed and referenced in the drawings are not Equipment Subcommittee (DTESC) have exhibit reasonable amounts of variation. required to be used as long as the agreed to accept, with minor suggested For these reasons, the agency has materials used for the dummy provide changes, the proposed tests for the head accepted most of the suggested functional, density and stiffness drop, shoulder, thorax (rib module drop Alliance/SAE response corridors, similarities enabling the device to meet test), and abdomen because the test particularly if the agency’s data did not the drawing package specifications and protocols and corridors for those tests indicate contradictions or if the the dynamic performance requirements ‘‘are essentially the same as those suggested corridors were consistent in the 49 CFR Part 572 certification specified in the ECE–R95 European Side with the ECE ES–2 performance tests. This is the case even if the Impact Regulation.’’ The Alliance stated specifications. However, there were a materials used are not identical to the that the SAE DTESC determined that it few instances where analysis of the SAE material references listed on the was necessary to establish a larger data either revealed a non-normal individual component drawings. database of component certification data distribution of the data set based on Accordingly, the agency has changed all for the proposed neck pendulum, different dummy makes, or were in material and finish specifications to lumbar spine and pelvis tests, and substantial contradiction with ‘‘material reference’’ and ‘‘finish solicited that ‘‘committee members comparable agency measurements. In reference.’’ submit fairly recent and representative those cases the agency considerably test data’’ for these tests ‘‘in order to reviewed and analyzed the data to 3. Dummy Drawing Changes establish a larger database that will determine if the varying distributions of DATD and FTSS suggested better represent the certification the tested populations could be corrections or other changes to over 50 performance of these components in the reconciled. If they could not be, the drawings in the ES–2re drawing field.’’ The Alliance provided the data suggested corridor was not accepted. package. Almost all of these were minor that the SAE DTESC obtained, and changes. The suggestions are discussed supported the NPRM’s proposed 2. Head Drop Test in detail in Appendix A to this corridors and protocols for the neck The NPRM proposed that the nominal preamble, ‘‘Specific Drawing Comments pendulum, lumbar spine, and pelvis mass of the ES–2re head assembly is 4.0 and Agency Responses to Those certification tests, as modified by the kg and the tolerance is +/¥0.2 kg. The Comments.’’ NHTSA generally concurs suggestions of the SAE DTESC. Alliance/SAE was concerned that the +/ with the recommended changes to the (Hereinafter, comments of the Alliance ¥0.2 kg head mass tolerance on drawings, except for DATD’s suggested that reflect the SAE DTESC suggestions drawing 175–0000 (sheet 2 of 6) is too change to Drawing 175–1010 on the are referred to as comments of the large. upper neck load cell replacement, and ‘‘Alliance/SAE.’’) Agency Response: We agree that the FTSS’s suggested change to Drawings In its comment, Denton ATD claimed original tolerance for the head mass, as 175–4040, –4041 and –4042 on damper that the certification corridors published originally specified in the EU springs. Appendix A explains the in the NPRM do not adequately reflect regulation, is too broad and needs to be reasoning behind each of our decisions lab-to-lab differences. revised. A review of other similarly on the drawings. FTSS provided specific comments sized dummies regulated by NHTSA regarding the test procedures and shows that the Hybrid III small adult i. Certification Procedures and Response corridors. Because FTSS participated in female dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Corridors the SAE activities that resulted in that Subpart O) has a nominal head mass of The performance certification tests in organization’s recommended 3.73 kg and a tolerance of +/¥0.05 kg, this final rule serve to assure that the certification corridors which were while the Hybrid III mid-sized adult ES–2re responses are within the submitted by the Alliance (i.e. the male (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart E) has established biomechanical corridors and Alliance comments), the FTSS a nominal mass of 4.54 kg and a further assure the uniformity of dummy comments on certification corridors tolerance of +/¥0.05 kg. To maintain assembly, structural integrity, have been subsumed in the Alliance/ consistency with the other similarly consistency of response and adequacy of SAE comments. sized Part 572 dummies, we are instrumentation. The tests ensure the Regarding the proposal for a full-body adopting a mass tolerance of +/¥0.05 kg repeatability of the dummy’s impact thorax impact certification procedure, for the head segment. response in vehicle compliance tests. Autoliv, FTSS, and the Alliance The agency proposed certification expressed a preference to retain the 3. Neck Flexion Test tests for components of the ES–2re individual rib drop certification tests. i. Neck Response Corridors. The dummy (for the head, neck, thorax, and General Agency Response: To develop Alliance/SAE recommended adopting lumbar spine) and tests for local areas the certification corridors set forth in the following criteria for the neck (the shoulder, abdomen, and pelvis) of the NPRM, NHTSA subjected two ES– pendulum test shown in the Table 4, a fully assembled seated dummy. The 2re dummies to certification type tests ‘‘Alliance/SAE Suggested Neck agency also explored adopting a full- at the agency’s Vehicle Research and Response Criteria,’’ below (note: NPRM body thorax certification test in addition Test Center (VRTC) laboratory. The corridors are shown for comparison):

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75318 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4.–ALLIANCE/SAE SUGGESTED NECK RESPONSE CRITERIA

Criteria Alliance/SAE proposal NPRM

Max. Neck Flexion Angle ...... 49–59 deg ...... 52–57 deg. Time at Max. Flexion Angle ...... 54–66 ms ...... 54–64 ms. Time of Decay to Zero Angle from Peak ...... 53–88 ms ...... 55–75 ms.

Agency Response: The SAE DTESC to the FTSS data. Since the DATD E. In addition, the Alliance/SAE database includes 189 tests of necks impact velocity was within the range of recommended corridors that this final from both Denton ATD and FTSS, and impact velocities specified in the rule adopts were based on data filtered tested in both right and left-side impact NPRM, we conclude that the DATD at CFC 60. conditions. decay time data are valid. The data iv. Nodding Block Configuration. The The SAE DTESC data appear to be supplied by the Alliance/SAE represent Alliance stated that the proposed normally distributed for the first two a larger sample size of necks from both regulatory text did not specifically criteria (maximum flexion angle and FTSS and DATD, and therefore is more mention the ability to change nodding time of maximum flexion angle). representative of the total dummy joints 20 in the neck in the event that the Because the data are evenly distributed, population. Accordingly, we agree to neck does not meet the certification and given that the Alliance/SAE’s expand the performance corridor of the requirements. The Alliance stated: ‘‘The proposed corridors are based on a much decay to zero angle from maximum different nodding joints for the ES–2re more statistically significant sample size flexion from 55–75 ms to 53–88 ms. dummy are identified in the drawing and therefore better represents the ii. Neck Pendulum Aluminum package, but are not noted in the broader dummy population, we have Honeycomb. The test procedure NPRM.’’ adopted the suggested corridors for specifies that the neck-headform Agency Response: The proposed maximum flexion angle and time of assembly is attached to a pendulum test regulatory text did not specifically note maximum flexion angle. We note that fixture. Section 572.183(b)(3) referenced the ability to change nodding joints in these flexion angle and associated time a ‘‘Figure 15 of part 572’’ in describing the neck when the neck does not meet requirements are consistent with the the pendulum accelerometer. Figure 15 the certification requirements. However, latest ECE regulations.19 specifies a 6-inch thickness of the text specifically stated that, ‘‘The The data for the time of decay criteria honeycomb. The Alliance/SAE noted neck assembly consists of parts shown appear to exhibit two slightly different that ‘‘It is not clear that the proposed in drawing 175–2000.’’ Drawing 175– populations. Analysis of the decay time pulse can be achieved using a 6-inch 2000 (Neck Assembly) contains a note data reveals a difference in response thick piece of aluminum honeycomb.’’ indicating that the buffers are to be between the FTSS and DATD samples. The commenter suggested that a 3-inch selected based on the certification The DATD samples yielded an average aluminum honeycomb thickness should response of the neck. Thus the ability to decay time of 76.97 ms, while the FTSS be specified for the neck pendulum test. change buffers to meet the certification samples had an average decay time of Agency Response: We concur that the requirements is available and no change 60.38 ms, a difference of 21.6 percent in NPRM incorrectly referenced Figure 15. to the regulatory text is necessary. the average response. However, the The Alliance/SAE is correct in stating v. Adjusting Half-Spherical Neck decay time has less significance in the that the proposed pulse cannot be Screws. A comment by the Alliance neck performance characterization than, achieved using a 6-inch thickness of regarding the adjustment of the lumbar for example, maximum neck flexion and honeycomb. As specified in the ECE cable nut of the dummy (see section time of maximum neck flexion. The regulations and confirmed by VRTC IV.h.5, infra) led NHTSA to determine latter is to assure that the neck, as a testing, a 3-inch thickness of that the regulatory text should specify result of a specified impact, will deliver honeycomb is needed to achieve the how the two half-spherical screws the head to a given location, whereas pulse. The correct reference is to Figure located at either end of the ES–2re’s the former assures that the head does 22 in subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. neck should be tightened. Using the test not remain in the fully flexed position Figure 22 does not specifically identify procedures in the ES–2’s user’s manual, and is capable of restitution to the pre- the thickness of the aluminum but adding to them to improve their flexed position within a repeatable time honeycomb. This final rule makes the objectivity, the agency has determined frame. correction. that the half-spherical screws should be The agency’s test data on which the iii. Neck Pendulum Deceleration tightened to a torque of 88 in-lbs using NPRM’s neck response corridors were Filter Class. The Alliance recommended a special neck compression tool, a type based used FTSS neck assemblies filtering the neck pendulum of which is described in NHTSA because those were the only samples acceleration data at CFC 180, as drawing 175–9500. available at the time. Accordingly, the opposed to CFC 60 as proposed in the 4. Thorax agency data are somewhat more similar NPRM. Agency Response: We do not agree i. Full-Body Systems Test. The NPRM proposed that the dummy’s thoracic 19 The NPRM had proposed to eliminate four of with this change. The preliminary the neck test response criteria used by the ECE certification procedures published by response would be evaluated by testing regulations: peak fore pendulum base angle, peak the dummy manufacturer, and used by each individual rib module mounted in aft pendulum base angle, and their respective times the agency in its evaluation, specified a a drop test fixture. It was proposed that at which the peak occurred. It is noted that the sum each rib module would be disassembled of the fore and aft base angles is equal to the CFC 60 filter for the pendulum maximum flexion angle, a response requirement acceleration. All of the data gathered by from the dummy, mounted in a drop rig maintained in the NPRM. In proposing to eliminate NHTSA in its evaluations have been these minor requirements, NHTSA sought to processed using CFC 60. This filter is 20 We assume that the ‘‘nodding joints’’ noted in simplify the certification requirements. NHTSA did the Alliance comment refers to ‘‘neck buffers’’ since not receive any comments objecting to the proposal. consistent with that specified for the the ES–2 series dummies do not have nodding Accordingly, the approach of the NPRM is adopted. Hybrid III 50th male dummy in subpart joints in the neck assemblies.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75319

