[Federal Register: June 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 116)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 33903-33922] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16jn08-8] [[Page 33903]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 572 [Docket No. 2008-0111] RIN 2127-AK21 Anthropomorphic Test Devices; ES-2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 50th Percentile Adult Male AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, technical amendment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of a December 6, 2006 final rule establishing in 49 CFR part 572 a new mid- size adult male side crash test dummy, called the ``ES-2re'' test dummy. The petitions were submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, First Technology Safety Systems, and Denton ATD. In response to the petitions, this document slightly revises the specifications for conducting the neck assembly qualification test, narrows the tolerances for the tuning spring rates for the dummy's thorax, revises performance corridors for the full body thorax test, corrects cross-references in the Part 572 regulatory text and makes minor changes to the drawing package and user's manual for the test dummy. DATES: This final rule is effective August 15, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 15, 2008. If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by July 31, 2008. ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590. The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Kristin Kirk, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202- 493-0516). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992) (fax 202-366-3820). You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Summary of ES-2RE Part 572 Final Rule III. Petitions for Reconsideration IV. Response to the Petitions a. Neck Assembly Qualification Test b. Lumbar Spine c. Thorax Assembly, Rib Drop Test d. Thorax Assembly, Full-Body Test e. Cross-References and Typographical Errors in Regulatory Text f. Drawing Package and Other Materials V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Appendix A to Preamble I. Introduction This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of a final rule (71 FR 75304; Docket No. NHTSA-2004-25441) that was published on December 14, 2006, amending 49 CFR Part 572 to add specifications and qualification requirements in Subpart U for a new mid-size adult male side impact test dummy, called the ``ES-2re'' test dummy, for use in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214 (``Side impact protection''). The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding the December 14, 2006 final rule was published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 55550; Docket 18864; reopening of comment period, January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2105). The ES-2re is technically superior to both the SID-HIII 50th percentile adult male test dummy (49 CFR Part 572, subpart M) currently used in the optional pole test of FMVSS No. 201 and the side impact New Car Assessment Program tests, and the SID 50th percentile adult male test dummy (49 CFR Part 572, subpart F) now used in the moving deformable barrier (MDB) test of FMVSS No. 214. The ES-2re can be instrumented with a wide array of sensors to better predict a wider range of injury potential than any other currently available mid-size male side impact test dummy. It can assess the potential for head injury (measuring the resultant head acceleration, which is used to calculate the Head Injury Criterion (HIC)); thoracic injuries in terms of spine and rib accelerations and rib deflections; abdominal injuries through three load cells to assess the magnitude of lateral and oblique forces; pelvic injuries, and other injuries. The use of the ES-2re test dummy in FMVSS No. 214 was discussed in and made part of a final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214) published on September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51908; Docket No. NHTSA- 29134).\1\ The final rule added a dynamic pole test to FMVSS No. 214, to supplement the MDB test currently in the standard. In the dynamic pole test, a vehicle is propelled sideways into a rigid pole at an angle of 75 degrees, at any speed up to 32 km/h (20 mph). Compliance with the pole test will be determined in two test configurations, one using the ES-2re test dummy representing mid-size adult males and the other using a test dummy representing small adult females.\2\ The final rule required vehicles to protect against head, thoracic and other injuries as measured by the two test dummies. The final rule also specified using the dummies in FMVSS No. 214's MDB test, which simulates a vehicle-to-vehicle, ``T-bone'' type intersection crash. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The September 11, 2007 final rule fulfilled the mandate of Section 10302 of the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,'' (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144). Section 10302(a) of SAFETEA-LU provides: Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection Rulemaking. (a) Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall complete a rulemaking proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side impact crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule by July 1, 2008. We received petitions for reconsideration of the FMVSS No. 214 final rule and will be publishing our response to those petitions at a future date. \2\ NHTSA published a final rule adding the specifications for the small female dummy (SID-IIsD) to 49 CFR Part 572 on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75342; Docket No. NHTSA-25442). We received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule and expect to publish our response to those petitions in 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Summary of ES-2RE Part 572 Final Rule For any test dummy to be a useful test device in a compliance or vehicle rating setting, responses to controlled inputs must be reproducible and repeatable. The December 14, 2006 ES-2re final rule specified a qualification process for the ES-2re dummy, i.e., a series of specified component and whole body-level tests, to verify that a test dummy's response measurements fall within prescribed ranges. The tests and response ranges (or performance corridors) for the ES-2re, specified in 49 [[Page 33904]] CFR Part 572 Subpart U, ensure that the dummy's responses to controlled inputs are reproducible and repeatable, thus assuring full and accurate evaluation of occupant injury risk in vehicle tests. The test procedures and performance specifications for qualification of the ES- 2re as set forth in the December 14, 2006 final rule established performance levels for the dummy's head assembly, neck assembly, lumbar spine, shoulder assembly, thorax (upper torso) assembly, abdomen assembly and pelvis. (An overview of the test requirements is provided in Appendix A to this preamble.) Today's document relates to the following test procedures and performance specifications of the final rule: Neck Assembly: The neck-headform assembly of the ES-2re is attached to a specified pendulum which is released so that it contacts a decelerating mechanism at an impact velocity of 3.4 meters per second (m/s). As the pendulum decelerates, its velocity must fall within time- dependent velocity corridors described in the regulatory text, and at zero velocity, the pendulum must be vertical within 1 degree. The rotation of the neck-headform in time is measured to evaluate