Anthropomorphic Test Devices; ES-2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 50th Percentile Adult Male, 33903-33922 [E8-13063]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions
for reconsideration, technical
amendment.
AGENCY:
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.
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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33903
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.
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 bodylevel 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
33904
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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 timedependent 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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:
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.
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 crossreferences 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 § 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),
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33905
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
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
33906
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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)
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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
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
6 A chest deflection threshold of 44 mm
corresponds to a 50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury
for a 45-year-old.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
7 6.7 m/s was the proposed impact velocity for the
full-body thorax impact test discussed in the
NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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.
• 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 (R2 = 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.
33907
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.
TABLE 1.—RIB DEFLECTIONS SPECIFIED FOR SID–IISD THORAX QUALIFICATION
Deflection (mm)
Qualification test
Lower rib
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Thorax without Arm .....................................................................................................................
Thorax with Arm ..........................................................................................................................
36–43
32–38
Middle rib
39–45
30–36
Upper rib
33–40
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.
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
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.
9 Kuppa, S. ‘‘Injury Criteria for Side Impact
Dummies.’’ National Transportation Biomechanics
Research Center, NHTSA. January 2006.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
33908
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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]
Upper rib peak
disp
(mm)
Lab and dummy No.
VRTC* 009 ........................................
VRTC 70 ...........................................
VRTC 71 ...........................................
Denton 154 .......................................
Denton 184 .......................................
Denton ES2–LAB ............................
Denton ES2–3 ...................................
GM #2 ...............................................
FTSS ES2–001 .................................
FTSS 175–0000–023 ........................
ALL (non-bold only) ..........................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
ALL (including bold) ..........................
* NHTSA’s
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
mean ................................................
SD ....................................................
CV ....................................................
Mean ................................................
Stdev ................................................
CV ....................................................
Mean ................................................
Stdev ................................................
CV ....................................................
35.4
0.738
2.09%
37.26
0.747
2.00%
39.4
0.187
0.47%
38.6
0.785
2.03%
37.3
0.610
1.63%
37.7
0.764
2.03%
38.0
0.662
1.74%
40.2
0.707
1.76%
35.0
1.371
3.92%
36.1
1.032
2.86%
37.4
1.11
2.96%
37.5
1.31
3.49%
39.72
0.795
2.00%
40.74
0.404
0.99%
42.6
0.187
0.44%
41.9
0.659
1.57%
40.4
0.586
1.45%
40.5
0.603
1.49%
42.4
0.441
1.04%
43.9
0.283
0.64%
40.1
0.871
2.17%
41.2
0.410
1.00%
40.8
1.09
2.67%
40.9
1.13
2.75%
Lower rib peak
disp
(mm)
38.46
0.586
1.52%
39.64
0.462
1.16%
40.26
0.385
0.96%
41.7
0.432
1.04%
41.2
0.628
1.52%
40.4
0.937
2.32%
41.4
0.387
0.93%
44.6
0.071
0.16%
40.0
0.800
2.00%
40.1
0.014
0.04%
40.7
1.08
2.66%
40.8
1.20
2.95%
Peak force
after 6 ms
(N)
5713.7
219.9
3.85%
5678.2
128.1
2.26%
5594.0
45.9
0.82%
5521.3
72.138
1.31%
5760.6
147.031
2.55%
6020.0
365.095
6.06%
5049.5
111.434
2.21%
5020.0
0.000
0.00%
5422.3
100.021
1.84%
5536.4
132.363
2.39%
5643.3
268.38
4.76%
5667.3
326.92
5.77%
Vehicle Research and Test Center.
11 When all dummies were included in a
reproducibility analysis (i.e., dummies included in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Middle rib
peak disp
(mm)
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
the data set for corridor formation as well as those
that were excluded), rib deflection CVs ranged from
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2.75%–3.49%, and the CV for peak force after 6 ms
was 5.77%.
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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
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-ofspecification 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-ofspecification 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.
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.
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.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
33910
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3.—CURRENT, SUGGESTED AND REVISED PERFORMANCE CORRIDORS FOR THE FULL BODY THORAX IMPACT
QUALIFICATION TEST
December 14,
2006 final rule
Measurement
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Upper Rib Deflection (mm) .........................................
Middle Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................
Lower Rib Deflection (mm) .........................................
Impactor Force after 6 ms (N) ....................................
33.2–41.3
37.1–45.4
35.6–43.0
5173–6118
Alliance
(±2stdev)
35–40
38–43
38–44
5045–6344
FTSS
Denton
33.2–41.3
37.1–45.4
35.6–43.0
5039–6159
33.2–41.3
37.1–45.4
36.4–44.9
4720–6669
NHTSA
response to
petitions
34–41
37–45
37–44
5100–6200
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.
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.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
ER16JN08.002</GPH>
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
(ii) Middle Rib Deflection
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
(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
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 petitionersubmitted data as well as all NHTSA
data (Figure 3).
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
ER16JN08.003</GPH>
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
(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,
33911
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
(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 statisticallybased 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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
ER16JN08.004</GPH>
33912
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
(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-todummy 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
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
§ 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
15 Submitted in Denton’s petition for
reconsideration, NHTSA Docket No. 25441–17.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33913
environment as specified in
§ 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 § 572.189(k)’’ should
be changed to ‘‘Time zero is defined in
§ 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
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
ER16JN08.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
33914
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
environment as specified in
§ 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 § 572.189(k).’’
should be changed to ‘‘Time zero is
defined in § 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 § 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
§ 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
§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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/Cert
Denton stated that the screws listed in
item number 5, M6x18, ‘‘are too long
and will interfere with the rubber of the
neck.’’ Denton recommended shortening
the length so that item 5 lists screws
M6x16.