fixture, and impacted in free fall by an those of the ES–2re to further check the height in the rib module drop test impactor with a mass of 7.78 kg. The assemblage of the dummy. However, the procedure. FTSS noted, ‘‘traditional impactor would be dropped from a test procedures for full-body thorax velocity measurement methods in a height of 459 and 815 mm to produce impacts of the SID, WorldSID, and SID– dummy lab use speed vanes attached to impact speeds of 3.0 m/s and 4.0 m/s, IIs side impact dummies employ a the impactor and static light traps. This respectively. The response criteria thorax impact speed of 4.3 m/s, as system works well for pendulum type established the minimum and maximum compared to the 6.7 m/s impact speed impactors because the pendulum has deflection of the rib at each impact proposed in the NPRM for the ES–2re. approached a constant velocity at the speed. For each rib (upper, middle, and After reviewing the comments, NHTSA bottom of its swing at the point of lower rib), the proposed rib deflection has concluded that the impact severity contact. However, a vertical drop for the 3.0 m/s impact would be 36 to proposed in the NPRM was at too high (impactor) is still accelerating (at the 40 mm, and for the 4.0 m/s impact 46.0 a severity (being much higher than that instant it would pass through a to 51.0 mm. for other side impact dummy thoracic traditional speed measuring device).’’ The agency also explained that it was certifications). Thus, it would not be possible to considering, in addition to or in lieu of In response to the comments, the accurately measure speed at the instant the rib drop test, a test that addresses agency conducted a study to determine of impact in a drop test. the performance of the thorax of the the appropriate velocity for the test. The Agency Response: The agency agrees dummy as a complete system. The agency’s follow-on study is discussed in with the FTSS analysis. Specifying a agency developed a test in which the a technical report entitled, drop height facilitates the accuracy of thorax of a seated dummy is impacted ‘‘Development of a Reduced Severity the procedure. Section 572.185 of the by a pendulum at a specified impact Full-Body Thorax Certification regulatory text specifies that each rib is speed. The proposed procedure was Procedure and Response Requirements tested at two impactor drop heights, 815 described in a report entitled, for the ES–2re Dummy,’’ (December ±8 mm and 459 ±5 mm. ‘‘Development of a Full-Body Thorax 2005) (copy in the docket for this final iii. Recovery Time Between Certification Procedure and Preliminary rule, Docket 25441). Impact speeds of Successive Tests. The Alliance noted Response Requirements for the ES–2re 4.3 m/s, 5.0 m/s, 5.5 m/s and 6.0 m/s that the NPRM did not specify a Dummy, September 2004’’ (in Docket were evaluated. recovery time between successive rib 18864). A rib deflection range would be NHTSA has concluded from the test module drop tests. The Alliance specified as part of the test series and analysis that the appropriate recommended ‘‘adopting a five (5) requirements. The agency stated in the impact speed should be 5.5 m/s. minute rib module recovery time NPRM that a ‘‘systems’’ test of the Because the test is to assure the integrity between changes in velocity and a thirty thorax is used in calibration tests of all of the dummy’s thorax in the FMVSS (30) minute rib module recovery time frontal impact and side impact dummies No. 214 crash tests, the agency between velocity sequences (as are currently specified in 49 CFR part 572. determined that the test should use an called out in the ECE–R95 Regulation).’’ Autoliv, FTSS, and the Alliance impact speed that resulted in rib Agency Response: NHTSA agrees that preferred the individual rib drop deflections near the magnitude of the the test procedures should specify a certification tests and did not support proposed injury criteria for the ES–2re recovery time between tests. In the full-body thorax impact test. FTSS dummy (44 mm) in the FMVSS No. 214 conducting its own research to evaluate commented that the proposed 6.7 final rule. The test speed of 5.5 m/s the certification test procedures and meters per second (m/s) impact velocity resulted in peak displacements of 41.9 performance corridors, NHTSA allowed was ‘‘a severe test and the hard face of mm for the lower rib, 43.6 mm for the a five-minute recovery time between the pendulum is likely to reduce the middle rib, and 40.3 mm for the upper changes in velocity (drop height) when effective life of the foam material rib. Considering that the agency also testing a given rib module in a test bonded to the ribs.’’ FTSS sought to reduce the test severity from cycle. If a test cycle had to be repeated recommended that a more appropriate that which was proposed to a speed on a given rib module, a recovery time impact speed than the proposed 6.7 m/ comparable to that used in thorax of 30 (thirty) minutes was allowed s impact velocity would be in the range systems tests of other crash test between successive applications of the of 5.0 m/s to 6.0 m/s. FTSS also dummies, it was concluded that the rib test cycle. These provisions have been expressed concern that the systems test responses of the ES–2re were added to the rib module drop test could allow too much variation in satisfactorily close to the desired procedures.21 individual rib performance. ‘‘The displacement target. (The 5.5 m/s test individual rib could have differing speed reduced the kinetic energy 5. Lumbar Spine stiffnesses, but meet the specifications imparted to the dummy through the The lumbar spine test involves of the whole body test. This can result impactor by approximately 33 percent.) attaching a lumbar spine/headform in higher variability and limit the The 5.5 m/s speed also was within the assembly to the bottom of a pendulum accuracy of the ES–2re to discern local range suggested by FTSS in its and releasing the pendulum from a hard spots in the vehicle interior and comments to the NPRM. height sufficient to allow it to fall freely structure.’’ The Alliance stated that the We have also determined that the to achieve an impact velocity of individual rib drop test procedure ‘‘was thorax systems test should be in 6.05±0.1 m/s. (The headform is a well established and appropriate for addition to the individual rib module characterizing the performance of drop test. The individual rib module 21 We note that the proposed test procedures in individual rib modules.’’ drop test would be retained because, as the NPRM did not specify a recovery time for any successive tests with the same component, even Agency Response: NHTSA believes FTSS noted, the test could discern though recovery times are always employed in that a thorax systems test is important anomalies with individual ribs that the dummy test procedures. We have adopted a to assess that the final assembly of the thorax systems test might not detect. provision in section 572.189 of the regulatory text dummy is correct. The test procedures ii. Specifying Impact Speed in Rib of this final rule that states that certification tests of the same component, segment, assembly, or fully for the Hybrid III, SID, WorldSID, and Module Drop Test. The Alliance and assembled dummy shall be separated in time by a SID–IIs crash test dummies employ a FTSS expressed concern with specifying period of not less than 30 minutes unless otherwise thorax systems test, and so too should impact velocity as opposed to drop specified.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75320 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

convenient and available ballast from pendulum accelerometer output. The i. Response Corridors. The Alliance/ the neck pendulum test set-up to lumbar spine must meet specified limits SAE recommended adopting the evaluate the consistency of lumbar on the maximum lumbar spine flexion following criteria for the lumbar spine spine flexion properties.) The pendulum angle, time period in which maximum pendulum test in Table 5, ‘‘Suggested deceleration pulse is to be characterized lumbar flexion angle must occur, and Lumbar Response Criteria,’’ below (note: in terms of its change (decrease) in the time required for the lumbar flexion NPRM corridors are shown for velocity as obtained by integrating the angle to decay to zero after peak. comparison):

TABLE 5.—SUGGESTED LUMBAR RESPONSE CRITERIA

Criteria Alliance/SAE proposal NPRM

Max. Lumbar Flexion Angle ...... 45–55 deg ...... 45–55 deg. Time at Max. Flexion Angle ...... 39–53 ms ...... 39–53 ms. Time of Decay to Zero Angle from Peak ...... 37–56 ms ...... 40–65 ms.

Agency Response: The SAE DTESC peak angle to zero angle is revised from (section 572.187(b)(2) of the regulatory database includes 123 tests of necks the proposed 40–65 ms range to 37–57 text of this final rule). from both FTSS and Denton ATD. The ms. The limit of 37–57 ms agrees with 6. Shoulder agency data base has been expanded the limits derived by combining since the NPRM to at least 25 sets of response data from all dummies The impact test is performed on the certification tests (see Supplement to regardless of their make or test facility.22 shoulder area of a fully assembled, the Technical Report: Design, ii. Lumbar Cable Nut Adjustment. The seated dummy. A 49 CFR Part 572, Development, and Evaluation of the ES– Alliance noted that the NPRM did not Subpart E pendulum (23.4 kg) impacts 2re Crash Test Dummy, November 2005; specify how the lumbar cable nut is the dummy laterally (the dummy’s Docket 25441). adjusted, and recommended that a cable midsagittal plane is perpendicular to the The Alliance/SAE data appear to be adjustment procedure should be direction of impact). The impactor normally distributed and reflect specified since this is common practice swings freely to impact the dummy’s reasonably similar dispersions between for other dummy types that have neck upper arm pivot at a velocity of 4.3 m/ the two dummy makes, particularly for and lumbar components that contain a s. The shoulder passes the test if the the first two criteria (maximum lumbar cable and tensioning nut configuration. peak acceleration of the impactor is flexion angle and time of maximum Agency Response: The agency agrees between 7.5 and 10.5 g. lumbar flexion angle). The analysis of i. Shoulder Cord Tension. In its with the suggestion. Historically, it has these data confirmed a good match with comments, the Alliance stated that ‘‘the been common practice for NHTSA to the agency data and the proposed ECE–R95 regulation applies a 27.5 to specify torque requirements in 49 CFR performance corridors of 45–55 degrees 32.5 N chord tension specification for Part 572 for fasteners that may for maximum flexion angle and 39–53 the elastic shoulder cords. This setting potentially play a critical role in the ms for time at maximum flexion angle. should be included in the Part 572 test certification responses. The neck test On the other hand, the Alliance/SAE procedure since it is critical to the test.’’ procedures for the Hybrid III 50th data for time to decay from peak angle Agency Response: We have agreed to percentile male, 5th percentile adult to zero are somewhat separated in the recommendation, with modification. female, six-year-old child, and three- clusters: one for FTSS dummies being We conducted the shoulder impact test year-old child all contain adjustment shorter in time and the other for Denton using the proposed procedures, torque requirements for the cable nut. dummies being longer. The Alliance/ including the shoulder cord tension SAE suggested through the Alliance The agency has reviewed the ES–2 specification of 27.5 to 32.5 N. In our comment that a 37.1–55.8 ms decay User’s Manual provided by the assessment, one aspect of the ECE–95 time corridor was appropriate, based on manufacturer and which was used by regulation needed to be more objective. plus or minus two standard deviations VRTC in performing its evaluation of The October 1, 2004 revision of ECE– of the combined data sets. Analysis of the ES–2re states. The manual specifies R95 specifies in Section 5.7.1.: ‘‘The the agency’s enlarged data set, based on that ‘‘* * * the nut should be tightened length of the elastic cord should be two FTSS dummies, revealed that it hand tight and further tightened with adjusted so that a force between and matches nearly perfectly at +/¥3 two complete turns of the nut * * *.’’ including 27.5 and 32.5 N applied in a standard deviations the SAE DTESC Using this procedure, but adding to it to forward direction 4 +/¥1 mm from the suggested calibration corridor at the enhance its objectivity, we have outer edge of the clavicle in the same lower end of the limit (37 ms) and falls determined that the lumbar hex nut plane as the clavicle movement, is well within the corridor at the upper (part number 9000057) should be ¥ required to move the clavicle forward.’’ end at 46 ms. This dispersion confirmed tightened to a torque of 50 +/ 5 in-lbs. [Emphasis added.] We have modified the adequacy of the Alliance/SAE data We have added this specification to the the highlighted phrase to state: set for analysis of the FTSS dummy. test procedure for the lumbar spine test ‘‘***’’ is required to initiate a Inasmuch as the agency did not have forward motion of 1 to 5 mm.’’ The any Denton dummies to establish their 22 The NPRM had proposed to eliminate four of modified statement is more specific and the lumbar test response criteria used by the ECE dispersion range, it had to use the SAE regulations: peak fore pendulum base angle, peak objective. DTESC Denton-based data to establish aft pendulum base angle, and their respective times ii. Pendulum Configuration. FTSS the upper end of the corridor. Statistical at which the peak occurred. In proposing to commented that it does not recommend analysis of the Denton dummy data eliminate these requirements, NHTSA sought to the use of an 8-wire pendulum system simplify the certification requirements. NHTSA did revealed that its upper limit should to not receive any comments objecting to this for conducting the shoulder impact be set at 57 ms (56.8 ms rounded off). proposal. Accordingly, the approach of the NPRM certification test. FTSS stated, ‘‘We have In summary, time of decay criteria from is adopted. tested with both a 4-wire and 6-wire

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75321

pendulum suspension system, and did the pendulum’s impact face material as The abdomen impactor is the same as not measure a detectable difference (in ‘‘rigid.’’ specified in § 572.189(a) except that on its response). We do not recommend the FTSS commented that most dummy impact surface is firmly affixed a special use of an 8-wire system which over- labs use a bolt-on interface attached to purpose rectangular shaped block whose weight is 1.0 +/-0.01 kg. The block is 70 mm constrains the lateral motion of the the standard thorax pendulum. The high, 150 mm wide and 60 to 80 mm deep. pendulum which is a factor in the commenter stated that, to conform to the The impact surface is flat, has a minimum shoulder test.’’ weight specification for the pendulum, Rockwell hardness of M85, and an edge Agency Response: In the NPRM, it typically uses a material of lower radius of 4 to 5 mm. density than the aluminum used for the NHTSA provided specifications for the main pendulum. FTSS stated that it has 8. Pelvis impact probe’s mass, geometry, and observed differences in the pendulum This calibration test is performed on inertial properties and did not specify acceleration depending on the choice of a fully assembled, seated dummy. The the configuration of the suspension material used for the interface and dummy pelvis is impacted by the 49 cables. This final rule does not specify further believes a specification of CFR Part 572, Subpart E, 23.4 kg the configuration of the suspension ‘‘rigid’’ is too vague. FTSS pendulum at a velocity of 4.3 m/s. The cables because we do not believe that recommended that the agency specify NPRM proposed certain minimum and the configuration will affect the results the material for the abdomen probe face maximum limits on the impact force of the certification tests. The as ‘‘Delrin.’’ measured by the pendulum configuration of the suspension cables is Agency Response: We used the term accelerometer and on the pubic force not specified in other 49 CFR Part 572 ‘‘rigid’’ to describe the impactor face to measured by the dummy. test dummy regulations as the impactor specify a material that was harder than The Alliance commented on the 23 could also be a linear impact probe. that being struck (i.e., the dummy’s pelvis impact response corridors, 7. Abdomen abdomen). However, we concur that the recommending criteria for the pelvis impactor face should be more fully impact test based on SAE DTESC data This calibration test is performed on specified. NHTSA used a Delrin from 111 tests conducted with dummies a fully assembled, seated dummy. The impactor face to conduct the abdominal from both Denton ATD and FTSS. The abdomen has to meet performance tests. Rather than specifying a particular commenter suggested the following requirements when impacted laterally at brand of plastic or using the term criteria for the pelvis impact test in 4.0 m/s by a 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart ‘‘rigid’’ in describing the impactor face, Table 6, ‘‘Suggested Pelvis Response E, 23.4 kg pendulum. Figure U5–A of this impactor is characterized in this Criteria,’’ below (note: NPRM corridors the proposed regulatory text described rule in the following manner. are shown for comparison):

TABLE 6.—SUGGESTED PELVIS RESPONSE CRITERIA

Criteria Alliance proposal NPRM

Max. Impactor Force ...... 4.7–5.4 kN ...... 4.8–5.5 kN. Time at Max Impactor Force ...... 11.8–16.1 ms ...... 10.3–15.5 ms. Peak Pubic Symphysis Load ...... 1.23–1.59 kN ...... 1.31–1.49 kN. Time at Peak Pubic Symphysis Load ...... 12.2–17.0 ms ...... 9.9–15.9 ms.