the dummy's performance. Lumbar Spine: The lumbar spine is tested in a similar fashion as the neck. The spine is assembled with the headform assembly and attached to a specified pendulum. The pendulum is then released from a height so that it impacts the decelerating mechanism at a velocity of 6.05 m/s. The deceleration of the pendulum is defined by time-dependent velocity corridors. As with the neck assembly test, the rotation of the lumbar spine-headform assembly in time is measured and must fall within the specified response corridors. Thorax (upper torso) Assembly: Two procedures are specified to test the response of the ES-2re thorax. The first is an individual rib drop test. In this test, each rib module is mounted in a test fixture and a guided mass is dropped from two different heights to impact the rib. For each drop height, the resulting deflection of the rib is measured and used to determine the rib's suitability for compliance testing. The second thorax test is a full-body test performed on a seated dummy with its complete set of ribs. This test involves impacting the side of a seated dummy at the centerline of the middle rib, at a velocity of 5.5 m/s 0.1 m/s. Response ranges used to qualify the dummy are defined for the deflections of the upper, middle and lower ribs, and for the maximum force of the impactor at 6 ms or more after time zero. III. Petitions for Reconsideration The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), Denton ATD (Denton) and First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) petitioned for reconsideration of the December 14, 2006 final rule. The petitioners generally supported the incorporation of the ES-2re into 49 CFR Part 572,\3\ but had concerns with engineering aspects of the Part 572 specifications and with the drawings incorporated by reference into the regulation. The suggestions of each of the petitioners are summarized below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The Alliance stated that it believes that WorldSID is the most appropriate side impact dummy representing the 50th percentile adult male, but that ``until WorldSID is placed into Part 572, the Alliance generally supports the interim adoption of the ES-2re.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a. The Alliance petitioned to specify the use and thickness of aluminum honeycomb in the test procedures for assessing the neck assembly and the lumbar spine. The petitioner also asked NHTSA to revise specifications for the thorax assembly tolerances for rib module tuning springs, to eliminate the thorax individual rib drop test and to reduce the speed for the full body thorax test. The petitioner also suggested corrections to cross-references and typographical errors in the Part 572 regulatory text. b. Denton also petitioned to specify the use of honeycomb material in the neck qualification test procedure. In addition, the petitioner requested that NHTSA eliminate the full body thorax impact test because of concerns that the test reduces the durability of the dummy, and because Denton believed ``it impossible for the certification test to be a repeatable and reproducible evaluation of the dummy.'' Alternatively, Denton suggested that if NHTSA retained the full body thorax impact test, that the agency adopt new corridors for the test developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Dummy Testing Equipment Subcommittee (DTESC) of the Human Biomechanics and Simulation Standards Committee. Denton also identified portions of the regulatory text and a number of drawings incorporated by reference into Part 572 that the petitioner believed needed correction. c. FTSS requested that NHTSA consider data for the full-body thorax impact test from FTSS, Denton and GM and revise the probe force after 6 millisecond specification. FTSS also identified a number of drawings that the petitioner believed needed correction. IV. Response to the Petitions In response to the petitions for reconsideration of the December 14, 2006 final rule, this document slightly revises the specifications for conducting the neck assembly qualification test, narrows the tolerances for the tuning spring rates for the dummy's thorax, revises performance corridors for the full body thorax test, corrects cross- references and typographical errors in the Part 572 regulatory text and makes minor changes to the drawing package and NHTSA user's manual (Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection) for the dummy. a. Neck Assembly Qualification Test The Alliance believed that the requirement in Sec. 572.183(c) that at zero velocity, the pendulum must be vertical within 1 degree ``is broad and that it would not be possible to fail this requirement as long as a 3 inch piece of aluminum honeycomb is used.'' The Alliance stated that ``it would be more precise to simply state in the regulation the need to utilize a 3-inch thick piece of aluminum honeycomb, rather than include the more complicated specification for verticality of the pendulum beam.'' Denton also petitioned that a 3- inch piece of aluminum honeycomb should be specified as the decelerating mechanism for the neck pendulum in place of the current angular position specification. Denton claimed that retaining the specification for 1 degree from vertical at 0 m/s would only ``add expense and difficulty to the test with no value,'' as labs would have to measure the angular position of the pendulum for every test. This petitioner believed that the angular position specification came from ``ES-2 user's manuals from TNO and FTSS,'' but it was ``originally intended by TNO to show that 3 inch thick honeycomb should be used for this test.'' Agency Response We generally concur with the request. The requirement to measure the pendulum to 1 degree from vertical was taken from the manufacturer's user's manual for the dummy. While this measurement would not require a great amount of effort to attain, we conclude that its removal from the test procedure would not affect dummy responses. Additionally, for all Hybrid III dummies, as well as for the SID-IIsD dummy, there is no requirement for the vertical alignment of the pendulum at zero velocity, nor is there a specified honeycomb thickness. All of these dummies reference the pendulum in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart E (Figure 22), [[Page 33905]] which only specifies the honeycomb density and the horizontal distance between the pivot of the pendulum and the honeycomb face. By maintaining consistency between test procedures for different dummies, the familiarity of lab technicians with the instructions for the dummy is increased, as will be the ease and efficiency of conducting tests. Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to remove the requirement for the pendulum to be vertical 1 degree at zero velocity, as petitioned. However, we are not adding a specification for honeycomb thickness, since laboratories may have alternative pendulum designs that achieve the desired deceleration. These changes will allow for the ES-2re neck qualification test to be consistent with those for all other currently-used dummies. b. Lumbar Spine Similar to its recommendation to specify the neck pendulum decelerating mechanism as a 3-inch thick piece of aluminum honeycomb, the Alliance also petitioned to add to Sec. 572.187(b)(3) a specification that the decelerating mechanism should have a thickness of 6 inches. Agency Response We do not agree to this request. Honeycomb thickness is not specified for any pendulum qualification tests for the Hybrid III family of dummies or for the SID-IIsD. The deceleration of the pendulum in neck or lumbar tests is defined by the velocity-time profile provided in the regulatory text, thus it is unnecessary to specify a honeycomb thickness. c. Thorax Assembly, Rib Drop Test 1. Use of the Individual Rib Drop Test The Alliance petitioned to delete the rib drop test because ``it may not sufficiently identify poor performing ribs.'' The petitioner referred to Denton data from six rib drop tests (three tests at 3 meters per second (m/s) and three at 4 m/s). Agency Response We are denying the request. It is not evident how the Denton results supported the request, and the petitioner did not explain its point. The six results provided by the Alliance all fell within the displacement corridors of the NPRM and the final rule. Presumably, the Alliance believes that some or all of these ribs should have failed this test as ``poor'' performers. However, no indication was given that these ribs were problematic, or that they should not have met the requirements of the rib drop test. While analyzing the petitioner's data to try to understand the Alliance concern, we noticed that although the tests were conducted after the issuance of the final rule, the procedures used by the petitioner followed the NPRM specifications (which specified impact velocities) rather than the final rule's procedures (which specified drop heights). For all six tests, drop heights (which the agency calculated from the provided impact velocities) did not meet the specifications of the final rule.\4\ Assuming that the Alliance was trying to illustrate that tests conducted outside the specifications of the final rule could still meet the deflection corridors, we still do not concur that this occurrence indicates that the test is deficient. Because of variation in dummy responses, the rib response at drop heights close to the final rule specifications may or may not also fall within the deflection corridor. No source of support for the Alliance petition could be identified in the provided data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ In the 3 m/s data set, calculated drop heights exceeded the final rule specification of 454-464 mm, ranging from 471-474 mm, while in the 4 m/s data set, the calculated drop heights ranged from 779-783 mm, which does not reach the final rule specification of 807-823 mm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The individual rib drop test was originally specified in the manufacturer's user's manual and has received support throughout the rulemaking process. The Alliance's test results do not appear to demonstrate inadequacies in the individual rib drop test nor has the petitioner provided an explanation of the alleged deficiency of this test. Accordingly, the agency is denying the request to delete the individual rib drop test. 2. Tuning Springs Petitioners raised two issues about the final rule's tuning springs specifications. First, the Alliance, Denton and FTSS pointed out a discrepancy between the user's manual (Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI)) and Drawing 175-4040 regarding the spring rate for the middle (black) spring. The PADI specifies the spring rate as 16.6 Newtons per millimeter (N/mm), whereas the drawing has a 16.4 N/mm specification. The Alliance believed that the latter specification is correct. We confirm that the spring rate of 16.4 N/mm is correct and we have corrected the typographical error in the PADI. The second issue relates to the 10 percent tolerance of the spring rates shown in several drawings of the springs (Note 2 in drawing 175- 4040, black spring (16.4 N/mm spring rate); in drawing 175-4041, white spring (13.8 N/mm); and in drawing 175-4042, blue spring (19.0 N/mm)). (Each rib of the dummy contains a spring that can be changed out to adjust the amount of rib deflection upon impact.) All petitioners believed that the tolerances were too large. FTSS and Denton recommended a tolerance of 1 N/mm for all three drawings. Denton noted that with the currently specified spring tolerances which allow overlap of the spring rates, springs could be replaced for tuning purposes but the lab will not ``get the expected effect because of spring variability.'' Denton states that they have manufactured these springs under tighter tolerances than 1 N/mm, and that although it increases the spring cost to do so, ``it prevents much larger costs that result from trial and error in testing while trying to tune rib modules.'' The Alliance stated that the tolerances for the three tuning springs are such that the specified spring rates can overlap and recommended that the tolerance on the springs be limited to 5 percent, rather than the current tolerance of 10 percent. The Alliance stated that the SAE DTESC also recommended a tolerance of 5 percent. Agency Response NHTSA agrees that the tolerance of 10 percent is too large for the reasons provided by the petitioners and has decided to adopt a 1 N/mm tolerance as recommended by FTSS and Denton. Changing the tolerance to 1 N/mm will result in a tighter control of the rib response than the specification of the final rule and will prevent overlap of the tuning spring rates, while providing more leeway in meeting the tolerance than the 5 percent tolerance suggested by the Alliance. Accordingly, we have revised drawings 175-4040, 175-4041 and 175-4042 to specify a spring rate tolerance of 1.0 N/mm. d. Thorax Assembly, Full-Body Test 1. Use of the Full Body Thorax Impact Test Denton requested that the full-body thorax impact test be eliminated because the petitioner believed the test ``is destructive, and redundant to the drops [sic] tests in 572.185.'' Denton stated that the impact-- causes damage to the foam on the dummy ribs with every impact that is done * * * [W]e estimate that the foam on the dummies ribs will need to be replaced after only 20-50 certification tests on the dummy. * * * [U]sers may experience limited durability of the dummy due to the certification test, caused by a lack of fully understanding the batch to batch foam variations. * * * [T]he fact that the dummy changes with every test [[Page 33906]] makes it impossible for the certification test to be a repeatable and reproducible evaluation of the dummy. (Denton petition, pp. 2-3) Alternatively, Denton suggested new performance corridors for the dummy's response ranges (deflections of the upper, middle and lower ribs, and the maximum force of the impactor at 6 ms or more after time zero) based on a DTESC-compiled data set, which included test data from NHTSA, Denton and GM. Denton endorsed the DTESC's use of 3 times the standard deviation of the data set to establish corridors. In contrast to Denton's endorsement of corridors based on 3 times the standard deviation, in its petition the Alliance stated that it analyzed the DTESC data and recommended corridors based on 2 times the standard deviation of the data set. Agency Response NHTSA is denying the request to eliminate the full body thorax impact test. The test is necessary to assess the dummy's thorax performance as a system, as opposed to assessing the performance of each rib individually in the rib drop test. A full-body test such as the ES-2re full body thorax impact test is also included in the qualification test procedures for other side impact dummies, including the SID, SID-IIsD and WorldSID.\5\ Performance corridors for the full body thorax test were formed as discussed below in section IV.d.5 of this preamble. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ WorldSID is not yet codified in 49 CFR Part 572. It was developed by industry representatives from the U.S., Europe and Japan, with the support of the European and Japanese governments and is considered by many to be the next-generation 50th percentile male side impact dummy (see DMS Docket No. 2000-17252). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Full Body Thorax Test Impact Velocity The Alliance petitioned to revise the test speed for the full body thorax impact test ``such that it does not significantly degrade the rib foam.'' The petitioner stated that a study by Denton showed that force variation was shown to occur in repeat tests due to degradation of the rib foam material, eventually resulting in responses falling out of the corridor for the maximum force of the impactor 6 ms or more after time zero. The Alliance stated that ``force [is] the most sensitive parameter and increase[s] as more tests are conducted due to rib foam degradation. This could require rib replacement after approximately 20-50 certification tests, which the Alliance considers unacceptable in terms of durability.'' (Alliance petition, p. 3) Agency Response The agency is not reducing the impact velocity for the test. The impact velocity was reduced from the NPRM's value of 6.7 m/s to the final rule's value of 5.5 m/s, in response to FTSS's comment to the NPRM (NHTSA Docket No. 18864-22) that the impact velocity (6.7 m/s) was too severe, and that a more appropriate impact velocity would probably be between 5.0 and 6.0 m/s. NHTSA evaluated the comment by conducting full-body thorax qualification tests to determine a more appropriate test speed. The results of the test series led to the establishment of an impact speed of 5.5 m/s, which fell within the range suggested by FTSS. The impact velocity for the ES-2re full body thorax impact test was chosen to achieve rib deflections at the levels considered for the ES- 2re Injury Assessment Reference Value (IARV) in the FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking that incorporated the test dummy into the side impact protection safety standard. The September 11, 2007 FMVSS No. 214 final rule specifies that the deflection of any of the upper, middle, and lower ribs shall not exceed 44 millimeters (mm) (1.65 inches).\6\ NHTSA sought an impact velocity for the full body thorax impact test that verified the dummy's response at this IARV level of rib deflection. Repeatable, reliable responses in qualification tests that exercise the ribs to this IARV level will ensure repeatable and reliable results from one vehicle test to another. As described in the report, ``Development of a Reduced-Severity Full Body Thorax Certification Procedure and Response Requirements for the ES-2re Dummy'' (Docket DMS 25441-13), the impact velocity of 5.5 m/s was chosen because it was the lowest impact velocity that produced rib deflections near the IARV. A lower impact speed would not produce sufficient rib deflection and thus would not give indication of the dummy's performance at the critical 44 mm deflection levels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ A chest deflection threshold of 44 mm corresponds to a 50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury for a 45-year-old. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following establishment of an impact speed of 5.5 m/s, the agency conducted a series of tests to generate performance corridors for the full-body thorax test. These tests subjected three dummies to 15 impacts each, with five impacts for each tuning spring stiffness. Although some impacts produced deflections that were above the IARV of 44 mm, no problems with rib durability were observed. Furthermore, the petitioners did not provide conclusive evidence that the 5.5 m/s impact speed produced the reported rib degradation. Rib durability is discussed further below; however, it does not appear to be an issue related to the test speed. 3. Durability The Alliance, referencing the SAE DTESC meeting minutes from January 19, 2007, stated that repeat full-body thorax tests caused degradation of the rib foam material, which in turn resulted in variation of the ``Impactor Force after 6 ms'' measurements. This caused force responses to eventually fall outside the prescribed corridor. The Alliance also referenced linear regression plots showing ``the variation of rib deflections and force as repeat full body thorax tests were conducted,'' and additional linear regression plots provided in the DTESC meeting attachments that indicate that the impactor force is the ``most sensitive parameter and increas[es] as more tests are conducted due to rib foam degradation.'' The Alliance claimed that the ribs could require ``replacement after approximately 20-50 certification tests,'' which it ``considers unacceptable in terms of durability.'' Denton, which also referenced the January 19, 2007 DTESC Meeting Minutes, had similar comments regarding durability. Agency Response As mentioned in the previous discussion, the full body thorax impact test is necessary for evaluation of the dummy as a system. Additionally, the test is conducted at 5.5 m/s because this speed is required to induce rib deflections at the level of the IARV. The dummy must be tested at this level of deflection to ensure that its performance in a crash test will be reliable. Results from agency full-body thorax qualification tests conducted at 5.5 m/s cannot be appropriately analyzed for trends such as those described by the petitioners, as there are not enough tests of any one dummy to confidently state that the responses are behaving in a certain manner (5 tests are available for each dummy). However, these five tests per dummy do not show strong trends in the behavior of the peak impactor force. The durability of the ES-2re was an issue discussed in response to comments to the December 14, 2006 NPRM. In responding to the comments, the agency discussed the durability of the ES-2re in agency testing. It was found that after full-body thorax impacts conducted at 6.7 m/s \7\ on two [[Page 33907]] dummies (5 impacts on one dummy, 15 on the other), no parts of the dummy exhibited any observable component damage or failure. Additionally, no significant durability problems were identified after 14 pole tests and 14 MDB vehicle crash tests. The final rule therefore concluded that the durability of the ES-2re is fully acceptable for its intended use in FMVSS No. 214. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ 6.7 m/s was the proposed impact velocity for the full-body thorax impact test discussed in the NPRM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although NHTSA has conducted a number of tests on the ES-2re dummy without any durability issues arising in the ribs, the data provided in the DTESC meeting attachments submitted by Denton and referenced by the Alliance were also carefully analyzed, and the following observations were made: The ``Impactor Force after 6 ms'' data \8\ that the Alliance refers to as eventually falling outside the prescribed corridor is a compilation of results from a number of different dummies. Most of the dummies produced fairly consistent results, whether within or somewhat outside the final rule performance corridor. The ES2-LAB dummy, tested at Denton ATD, had rising response measurements that eventually exceeded the final rule corridor limit (see middle set of ``Removed Dummies'' in Figure 4 of this preamble, infra.). Three ES2-LAB dummy measurements significantly exceeded the upper performance limit; these were conducted after an ``investigational test series,'' the conditions of which were not provided. The photograph of a damaged rib provided by Denton in the DTESC minutes was taken after these three tests. Therefore it is unknown whether the damage was related to the final rule qualification procedures or to the investigational test series conducted earlier on this dummy. The reason that this dummy responded in this manner is unknown; however, the trend was unique to this dummy and does not indicate durability problems with the ES-2re in general. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Attachments 17-19 of the SAE DTESC January 17, 2007 minutes. Submitted as part of Denton's petition for reconsideration to the ES-2re final rule, NHTSA Docket No. 25441-17. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The linear regression plot of the ``Impactor Force after 6 ms'' results referred to by petitioners Denton and the Alliance shows a positive slope, suggesting that the response is rising as more tests are conducted. However, the correlation is very weak (R\2\ = 0.1072), and furthermore all data fall within the final rule corridors. Therefore, this plot does not illustrate any problematic responses. It appears that as more tests are conducted, the impactor force before 6 ms rises. However, this response is not important for qualification or crash tests. As long as the dummy responds in a consistent manner at high deflections, such as those in qualification and crash tests, its inertial response (before 6 ms) is inconsequential. As discussed, the petitioners do not provide strong evidence of rib durability problems. However, the agency recognizes that other side impact dummies (i.e., SID-IIsD, WorldSID) are specified to have an impact speed of 4.3 m/s for testing the full-body thorax. Therefore, to ensure that the severity of qualification tests is consistent between side impact dummies, the rib deflections required for qualification of the SID-IIsD were compared to their respective IARV levels. (For the WorldSID, an IARV is not yet available as injury criteria are still under development.) The SID-IIsD dummy has a monitored IARV limit of 38 mm for all thoracic ribs,\9\ although at this time FMVSS No. 214 does not specify a rib deflection limit for this dummy. To make a fair comparison between the deflection levels of the qualification test versus the IARV for the SID-IIsD and ES-2re, the SID-IIsD test conditions should be as close as possible to the ES-2re test conditions. Therefore, the deflections of the SID-IIsD ``thorax without arm'' test (rather than the ``thorax with arm'' test) were compared to its monitored IARV limit because the ES-2re full body thorax test is conducted with the struck-side arm removed. The rib deflection corridors for qualification of the SID-IIsD dummy are presented in Table 1 below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Kuppa, S. ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies.'' National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center, NHTSA. January 2006. Table 1.--Rib Deflections Specified for SID-IIsD Thorax Qualification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deflection (mm) Qualification test ----------------------------------------------- Lower rib Middle rib Upper rib ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thorax without Arm.............................................. 36-43 39-45 33-40 Thorax with Arm................................................. 32-38 30-36 26-32 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparison of the qualification test corridors to the monitored IARV limit of the SID-IIsD thoracic ribs show that the deflections for the thorax without arm qualification test are in line with the monitored IARV for the thoracic ribs. Thus, even though the impact speed is slower for the SID-IIsD qualification than for the ES-2re, the induced rib deflections, like those in the ES-2re qualification test, are at the level of the monitored IARV. A similar comparison can be made using the Hybrid III 50th percentile male (Subpart E) dummy. For qualification of this dummy's thorax, the front of the dummy thorax is impacted using the same probe as that used on the ES-2re at a velocity of 6.7 m/s (22 feet per second (fps)), and the sternum displacement relative to the spine is specified to be 68 4.57 mm (2.68 0.18 inches). As of September 2006,\10\ FMVSS No. 208's frontal barrier tests specify a maximum compressive deflection of the sternum of 63 mm for the Hybrid III 50th percentile male driver and passenger dummies in these tests. Therefore again, the amount of compression specified in the qualification test is consistent with the IARV required by the corresponding vehicle crash test. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The date that all new light vehicles were required to comply with the advanced air bag requirements set forth in section S14 of FMVSS No. 208. Prior to this requirement, vehicles not certified to section S14 could comply under tests that specified a maximum compressive deflection of the sternum relative to the spine of 76 mm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, both the Alliance and Denton estimated that under the current qualification test procedure, the ribs would require replacement after 20-50 certification (qualification) tests. However, inasmuch as dummies are rarely subjected to such high numbers of repeat qualification tests, this number does not provide a clear indication of dummy durability. The purpose of qualification is to assure the dummy's performance in a sled or crash test, therefore after it is qualified, the dummy will be used in these types of tests. Because sled and crash tests can be of varying severity, wear-and-tear on the dummy over time will differ based on the test conditions. Thus, the life of the dummy's components is more dependent on the severity, rather than the number, of tests to which the [[Page 33908]] dummy is subjected. Given this, the agency cannot concur that replacement after 20-50 qualification tests is indicative of poor rib durability. In conclusion, an issue with rib durability cannot be clearly identified by the data provided, and the relative severity of the test with respect to the resulting rib deflection is comparable to those of the SID-IIsD and Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummies. Although petitioners provide an estimated number of qualification tests before rib replacement would be necessary, this estimate does not reflect the typical use of dummies and thus does not give an indication of the level of rib durability. Therefore, the full body thorax test will remain a requirement for ES-2re qualification, and the impact speed will remain as specified in the final rule. 4. Repeatability and Reproducibility Denton believed that ``the fact that the dummy changes with every test makes it impossible for the certification test to be a repeatable and reproducible evaluation of the dummy.'' This comment refers to the petitioner's earlier discussion on rib durability, where they claim that ``this full body thorax impact test causes damage to the foam on the dummy ribs with every impact that is done'' and ``every single impact to the dummy degrades the foam on the ribs.'' Agency Response As discussed in previous sections, the data provided by the petitioner do not sufficiently support a finding of a dummy durability problem for the ES-2re. Also, the data set used to form performance corridors shows very good repeatability and reproducibility. This data set included five different dummies from two labs and two manufacturers that were each tested at least five times. The coefficient of variations (CVs) for rib deflection responses from individual dummies ranged from 0.44 percent--2.09 percent, and the CVs for peak force after 6 ms ranged from 0.82 percent--3.85 percent, indicating excellent repeatability. In terms of reproducibility, rib deflection CVs ranged from 2.66 percent--2.96 percent, and the CV for peak force after 6 ms was 4.76 percent (see Table 2, below). These low CV values show that measurements from one dummy to the next were very consistent, i.e., the test results are reproducible.