Agency Response: We agree with the
change. The Neck Bracket attachment
area has a thickness of 12 mm and the
Neck Head & Torso Interface Plate has
a thickness of 5.0 mm at threads for a
total thickness of 17 mm, thus an 18 mm
fastener could possibly interfere with
the rubber in the neck. A 16 mm
fastener should be sufficient. Thus, on
drawing 175–2000, we have modified
item number 5 to read ‘‘Screw, SHCS
M6x16.’’ Conforming changes were also
made to the PADI and parts/drawings
list.
2. Drawing 175–2002, Neck
Intermediate Plate
FTSS indicated that the 8.7 mm
dimension in section B–B is incorrect,
and should be 9.0 mm. Denton also
requested that this dimension be
changed to 9 mm, as it was changed
from 9.0 mm in the NPRM ‘‘without
comment or documentation’’ to 8.7 mm
in the final rule.
Agency Response: It is not possible to
measure this part without destroying it
because it is molded into the neck.
However, given that both manufacturers
have asked for the same value, which is
only 0.3 mm from the existing
dimension, we have decided to accept
the petitioned value. Additionally, as
stated by Denton, this dimension was 9
mm in the ES–2re NPRM drawing
package, and no reason was provided as
to why the value was changed.
Accordingly, we are modifying drawing
175–2002 by replacing the dimension
8.7 +0/¥0.2 in section B–B with 9.0
+0.0/¥0.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3. Drawing 175–2004, Half Spherical
Screw
FTSS believes that the specification
for plating was removed and needs to be
added.
Agency Response: The petitioner
seeks to reinsert a phrase that was in the
original drawing, which called for
‘‘ZINC PLATE AND COLOR PASSIVE
PLATE THICKNESS 5 TO 8 MICRONS.’’
The petitioner did not provide
justification for requiring this finish.
However, since referring to this finish
would provide some guidance to
dummy users, we are adding the
following note to drawing 175–2004:
‘‘OPTIONAL FINISH: ZINC PLATE
AND COLOR PASSIVE PLATE
THICKNESS 5 TO 8 MICRONS.’’
4. Drawing 175–2505, Eye Bolt
FTSS recommended removal of the
note ‘‘NO UNDER CUT,’’ believing it to
be unnecessary.
Agency Response: FTSS is correct. We
have removed the note ‘‘NO UNDER
CUT’’ from drawing 175–2505.
5. Drawing 175–3002, Shoulder Spacer
Block
FTSS requested that the ‘‘location
dimension for dimension M5x12 (B3),
center line symbol * * * be added to
the left view.’’ Denton also commented
that there is no location dimension for
the M5x12 hole.
Agency Response: We have added a
center line symbol to the left view to
define the location of the M5x12 DP
dimension.
6. Drawing 175–3003, Shoulder ‘‘U’’
Spring
FTSS stated that the tolerance ±0.001
is unrealistic, and recommends
increasing it to 0.010.
Agency Response: The shoulder
response would not be adversely
affected by the suggested change, as the
shoulder cord plays a much more
significant role in the shoulder
response. We thus agree to change the
tolerance of the 0.710 dimension from
±0.001 to ±0.010.
7. Drawing 175–3004, Shoulder Cam
Clavicle Assembly
Denton requested that this drawing
have an option note similar to the note
on load cell SA572–S72, which allows
optional use of M6x16 FHCS instead of
M6x16 BHCS.
Agency Response: Although drawing
175–3004 specifies use of M6x18 BHCS,
not M6x16 BHCS as the petitioner cited,
we assume that the petitioner’s issue
lies in the optional use of FHCS (rather
than screw length). However, as we
were considering this suggested change,
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
we noticed that while drawing 175–
3004 specifies use of M6x1x18 BHCS,
the corresponding load cell drawing
(SA572–S72) specifies M6x1x16 BHCS/
FHCS. NHTSA believes that either
screw length is acceptable. Nonetheless,
since the load cell specifies M6x16 and
the petitioner sought to specify the
M6x16 length screws, we are changing
the screw specification on drawing 175–
3004 to M6x1x16. With regard to the
petitioner’s specific request, the
proposed change to optionally allow the
use of FHCS would make the shoulder
cam clavicle and shoulder load cell
structural replacement consistent with
the actual shoulder load cell.
Accordingly, we have modified drawing
175–3004 by changing item number 3 to
read ‘‘SCREW, BHCS M6x1x16’’ and
adding a note that optionally allows use
of FHCS M6x1x16 over the BHCS
M6x1x16 of that drawing. (A
conforming change was made to the
parts/drawings list). Also in this
drawing, the description of item #1 was
corrected to be ‘‘SHOULDER CAM
CLAVICLE ASSY,’’ and the spellings of
‘‘CAM’’ and ‘‘CLAVICLE’’ in revision
record C were corrected.
8. Drawings 175–3017, Shoulder Cam
Clavicle; 175–3005–2 and 175–3005–3,
T-Inserts
In its original petition for
reconsideration, FTSS recommended
merging drawings 175–3005–2 and 175–
3005–3 to prevent damage to the
shoulder cam clavicle caused by overtightening the screws. In an addendum
to the petition, FTSS stated that ‘‘a
number of ES–2re dummy users have
inadvertently used longer screws than
specified on the drawing and
accidentally cracked the shoulder cam
due to the bottoming out of the screws.’’