Agency Response: The SAE DTESC probe used in the shoulder, abdomen, typically part of the regulations for test data appear to be normally distributed. and pelvis impacts, as follows: dummies adopted in recent years (e.g., Because the data are evenly distributed, • Mass moment of inertia shall be 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O, Hybrid III and given that the Alliance/SAE’s greater than 9000 kg-cm2 5th Percentile female frontal test suggested corridors are based on a more • Natural frequency shall be greater dummy). Including the weight of 1⁄3 of statistically significant sample size and than 1000 Hz the suspension cables prevents the use • wider impact speed distribution than The weight of 1/3 of the suspension of unusually heavy suspension cables, that used for the NPRM, the agency cables should be added to the pendulum which could affect the response of the agrees that the Alliance proposal reflects weight dummy. The last provision will help • Cable attachment hardware should a more representative response of a eliminate a potential source of not exceed 5% of the total pendulum broader dummy population. variability. We have clarified in the weight Accordingly, the Alliance’s suggested regulatory text (§ 572.189(a)) that ‘‘No • Suspension cables shall not suspension hardware, suspension corridors are incorporated into this final interfere with the dummy during the cables, or any other attachments to the rule. Review of the NHTSA data used to test probe, including the velocity vane, shall support the NPRM corridors indicates Agency Response: The suggested make contact with the dummy during that all responses would meet the specifications for mass moment of the test.’’ commenter’s suggested corridors. inertia and natural frequency were ii. Pelvis and Abdomen Pendulum 9. Other Issues proposed in § 572.189(a) of the NPRM Filter Requirements. Section and are adopted in this final rule. 572.189(k)(1) specified using an SAE i. Test Probe Suspension Cables and NHTSA agrees with adding the latter J211 CFC 60 filter for the pendulum Attachments. FTSS recommends adding suggested specifications. As noted by acceleration of the pelvis impact test. additional specifications to the test the commenter, the provisions are The correct specification is to a CFC 180

23 It is noted that, in response to a comment from suspension cables and specifies that the weight of total impactor mass. These specifications and others FTSS, this final rule limits the overall weight of the the suspension cables is included in calculating the are discussed in section IV.h.9 of this preamble.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75322 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

filter. NHTSA used a CFC 180 filter for plastic materials used within the in different loading conditions with the pendulum acceleration of the pelvis dummy. respect to the injury assessment impact test. This final rule makes the The Alliance found the proposal to be reference values (IARV) proposed in the correction. acceptable. No commenter opposed it. May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. iii. Temperature. The NPRM Accordingly, this final rule adopts the 214, to assess the dummies’ durability, explained that, while the 18° C to 26° specification. and to investigate the crashworthiness C (64.4° F to 71.6° F) temperature range characteristics of a broad range of fleet V. NHTSA Crash Test Experience is specified for the EuroSID–1 by EU in vehicles. The series consisted of 96/27/EC and for the ES–2 by EEVC in The agency conducted a series of fourteen FMVSS No. 214 vehicle-to-pole EuroNCAP side impact tests, NHTSA vehicle crash tests utilizing a broad tests and seven moving deformable tentatively concluded that the ES–2re’s variety of passenger vehicles. The test barrier (MDB) tests. In the MDB tests, temperature at the time of calibration, program method and results are ES–2re dummies were seated in both sled and full scale crash tests be in the discussed in detail in a technical report the driver and rear passenger positions, range of 20.6° C to 22.2° C (69° F to 72° entitled, ‘‘NHTSA Fleet Testing for resulting in 14 total MDB exposures F). This temperature range is specified FMVSS 214 Upgrade, MY 2004–2005, with ES–2re dummies. for all NHTSA Hybrid III series and SID/ January 2006,’’ which has been placed Each dummy was instrumented with HIII dummies, and, NHTSA stated, in the docket for the final rule published load cells, accelerometers, and reduces the variability of the dummy’s today (Docket 25441). potentiometers as listed in Table 7, impact response due to temperature The objectives of the test program ‘‘Instrumentation and Filter Classes,’’ sensitivity of damping and rubber and were to evaluate the dummy’s responses below.

TABLE 7.—INSTRUMENTATION AND FILTER CLASSES

Total chan- Location Type instrument Measurement Direction CFC nels

Head (9-array) ...... accelerometers ...... Acceleration ...... X, Y, Z ...... 1000 9 Upper Neck ...... load cell ...... Force ...... X, Y, Z ...... 1000 3 Moment ...... X, Y, Z ...... 600 3 Lower Neck ...... load cell ...... Force ...... X, Y, Z ...... 1000 3 Moment ...... X, Y, Z ...... 600 3 Shoulder ...... load cell ...... Force ...... X, Y, Z ...... 600 3 Upper Spine (T01) ...... accelerometers ...... Acceleration ...... X, Y, Z ...... 180 3 Lower Spine (T12) ...... accelerometers ...... Acceleration ...... X, Y, Z ...... 180 3 Ribs (upper, middle, lower) ...... potentiometers ...... Displacement ...... Y ...... 180 3 accelerometers ...... Acceleration ...... Y ...... 180 3 Back Plate ...... load cell ...... Force ...... X, Y ...... 600 2 Moment ...... Y, Z ...... 600 2 T–12 ...... load cell ...... Force ...... X, Y ...... 600 2 Moment ...... X, Y ...... 600 2 Lumbar ...... load cell ...... Force ...... Y, Z ...... 600 2 Moment ...... X ...... 600 1 Abdomen (front, middle, rear) .. load cell ...... Force ...... Y ...... 600 3 Pubic Symphysis ...... load cell ...... Force ...... Y ...... 600 1 Pelvis ...... accelerometers ...... Acceleration ...... X, Y, Z ...... 1000 3 Femurs, Left and Right ...... load cell ...... Force ...... X, Y, Z ...... 600 3 Moment ...... X, Y, Z ...... 600 3

Table 8, ‘‘Full Scale Vehicle Test noted. Vehicles were selected to reflect deployed manually in the second test Matrix,’’ below, describes the vehicle a broad range of sizes and masses. Note (denoted as Dodge 2500–B). test matrix. All vehicles were 2005 that the Dodge 2500 Ram Pickup test model year versions, unless otherwise was repeated, with the air bag being

TABLE 8.—FULL-SCALE VEHICLE TEST MATRIX

Vehicle Side air bag type 1 Oblique pole MDB

Toyota Corolla ...... C + T ...... √ √ VW Jetta ...... C +T ...... √ √ Saturn Ion ...... C ...... √ √ Honda Accord (MY 2004) ...... C +T ...... √ √ VW Beetle Convertible ...... H + T ...... √ ...... Saab 9–3 Convertible ...... H + T ...... √ ...... Ford 500 ...... C + T ...... √ √ Toyota Sienna (MY 2004) ...... C + T ...... √ ...... Subaru Forester ...... H + T ...... √ √ Honda CRV ...... C + T ...... √ √ Chevy Colorado ...... C ...... √ ...... Ford Expedition ...... C ...... √ ...... Dodge 2500–A ...... C ...... √ ......

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75323

TABLE 8.—FULL-SCALE VEHICLE TEST MATRIX—Continued

Vehicle Side air bag type 1 Oblique pole MDB

Dodge 2500–B ...... C ...... √ ...... 1 Side Air Bag Types: C = Curtain; H = Head; T = Torso

a. MDB Tests The ES–2re’s rib deflection response d. Torso Back Plate Responses Seven vehicles were tested in the exceeded the proposed limit in seven of the tests (Toyota Corolla, Saturn Ion, Another area of concern with the ES– FMVSS No. 214 MDB test mode with 2 dummy configuration was that of the one ES–2re dummy seated in the Honda CRV, Chevy Colorado, Dodge torso back plate interacting with the driver’s position and one in the left rear 2500–A and B, and Toyota Sienna) and vehicle seat frame. When this occurred, passenger’s position. All of the was greater than 80 percent of the measured responses for both the driver proposed limit in five other tests (VW loads were transferred directly to the and rear occupant were below the Jetta, VW Beetle, Saab 9–3, Ford 500, spine, preventing the load from being proposed IARV limits. Only two and Subaru Forester). applied laterally to the rib cage, and thus potentially reducing the rib measurements, rib deflection of the The ES–2re’s total abdomen force driver in the Honda CRV and Honda displacements. This undesirable feature exceeded the proposed limit in four is referred to as ‘‘back plate grabbing.’’ Accord, were greater than 80 percent of tests (Ford 500, Chevy Colorado, Dodge the proposed limits. The rib extensions and narrow, curved 2500–B, and Ford Expedition). back plate of the ES–2re were designed b. Oblique Pole Tests c. Rib Responses to address this issue. Fourteen vehicles were tested in the In order to assess back plate-to-seat The rib module design incorporated proposed FMVSS 214 oblique pole back interaction in the crash tests, torso impact mode. For this test, the ES–2re into the ES–2re was developed in back plate responses were monitored. A dummy is seated in the driver’s position response to concerns over of the large positive y-component of the back with the seat in mid-position and the EuroSID and ES–2 dummy’s ribs plate force indicates that the back plate dummy’s head CG aligned with the binding. The rib binding was previously was experiencing a laterally inboard- center of the pole. observed as a plateau in the rib’s directed force due to back plate-to-seat The HIC36 measurement exceeded the displacement-time history at peak proposed limits in two of the tests back interaction. In previous agency deflection and has been referred to as crash testing with the ES–2 (without rib (Subaru Forester and Dodge 2500–A) ‘‘flat-topping.’’ The concern with rib and was greater than 80 percent of the extensions and narrow back plate) in flat-topping is that it would limit the which back plate-to-seat back proposed limit in another (Saturn Ion). ribs from full compression even under In the Subaru test, the air bag deployed interaction was observed, positive y- large loading conditions. but the head portion of the bag was component back plate loads in the range directed towards the rear of the dummy The rib response curves for all of the of 5,000–12,000 N were recorded. Table and offered minimal protection to the MDB and oblique pole impacts tests 9, ‘‘Peak Positive Lateral Back Plate dummy’s head. In the Dodge 2500–A were analyzed to determine if any rib Loads,’’ below, summarizes the peak test, the air bag did not deploy; the test flat-topping occurred. There was no positive y-component of the back plate was subsequently repeated and the evidence of rib flat-topping in the test loads for the MDB and oblique pole curtain air bag was manually deployed. series.24 tests.

TABLE 9.—PEAK POSITIVE LATERAL BACK PLATE LOADS

Positive Y-Component of Back Plate Load (N) Vehicle Oblique Pole MDB Driver Driver Passenger

Toyota Corolla ...... 78 65 16 VW Jetta ...... 81 62 80 Saturn Ion ...... 226 158 105 VW Beetle Convertible ...... 32 ...... Saab 9–3 Convertible ...... 71 ...... Ford 500 ...... 41 118 4 Subaru Forrester ...... 61 64 59 Honda CRV ...... 588 203 29 Chevy Colorado ...... 108 ...... Ford Expedition ...... 20 ...... Dodge 2500–A ...... 114 ...... Dodge 2500–B ...... 32 ...... Honda Accord ...... 51 182 40

24 Non-normal rib deflection responses were rib potentiometers with a reduction in the amount travel to 48–50 mm of displacement. Deflection noted in the Saturn Ion pole test. However, it was of available displacement. When assembled measurements up to 48–50 mm were still accurate subsequently determined that the rib properly, the pots can provide 60 mm of free travel, for this test. potentiometers had been incorrectly installed in the whereas post-test inspection of the dummy dummy’s rib modules. This assembly error left the indicated the assembly error had reduced the free

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 9.—PEAK POSITIVE LATERAL BACK PLATE LOADS—Continued

Positive Y-Component of Back Plate Load (N) Vehicle Oblique Pole MDB Driver Driver Passenger

Toyota Sienna ...... 103 ......

As Table 9 indicates, the magnitude of Rulemaking Analyses and Notices economic impact on a substantial the peak positive lateral back plate loads number of small entities. The Small Executive Order 12866 and DOT was very low and indicates that back Business Administration’s regulations at Regulatory Policies and Procedures plate grabbing did not occur. 13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory in part, as a business entity ‘‘which e. Durability Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, operates primarily within the United As discussed above in section IV of October 4, 1993), provides for making States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). this preamble, no significant durability determinations whether a regulatory We have considered the effects of this problems were observed with the ES– action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore rulemaking under the Regulatory 2re dummies used in the NHTSA crash subject to Office of Management and Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this tests. Budget (OMB) review and to the rulemaking action will not have a In conclusion, the ES–2re dummy requirements of the Executive Order. significant economic impact on a performed in a satisfactory manner and This rulemaking action was not substantial number of small entities. demonstrated its usefulness as a test considered a significant regulatory This action will not have a significant instrument in actual FMVSS No. 214 action under Executive Order 12866. economic impact on a substantial testing. This rulemaking action was also number of small entities because the determined not to be significant under addition of the test dummy to Part 572 VI. Conclusions the Department of Transportation’s will not impose any requirements on For the aforementioned reasons, (DOT’s) regulatory policies and anyone. NHTSA will not require anyone NHTSA has decided to amend 49 CFR procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, to manufacture the dummy or to test Part 572 by adding design and 1979). The cost of an uninstrumented vehicles with it. performance specifications for the ES– ES–2re is in the range of $54–57,000. National Environmental Policy Act 2re 50th percentile adult male side Instrumentation adds approximately NHTSA has analyzed this final rule impact dummy. The improved $43–47,000 for minimum requirements for the purposes of the National biofidelity and injury assessment and approximately $80–84,000 for Environmental Policy Act and capability of the ES–2re over other maximum instrumentation to the cost of determined that it will not have any commercially available test dummies the dummy. significant impact on the quality of the will enhance the assessment of the risk This document amends 49 CFR Part human environment. of injury in side impacts over that 572 by adding design and performance previously possible, particularly in side specifications for a 50th percentile adult Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) crashes involving the possibility of head male side impact dummy that the Executive Order 13132 requires or abdominal injury. Further, adopting agency will use in research and in agencies to develop an accountable the ES–2re into 49 CFR Part 572 is a compliance tests of the Federal side process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and step toward harmonizing our impact protection safety standards. This timely input by State and local officials regulations internationally. The 49 CFR Part 572 final rule does not in the development of regulatory European New Car Assessment Program impose any requirements on anyone. policies that have federalism (EuroNCAP) on side impact uses the Businesses would be affected only if implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have ES–2 dummy with the injury criteria they choose to manufacture or test with federalism implications’’ is defined in specified in EU 96/27/EC. The agency is the dummy. Because the economic the Executive Order to include also cognizant of the efforts of the safety impacts of this final rule are minimal, regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct community to complete the evaluation no further regulatory evaluation is effects on the States, on the relationship of the WorldSID for side impact necessary. between the national government and evaluation. By adopting the ES–2re at Regulatory Flexibility Act the States, or on the distribution of the present time, the agency is not power and responsibilities among the precluding the incorporation of the Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility various levels of government.’’ WorldSID dummy. Furthermore, the Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by NHTSA has analyzed this amendment agency is participating in the the Small Business Regulatory in accordance with the principles and WorldSID’s evaluation, and is Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of criteria set forth in Executive Order committed to proposing the 1996), whenever an agency is required 13132. The agency has determined that incorporation of harmonized 5th and to publish a proposed or final rule, it this final rule does not have sufficient 50th percentile dummies into the must prepare and make available for federalism implications to warrant standard when the dummy development public comment a regulatory flexibility consultation and the preparation of a and evaluation are complete. analysis that describes the effect of the Federalism Assessment. Nonetheless, today’s final rule ensures rule on small entities (i.e., small that the important gains in occupant businesses, small organizations, and Civil Justice Reform protection that can be achieved by the small governmental jurisdictions), This final rule would not have any ES–2re will not be delayed or lost unless the head of the agency certifies retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. pending completion of that evaluation. the rule will not have a significant 30103, whenever a Federal motor