\11\ For these reasons, the agency disagrees with the petitioner that this test does not provide a repeatable and reproducible evaluation of the dummy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ When all dummies were included in a reproducibility analysis (i.e., dummies included in the data set for corridor formation as well as those that were excluded), rib deflection CVs ranged from 2.75%-3.49%, and the CV for peak force after 6 ms was 5.77%. Table 2.--Mean, Standard Deviation, and Coefficient of Variance (CV) for ES2-re Dummies Tested in the Full Body Thorax Qualification Test [Bold text indicates dummies that were removed from the data set for the formation of performance corridors; see section d.5 of this preamble] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Middle rib Peak force Lab and dummy No. Upper rib peak peak disp Lower rib peak after 6 ms disp (mm) (mm) disp (mm) (N) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VRTC* 009..................... mean............ 35.4 39.72 38.46 5713.7 SD.............. 0.738 0.795 0.586 219.9 CV.............. 2.09% 2.00% 1.52% 3.85% VRTC 70....................... mean........... 37.26 40.74 39.64 5678.2 SD.............. 0.747 0.404 0.462 128.1 CV.............. 2.00% 0.99% 1.16% 2.26% VRTC 71....................... mean........... 39.4 42.6 40.26 5594.0 SD.............. 0.187 0.187 0.385 45.9 CV.............. 0.47% 0.44% 0.96% 0.82% Denton 154.................... mean............ 38.6 41.9 41.7 5521.3 SD.............. 0.785 0.659 0.432 72.138 CV.............. 2.03% 1.57% 1.04% 1.31% Denton 184.................... mean........... 37.3 40.4 41.2 5760.6 SD.............. 0.610 0.586 0.628 147.031 CV.............. 1.63% 1.45% 1.52% 2.55% Denton ES2-LAB................ mean............ 37.7 40.5 40.4 6020.0 SD.............. 0.764 0.603 0.937 365.095 CV.............. 2.03% 1.49% 2.32% 6.06% Denton ES2-3.................. mean........... 38.0 42.4 41.4 5049.5 SD.............. 0.662 0.441 0.387 111.434 CV.............. 1.74% 1.04% 0.93% 2.21% GM 2.............. mean............ 40.2 43.9 44.6 5020.0 SD.............. 0.707 0.283 0.071 0.000 CV.............. 1.76% 0.64% 0.16% 0.00% FTSS ES2-001.................. mean............ 35.0 40.1 40.0 5422.3 SD.............. 1.371 0.871 0.800 100.021 CV.............. 3.92% 2.17% 2.00% 1.84% FTSS 175-0000-023............. mean............ 36.1 41.2 40.1 5536.4 SD.............. 1.032 0.410 0.014 132.363 CV.............. 2.86% 1.00% 0.04% 2.39% ALL (non-bold only)........... Mean............ 37.4 40.8 40.7 5643.3 Stdev........... 1.11 1.09 1.08 268.38 CV.............. 2.96% 2.67% 2.66% 4.76% ALL (including bold).......... Mean............ 37.5 40.9 40.8 5667.3 Stdev........... 1.31 1.13 1.20 326.92 CV.............. 3.49% 2.75% 2.95% 5.77% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \*\ NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center. [[Page 33909]] 5. Performance Corridors With regard to the performance corridors for the full body thorax test, NHTSA is revising the performance corridors to reflect responses obtained from a greater sample of dummies than was available when forming the final rule corridors. The revised corridors were derived from analysis of the DTESC data set. As explained below, most but not all of the DTESC data were used. The basis for formation of the final rule performance corridors was discussed in the report, ``Development of a Reduced Severity Full Body Thorax Certification Procedure and Response Requirements for the ES-2re Dummy,'' (Docket NHTSA 2006-25441-13). As NHTSA was developing the full body thorax response corridors, the agency believed that the ideal test scenario would be to use ribs that met the individual rib drop specifications precisely at the upper and lower bounds of the individual rib drop corridor. Measurements taken with these ribs would allow for prediction of all possible full body thorax responses when individually qualifying ribs are installed in the dummy. However, given the limited number of rib sets available for testing, it was not possible to obtain ribs that responded precisely at the limits of acceptable performance. Therefore, some ribs tested in the full body test had individual rib drop responses somewhat above or below the corridor bounds, while others were within the corridor. The results of the full body impact tests were then plotted against the corresponding individual rib responses and a linear regression was performed to relate the responses of these two tests. Using this regression, the rib responses in a full body test at the upper and lower limits of the individual rib drop corridor were predicted. Performance corridors for the full body test were formed based on the intersection of this regression line with the performance limits of the individual rib drop test.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Although some tests were conducted outside the limits for individual rib qualification, the regression showed a fairly good linear correlation between the full body response and the individual rib response. Therefore the ``outside'' points did not distort the regression. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The agency only used full body tests with the out-of-specification individual ribs in the regression and did not use them to determine the overall response variability of the thorax. The data set used for the formation of performance corridors by statistical means (as discussed in the following paragraphs) only included the full body thorax impact responses that were generated using ribs that met the requirements of the individual rib drop test. FTSS petitioned for changes in the ``Peak Impactor Force after 6 ms'' corridor based on statistical analysis of all NHTSA data along with additional data from FTSS, Denton and GM. However, the FTSS data set included NHTSA results derived using out-of-specification ribs. Moreover, corresponding rib drop results were not provided for the full body impact tests conducted by FTSS, Denton and GM. Though the NHTSA results using out-of-specification ribs could be removed from the data set, it is unknown whether the responses from FTSS, Denton and GM were based on ribs that passed qualification tests individually. Therefore, results from this data set were not considered for the formulation of new performance corridors. The data set with which the Alliance and Denton recommended new performance corridors was compiled by the SAE DTESC and submitted by Denton. This data set contained results from full body and individual rib qualification tests conducted at NHTSA, Denton and GM,\13\ and is the source for the data analysis and corridor formation discussed in the following sections. However, as discussed below, before using this data set to establish performance corridors, some results were removed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Attachment 17 to the Unconfirmed Minutes of the January 19, 2007 SAE DTESC meeting, submitted as part of Denton's petition for reconsideration to the ES-2re final rule, NHTSA Docket No. 25441-17. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NHTSA data, which was taken from the report ``Development of a Reduced Severity Full Body Thorax Certification Procedure and Response Requirements for the ES-2re Dummy'' (supra), included results from three different dummies. One set of NHTSA responses--included in the DTESC dataset--was obtained with a middle rib that did not meet individual rib drop specifications (dummy 009, blue springs). Because the performance of the dummy in full body impacts would be affected by the out-of-spec middle rib, we removed the five tests in this series from the data set. Denton performed full body thorax tests on four dummies, three of which had corresponding individual rib drop test results. We eliminated from consideration for corridor formation the dummy that did not have individual rib drop results (154). Two other dummies' responses in the DTESC data set were also removed. The first was another dummy from Denton, ES2-LAB, which (as discussed previously) showed unusual peak impactor force responses in that as more tests were conducted, the peak impactor force measurement climbed consistently. This appeared to be indicative of a problem with this particular dummy, as the responses of other Denton dummies were fairly consistent. Denton also indicated that the three highest responses of this dummy were ``after an investigational test series.'' Based on the SAE DTESC minutes attached to Denton's petition, it appears that this ``investigational series'' was actually two series: The first a study of the effect of velocity on full body thorax impact results, and the second a study looking at the effects of twist angle, tilt angle, and vertical position of the dummy. However, the conditions of these test series were not provided; therefore it is unknown whether the dummy response in the last three qualification tests was altered due to previous test conditions. The second removed dummy was tested at GM, where two full body thorax impact tests were conducted on one dummy. Although passing individual rib drop results were provided, this dummy consistently showed low impactor force responses and high rib deflections for all three ribs, indicating that its behavior differs from the majority of dummies. Information on the prior test exposures for this dummy was not provided. The agency analyzed the resulting data set to evaluate the corridors of the final rule and those of the petitions for reconsideration, to determine if adjustments to the final rule corridors were warranted. Figures 1 to 4 below show the data that was retained for corridor formation for each of the four response measurements for the full body thorax impact test, as well as--for illustration purposes--the data from the removed dummies with passing or unknown individual rib drop results (which included three Denton dummies, two FTSS dummies, and one GM dummy, as discussed above). (Data from those dummies are presented in Figures 1-4 as ``Removed Dummies'' and were not included in the data set for statistical analysis, i.e., calculation of the mean, standard deviation, etc.) Table 3 below summarizes the petitioners' suggested performance corridors for the full body thorax impact test, and the corridors adopted today in response to the petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. [[Page 33910]] Table 3.--Current, Suggested and Revised Performance Corridors for the Full Body Thorax Impact Qualification Test ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- December 14, Alliance NHTSA Measurement 2006 final (2stdev) petitions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Upper Rib Deflection (mm).. 33.2-41.3 35-40 33.2-41.3 33.2-41.3 34-41 Peak Middle Rib Deflection (mm). 37.1-45.4 38-43 37.1-45.4 37.1-45.4 37-45 Peak Lower Rib Deflection (mm).. 35.6-43.0 38-44 35.6-43.0 36.4-44.9 37-44 Peak Impactor Force after 6 ms 5173-6118 5045-6344 5039-6159 4720-6669 5100-6200 (N)............................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (i) Upper Rib Deflection All of the data in the complete dataset (i.e., without any dummies removed) fit within the specified final rule corridor of 33.2-41.3 mm, as seen in Figure 1 below. The Alliance petitioned to narrow the corridor bounds to a range of 35-40 mm. The data set with the indicated dummy responses removed (``revised data set'') has a mean deflection of 37.4 mm, a standard deviation of 1.11 mm and a CV of 2.96 percent. In that this CV is less than 3 percent, we could adopt corridor bounds that are expanded 3 standard deviations from the mean,\14\ or a range of 34.1-40.8 mm. When rounded to the next whole numbers away from the mean, this corridor becomes 34-41 mm, which is only slightly narrowed compared to the final rule. This corridor contains nearly all the NHTSA and DTESC data points, and is well-centered about the mean. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ In rulemakings involving the ES-2re and SID-IIsD, performance corridors have been formed under the following method: for a CV less than or equal to 3 percent, limits are expanded 3 standard deviations from the mean. For CVs between 3 percent and 5 percent, corridor bounds are set at 2 standard deviations from the mean. Finally, if the CV is above 5 percent but below 10 percent, the bounds are set 10 percent from the mean. Following this initial placement, the corridor limits are rounded to the next whole number away from the mean, then adjusted further if warranted, on a case-by-case basis. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JN08.002 (ii) Middle Rib Deflection All data in the complete DTESC data set also fit within the corridors specified in the final rule for middle rib deflection, 37.1- 45.4 mm (see Figure 2 below). However, the Alliance petitioned for narrowed corridor bounds of 38-43 mm. Statistical analysis of the revised data set resulted in a mean response of 40.8 mm, a standard deviation of 1.09 mm and a CV of 2.67 percent. This CV allows for corridor bounds placed at 3 standard deviations from the mean, or a range of 37.6-44.1 mm (37-45 mm when rounded away from the mean). This corridor is very close to the corridor specified in the final rule, and includes all the data submitted by the petitioners as well as all NHTSA data. Thus, NHTSA is amending the peak middle rib deflection corridor to 37-45 mm. [[Page 33911]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JN08.003 (iii) Lower Rib Deflection Denton and GM dummies in the DTESC-compiled data set submitted in Denton's petition for reconsideration show deflections that are generally higher than those measured by NHTSA. The final rule specified a range of 35.6-43.0 mm, while the Alliance and Denton recommended corridors ranging from 38-44 mm and 36.4-44.9 mm, respectively. Based on statistical analysis of the revised DTESC data set, an adjustment of the corridor bounds to reflect these higher responses from a larger population of dummies is appropriate. The revised data set has a mean response of 40.7 mm, a standard deviation of 1.08 mm, and a CV of 2.66 percent. This CV allows for expansion of the bounds 3 standard deviations from the mean, producing a range of 37.5-43.9 mm, or 37-44 mm when rounded away from the mean. This corridor is slightly smaller than and shifted upward from the final rule corridor, but wider than the corridor for which the Alliance petitioned. This corridor contains nearly all petitioner-submitted data as well as all NHTSA data (Figure 3). [[Page 33912]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JN08.004 (iv) Peak Impactor Force After 6 ms The additional