To prevent this, FTSS recommended
‘‘[changing] the threaded insert into a
one piece design, with a through
thread.’’ The drawing for the new part
was provided in the FTSS addendum,
and given part no. 175–3005–4, ‘‘Insert,
Shoulder Cam Load Cell.’’ FTSS also
recommended that the name of drawing
175–3017 be changed to ‘‘Shoulder Cam
Clavicle For Load Cell,’’ and that item
#1 (175–3005–3, T-insert, M6) be
deleted and replaced with ‘‘175–3005–
4, Insert, Shoulder Cam Load Cell.’’
Agency Response: We understand that
FTSS is suggesting that insert 175–
3005–2 remain unchanged, and that
insert 175–3005–3 should be replaced
with 175–3005–4.
With regard to the requested name
change for drawing 175–3017, NHTSA
sought clarification from FTSS
regarding its request. Since the shoulder
cam clavicle is compatible with both the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:27 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
load cell and the structural replacement,
it was unclear why FTSS recommended
that the name specify the load cell
alone. FTSS responded that originally,
in the ES–2 dummy, there was no
clavicle load cell and the part was
named ‘‘Shoulder Cam Clavicle.’’ When
the clavicle load cell was introduced,
FTSS re-named the ES–2 part ‘‘Shoulder
Cam Clavicle for Load Cell’’ to
distinguish between the two parts.
When the clavicle load cell became
standard in the ES–2re NPRM, the part
name was changed back to ‘‘Shoulder
Cam Clavicle,’’ which FTSS stated has
caused confusion in the industry. FTSS
therefore recommended that the name
be changed to ‘‘Shoulder Cam Clavicle
for Load Cell’’ to eliminate this
confusion and for consistency between
the ES–2 and ES–2re part names.
After considering this information,
NHTSA has determined that the name
change to ‘‘Shoulder Cam Clavicle for
Load Cell’’ may still cause confusion,
since the part is compatible with the
load cell or structural replacement.
However, we have decided that
changing the name to ‘‘Shoulder Cam
Clavicle for Load Cell or Structural
Replacement’’ is acceptable.
Thus, we have replaced 175–3005–3
with the FTSS suggested drawing 175–
3005–4. However, this part was given
the name ‘‘Insert, Shoulder Cam’’ due to
the fact that it is used in the ‘‘Shoulder
Cam Clavicle for Load Cell or Structural
Replacement,’’ and not in the load cell
exclusively. We have updated the
drawing views and reference to this part
on drawing 175–3017. Also, we have
changed the name of 175–3017 to
‘‘Shoulder Cam Clavicle for Load Cell or
Structural Replacement,’’ as reflected in
this drawing as well as in item 1 of
drawing 175–3016. Conforming changes
were also made to the parts/drawings
list.
9. Drawing 175–3018, Shoulder Load
Cell, Structural Replacement
Denton stated that this part should
have an option note similar to the
SA572–S72 load cell note that gives the
option to use a countersink for a M6x16
FHCS.
Agency Response: As stated above for
drawing 175–3004 (above), the
suggested change would make the
structural replacement consistent with
the load cell. Accordingly, we have
modified drawing 175–3018 by adding a
note that optionally allows countersinks
for M6x16 FHCS.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33915
10. Drawing 175–3007, Elastic Cord
Holder
FTSS requested that the phrase
‘‘EXCEPT FOR MOUNTING HOLES’’ be
deleted from note 3.
Agency Response: This request is
denied. Note 3 in drawing 175–3007
actually states ‘‘EXCEPT FOR
MOUNTING HOLE CENTERS.’’ If a
tolerance of ±1 mm were allowed on the
hole center dimension, this would allow
the hole centers to vary from 69.0 mm
to 71.0 mm. The corresponding holes on
mating parts 175–3001 ‘‘SHOULDER
BOTTOM PLATE’’ and 175–3008
‘‘SHOULDER TOP PLATE’’ have centers
separated by 70.0 mm ± 0.1 mm (69.9
mm to 70.1 mm). Although the holes in
part 175–3007 are clearance holes, their
diameter is only 0.3 mm larger than the
diameter of the corresponding holes in
175–3001 and –3008. Therefore, to
achieve alignment of the clearance and
threaded holes, the hole centers of the
elastic cord holder and shoulder plate
can only differ a maximum of 0.15 mm.
The FTSS approach would allow a
maximum distance of 0.55 mm between
the elastic cord holder hole centers and
the shoulder plate hole centers, which
would result in the potential for
misalignment of the holes.
11. Drawing 175–3010, Shoulder Foam
Pad
Denton recommended that a weight of
0.5–0.7 lb be specified ‘‘to help control
the reproducibility of the part.’’
Agency Response: This request is
denied. NHTSA weighed several
shoulder foam pads, with samples from
each manufacturer. The Denton ATD
samples were: Dummy #D038–0.56 lb
(0.25 kg) and Dummy #D037–0.53 lb
(0.24 kg); while the FTSS samples were:
Dummy #016–0.38 lb (0.17 kg) (very soft
foam); Dummy #070–0.50 lb (0.25 kg);
and Dummy #071–0.41 lb (0.19 kg).
Although the majority of the shoulder
foam pads would meet the suggested
requirement, the requirement is
unnecessary because the weight of
dummy components is sufficiently
defined by the segment weight (in this
case, the thorax segment weight defined
on 175–0000, sheet 2 of 6). In addition,
it is not evident that the shoulder foam
pad plays a significant role in the
response of the dummy such that tighter
controls on the foam pad weight are
necessary.
12. Drawing 175–3501, Arm Flesh
Assembly, Left/Right
Denton recommended specifying a
weight of 2.86 ± 0.22 lb ‘‘to help control
the reproducibility of the part.’’