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75325

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a proposed or final rules that include a Agenda in April and October of each State may not adopt or maintain a safety Federal mandate likely to result in the year. You may use the RIN contained in standard applicable to the same aspect expenditure by State, local, or tribal the heading at the beginning of this of performance which is not identical to governments, in the aggregate, or by the document to find this action in the the Federal standard, except to the private sector, of more than $100 Unified Agenda. extent that the state requirement million annually (adjusted for inflation Appendix A to Final Rule Preamble: imposes a higher level of performance with base year of 1995). Before Specific Drawing Comments and and applies only to vehicles procured promulgating a NHTSA rule for which Agency Responses to Those Comments for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets a written statement is needed, section forth a procedure for judicial review of 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Drawing 175–0000, Sheet 2, EuroSID 2 final rules establishing, amending, or agency to identify and consider a With Rib Extensions revoking Federal motor vehicle safety reasonable number of regulatory Issue: With regard to the center of standards. That section does not require alternatives and adopt the least costly, gravity table for the head, the vertical submission of a petition for most cost-effective, or least burdensome CG direction is incorrectly specified. reconsideration or other administrative alternative that achieves the objectives FTSS recommends that ‘‘Y’’ be replaced proceedings before parties may file suit of the rule. with ‘‘Z.’’ in court. This final rule will not impose any Analysis and Response: FTSS has unfunded mandates under the UMRA. Paperwork Reduction Act correctly identified a minor error in This rule does not meet the definition Under the Paperwork Reduction Act drawing 175–0000, sheet 2. The correct of a Federal mandate because it does not label is ‘‘Z.’’ of 1995, a person is not required to impose requirements on anyone. It respond to a collection of information NHTSA has modified drawing amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding number 175–0000, sheet 2 by changing by a Federal agency unless the design and performance specifications collection displays a valid control the label for the head CG from ‘‘Y’’ to for a side impact dummy that the ‘‘Z.’’ number from the Office of Management agency will use to evaluate and Budget (OMB). This final rule does manufacturers’ compliance with Drawing 175–0000, Sheet 2, EuroSID 2 not have any requirements that are applicable Federal safety standards and With Rib Extensions considered to be information collection for research purposes. This rule affects Issue: DATD stated that for the requirements as defined by the OMB in only those businesses that choose to Assembly Weights table, the sum of the 5 CFR Part 1320. manufacture or test with the dummy. It individual segments does not equal the National Technology Transfer and does not result in costs of $100 million total weight shown in the table. Advancement Act or more to either State, local, or tribal Analysis and Response: There is an governments, in the aggregate, or to the error in the table. The correct total Section 12(d) of the National private sector. Technology Transfer and Advancement dummy weight should be 72.4 kg. This Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– Plain Language error was also present in the PADI and 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) has been corrected in that document Executive Order 12866 requires each also. directs NHTSA to use voluntary agency to write all rules in plain NHTSA has modified drawing 175– consensus standards in its regulatory language. Application of the principles 0000, sheet 2, and Table 9.1 of the PADI activities unless doing so would be of plain language includes consideration to reflect the correct total mass of 72.4 inconsistent with applicable law or of the following questions: otherwise impractical. Voluntary kg. —Has the agency organized the material consensus standards are technical to suit the public’s needs? Drawing 175–0000, Sheet 4, EuroSID 2 standards (e.g., materials specifications, —Are the requirements in the rule With Rib Extensions test methods, sampling procedures, and clearly stated? business practices) that are developed or Issue: DATD stated that in views A– —Does the rule contain technical adopted by voluntary consensus A and D–D, there is no call-out provided language or jargon that is not clear? standards bodies, such as the Society of for the fasteners to be used. —Would a different format (grouping Automotive Engineers (SAE). The Analysis and Response: Denton’s and order of sections, use of headings, NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, comments are accurate. Adding paragraphing) make the rule easier to through OMB, explanations when we identification to the accelerometer understand? decide not to use available and screws would improve the quality of the —Would more (but shorter) sections be applicable voluntary consensus drawing. better? standards. NHTSA has modified drawing 175– The following voluntary consensus —Could the agency improve clarity by 0000, sheet 4. In views A–A and D–D, standards have been used in developing adding tables, lists, or diagrams? add balloon callouts (Item 16) for the the ES–2re dummy: —What else could the agency do to accelerometer mounting screws. We • SAE Recommended Practice J211, make this rule easier to understand? have modified the parts list to reflect a Rev. Mar95 ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact If you have any responses to these quantity of 30 for item 16. In addition, Test’’ and questions, please write to us about it is noted that the part number for item • SAE J1733 of 1994–12, ‘‘Sign them. 18 is missing. We have modified the parts list to indicate a part number of Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing.’’ Regulation Identifier Number 500025 for item 18. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department of Transportation Section 202 of the Unfunded assigns a regulation identifier number Drawing 175–1000, Head Assembly Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in Issue: DATD stated that the reference Pub. L. 104–4, Federal requires agencies the Unified Agenda of Federal line for the z-position of the center of to prepare a written assessment of the Regulations. The Regulatory Information gravity (CG) should be in line with the costs, benefits, and other effects of Service Center publishes the Unified aluminum skull instead of the skin.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75326 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Analysis and Recommendation: diameter of the upper neck load cell Drawing 175–2002, Neck Intermediate Denton’s comments are correct. The structural replacement. The slight Plate reference line should be even with the increase in tolerance proposed by FTSS aluminum skull casting. will not result in any detrimental Issue: FTSS claims that the 6 NHTSA has modified drawing 175– effects. Furthermore, this part is dimension should be 6.0 and contends 1000 by moving the reference line for assembled to part number 175–1012, that note 2 is unnecessary and should be the z-position of the CG from the surface Middle Plate UNLC Blank, to form the removed. of the skin to the surface of the skull upper neck load cell structural Analysis and Response: The casting. replacement. The outer diameter of the dimension in question is a feature in the middle plate (¥1012) is specified at neck assembly into which one end of Drawing 175–1010, Upper Neck Load the neck buffer is inserted. A zero- Cell Structural Replacement 88.9. Thus, it is consistent to specify the mating component, the top plate decimal dimension carries with it a Issue: FTSS claims that the 2.53 (¥1011), similarly. tolerance of +/¥0.5 mm. This tolerance dimension for the dowel pin installation NHTSA has modified drawing is too large to ensure proper retention of height results in an unnecessarily tight number 175–1011 by changing the 88.90 the neck buffer. Additionally, the other tolerance. FTSS recommends using a dimension to 88.9. end of the neck buffer is inserted into one-decimal dimension of 2.5. the Neck Head and Torso Interface Plate Analysis and Response: As shown on Drawing 175–1012, Middle Plate UNLC (175–2003), which specifies the drawing 175–1010, a two-decimal Blank corresponding feature at 6.0. Thus, to dimension carries a tolerance of +/ Issue: FTSS claims the 6.97 and 17.24 maintain consistency with drawing ¥0.05 mm, whereas a one-decimal 175–2003, the dimension should be dimension has a tolerance of +/¥0.1 dimensions are unnecessarily tight. FTSS recommends using one-decimal changed to 6.0 on drawing 175–2002. mm. The dowel pins are used to locate Note 2 states ‘‘Thread to conform to the head accelerometer mount and the dimensions for each of these items: 7.0 and 17.2. BS3643 & must be clear & free running.’’ slight increase in tolerance for their The only feature of the part which installation height will not result in any Analysis and Response: As shown on contains screw threads is the M12 detrimental effects. drawing 175–1012, a two-decimal Helicoil which is inserted into the NHTSA has modified drawing dimension carries a tolerance of +/ center of the plate. Since a Helicoil is a number 175–1010 by changing the 2.53 ¥0.05 mm, whereas a one-decimal ¥ purchased part which already contains dimension to 2.5. dimension has a tolerance of +/ 0.1 threads, note 2 is essentially redundant. mm. The dimensions in questions Drawing 175–1010, Upper Neck Load specify the height, or thickness, of the NHTSA has modified drawing 175– Cell Replacement plate. The minor changes suggested to 2002 by changing the 6 dimension to 6.0 Issue: As presently specified, the the nominal thickness dimensions will and by removing note 2. upper neck load cell replacement have virtually no effect on the fit or Drawing 175–2003, Plate, Neck Head consists of three primary components: external dummy dimensions. and Torso Interface the upper, middle, and lower blanks. Additionally, the thickness of the Top Denton ATD has requested an optional Plate UNLC Blank (175–1011) is Issue: FTSS claims that the 84.00 construction method whereby the part dimensioned using one-decimal dimension is unnecessarily tight and could be made as a one-piece unit. dimensions, thus modifying 175–1012 should be changed to 84.0. Analysis and Response: Technically, will maintain consistency with the other Analysis and Response: The there is no reason why the part could components in the UNLC Blank dimension in question defines the outer not be constructed as a one-piece unit Assembly. diameter of the component. The slight as long as the dimensional, mass, and NHTSA has modified drawing 175– increase in the tolerance will not result inertial properties are maintained 1012 by changing the 6.97 and 17.24 in any detrimental effects. equivalent to those of the originally dimensions to 7.0 and 17.2, NHTSA has modified drawing specified three-piece unit. Denton ATD respectively. number 175–2003 by changing the 84.00 did not provide any data to substantiate dimension to 84.0 that the mass and inertial properties are Drawing 175–1013, Bottom Plate UNLC indeed equivalent to the three-piece Blank Drawings 175–2010–1, –2015–1, and unit. In the absence of such data, and –2020–1, Neck Buffer Molded Shore Issue: FTSS claims that the 3.50, 0.50, 60/70/80 A considering the late date of the and 6.40 dimensions are unnecessarily comment submission, it is not possible tight. FTSS recommends using one- Issue: Each of the three prints for NHTSA to determine if a one-piece decimal dimensions for each of these specifies a durometer tolerance of +/¥2. construction would provide equivalent items. Denton ATD claims that such a performance. tolerance is impractically tight and does NHTSA has denied this request to Analysis and Response: As shown on drawing 175–1013, a two-decimal not follow industry standard practice. allow an optional construction method ¥ dimension carries a tolerance of +/ DATD recommends a tolerance of +/ 5. for a one-piece unit of part number 175– ¥ 1010. 0.05 mm, whereas a one-decimal Analysis and Response: A durometer dimension has a tolerance of +/¥0.1 tolerance of +/¥2 is not practical given Drawing 175–1011, Top Plate Upper mm. The dimensions in question define the expected variation typically Neck Load Cell Blank a clearance hole and countersink feature associated with durometer Issue: FTSS claims that the 88.90 and thus do not require high-precision measurement. The complicated shape of dimension is unnecessarily tight. FTSS tolerances. the buffer exacerbates this situation. A ¥ recommends using a one-decimal NHTSA has modified drawing tolerance of +/ 5 is more practicable. dimension of 88.9. number 175–1013 by changing the 3.50, NHTSA has modified drawings 175– Analysis and Response: The 0.50, and 6.40 dimensions to 3.5, 0.5, 2010–1, –2015–1, and –2020–1 to reflect dimension in question defines the outer and 6.4. a durometer tolerance of +/¥5.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75327