peak impactor force data compiled by the SAE DTESC and submitted by Denton provide additional points with which to form statistically-based corridors. In its petition, the Alliance used this data set to propose a corridor of 5045-6344 N, while Denton recommended a range of 4720-6669 N, as shown in Figure 4. FTSS recommended a performance corridor of 5039-6159 N for this measure. (The FTSS corridor is close to the Alliance recommendation, therefore to avoid clutter in Figure 4, it is shown to correspond to the Alliance corridor.) The mean response derived from the revised data set was 5643 N, with a SD of 268 N and a CV of 4.76 percent. This CV allows for setting the corridor limits at 2 standard deviations from the mean, at 5107-6180 N. Rounded away from the mean, the lower and upper corridor bounds of the recommended corridor are 5100 N and 6200 N, respectively, a range very close to that which was petitioned by FTSS. [[Page 33913]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JN08.005 (v) Width of Performance Corridors Denton endorsed the SAE DTESC recommendation to establish performance corridor bounds at 3 standard deviations from the mean of the data set since the petitioner believed there is ``very limited lab-to-lab, technician to technician, and dummy to dummy variability included in the data set. Since this is a brand new test, it was difficult to accumulate much data * * * since this data set is very limited, 99% of the available data should be included since test variation always occurs.'' The agency believes that the data set has sufficient lab-to-lab and dummy-to-dummy variability to form performance corridors using the standard method (see previous footnote on the method used in rulemakings, supra). In all, 76 tests were conducted on ten dummies at four laboratories. However, performance corridors were formed based on the results of five dummies at two laboratories (49 tests). Although data from five dummies were removed for corridor formation due to missing individual rib drop results or suspected problems with the dummy, nearly all of these results still fit within the revised corridors (Figures 1-4, supra). Furthermore, due to the relatively low amount of variation that was seen in the data (both the data that was used to generate corridors and that which was removed) as shown in Table 2, all corridors in the full-body thoracic test with the exception of the peak impactor force were set at 3 standard deviations from the mean when using the standard method. e. Cross-References and Typographical Errors in Regulatory Text The Alliance and Denton noted a number of incorrect cross- references in the December 14, 2006 final rule. Denton noted these by attaching a copy of the January 19, 2007 SAE DTES meeting minutes.\15\ The suggested corrections are discussed below. Also, at the end of this section we correct two minor errors that we found on our own. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Submitted in Denton's petition for reconsideration, NHTSA Docket No. 25441-17. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. In 572.183(b)(1), reference 572.189(o) should be 572.189(n). NHTSA agrees that Part 572.183(b)(1) should be amended to read, ``Soak the neck-headform assembly in a test environment as specified in Sec. 572.189(n)'' * * * 2. In 572.185(b)(1)(i), reference 572.189(o) should be 572.189(n). We agree that 572.185(b)(1)(i) should be changed to read, ``Soak the rib modules (175-4002) in a test environment as specified in Sec. 572.189(n)'' * * * 3. In 572.183(b)(5), reference 572.189(k) should be 572.189(j). We agree that in 572.183(b)(5), ``Time zero is defined in Sec. 572.189(k)'' should be changed to ``Time zero is defined in Sec. 572.189(j).'' 4. The table name for the table between 572.183(b)(5) and 572.183(c), ``Table to 1 to Paragraph (A),'' should be ``Table 1 to Paragraph (a),'' as called out in 572.183(b)(3). The agency agrees to correct the typographical error in the title for this table to read: ``Table 1 to Paragraph (a)'' (changing ``A'' to lower case ``a'' and removing the word ``to'' between ``Table'' and ``1''). 5. Petitioners believe that in 572.186(b)(6), reference 572.189(k) should be 572.189(j). NHTSA does not agree that the reference should be 572.189(j). Qualification tests of the abdomen require that time zero be determined using the procedures specified in Sec. 572.189(k). Thus, the reference should remain as in the final rule. 6. In 572.187(b)(1), reference 572.189(o) should be 572.189(n). We agree to changing the reference as petitioned, so that the text of 572.187(b)(1) reads, ``Soak the lumbar spine-headform assembly in a test [[Page 33914]] environment as specified in Sec. 572.189(n)'' * * * 7. In 572.187(b)(5), reference 572.189(k) should be 572.189(j). NHTSA agrees that in 572.187(b)(5), ``Time zero is defined in Sec. 572.189(k).'' should be changed to ``Time zero is defined in Sec. 572.189(j).'' 8. In 572.188(b)(4), reference ``Figure U5'' should be ``Figure U6.'' We agree. In the NPRM, the reference in 572.188(b)(4) to Figure U5 was correct. However, with the addition of a figure for thorax impact in the final rule, the pelvis impact illustration became Figure U6. Therefore, 572.188(b)(4) should be amended to read, ``* * *as shown in Figure U6 in Appendix A * * *'' Additionally, there is an omission in section 572.188(b). The section fails to define the procedure for determining time zero. NHTSA is adding 572.188(b)(6) to state: ``Time zero is defined in Sec. 572.189(k).'' 9. Petitioners stated that in 572.188(c)(1), reference 572.189(k) should be 572.189(j). NHTSA does not agree that the reference should be 572.189(j). For correct analysis of pelvis qualification data, time zero must be defined following the procedures given in Sec. 572.189(k). However, since the correct specification for time zero was added in 572.188(b)(6), the reference to time zero in this section is unnecessary and is hereby removed. 10. Petitioners believe that in 572.188(c)(2), reference 572.189(k) should be 572.189(j). We do not agree. Pelvis qualification tests require that time zero be defined according to the procedure specified in Sec. 572.189(k). However, since the correct specification for time zero was added in 572.188(b)(6), the reference to time zero in this section is unnecessary and is hereby removed. 11. The agency has found an error in Figure U2-A, which specifies the pendulum for neck/lumbar spine qualification tests to be the ``Part 572 Subpart E Pendulum (Figure 15)''. The description and figure number do not refer to the same pendulum. This document makes a technical amendment by correcting the reference to read, ``Part 572 Subpart E Pendulum (Figure 22)''. 12. 572.181(a)(5) references SAE 1733 Information Report, ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing,'' dated July 15, 1986. The correct reference should be to SAE J1733 dated December 1994. f. Drawing Package and PADI The petitions for reconsideration suggested minor changes to a number of drawings in the ES-2re drawing package. These requests are discussed below, along with agency responses. Corrections are also made to the PADI. Because the drawings in the drawing package and the PADI are being changed as discussed below, this final rule updates the references to the drawing package, parts list, and PADI incorporated by reference by the December 14, 2006 final rule. The December 2006 final rule referenced materials dated September 2006; today's final rule references a drawing package, parts list, and PADI dated February 2008. 1. Drawing 175-2000, Neck Assembly Test