Agency Response: This request is
denied. Denton’s proposed specification
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
33916
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
of 2.86 ± 0.22 lb for the arm flesh
assembly when converted to the
international system of units is
equivalent to the 1.3 ± 0.1 kg listed on
175–0000 for the whole arm. The whole
arm, as defined on 175–0000, consists of
the arm flesh assembly (drawing 175–
3501) plus the pivot stop plate (175–
3502). Thus the arm flesh alone cannot
have the same weight specification as
that for the whole arm.
15. Drawing 175–4010, Rail Guide
Assembly
13. Drawing 175–4003, Rib AssemblyRib Extensions
16. Drawing 175–4011, M-Rail
FTSS stated that ‘‘the two holes of
[diameter] 10 on the lower side of the
left view (C7) are not used. It was
carried from the standard ES–2 design,
and shall be removed.’’ Similarly,
Denton claimed ‘‘two of the holes on the
non-struck side are not used for
anything. These holes add cost and have
no value. We request that they be
removed or made optional.’’
Agency Response: While there is no
obvious function of the holes, the holes
might be useful in the manufacturing
process for location and/or alignment
purposes. Accordingly, we have
modified drawing 175–4003 by
indicating that the two holes on the
lower side of the left view (the nonstruck side) are optional.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
14. Drawing 175–4004, Rib, Bent Rib
Extension
FTSS requested a material change
from CS80 to CS70. Additionally, FTSS
notes that ‘‘the two holes 2x n4.75 of the
left view (C7) is [sic] unnecessary and
shall be removed (related to 175–4003).’’
Denton gave the same comment as for
drawing 175–4003 (above).
Agency Response: As stated above, we
agree that the holes are unnecessary and
can be made optional. Thus, we have
modified drawing 175–4004 by adding
‘‘OPTIONAL’’ to the hole note
describing the two 4.75 mm diameter
holes. With regard to the suggested
material change from CS80 to CS70, it
is not evident that the change would
result in equivalent dummy
performance. However, it is noted that
the specified material is not a
requirement (i.e., it states ‘‘Material
Ref.’’ where Ref. is short for
‘‘Reference’’). As such, the manufacturer
is free to use the material of its choice,
provided that the final assembly
complies with all the applicable
performance requirements, such as rib
drops and thorax impacts. Accordingly,
we have denied the request to change
the material to CS70.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
Denton stated that the bushing, item
6, is an extra part that should be made
optional as it ‘‘adds cost and no value
if item 2 is made without a
counterbore.’’ This request is related to
that for drawing 175–4012 below.
Agency Response: We agree to make
item 6 (bushing) optional. See response
relating to drawing 175–4012 below.
FTSS noted a location dimension of
3.5 mm from the center line needs to be
added for the threaded hole 4xM3x.5.
Denton also noted that these holes (2 on
each end of part) do not have location
dimensions.
FTSS also requested that a note
stating ‘‘clearance cut when necessary’’
be added and point to the tip of the ‘‘V’’
groove. Similarly, Denton requested
‘‘that an undercut be allowed at the
bottom of the V-groove as an option to
simplify the manufacturing,’’ as it will
not ‘‘change the functionality of the
part.’’
Agency Response: The agency agrees
with the request to add a location
dimension for the 4xM3x.5 hole.
Additionally, using a clearance cut (or
undercut) is a common manufacturing
process for this type of V-groove feature
and will not affect performance in any
way. We have thus modified drawing
176–4011 to add dimensions to define
the locations of the 4xM3x.5 holes, and
a note ‘‘CLEARANCE CUT WHEN
NECESSARY’’ to point to the tip of the
V-groove.
17. Drawing 175–4012, V-Rail
Denton stated that the bushing (item
6 in 175–4010) is unnecessary and can
rattle. They therefore request that the
8.5 mm counterbore in the V-rail be
listed as optional so that this bushing
can be left out to reduce costs.
Agency Response: We agree that the
bushing is unnecessary and have made
its use optional in drawing 175–4010
(above). Since the bushing is optional,
we have modified drawing 175–4012 by
adding a note that the counterbores are
optional.
18. Drawing 175–4020, Piston Thorax
Denton requested that the M2.5
threaded hole be made 7 mm deep
instead of 6 mm to make sure that the
long screw (item 15 on 175–4006) does
not bottom out.
Agency Response: We agree. The
suggested change will not affect
performance. We have modified the
M2.5 dimension to indicate 7.0 mm of
depth instead of 6.0 mm.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19. Drawing 175–4022, Transducer
Mount Thorax
Denton stated that the screws and
potentiometer could make contact in the
current configuration. To prevent
contact, Denton requested that the 9.2
mm dimension be increased to 9.35 mm.
Agency Response: We agree. The
agency believes that this request will
eliminate the potential for damaging the
potentiometer housing due to
interference with the fastener, without
affecting the dummy’s performance.
Thus, we have modified drawing 175–
4022 by increasing the 9.2 mm
dimension to 9.35 mm.
20. Inconsistency Between Drawing
175–4040, Spring 16.4 N/mm Black, and
PADI
As discussed in the preamble, the
petitioners pointed out an inconsistency
between the drawing and the PADI
manual (page 29, table 5.9) as to the
spring rate of 16.4 N/mm versus 16.6 N/
mm.
Agency Response: As discussed in the
preamble, the spring rate of 16.4 N/mm
shown in the drawing is correct. We
have corrected the PADI to provide a
spring rate of 16.4 N/mm.