Drawing 175–3000, Shoulder Assembly drawing does not actually ‘‘show’’ tolerance is necessary. However, review Issue: FTSS claimed that Item 17, Part where the clavicle is to be scratched. of other spring drawings and research of Number 5000008 is incorrect and The intention of the note is to prepare typical spring rate tolerances used in should be replaced with Part Number the mating surfaces of the clavicle and other industries suggests that a tolerance the buffer to be bonded together, thus of +/¥3% is too restrictive. A more 5000014, Screw, SHCS M6 x 1 x 35. ¥ Analysis and Response: Drawing 175– ensuring a durable bond. However, the realistic tolerance would be +/ 10%. 3000, as issued with the NPRM, proposed language of the note could be Additionally, the spring rate tolerance specifies Item 17, Screw, SHCS M6 x 1 improved. does not supersede the certification x 30. FTSS contends that the longer 35 NHTSA has modified drawing 175– requirements in the rib drop test and mm screw will provide proper thread 3016 by adding the following note: therefore adding such a tolerance to the engagement. NHTSA agrees that the ‘‘Prepare the mating surfaces of the print will have no effect on the longer screw will improve thread clavicle (item #1) and buffer pad (item functionality of the rib modules. With #2) by lightly abrading them with P60 regard to the dimensional tolerance, engagement and does not foresee any ¥ interference problem that would result grit sandpaper.’’ NHTSA agrees that +/ 1 mm on all from using a longer, 35 mm screw. dimensions is reasonable and Drawing 175–3017, Shoulder Cam practicable. NHTSA has modified drawing Clavicle number 175–3000, replacing Part NHTSA has modified drawing 175– Issue: FTSS proposes the following 4040 by adding the following note: Number 5000008 with Part Number ¥ ¥ 5000014, Screw, SHCS M6 x 1 x 35. changes: dimension 25.00 +0/ .25 ‘‘Spring rate tolerance: +/ 1.6 N/mm.’’ should be 24.7 +/¥0.3; dimension 6.0 We have modified drawing 175–4041 by Drawing 175–3003, Shoulder U Spring should be 5.8 +/¥0.3; dimension 13.0 adding the following note: ‘‘Spring rate ¥ Issue: FTSS recommends adding a should be 13.0 +/¥0.2; and dimension tolerance: +/ 1.4 N/mm.’’ We have note stating: ‘‘Heat Treat: Harden and 4.6 is unclear and unnecessary. modified drawing 175–4042 by adding Temper to HRC 47 +/¥2.’’ Analysis and Response: The shoulder the following note: ‘‘Spring rate Analysis and Response: As issued cam clavicle is a plastic molded part tolerance: +/¥1.9 N/mm.’’ Also, we with the NPRM, drawing 175–3003 does and therefore tight tolerances are harder have modified all three drawings to not contain any notes regarding heat to maintain. The changes proposed by reflect a tolerance of +/¥1 mm for all treat requirements. Inclusion of the FTSS will relax the tolerances but will dimensions. proposed note would help to provide not affect the functional performance of Drawings 175–4040, 175–4041, and 175– guidance, ensuring proper function of the parts. Also, the 4.6 dimension has 4042, Damper Springs the unit. no landmark or reference point and NHTSA has modified drawing 175– therefore it should be eliminated, as Issue: FTSS proposes the inclusion of 3003 by adding the note ‘‘Heat Treat: suggested by FTSS. three additional springs with different Harden and Temper to HRC 47 +/¥2.’’ NHTSA has modified drawing 175– stiffness for rib module tuning. To 3017 as follows: changed dimension simplify the drawings, FTSS proposes Drawing 175–3011, Cam Buffer Pad 25.00 +0/¥0.25 to 24.7 +/¥0.3; the elimination of drawings 175–4041 Issue: FTSS claims that the 5.0 hole changed dimension 13.0 to 13.0 +/¥0.2; and 175–4042 and the modification of requires a dimension to define its changed dimension 6.0 to 5.8 +/¥0.3; drawing 175–4040 to add three distance from the vertical edge of the and deleted the 4.6 dimension. additional damper return springs of part and recommends a requirement of varying stiffness (17.7, 20.3, and 21.6 N/ Drawings 175–4011, –4012, –4013, and 4.1. mm) to offer additional tuning Analysis and Response: As currently –4014, Linear Rib Guide Assembly flexibility. shown in drawing 175–3011, the Issue: As currently specified, all of the Analysis and Response: The ES–2re distance between the two 5.0 holes is dimensions on these parts are reference dummy’s thorax response is primarily defined, however, their distance from dimensions. Denton ATD suggests controlled by its three rib modules. Each the edge is not adequately specified. removing the parentheses around the rib module contains three components FTSS is correct in pointing out the need dimensions, making them required that influence their response: The for a dimension to specify the location dimensions. damper, the stiff damper spring, and the of the holes with respect to the edge of Analysis and Response: DATD is damper return spring. The rib modules’ the unit. correct in noting that the dimensions performances are individually verified NHTSA has modified drawing 175– should be required dimensions. by conducting the rib module 3011 by adding a 4.1 dimension to NHTSA has modified drawings 175– certification test. The current drawing specify the location of the hole relative 4011, –4012, –4013, and –4014 by package specifies three damper return to the vertical edge of the unit. removing the parentheses, thereby springs of varying stiffness: 13.8, 16.4, making all of the dimensions required and 19.0 N/mm. Dummy users are given Drawing 175–3016, Shoulder Cam dimensions. the option of using any of the three Clavicle Assembly springs as long as the rib modules meet Issue: FTSS proposes that the note Drawings 175–4040, –4041, and –4042, the certification requirements specified should be corrected as follows: ‘‘Scratch Springs in the rib module drop test. The various clavicle before bonding and rough Issue: As currently specified, the springs provide users with the ability to underside of buffer (item #2) 175–3011 drawings specify a spring rate for each change springs as necessary to meet the with P60 grade paper.’’ item, but do not provide any allowable certification response parameters. Analysis and Response: As issued in tolerance for the spring rate. DATD Each of the primary components of a the NPRM, the note on drawing 175– suggests that a tolerance of +/¥3% be rib module (the damper, the stiff 3016 states: ‘‘Scratch clavicle as shown applied to the spring rates. damper spring, and the damper return before bonding rough underside of Additionally, DATD suggests a tolerance spring) contributes significantly to the buffer (item #2) 175–3011 with P60 of +/¥1 mm on all dimensions. overall system performance. NHTSA has grade paper.’’ The FTSS proposal Analysis and Response: DATD is tested extensively with the three springs intends to clarify the note since the correct in noting that a spring rate that are presently specified in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75328 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

drawing package. However, NHTSA has Drawing 175–4052, Damper Bracket which describes the recommended no test experience with the three new Issue: FTSS proposes removing the corrections. Analysis and Response: The drawing springs proposed by FTSS. In order to note ‘‘Masking Before Painting.’’ submitted by FTSS provides additional determine the effect on the rib response Analysis and Response: The note is detail for fabricating the rib and of the three different springs proposed not critical to the fit or function of the therefore NHTSA must assume that by FTSS, NHTSA would need to part and removing it from the drawing FTSS intended to state that the undertake an extensive study involving will not compromise the performance of tolerance and bend angle are ‘‘under- the three primary components. For the dummy. example, it is entirely possible that a specified’’ as opposed to ‘‘over- NHTSA has modified drawing 175– stiffer spring, suggested by FTSS, could specified.’’ In the proposed drawing, 4052 to remove the note ‘‘Mask Before mask other deficiencies such as FTSS includes a dimension on the bend Painting.’’ unacceptable damper performance. angle (89.0 +1.5/¥1.0 degrees) and x- Given that FTSS’s comments were Drawing 175–4053, Damper and y-dimensions for mounting hole locations. The additional detail received by the agency well after the Issue: FTSS contends that the overall provided will help to assure that the rib published deadline for comments length dimension of 193 +/¥3 is can be reproduced by multiple (FTSS’s memo is dated Aug. 4, 2005) inaccurate and should be 195.7 +/¥3 manufacturers. and considering the extensive research Analysis and Response: NHTSA/ needed to qualify the performance of the NHTSA has modified drawing VRTC inspected the several typical number 175–4060 to incorporate the proposed springs, the agency is unable dampers and determined that the to concur with the suggested change. ¥ additional dimensions and tolerances proposed dimension of 195.7 +/ 3 is submitted by FTSS. Furthermore, FTSS did not provide any acceptable. However, it is noted that the supporting data to substantiate the use tolerance proposed should maintain Drawing 175–5501, Lumbar Spine, of the newly proposed springs. We do consistency with the nominal Molded not acknowledge a need for additional dimension in terms of the one-decimal Issue: FTSS claims to have studied ‘‘a optional rib module springs since the place call-out. three springs presently specified appear large sample of lumbar spines.’’ NHTSA has modified drawing 175– According to the claim, FTSS states that to provide sufficient flexibility. FTSS 4053 by changing the 193 +/¥3 failed to demonstrate that the proposed the statistical analysis suggests the dimension to 195.7 +/¥3.0, lumbar length should be 135 +/¥2 mm springs are necessary or that they would ¥ offer any additional benefits such as Drawing 175–4057, Damper Bracket instead of 136 +0/ 3 mm. Analysis and Response: The proposed improved durability, repeatability, or Clamp change would effectively change the biofidelity. Accordingly, NHTSA is Issue: FTSS proposes that the 16 and allowable lumbar length from 133–136 denying the request to incorporate three 8 dimensions should be 16.0 and 8.0. mm to 133–137 mm, thus allowing additional damping springs. Analysis and Response: The lumbar spines to be 1 mm longer. Drawing 175–4051, Damper Assembly dimensions in question specify the Review of the complete dummy’s clamp width and the location of a pair external dimensions (175–0000, sheet 3) Issue: The drawing presently specifies of through holes with respect to the indicates that only two dimensions that the damper body shall be welded to edge of the clamp. Changing the could potentially be affected by the the damper bracket. DATD expressed dimensions to one-decimal place proposed change: the sitting height and concern that the heat required to weld dimensions will reduce the allowable the seat to lower face of thoracic spine the two units together could lead to tolerance and ensure better box. However, it is noted that these damage of the damper and adversely reproducibility and fit. external dimensions have tolerances of affect its performance. NHTSA has modified drawing 175– +/¥9 mm and +/¥5 mm, respectively, Analysis and Response: It is not in 4057 by changing the 16 and 8 and therefore the proposed change NHTSA’s best interest to specify a dimensions to 16.0 and 8.0, would have little or no effect on the process that could potentially adversely respectively. ability of manufacturers to meet those affect the performance of the unit. On requirements. the other hand, there is no indication Drawing 175–4058, Damper Return Spring NHTSA has modified drawing 175– that the process has affected damper 5501 by changing the 136 +0/¥3 performance in the past and thus it Issue: DATD notes that the current dimension to 135 +/¥2. would not be proper to disallow the use drawing does not contain a tolerance for of a welding process to join the two the spring rate listed in note 2. DATD Drawings 175–6010 and –6002, Iliac units. Accordingly, it would be practical suggests a value of +/¥20%. Wing Assembly, Left and Right to allow manufacturers to decide for Analysis and Response: DATD is Issue: FTSS proposes changing the themselves what process provides the correct in noting that a tolerance on the 99.9 and 11.0 dimensions to 100 and 11, best performance. spring rate is needed. The respectively. FTSS also proposes that NHTSA has modified drawing 175– recommendation of +/¥20% is note 3 should be modified to read: ‘‘All 4051 by replacing the weld note with reasonable and practicable. Tolerance Other Than Mounting Hole the following text: ‘‘Attach item 1 and NHTSA has modified note 2 of Centers +/¥1.’’ 2 securely to attain structural integrity drawing 175–4058 by adding the Analysis and Response: The iliac of a monolithic body using appropriate tolerance ‘‘+/¥0.25 kN/m.’’ wing assembly is a plastic molded part mechanical method.’’ In addition, we and as such tolerances of +/¥0.1 are modified drawing 175–4053 by adding Drawing 175–4060, Rib, Rear Bracket, difficult to maintain. Therefore it is the following note: ‘‘External body of Rib Extension agreed that the 99.9 and 11.0 the damper may be threaded to achieve Issue: FTSS stated ‘‘the tolerance and dimensions can be changed to 100 and mechanical attachment with the the bend angle are over-specified such 11, thus allowing the tolerances on damping bracket as specified in 175– hat the part could not be made.’’ FTSS those dimensions to be +/¥0.5. With 4051.’’ provided a drawing in their submission regard to the note 3, it is not clear that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75329

note 3 is needed. There is only one modifying the drawing to allow a small Drawings 175–7090–1 and –2, Thigh dimension on the print, the 20.03 cut-out that would be used for Molded, Left and Right diameter, that is neither a reference accelerometer cable routing, reducing Issue: FTSS suggests adding a dimension nor the location of a hole the likelihood for pinching wires. reference dimension of 174 for the center. Therefore, it appears 3 can be Analysis and Response: DATD did not width of the thigh flesh. FTSS also removed. show that the current design leads to suggests changing Note 2 on drawing NHTSA has modified drawings 175– damaged accelerometer wires, therefore 175–7090–1 from ‘‘+/¥2 mm’’ to ‘‘+/¥3 6010 and –6002 to change the 99.9 and it does not seem necessary to require a mm’’ to be consistent with drawing 11.0 dimensions to 100 and 11, and has cut-out in the plate. However, the DATD number 175–7090–2. deleted note 3. suggestion is not unreasonable or Analysis and Response: As released Drawing 175–6012, Hip Pivot Pin impractical and thus it could be shown with the NPRM, there is no dimension as an optional configuration. Issue: FTSS proposes the elimination on the width of the thigh flesh. Because We have modified drawing 175–6041 of the 14.5 dimension and changing the the proposed dimension would only be to show an optional cut-out for 58 (reference) dimension to 58.0 +/ a reference value, the parts are not accelerometer cable routing. ¥0.2. strictly required to meet the dimension Analysis and Response: Changing the Drawings 175–7000–1 and –2, Leg and therefore the proposed change overall length dimension of 58 from a Assembly Left and Right would not necessarily affect existing or reference dimension to an inspection future parts. The dimension could be Issue: FTSS recommended that Item dimension of 58.0 +/¥0.2 eliminates useful to manufacturers as a reference 23, Part Number 9000296, Washer, the need for the 14.5 dimension. check. With regard to Note 2, all of the NHTSA has modified drawing 175– should be deleted. dimensions on both 175–7090–1 and –2 6012 by removing the 14.5 dimension Analysis and Response: FTSS has are reference dimensions. As such, the and changing the 58 dimension to 58.0 correctly pointed out an error in the parts are not strictly required to conform +/¥0.2. NHTSA drawing package. to the dimensional tolerances and We have deleted part number therefore changing the tolerance to +/ Drawings 175–6015 and –6020, Femur 9000296, Washer from drawings 175– ¥3 mm will have no effect. Buffer Assembly, Left and Right 7000–1 and –2. Furthermore, it is desirable to maintain Issue: The current print specifies that consistency with 175–7090–2. Drawings 175–7001–1 and –2 Lower Leg items 1 and 3 are attached using ‘‘Tape, NHTSA has modified drawings 175– Assembly Left and Right Acrylic, Double Sided.’’ DATD suggests 7090–1 and –2 to add a reference that ‘‘equivalent’’ materials be allowed Issue: FTSS stated that the flesh dimension of 174 for the width of the for the bonding process. component of the assembly should be thigh flesh, and has modified Note 2 of Analysis and Response: As previously specified as a separate item in the parts drawing 175–7090–1 to reflect a ¥ stated, the phrase ‘‘equivalent’’ is open list and identified as part numbers 175– tolerance of +/ 3 mm. to interpretation. However, it is not in 7003–1 and –2, Lower Leg Flesh, Left Drawing SA572–S29, Six Channel NHTSA’s best interest to maintain and Right, respectively. Femur Load Cell unnecessary material specifications. In Analysis and Response: NHTSA was Issue: The drawing specified by this instance, the double sided tape unaware that the leg flesh was available NHTSA in the NPRM is the same as that listed in item 2 of the part list could be as a separate part. Specifying the leg used for the femur load cell in the identified as ‘‘reference’’ and a note flesh as a separate part allows Hybrid III 5th female dummy. While the could be added stating ‘‘Attach items 1 consumers to purchase the lower leg ES–2re femur load cell is dimensionally and 3 securely using appropriate flesh separately, which is less expensive the same as that used in the 5th female, bonding method.’’ than purchasing the entire lower leg the weight of the load cell used in the NHTSA has modified drawings 175– assembly. 6015 and –6020 by adding the statement ES–2re is less. FTSS recommends NHTSA has incorporated drawings creating a new part number for the ES– ‘‘(reference)’’ to item 2 in the parts list. 175–7003–1 and –2, Lower Leg Flesh, We have also added the following note: 2re Six Channel Load Cell using the Left and Right, into the drawing same dimensional and functional ‘‘Attach items 1 and 3 securely using package. We have modified drawing appropriate bonding method.’’ specifications, except changing the 175–7001–1 and –2 to identify the 175– weight specification to 1.87 lb (0.85 kg) Drawing 175–6018, Plate, Femur Buffer 7003–1 and –2 as separate parts. max. In its comments, Denton ATD also Issue: FTSS proposes that the 8 and Drawing 175–7034, Foot Rib submitted that the load cell should have 3 dimensions should be 8.0 and 3.0, a weight of 1.87 lb (0.85 kg) max. Issue: FTSS stated that the 5/16″ respectively. Analysis and Response: NHTSA Analysis and Response: The subject cutout feature has been eliminated from inspected the load cells used in their item is part of an assembly used in the the design and should be removed from evaluations of the ES–2re dummy. It upper femur. Tightening the tolerances the drawing. was determined that the load cells were, ″ as FTSS proposes will help to ensure a Analysis and Response: The 5/16 indeed, lighter than those specified for good match between mating parts in the cutout feature is not critical to the use in the Hybrid III 5th female. assembly. design’s performance and can be We have generated a new femur load NHTSA has modified drawing 175– eliminated. Additionally, the cutout cell drawing to reflect the ES–2re femur 6018 by changing dimension 8 to 8.0 feature is shown in the foot weldment load cell as recommended. and dimension 3 to 3.0. assembly drawing (175–3031) and should be deleted from that drawing, as Drawing SA572–S70, Six Axis Upper Drawing 175–6041, Sacrum Cover Plate well. Neck Load Cell Issue: The sacrum cover plate is used We have modified drawings 175–7034 Issue: FTSS claimed that the three to mount and protect the pelvis and 175–7031 by removing the 5/16″ dimensional coordinate axis system is accelerometers. DATD suggests cutout feature in each drawing. incorrect as the Y-axis should be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75330 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

pointing in the opposite direction. Drawing SA572–S73, 4 Axis Backplate calibration process. When a load is Additionally, FTSS requested that the Load Cell applied exclusively to one channel, the drawing should include the formulae to Issue: FTSS states that the weight other channels of the load cell are calculate the moments about the specification is incorrect and should be monitored to determine if they are occipital condyle. FTSS recommended 2.80 lbs (1.27 kg) max. DATD also (incorrectly) measuring a response. The adding: suggested this specification in its pubic load cell is a single-axis load cell Mx,oc = Mx measured + (0.02 x Fy measured) comments. and therefore is calibrated only by My,oc = My measured + (0.02 x Fx measured) Analysis and Response: As issued in applying a load along its single sensitive Analysis and Response: FTSS is the NPRM, drawing SA572-–S73 axis. In a strict interpretation, it is not correct in pointing out the error in the specifies 6.83 lbs max. Upon further possible to measure crosstalk on a single three-dimensional coordinate axis analysis, NHTSA determined that the axis load cell because there are no other system. With regard to adding the 6.83 pound specification was channels to monitor when the load is formulae, there exists no current established, incorrectly, by measuring applied along the single sensitive axis. requirement for making the the weight of the load cell and FTSS is proposing that a moment load computations of neck moments about additional hardware. Upon learning of (of 4,000 in-lbs) be placed on the load the occipital condyle. However, it is this mistake, NHTSA verified that the cell while monitoring the compressive noted that the addition of the formulae FTSS recommendation of 2.80 lbs load channel. There exists a precedent does not impose any further maximum was appropriate. for this type of requirement. The requirements and thus can be added for We have modified drawing SA572– uniaxial femur load cell, model number reference purposes. S73 to indicate ‘‘Weight 2.80 lbs/1.27 kg 2121, manufactured by Robert A. NHTSA has modified drawing max.’’ Denton, Inc. contains a similar note: ‘‘Moment error 6% maximum with a SA572–S70 to show the correct Drawing SA572–S76, Lumbar Load Cell 5,000 in-lb moment.’’ orientation of the Y-axis in the Issue: FTSS states that the axes NHTSA tested one ES–2re pubic load coordinate system. We added the referenced in the load capacity cell to determine its sensitivity to formulae under the title: ‘‘Reference for specification are incorrectly labeled. Computing Moments about the applied bending loads. However, since FTSS recommends replacing ‘‘Fx’’ with Occipital Condyle. Units are Newtons it was unknown whether the pubic load ‘Fy’ and ‘Fy’ with ‘Fz.’ Also, FTSS states for forces and Newton-meters for that the weight specification is incorrect cell could survive a large bending moments.’’ and should be 0.57 lbs (0.26 kg). DATD moment, only loads of 3,000 in-lbs were applied. To achieve the 3,000 in-lbs EuroSID2 in Title Block suggests a weight specification of 0.59 lbs (0.27 kg). moment, an axial load of 3,000 pounds Issue: FTSS noted multiple drawings Analysis and Response: FTSS is was applied at a distance of one inch that contained the word ‘‘EuroSID2’’ in correct in pointing out the error with from the longitudinal centerline of the the title block. FTSS claims the official load cell. The bending moments were regard to the Fy and Fz axes. As issued name is ‘‘ES–2.’’ The affected drawings in the NPRM, the drawing contains a applied at 4 equally-spaced locations are SA572–S70, SA572–S71–1, SA572– weight specification of 0.55 lbs (0.25 around the perimeter of the load cell to S71–2, SA572–S71–3, SA572–S72, kg). The FTSS suggestion would assess the load cell’s sensitivity in SA572–S73, SA572–S74, SA572–S75, increase the weight specification by 0.02 multiple orientations. NHTSA’s testing SA572–S76, and SA572–S77. lbs, while the DATD request would only at 3,000 in-lbs of bending moment Analysis and Response: FTSS is increase the weight by 0.04 lbs. NHTSA resulted in errors of 4.6, 6.2, 1.2, and correct in identifying the potential for considers the proposed increase in 5.9% at the four locations. NHTSA confusion with the use of multiple maximum weight to be inconsequential notes that only one load cell was tested references such as ‘EuroSID2’ and ‘ES– to the overall assembled weight of the in this analysis, therefore any 2.’ However, NHTSA has adopted the dummy. requirement should consider the greater name ‘ES–2re’ to identify the dummy as We have modified the drawing by possible variation that would be the ES–2 with rib extension. correctly identifying the Fy and Fz axes observed if additional load cells had We have removed all references to and by changing the weight been tested. ‘‘EuroSID2’’ from the drawing package specification to indicate: ‘‘Weight: 0.59 It should also be noted that NHTSA and replaced them with ‘ES–2re.’ lbs/0.27 kg.’’ believes the correct bending loads Drawing SA572–S72, 3 Axis Shoulder Drawing SA572–S77, Pubic Load Cell should be applied about the x- and z- Load Cell axes (Mx and Mz), not about the x- and Issue: FTSS claims that the y-axes as proposed by FTSS and DATD. Issue: FTSS claims that the weight specification for crosstalk is inadequate. specification is incorrect and should be In their comments, FTSS is concerned Additionally, upon review of the 0.53 lbs (0.24 kg) max. DATD also with bending loads applied to the load drawing, NHTSA observed one minor suggested this specification in its cell being reported as compressive error. The capacity of the load cell is comments. loads. FTSS recommends an additional presently specified to be 2,000 N (450 Analysis and Response: As issued in requirement be added to the drawing lbf). The correct specification should be the NPRM, drawing SA572–S72 indicating ‘‘Moment Crosstalk Error < 20,000 N (4,500 lbf). specifies 0.47 lbs max. The FTSS 5% Full Scale at Applied Mx/My We have modified drawing SA572– proposal would increase the max weight Moments of 4000 in-lbs./452 Nm.’’ S77 by adding the following note: by 0.06 lbs. NHTSA considers the DATD, which also manufactures the ‘‘Axial load error shall be less than 7% proposed increase in maximum weight load cells, independently provided the for a 3,000 pound axial load applied at to be inconsequential to the overall same comment, requesting that a any location along a one inch radius assembled weight of the dummy. moment crosstalk error of less than 5% from the longitudinal centerline of the We have modified drawing SA572– be placed on the drawing. load cell.’’ We have also modified the S72 to indicate ‘‘Weight: 0.53 lbs/0.24 Analysis and Response: Crosstalk is print to reflect the correct load cell kg max.’’ measured during the load cell capacity of 20,000 N (4,500 lbf).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75331

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572 U, Eurosid 2 with Rib Extensions Copies of the materials may be Incorporation by reference, Motor (ES2re), Sept. 2006,’’ inspected at the National Archives and vehicle safety. (2) A drawings and inspection Records Administration (NARA), and in package entitled ‘‘Parts List and electronic format through the DOT I In consideration of the foregoing, Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid docket management system (DMS). For NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as 2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha information on the availability and follows: Version), September 2006,’’ consisting inspection of this material at NARA, call of: 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// Part 572—Anthropomorphic Test (i) Drawing No. 175–0000 ES–2re www.archives.gov/federal_register/ Dummies Dummy Assembly; code_of_federal_regulations/ I 1. The authority citation for Part 572 (ii) Drawing No. 175–1000 Head ibr_locations.html. For information on continues to read as follows: Assembly; the availability and inspection of this (iii) Drawing No. 175–2000, Neck Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, material at the DOT DMS, call 1–800– 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at Assembly Test/Cert; 647–5527, or go to: http://dms.dot.gov. 49 CFR 1.50. (iv) Drawing No. 175–3000, Shoulder (c) The incorporated materials are Assembly; available as follows: (v) Drawing No. 175–3500, Arm Subpart T—[Reserved] (1) The Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Assembly, Left; Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib I 2. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by (vi) Drawing No. 175–3800, Arm Extensions (ES2re), Sept. 2006, referred reserving subpart T. Assembly, Right; to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the I (vii) Drawing No. 175–4000, Thorax 3. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 adding a new subpart U, consisting of Assembly with Rib Extensions; (viii) Drawing No. 175–5000, Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib §§ 572.180 through 572.189 to read as Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha Version), follows: Abdominal Assembly; (ix) Drawing No. 175–5500 Lumbar September 2006, referred to in Subpart T—[Reserved] Spine Assembly; paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the (x) Drawing No. 175–6000 Pelvis PADI document referred to in paragraph Subpart U— ES–2re Side Impact Crash Assembly; (a)(3) of this section, are available in Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult (xi) Drawing No. 175–7000–1, Leg electronic format through the DOT Male Assembly—left; docket management system and in (xii) Drawing No. 175–7000–2, Leg paper format from Leet-Melbrook, Sec. Assembly—right; Division of New RT, 18810 Woodfield 572.180 Incorporated materials. (xiii) Drawing No. 175–8000, Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20879, 572.181 General description. Neoprene Body Suit; and, telephone (301) 670–0090. 572.182 Head assembly. (2) The SAE materials referred to in 572.183 Neck assembly. (xiv) Drawing No. 175–9000, 572.184 Shoulder assembly. Headform Assembly; paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this 572.185 Thorax (upper torso) assembly. (3) A procedures manual entitled section are available from the Society of 572.186 Abdomen assembly. ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 572.187 Lumbar spine. and Inspection (PADI) of the EuroSID– Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 572.188 Pelvis. 2re 50th Percentile Adult Male Side 15096, telephone 1–877–606–7323. 572.189 Instrumentation and test Impact Crash Test Dummy, September § 572.181 General description. conditions. 2006,’’ incorporated by reference in Appendix A to Subpart U of Part 572— (a) The ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test Figures §§ 572.180(a)(2), and 572.181(a); (4) Society of Automotive Engineers Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult Male, is Subpart U, ES–2re Side Impact Crash (SAE) Recommended Practice J211, Rev. defined by: Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult Mar 95 ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact (1) The drawings and specifications Male Tests—Part 1—Electronic contained in the ‘‘Parts List and Instrumentation’’; and, Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid § 572.180 Incorporated materials. (5) SAE J1733 of 1994–12 ‘‘Sign 2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha (a) The following materials are hereby Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing.’’ Version), September 2006,’’ which incorporated into this Subpart by (b) The Director of the Federal includes the technical drawings and reference: Register approved the materials specifications described in Drawing (1) A parts/drawing list entitled, incorporated by reference in accordance 175–0000, the titles of which are listed ‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. in Table A;

TABLE A

Component assembly Drawing No.