21. Drawings 175–4040 (Spring 16.4 N/
mm Black), 175–4041 (Spring 13.8 N/
mm White), 175–4042 (Spring 19.0 N/
mm Blue)
As discussed in the preamble, the
petitioners recommended changes to the
tolerance values for the spring rates
shown in Note 2 of all three drawings.
Agency Response: As discussed in the
preamble, we revised drawings 175–
4040, 175–4041 and 175–4042 to specify
a spring rate tolerance of ±1.0 N/mm.
22. Drawings 175–4032 (Rib
Accelerometer Mount), SA572–S81
(Accelerometer Mount, Head C.G.),
SA572–S82 (Accel Mounting Block,
Upper Spine/Pelvis SA572–S4), SA572–
S83 (Accel Mount Block, Spine T12
SA572–S4)
Denton recommended adding a note
that instructs machinist to scribe
‘‘M1.4’’ near one set of these holes to
indicate that metric screws are
necessary for mounting the
accelerometers and to prevent possible
damage to the holes if standard screws
were used.
Agency Response: We agree that the
note is desirable to make clearer the
type of fastener required for this
application, as it is unusual to use a
metric fastener for this application.
However, inasmuch as this inscription
is only for convenience, we have made
the note ‘‘Optional.’’ We have thus
modified the above drawings by adding
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
a note that the machinist can optionally
scribe M1.4 near one of the holes to
indicate that metric screws are to be
used. Additionally, for drawing 175–
4032, Rib Accelerometer Mount, two
M1.6 holes are also present on the same
face of this part; thus, a separate note
was added to optionally scribe ‘‘M1.6’’
near this set of holes.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
23. Drawing 175–5010, Abdomen
Molded Assembly, Certified
Denton recommended specifying the
weight of this component to be 7.0–9.0
lb ‘‘to help control the reproducibility of
the part.’’
Agency Response: We are denying
this request. The abdomen molded
assembly weight is sufficiently specified
by the abdominal assembly weight on
sheet 2 of 175–0000. Further, the agency
weighed a sample molded abdomen
assembly from manufacturers Denton
and FTSS. The Denton dummy was:
#D038—8.03 lb (3.64 kg); while the
FTSS dummy was: #016—8.29 lb (3.76
kg). Both manufacturers met the
suggested requirement in the absence of
the weight specification.
24. Drawing 175–5012–1, Ballast, Lead,
Left and Drawing 175–5012–2, Ballast,
Lead, Right
Denton noted that drawing 175–5012–
1 is found twice in the drawing package,
where revision notes are included on
one drawing but not the other. FTSS
and Denton noted that drawing 175–
5012–2, Ballast Lead, Right, was not
included in the drawing package.
FTSS also recommended renaming
drawing 175–5012–116 as ‘‘Ballast, Left’’
and changing the note ‘‘LEAD FILLED
SLAB’’ to ‘‘LEAD OR EQUIVALENT
FILLED SLAB.’’ The petitioner stated
that adding ‘‘or equivalent’’ would
allow dummy manufacturers to use
materials other than lead in the future.
FTSS also wanted NHTSA to add ‘‘or
equivalent’’ to the missing drawing 175–
5012–2 for the same reason.
Agency Response: With regards to
175–5012–1 being found twice in the
drawing package and 175–5012–2 not at
all, we have named the first drawing
175–5012–1 ‘‘BALLAST, LEFT.’’ We
have changed the number and name of
the second copy of drawing 175–5012–
1 to 175–5012–2, ‘‘BALLAST, RIGHT,’’
respectively. Further, we agree that
changing the note ‘‘LEAD FILLED
SLAB’’ to ‘‘LEAD OR EQUIVALENT
FILLED SLAB’’ for both drawings would
allow the use of alternate materials, and
16 In its petition, FTSS referred to Drawing 175–
5011–1 regarding this matter. Based on the context
of the petition, we assume that FTSS meant to refer
to Drawing 175–5012–1 when it referred to drawing
175–5011–1.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
that the change will not affect the
dummy’s performance. We have
changed the titles of the revised
drawings to ‘‘BALLAST, LEFT’’ and
‘‘BALLAST, RIGHT,’’ to reflect the fact
that the part would not necessarily be
made of lead. Conforming changes were
also made to the parts/drawings list.
25. Drawing 175–5501, Lumbar Spine
Molded
FTSS stated that the 135 mm length
dimension should be changed to 136
mm.
Agency Response: This part is a
common part with the Hybrid II 50th
male spine, which is defined in ATD–
7102 as 5.375 inches, or 136.5 mm.
NHTSA measured samples from each
dummy manufacturer. The results were:
Denton #D038 = 135 mm; FTSS #016 =
137 mm. Thus it appears that both
manufacturers could meet the suggested
dimension and the change would be
consistent with the part used in the
Hybrid II dummy. Thus, we have
modified drawing no. 175–5501 by
changing the 135±2 dimension to 136±2.
26. Drawing 175–6041, Sacrum Cover
Plate
FTSS stated that the optional cut out
shown in C3 and detail A should be
removed because it is unnecessary.
Agency Response: The request is
denied. The optional cutout is in place
to allow instrumentation cables to exit
from the dummy without being
pinched. FTSS dummies have clearance
for cables without this cutout but
Denton dummies do not have sufficient
clearance, and thus the cutout is
needed. It is noted that the cutout is
optional; therefore if FTSS does not
want to include the cutout, it is entirely
acceptable to omit it. Accordingly, the
cutout will remain optional. However,
we are correcting the spelling of the
word ‘‘MATERIAL’’ in the drawing.