Head Assembly ...... 175–1000 Neck Assembly Test/Cert ...... 175–2000 Neck Bracket Including Lifting Eyebolt ...... 175–2500 Shoulder Assembly ...... 175–3000 Arm Assembly-Left ...... 175–3500 Arm Assembly-Right ...... 175–3800 Thorax Assembly with Rib Extensions ...... 175–4000 Abdominal Assembly ...... 175–5000 Lumbar Spine Assembly ...... 175–5500 Pelvis Assembly ...... 175–6000 Leg Assembly, Left ...... 175–7000–1

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75332 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE A—Continued

Component assembly Drawing No.

Leg Assembly, Right ...... 175–7000–2 Neoprene Body Suit ...... 175–8000

(2) ‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 (c) Performance criteria. (5) Time zero is defined in Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib (1) When the head assembly is § 572.189(k). Extensions (ES2re), Sept. 2006,’’ dropped in accordance with § 572.112 containing 8 pages, incorporated by (a), the measured peak resultant TABLE TO 1 TO PARAGRAPH (A)—ES– reference in § 572.180, acceleration shall be between 125 g’s 2RE NECK CERTIFICATION PEN- (3) A listing of available transducers- and 155 g’s; DULUM VELOCITY CORRIDOR crash test sensors for the ES–2re Crash (2) The resultant acceleration-time Test Dummy is shown in drawing 175– curve shall be unimodal to the extent Upper boundary Lower boundary 0000 sheet 4 of 6, dated September that oscillations occurring after the main 2006, incorporated by reference in Time Velocity Time Velocity acceleration pulse shall not exceed 15% (ms) (m/s) (ms) (m/s) § 572.180, (zero to peak) of the main pulse; (4) Procedures for Assembly, (3) The fore-and-aft component of the 1.0 ...... 0.00 0.0 ¥0.05 Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of head acceleration shall not exceed 15 3.0 ...... ¥0.25 2.5 ¥0.375 the ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test g’s. 14.0 ...... ¥3.20 13.5 ¥3.7 Dummy, September 2006, incorporated 17.0 ¥3.7 by reference in § 572.180, § 572.183 Neck assembly. (5) Sign convention for signal outputs (a) The neck assembly consists of (c) Performance criteria. (1) The reference document SAE 1733 parts shown in drawing 175–2000. For pendulum deceleration pulse is to be Information Report, titled ‘‘Sign purposes of this test, the neck is characterized in terms of decrease in Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing’’ mounted within the headform assembly velocity as determined by integrating dated July 15, 1986. 175–9000 as shown in Figure U1 in the filtered pendulum acceleration (b) Exterior dimensions of ES–2re test Appendix A to this subpart. When response from time-zero. The pendulum ¥ ° dummy are shown in drawing 175–0000 subjected to tests procedures specified shall be vertical within +/ 1 when its sheet 3 of 6, dated September 2006. in paragraph (b) of this section, the speed is reduced to 0 m/s. (c) Weights of body segments (head, neck-headform assembly shall meet (2) The maximum rotation in the neck, upper and lower torso, arms and performance requirements specified in lateral direction of the reference plane upper and lower segments) and the paragraph (c) of this section. of the headform (175–9000) as shown in center of gravity location of the head are (b) Test procedure. Figure U2–B in Appendix A to this shown in drawing 175–0000 sheet 2 of (1) Soak the neck-headform assembly subpart, shall be 49 to 59 degrees with 6, dated September 2006. in a test environment as specified in respect to the longitudinal axis of the (d) Adjacent segments are joined in a § 572.189(o); pendulum occurring between 54 and 66 manner such that, except for contacts ms from time zero. Rotation of the (2) Attach the neck-headform existing under static conditions, there is headform-neck assembly and the neck assembly to the Part 572 subpart E no additional contact between metallic angle with respect to the pendulum pendulum test fixture as shown in elements of adjacent body segments shall be measured with potentiometers Figure U2–A in Appendix A to this throughout the range of motion. specified in § 572.189(c), installed as subpart, so that the midsagittal plane of (e) The structural properties of the shown in drawing 175–9000, and the neck-headform assembly is vertical dummy are such that the dummy calculated per procedure specified in and perpendicular to the plane of conforms to this Subpart in every Figure U2–B in Appendix A to this motion of the pendulum longitudinal respect before use in any test similar to subpart; centerline shown in Figure U2–A. those in Standard No. 214, Side Impact (3) The decaying headform rotation Torque the half-spherical screws (175– Protection and Standard No. 201, vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle 2004) located at either end of the neck Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. with respect to its initial position at assembly to 88 +/¥5 in-lbs using the time of impact relative to the pendulum § 572.182 Head assembly. neck compression tool (175–9500) or centerline between 53 ms to 88 ms after equivalent; (a) The head assembly consists of the the time the peak translation-rotation head (drawing 175–1000), including the (3) Release the pendulum from a value is reached. neck upper transducer structural height sufficient to allow it to fall freely replacement, and a set of three (3) to achieve an impact velocity of 3.4+/ § 572.184 Shoulder assembly. accelerometers in conformance with ¥0.1 m/s measured at the center of the (a) The shoulder (175–3000) is part of specifications in § 572.189(b) and pendulum accelerometer (Figure 22 as the body assembly shown in drawing mounted as shown in drawing (175– set forth in 49 CFR 572.33) at the time 175–0000. When subjected to impact 0000 sheet 1 of 6). When tested to the the pendulum makes contact with the tests specified in paragraph (b) of this test procedure specified in paragraph (b) decelerating mechanism. The velocity- section, the shoulder assembly shall of this section, the head assembly shall time history of the pendulum falls meet performance requirements of meet performance requirements inside the corridor determined by the paragraph (c) of this section. specified in paragraph (c) of this upper and lower boundaries specified in (b) Test procedure. section. Table 1 to paragraph (a) of this section. (1) Soak the dummy assembly, (b) Test procedure. The head shall be (4) Allow the neck to flex without the without suit and shoulder foam pad tested per procedure specified in 49 neck-headform assembly making contact (175–3010), in a test environment as CFR § 572.112(a). with any object; specified in § 572.189(n);

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75333

(2) The dummy is seated, as shown in (i) Soak the rib modules (175–4002) in surface covered by two overlaid 2 mm Figure U3 in Appendix A to this a test environment as specified in thick Teflon sheets and with no back subpart, on a flat, horizontal, rigid § 572.189(o); support of the dummy’s torso. The surface covered by two overlaid 2 mm (ii) Mount the rib module rigidly in a dummy’s torso spine backplate is thick Teflon sheets and with no back drop test fixture as shown in Figure U7 vertical within ±2 degrees and the support of the dummy’s torso. The in Appendix A to this subpart with the midsagittal plane of thorax is positioned dummy’s torso spine backplate is impacted side of the rib facing up; perpendicular to the direction of the vertical within ±2 degrees and the (iii) The drop test fixture contains a plane of motion of the impactor at midsagittal plane of the thorax is free fall guided mass of 7.78±0.01 kg contact with the thorax. The non-struck positioned perpendicular to the that is of rigid construction and with a side arm is oriented vertically, pointing direction of the plane of motion of the flat impact face 150±1.0 mm in diameter downward. The dummy’s legs are impactor at contact with the shoulder. and an edge radius of ±0.25 mm; horizontal and symmetrical about the The arms are oriented forward at 50±2 (iv) Align the vertical longitudinal midsagittal plane with the distance degrees from the horizontal, pointing centerline of the drop mass so that the between the innermost point on the downward. The dummy’s legs are centerpoint of the downward-facing flat opposite ankle at 100 ±5 mm; horizontal and symmetrical about the surface is aligned to impact the (iii) The impactor is the same as midsaggital plane with the distance centerline of the rib rail guide system defined in § 572.189(a); between the innermost point on the within ± 2.5 mm. (iv) The impactor is guided, if needed, opposite ankle at 100 ±5 mm. The (v) The impacting mass is dropped so that at contact with the thorax its length of the elastic shoulder cord (175– from the following heights: longitudinal axis is within ±0.5 degrees (A) 459 ±5 mm of horizontal and perpendicular ±0.5 3015) shall be adjusted so that a force ± between and including 27.5 and 32.5 N (B) 815 8 mm degrees to the midsagittal plane of the applied in a forward direction at 4 ±1 (vi) A test cycle consists of one drop dummy and the centerpoint of the mm from the outer edge of the clavicle from each drop height specified in impactor’s face is within 5 mm of the in the same plane as the clavicle paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section. Allow impact point on the dummy’s middle movement, is required to initiate a a period of not less than five (5) minutes rib shown in Figure U4 in Appendix A forward motion of 1 to 5 mm; between impacts in a single test cycle. to this subpart; (3) The impactor is the same as Allow a period of not less than thirty (v) The impactor impacts the defined in § 572.189(a); (30) minutes between two separate dummy’s thorax at 5.5 m/s ±0.1 m/s. (4) The impactor is guided, if needed, cycles of the same rib module. (vi) Time zero is defined in so that at contact with the shoulder, its (2) Performance criteria. § 572.189(k). longitudinal axis is within ±0.5 degrees (i) Each of the rib modules shall (2) Performance Criteria. of a horizontal plane and perpendicular deflect as specified in paragraphs (i) The individual rib modules shall (±0.5 degrees) to the midsagittal plane of (b)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, with conform to the following range of the dummy and the centerpoint on the the deflection measurements made with deflections: impactor’s face is within 5 mm of the the internal rib module position (A) Upper rib not less than 33.2 mm center of the upper arm pivot bolt transducer specified in § 572.189(d): and not greater than 41.3 mm; (5000040) at contact with the test (A) Not less than 36 mm and not more (B) Middle rib not less than 37.1 mm dummy, as shown in Figure U3 in than 40 mm when impacted by the mass and not greater than 45.4 mm; Appendix A to this subpart; dropped from 459 mm; and, (C) Lower rib not less than 35.6 mm (5) The impactor impacts the (B) Not less than 46 mm and not more and not greater than 43.0 mm. dummy’s shoulder at 4.3±0.1 m/s. than 51mm when impacted by the mass (ii) The impactor force shall be (c) Performance criteria. The peak dropped from 815 mm. computed as the product of the impact acceleration of the impactor is between (c) Full-body thorax impact test. The probe acceleration and its mass. The 7.5 g’s and 10.5 g’s during the thorax is part of the upper torso peak impactor force at any time after 6 pendulum’s contact with the dummy. assembly shown in drawing 175–4000. ms from time zero shall be not less than For this full-body thorax impact test, the 5,173 N and not greater than 6,118 N. § 572.185 Thorax (upper torso) assembly. dummy is tested as a complete assembly (a) The thorax assembly of the dummy (drawing 175–0000) with the struck-side § 572.186 Abdomen assembly. must meet the requirements of both (b) arm (175–3500, left arm; 175–3800, right (a) The abdomen assembly (175–5000) and (c) of this section. Section arm) removed. The dummy’s thorax is is part of the dummy assembly shown 572.185(b) specifies requirements for an equipped with deflection in drawing 175–0000 including load individual rib drop test, and potentiometers as specified in drawing sensors specified in § 572.189(e). When § 572.185(c) specifies requirements for a SA572–S69. When subjected to the test subjected to tests procedures specified full-body thorax impact test. procedures specified in paragraph (c)(1) in paragraph (b) of this section, the (b) Individual rib drop test. For of this section, the thorax shall meet the abdomen assembly shall meet purposes of this test, the rib modules performance requirements set forth in performance requirements specified in (175–4002), which are part of the thorax paragraph (c)(2). paragraph (c) of this section. assembly (175–4000), are tested as (1) Test Procedure. (b) Test procedure. individual units. When subjected to test (i) Soak the dummy assembly (175– (1) Soak the dummy assembly (175– procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1) 0000), with struck-side arm (175–3500, 0000), without suit (175–8000) and of this section, the rib modules shall left arm; 175–3800, right arm), shoulder shoulder foam pad (175–3010), as meet performance requirements foam pad (175–3010), and neoprene specified in § 572.189(n); specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this body suit (175–8000) removed, in a test (2) The dummy is seated as shown in section. Each rib is tested at both the environment as specified in Figure U5 in Appendix A to this 459 mm and 815 mm drop height tests § 572.189(n); subpart; described in paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A) and (ii) The dummy is seated, as shown in (3) The abdomen impactor is the same (B) of this section. Figure U4 in Appendix A to this as specified in § 572.189(a) except that (1) Test procedure. subpart, on a flat, horizontal, rigid on its rectangular impact surface is