27. Drawing 175–6045, Lumbar
Mounting Plate
FTSS requested removal of the 3x120°
dimension and updating of the
isometric view of the part to show the
4-hole pattern. Likewise, Denton
requested the updating of all views
(isometric and side view) to show the 4hole pattern, and removal of the ‘‘extra
angle dimension.’’
Agency Response: We agree with the
suggested changes. The original design
of the mounting plate was for a 3-hole
pattern. The mistakes identified by the
petitioners have been carried over from
the original design. NHTSA has revised
the isometric and side views and has
removed the unnecessary angle
dimension in drawing 175–6045 to
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33917
show the 4-hole pattern that is
illustrated in the top view. Correction
was also made to the pelvis assembly
drawing, 175–6000 to show the 4-hole
pattern on this part, and the quantity of
item 28 (screw, SHCS 1⁄4–20 x 5⁄8) on
175–6000 was increased to 4.
Conforming changes were also made to
the PADI and parts/drawings list.
28. Drawing 175–6050, Pelvis Molded,
Certified
Denton recommended specifying the
weight of this part as 6.5–6.9 lb ‘‘to help
control the reproducibility of the part.’’
Agency Response: This request is
denied. NHTSA weighed sample parts
from each manufacturer and they both
met the suggested tolerance.
Nonetheless, the segment weights
specified in 175–0000, sheet 2 of 6,
sufficiently define the dummy’s weight
distribution.
29. Drawing SA572–S53, Rotary
Potentiometer
Denton recommended reducing the
independent linearity to ±0.10%. They
claim that the current ±0.25% value
allows for an error of ±0.88° (a total of
1.75°), which is greater than 10% of the
width of the neck and lumbar corridors
(10°). A ±0.10% linearity value would
allow for a total error of only 0.7°, and
potentiometers can be purchased with
this tolerance level.
Agency Response: The request is
denied. While the suggested
potentiometer would provide less error
in measuring the dummy’s response, it
is not clear there is a problem that needs
addressing, or what the cost
ramifications of the suggested change
would be. We do not believe it would
be appropriate to introduce this change
at this time.
30. Drawing SA572–S70, 6 Axis Upper
Neck Load Cell
FTSS recommended removing the Y
axis symbol on the main view and the
Z axis symbol on the right view because
they ‘‘do not follow J211 sign
convention and are unnecessary.’’ FTSS
also believed that My,oc is calculated
with a minus sign rather than a plus
sign. Denton stated that the sign
between terms for calculating My,oc
should be ‘¥’ rather than ‘+’. Denton
also recommended removing the Y and
Z arrows from the side and top view, as
they are incorrectly labeled: ‘‘the load
cell side view shows Z force in
compression, this is incorrect. The load
cell top view shows the top of the load
cell to the right, this is incorrect.’’
Denton recommended keeping only the
arrows under the isometric view.
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
33918
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Agency Response: We agree that the
Y- and Z-axis symbols are confusing and
should be removed. Additionally, the
My,oc formula is incorrect as currently
written on the print and the ‘‘+’’ should
be a ‘‘¥’’. Accordingly, we have
modified drawing SA572–S70 by
removing the Y- and Z-axis symbols
from the top and side views, and by
correcting the formula for My,oc as
petitioned. The spelling of ‘‘Newton’’ in
‘‘Newton-Meters’’ was also corrected.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
31. Drawing SA572–S71–1, Lower Neck
Load Cell Assembly
FTSS recommended removing the X–
Z coordinate system between the top
and side views, as it is incorrect
(according to SAE J211 sign convention)
and unnecessary. Denton made a similar
recommendation for this drawing, but
referenced all three drawings of this
assembly (SA572–S71–1, –2 and –3).
Agency Response: The petitioners’
comments are correct. It is assumed that
Denton was referring only to the side
view polarity arrows in drawing SA572–
S71–1, but as polarity arrows were also
provided on drawing SA572–S71–2, it is
recommended that these be removed as
well. We have removed the polarity
arrows in drawings SA572–S71–1 and
–2.
32. Drawing SA572–S71–3, Lower Neck
Load Cell-Mounting Bracket
Denton recommended deleting this
drawing, as the base shown is ‘‘specific
to a lower neck load cell manufactured
by FTSS.’’ The Denton mounting
bracket has a different hole pattern.
Denton claimed that ‘‘drawing SA572–
S71–1 can define the assembly,’’ with
dimensions added to specify the overall
size dimensions of the assembly.
Agency Response: Because no
additional details were provided in the
petition, the agency requested that the
petitioner provide more information
supporting its request. (A September 14,
2007 memorandum describes this
communication with Denton, see Docket
NHTSA–2006–25441–0020.) Denton
provided a suggested method for adding
dimensions to the drawing specifying
the overall size of the mounting bracket
and ensuring that the load cell is
properly located. (Id.) The agency has
evaluated the petitioner’s
recommendation and has determined
that it is acceptable. Thus, as petitioned,
drawing SA572–S71–3 is removed, and
critical dimensions are added to
drawing SA572–S71–1 to define the
mounting bracket. Additionally, load
cell information from drawing SA572–
S71–2 is moved to drawing SA572–S71–
1 and SA572–S71–2 is also removed
from the drawing package. The ‘‘REV’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
and ‘‘No. SHT’’ entries for drawings
SA572–S71–2 and SA572–S71–3 were
removed from the parts/drawings list,
but the parts remain on the list since
they are referenced on drawing SA572–
S71–1.
33. Drawing SA572–S76, Lumbar Load
Cell
FTSS stated that the X and Y symbols
below the side and top view should be
removed, as they ‘‘do not follow SAE
J211 sign convention and are
unnecessary.’’ Denton made a similar
comment, and added that the axes label
under the isometric view should remain
in the drawing. Denton also stated that
Fx in the channel list should be changed
to Fz.
Agency Response: The petitioners’
comments are correct. We have
modified the drawing to remove the X–
Y and X–Z coordinate system symbols
from the top and side views of drawing
SA572–S76. In the channel list, ‘‘Fx’’
has been changed to ‘‘Fz’’.
34. Drawing SA572–S77, Pubic Load
Cell
FTSS recommended removing the
‘‘Y’’ symbol because ‘‘it can be installed
both ways and may not reflect the SAE
J211 sign convention.’’ Denton
recommended either reversing the arrow
for Fy polarity ‘‘or [moving it] to the
other side of the load cell to show
tension on the load cell for correct
polarity.’’
Agency Response: It is not essential to
show the load cell polarity on this
drawing, therefore we have deleted the
‘‘Y’’ symbol from the side view of
drawing SA572–S77.
35. Drawing SA572–S81, Accelerometer
Mount, Head C.G.
It was brought to NHTSA’s attention
by FTSS that the ES–2re head assembly
drawings do not allow for placement of
the three head accelerometers such that
their axis intersection point 17 coincides
with the head center of gravity.
Specifically, the z-axis location of the
axis intersection point is 4.6 mm below
the head CGz location as specified in
drawings 175–0000 sheet 2 of 6 and
175–1000.
Agency Response: To rectify this
situation, the agency is modifying the
head accelerometer mount (SA572–S81)
by increasing its thickness 4.6 mm. This
change raises the mounting location of
the x- and y-axis accelerometers,
17 Each accelerometer has one axis (called a
seismic axis) along which it measures acceleration.
The axis intersection point is the location in space
where the seismic axes from each of the three head
accelerometers meet.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
thereby raising the z-axis location of the
axis intersection point.
36. Drawing SA572–S82, ‘‘Accel
Mounting Block, Upper Spine/Pelvis
SA572–S4’’
Denton recommended adding a hole
note to define the M1.4 threaded holes.
Agency Response: The petitioner is
correct that the tapped hole note is
missing. We have revised drawing
SA572–S82 by adding a hole note as
Denton suggested.
37. Weight and Center of Gravity (CG)
FTSS stated that they are currently
evaluating weight and CG
specifications, and ‘‘will submit
recommended values if different than
the Final Rule drawings.’’
Agency Response: FTSS did not
provide additional information
regarding the weight and CG
specifications of the ES–2re dummy.
The weight and CG specifications listed
in the December 14, 2006 final rule are
unchanged.
38. Other Changes to Drawing Package,
PADI, and Parts/Drawings List
• The revision letters on the drawings
and in the parts/drawings list were
updated for all changed drawings.
• Drawing 175–3000, Shoulder
Assembly: The description of item 4,
‘‘Shoulder Cam Clavicle Assembly for
Loadcell’’ was corrected to be ‘‘Shoulder
Cam Clavicle Assembly’’. The revision
was updated on the drawing and parts/
drawings list as a result of this change.
• Parts/Drawings List, Drawing 175–
3016: The spelling of the drawing name
was corrected.
• PADI, page 2: The docket number
and the Web site for the location of the
revised drawings were updated.
• PADI, page 31: The spelling of
‘‘too’’ was corrected.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review,’’ provides for
making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and
therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review
and to the requirements of the Executive
Order. This rulemaking action was not
considered a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking action was also
determined not to be significant under
the Department of Transportation’s
(DOT’s) regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
NHTSA’s specifications in 49 CFR
Part 572 for a 50th percentile adult male
side impact dummy that the agency will
use in research, compliance tests of the
Federal side impact protection safety
standards, and consumer information
programs do not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses
would be affected only if they choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy.
The cost of an uninstrumented ES–2re
is in the range of $54–57,000.
Instrumentation adds approximately
$43–47,000 for minimum requirements
and approximately $80–84,000 for
maximum instrumentation to the cost of
the dummy, depending on the number
of data channels the user chooses to
collect. The amendments made in
today’s document will not affect the cost
of the dummy. Because the economic
impacts of this final rule are minimal,
no further regulatory evaluation is
necessary.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required
to publish a proposed or final rule, it
must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions),
unless the head of the agency certifies
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Small
Business Administration’s regulations at
13 CFR Part 121 define a small business,
in part, as a business entity ‘‘which
operates primarily within the United
States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
We have considered the effects of this
rulemaking under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this
rulemaking action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the
rule does not impose or rescind any
requirements for anyone. The
amendments made in this document
will not affect the cost of the dummy.
NHTSA does not require anyone to
manufacture the dummy or to test
vehicles with it.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule
for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and
determined that it will not have any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires
NHTSA to develop a process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may
not issue a regulation with federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, the agency consults with
State and local governments, or the
agency consults with State and local
officials early in the process of
developing the regulation.
NHTSA has examined today’s final
rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and
concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local
governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The agency has concluded that
the rule does not have federalism
implications because the rule does not
have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ Moreover, the
amendments made in this document
will not affect the cost of the dummy.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million in any one year
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). Before promulgating an NHTSA
rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33919
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply
when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows us to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if we
publish with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
This rule does not impose any
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. This rule does not meet the
definition of a Federal mandate because
it does not impose requirements on
anyone. Further, it will not result in
costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. The
amendments made in this document
will not affect the cost of the dummy.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
Civil Justice Reform
Pursuant to Executive Order 12778,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ we have
considered whether this rule will have
any retroactive effect. This rule does not
have any retroactive effect. A petition
for reconsideration or other
administrative proceeding will not be a
prerequisite to an action seeking judicial
review of this rule. This rule does not
preempt the States from adopting laws
or regulations on the same subject,
except that it does preempt a State
regulation that is in actual conflict with
the Federal regulation or makes
compliance with the Federal regulation
impossible or interferes with the
implementation of the Federal statute.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid control
number from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). This final rule does
not have any requirements that are
considered to be information collection
requirements as defined by the OMB in
5 CFR Part 1320.
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
33920
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when we
decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The following voluntary consensus
standards have been used in developing
the ES–2re dummy:
• SAE Recommended Practice J211,
Rev. Mar95 ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact
Tests’’; and
• SAE J1733 of 1994–12, ‘‘Sign
Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing.’’