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75334 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

affixed a special purpose block whose specified in 572.189(e), shall be not less (2) Attach the lumbar spine-headform weight is 1.0 ± 0.01 kg. The block is 70 than 2200 N and not more than 2700 N assembly to the Part 572 pendulum test mm high, 150 mm wide and 60 to 80 and shall occur between 10 ms and 12.3 fixture per procedure in § 572.183(b)(2) mm deep. The impact surface is flat, has ms from time zero. The calculated sum and as shown in Figure U2–A in a minimum Rockwell hardness of M85, of the three load cell forces must be Appendix A to this subpart. Torque the and an edge radius of 4 to 5 mm. The concurrent in time. lumbar hex nut (p/n 9000057) on to the block’s wide surface is horizontally (2) Maximum impactor force (impact lumbar cable assembly (175–5506) to 50 oriented and centered on the probe acceleration multiplied by its ± 5 in-lb; longitudinal axis of the probe’s impact mass) is not less than 4000 N and not face as shown in Figure U5–A in more than 4800 N occurring between (3) Release the pendulum from a Appendix A to this subpart; 10.6 ms and 13.0 ms from time zero. height sufficient to allow it to fall freely (4) The impactor is guided, if needed, to achieve an impact velocity of 6.05 so that at contact with the abdomen its § 572.187 Lumbar spine. ±0.1 m/s measured at the center of the longitudinal axis is within ± 0.5 degrees (a) The lumbar spine assembly pendulum accelerometer (Figure 22) at of a horizontal plane and perpendicular consists of parts shown in drawing 175– the time the pendulum makes contact ± 0.5 degrees to the midsagittal plane of 5500. For purposes of this test, the with its decelerating mechanism. The the dummy and the centerpoint on the lumbar spine is mounted within the velocity-time history of the pendulum impactor’s face is aligned within 5 mm headform assembly 175–9000 as shown falls inside the corridor determined by of the center point of the middle load in Figure U1 in Appendix A to this the upper and lower boundaries measuring sensor in the abdomen as subpart. When subjected to tests specified in Table 1 to paragraph (b) of shown in Figure U5; procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section; (5) The impactor impacts the this section, the lumbar spine-headform dummy’s abdomen at 4.0 m/s ± 0.1 m/ assembly shall meet performance (4) Allow the lumbar spine to flex s; requirements specified in paragraph (c) without the lumbar spine or the (6) Time zero is defined in of this section. headform making contact with any § 572.189(k). (b) Test procedure. object; (c) Performance criteria. (1) Soak the lumbar spine-headform (5) Time zero is defined in (1) The maximum sum of the forces of assembly in a test environment as § 572.189(k). the three abdominal load sensors, specified in § 572.189(o);

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b).—ES–2RE LUMBAR SPINE CERTIFICATION PENDULUM VELOCITY CORRIDOR

Upper boundary Lower boundary Time Velocity Time Velocity (ms) (m/s) (ms) (m/s)

1.0 0.00 0.0 ¥0.05 3.7 ¥0.24 2.7 ¥0.425 27.0 ¥5.80 24.5 ¥6.50 30.0 ¥6.50

(c) Performance criteria. (1) The § 572.188 Pelvis. to the midsagittal plane of the dummy pendulum deceleration pulse is to be (a) The pelvis (175–6000) is part of and the centerpoint on the impactor’s characterized in terms of decrease in the torso assembly shown in drawing face is within 5 mm of the center of the velocity as determined by integrating 175–0000. The pelvis is equipped with H-point in the pelvis, as shown in the filtered pendulum acceleration a pubic symphysis load sensor in Figure U5 in Appendix A to this response from time-zero. conformance with § 572.189(f) and subpart; (2) The maximum rotation in the mounted as shown in drawing (175– (5) The impactor impacts the lateral direction of the reference plane 0000 sheet 4). When subjected to tests dummy’s pelvis at 4.3 +/¥0.1 m/s. of the headform (175–9000) as shown in procedures specified in paragraph (b) of (c) Performance criteria. Figure U2–B in Appendix A to this this section, the pelvis assembly shall (1) The impactor force (probe subpart, shall be 45 to 55 degrees with meet performance requirements acceleration multiplied by its mass) respect to the longitudinal axis of the specified in paragraph (c) of this shall be not less than 4,700 N, and not pendulum occurring between 39 and 53 section. more than 5,400 N, occurring between ms from time zero. Rotation of the (b) Test procedure. 11.8 ms and 16.1 ms from time zero as headform-neck assembly shall be (1) Soak the dummy assembly (175– defined in § 572.189(k); measured with potentiometers specified 0000) without suit (175–8000) and (2) The pubic symphysis load, in § 572.189(c), installed as shown in shoulder foam pad (175–3010) as measured with load cell specified in drawing 175–9000, and calculated per specified in § 572.189(n); § 572.189(f) shall be not less than 1,230 procedure specified in Figure U2–B in (2) The dummy is seated as specified N and not more than 1,590 N occurring Appendix A to this subpart. in Figure U6 in Appendix A to this between 12.2 ms and 17.0 ms from time (3) The decaying headform rotation subpart; zero as defined in § 572.189(k). vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle (3) The pelvis impactor is the same as with respect to its initial position at specified in § 572.189(a); § 572.189 Instrumentation and test impact relative to the pendulum (4) The impactor is guided, if needed, conditions. centerline between 37 ms to 57 ms after so that at contact with the pelvis its (a) The test probe for lateral shoulder, the time the peak translation-rotation longitudinal axis is within ± 0.5 degrees thorax without arm, abdomen, and value is reached. of a horizontal plane and perpendicular pelvis impact tests is the same as that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75335

specified in § 572.36(a) and the impact SAE J–211 (Mar. 1995)— first crosses the ¥1.0 m/s2 (¥.102 g) probe has a minimum mass moment of Instrumentation for Impact Test unless acceleration level (T0). 2 inertia in yaw of 9,000 kg-cm , a free air noted otherwise. (3) Set the data time-zero to the resonant frequency not less than 1,000 (i) All instrumented response signal sample number of the new T0. Hz and the probe’s end opposite to the measurements shall be treated to the impact face has provisions to mount an following specifications: (l) Mountings for the head, spine and accelerometer with its sensitive axis (1) Head acceleration—Digitally pelvis accelerometers shall have no collinear with the longitudinal axis of filtered CFC 1000; resonance frequency within a range of 3 the probe. All hardware attached (2) Neck and lumbar spine rotations— times the frequency range of the directly to the impactor and one-third Digitally filtered CFC 180; applicable channel class. (1⁄3) of the mass of the suspension cables (3)Neck and lumbar spine pendulum (m) Limb joints of the test dummy are must be included in the calculations of accelerations—Digitally filtered CFC 60; set at the force between 1 to 2 G’s, the total impactor mass. The sum mass (4) Pelvis, shoulder, thorax without which just supports the limb’s weight arm, and abdomen impactor of the attachments and 1⁄3 cable mass when the limbs are extended must not exceed 5 percent of the total accelerations—Digitally filtered CFC horizontally forward. The force required pendulum mass. No suspension 180; to move a limb segment does not exceed hardware, suspension cables, or any (5) Abdominal and pubic symphysis 2 G’s throughout the range of the limb other attachments to the test probe, force—Digitally filtered at CFC 600; motion. (6) Thorax deflection—Digitally including velocity vane, shall make filtered CFC 180. (n) Performance tests are conducted, contact with the dummy during the test. (j)(1) Filter the pendulum acceleration unless specified otherwise, at any (b) Accelerometers for the head, the data using a SAE J211 CFC 60 filter. temperature from 20.6 to 22.2 degrees C. thoracic spine, and the pelvis conform (2) Determine the time when the (69 to 72 degrees F.) and at any relative to specifications of SA572–S4. filtered pendulum accelerometer data humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent (c) Rotary potentiometer for the neck first crosses the ¥10 g level (T ). after exposure of the dummy to those and lumbar spine certification tests 10 (3) Calculate time-zero: T0 = T10¥Tm., conditions for a period of not less than conforms to SA572–53. 4 hours. (d) Linear position transducer for the Where: thoracic rib conforms to SA572–S69. Tm = 1.417 ms for the Neck Test (o) Certification tests of the same (e) Load sensors for the abdomen = 1.588 ms for the Lumbar Spine Test component, segment, assembly, or fully conform to specifications of SA572–S75. (4) Set the data time-zero to the stassembled dummy shall be separated (f) Load sensor for the pubic sample number nearest to the calculated in time by a period of not less than symphysis conforms to specifications of T0. thirty (30) minutes unless otherwise SA572–77. (k)(1) Filter the pendulum specified. (g) Load sensor for the lumbar spine acceleration data using a SAE J211 CFC Appendix A to Subpart U of Part 572— conforms to specifications of SA572–76. 180 filter. (h) Instrumentation and sensors (2) Determine the time when the Figures conform to the Recommended Practice filtered pendulum accelerometer data BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 75336 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 ER14DE06.000 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75337

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 ER14DE06.001 75338 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 ER14DE06.003 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75339

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 ER14DE06.005 75340 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 ER14DE06.007 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75341

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2 ER14DE06.008 75342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Issued: November 24, 2006. published on April 11, 2000 (Volume a. Oblique Vehicle-to-Pole Crash Tests Nicole R. Nason, 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you b. MDB Tests c. Summary Administrator. may visit http://dms.dot.gov. VI. Conclusions [FR Doc. 06–9554 Filed 12–13–06; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Rulemaking Analyses and Notices BILLING CODE 4910–59–C non-legal issues, you may call Stanley Appendix A: Durability and Overload Backaitis, NHTSA Office of Analysis of the SID–IIsD Test Dummy Crashworthiness Standards (telephone NHTSA published a notice of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 202–366–4912). For legal issues, you proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that may call Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office proposed to upgrade Federal Motor National Highway Traffic Safety of Chief Counsel (telephone 202–366– Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. Administration 2992) (fax 202–366–3820). You may 214, ‘‘Side Impact Protection’’ (49 CFR send mail to these officials at the 571.214) by, among other things, 49 CFR Part 572 National Highway Traffic Safety adopting a dynamic pole test into the Docket No. NHTSA 25442 Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., standard (May 17, 2004; 69 FR 27990; Washington, DC 20590. Docket 17694; reopening of comment RIN 2127–AJ16 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: period, January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2105). Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID– Table of Contents The proposed pole test is similar to, but IIs Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 5th I. Background more demanding than, that currently Percentile Adult Female a. Need for the Dummy used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. In b. Development of the SID–IIs the proposed pole test, a vehicle is AGENCY: National Highway Traffic c. Development of the FRG and Build Level propelled sideways into a rigid pole at Safety Administration (NHTSA), D Dummies an angle of 75 degrees, at any speed up Department of Transportation (DOT). II. Response to the Comments on the FRG to 32 km/h (20 mph). The NPRM ACTION: Final rule. III. Other Issues proposed that compliance with the pole a. Overview test would be determined in two test SUMMARY: This final rule amends the b. How this Final Rule Differs from the NPRM configurations, one using a ‘‘SID–IIs’’ agency’s regulation on anthropomorphic test dummy representing 5th percentile test devices to add specifications and c. Description and Reference Materials d. Biofidelity adult females and the other using an qualification requirements for the 5th e. Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) ‘‘ES–2re’’ test dummy representing mid- percentile adult female crash test 1. Component and Sled Tests Generally size adult males. Vehicles tested with dummy, called the SID–IIs Build Level 2. Repeatability and Reproducibility the SID–IIs would have to comply with D (‘‘SID–IIs’’) test dummy. The SID–IIs Assessments a head injury criterion and with thoracic dummy is instrumented in the head, 3. NPRM and pelvic injury criteria developed for thorax, abdomen and pelvis, which 4. Comments on the NPRM the new dummy. The agency also enables it to assess in a comprehensive 5. Agency Response i. Component Qualification Tests proposed using the dummies in FMVSS manner the performance of vehicles in A. Repeatability in Component Tests No. 214’s existing moving deformable protecting small-stature occupants in B. Reproducibility in Component Tests barrier (MDB) test, which simulates a side impacts. NHTSA plans to use the ii. Sled Tests vehicle-to-vehicle ‘‘T-bone’’ type SID–IIs dummy in an upgraded Federal A. Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s intersection crash.1 motor vehicle safety standard on side 1. Repeatability in Flat Wall Sled Tests at This document establishes the impact protection. 6.0 m/s specifications and qualification 2. Reproducibility in Flat Wall Sled Tests DATES: This final rule is effective June at 6.0 m/s requirements for the SID–IIs 5th 12, 2007. The incorporation by reference B. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at MCW percentile adult female crash test of certain publications listed in the C. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC dummy which would be used in the regulations is approved by the Director 1. Repeatability in Abdominal Offset Sled upgraded FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM of the Federal Register as of June 12, Tests at TRC preceding this Part 572 final rule was 2007. If you wish to petition for 2. Reproducibility in Abdominal Offset published on December 8, 2004 (69 FR reconsideration of this rule, your Sled Tests at TRC 70947; Docket 18865; extension of petition must be received by January 29 iii. Conclusion comment period, March 8, 2005; 70 FR f. Pelvis of the Dummy 2007. 1. Pelvis Plug ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 2. Iliac Load Cell 1 On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the reconsideration of this rule, you should 3. Iliac Wing ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,’’ refer in your petition to the docket g. The Shoulder with Arm Test (SAFETEA–LU), P.L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 number of this document and submit h. Other Stat. 1144), to authorize funds for Federal-aid your petition to: Administrator, Room 1. Directional Impact Sensitivity highways, highway safety programs, and transit 2. Toyota Suggests an Improved Upper 5220, National Highway Traffic Safety programs, and for other purposes. Section 10302(a) Arm of SAFETEA–LU provides: Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 3. Injury Assessment Reference Values Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection Washington, DC 20590. 4. Reversibility Rulemaking. The petition will be placed in the i. Test Dummy Drawing Package (a) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall complete a docket. Anyone is able to search the 1. Three-Dimensional (3-D) Shape rulemaking proceeding under chapter 301 of title electronic form of all documents Definitions 49, United States Code, to establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle received into any of our dockets by the 2. Material Specifications 3. Dummy Drawing Changes occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side name of the individual submitting the impact crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final IV. Qualification Procedures and Response comment (or signing the comment, if rule by July 1, 2008. Corridors submitted on behalf of an association, At the time of the enactment of § 10302(a), the a. Qualification Procedures agency’s notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade business, labor union, etc.). You may b. Response Corridors FMVSS No. 214 was already pending. The final rule review DOT’s complete Privacy Act V. Dummy Performance in Full-Scale Vehicle completing the rulemaking proceeding will be Statement in the Federal Register Crash Tests issued at a future date.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2