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104–4, requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include
a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100
million annually (adjusted for inflation
with base year of 1995). Before
promulgating an NHTSA rule for which
a written statement is needed, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires the
agency to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule.
This final rule will not impose any
unfunded mandates under the UMRA.
This rule does not meet the definition
of a Federal mandate because it does not
impose requirements on anyone. This
rule affects only those businesses that
choose to manufacture or test with the
dummy, and even in that regard, the
amendments made in this document
will not affect the cost of the dummy.
This rule does not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private sector.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
—Has the agency organized the material
to suit the public’s needs?
—Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
—Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
—Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
—Would more (but shorter) sections be
better?
—Could the agency improve clarity by
adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
—What else could the agency do to
make this rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please write to us about
them.
Regulation Identifier Number
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
Appendix A to Preamble—The Test
Procedures and Performance
Specifications of the December 14, 2006
Final Rule for Qualification of the
ES–2re
• Head Assembly: The head is tested by a
similar procedure as the Hybrid III 50th
percentile male frontal crash test dummy. It
involves dropping the head from a specified
height and angular orientation, and
measuring the acceleration that results from
the impact. However, while the head of the
Hybrid III 50th percentile male receives
impact to the forehead, the ES–2re head is
dropped so that the lateral surface of the
head is impacted.
• Neck Assembly: See discussion in
preamble.
• Lumbar Spine: See discussion in
preamble.
• Shoulder Assembly: The dummy is
seated on a flat, horizontal, rigid surface in
a position as specified in the regulatory text.
An impactor is then used to contact the
shoulder at a velocity of 4.3 m/s.
Qualification of the dummy is based on the
peak acceleration of the impactor during this
contact.
• Thorax (upper torso) Assembly: See
discussion in preamble.
• Abdomen Assembly: The ES–2re is
seated in a specified manner and impacted
on its side at the center point of the middle
load-measuring sensor at a velocity of
4.0 m/s. The maximum impactor force and
the sum of the forces measured by three
abdominal load sensors, in time, are used to
assess the dummy’s quality for compliance
testing.
• Pelvis: The ES–2re pelvis response is
tested with a whole, seated dummy. An
impactor contacts a specified location of the
pelvis at a velocity of 4.3 m/s. The force of
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the impactor and the load measured in the
pubic symphysis in time are evaluated to
assure that dummy performance is within
specifications.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
Incorporation by reference, Motor
vehicle safety.
I In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 572 as
follows:
PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC
TEST DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 572
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
Subpart U—ES–2re Side Impact Crash
Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult
Male
2. Section 572.180 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1), the
introductory paragraph of (a)(2),
paragraphs (a)(3), (b), and (c)(1), to read
as follows:
I
§ 572.180
Incorporated materials.
(a) * * *
(1) A parts/drawing list entitled,
‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart
U, Eurosid 2 with Rib Extensions
(ES2re), February 2008,’’
(2) A drawings and inspection
package entitled ‘‘Parts List and
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid
2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha
Version), February 2008,’’ consisting of:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) A procedures manual entitled
‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly
and Inspection (PADI) of the EuroSID–
2re 50th Percentile Adult Male Side
Impact Crash Test Dummy, February
2008,’’ incorporated by reference in
§§ 572.180(a)(2), and 572.181(a);
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The Director of the Federal
Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies of the materials may be
inspected at the Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366–9826, and at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), and in
electronic format through
Regulations.gov. For information on the
availability and inspection of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
ibr_locations.html. For information on
the availability and inspection of this
material at Regulations.gov, call 1–877–
378–5457, or go to: https://
www.regulations.gov.
(c) * * *
(1) The Parts/Drawings List, Part 572
Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib
Extensions (ES2re), February 2008,
referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the Parts List and Drawings,
Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib
Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha Version),
February 2008, referred to in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, and the PADI
document referred to in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section, are available in
electronic format through
Regulations.gov and in paper format
from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New
RT, 18810 Woodfield Road,
Gaithersburg, MD 20879, telephone
(301) 670–0090.
* * *
I 3. Section 572.181 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), to
read as follows:
§ 572.181
General description.
(a) The ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test
Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult Male, is
defined by:
(1) The drawings and specifications
contained in the ‘‘Parts List and
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid
2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha
Version), February 2008,’’ incorporated
by reference in § 572.180, which
includes the technical drawings and
specifications described in Drawing
175–0000, the titles of which are listed
in Table A;
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Head Assembly ................
Neck Assembly Test/Cert
Neck Bracket Including
Lifting Eyebolt.
Shoulder Assembly ..........
Arm Assembly-Left ...........
Arm Assembly-Right ........
Thorax Assembly with Rib
Extensions.
Abdominal Assembly ........
Lumbar Spine Assembly ..
Pelvis Assembly ...............
Leg Assembly, Left ..........
Leg Assembly, Right ........
Neoprene Body Suit .........
Drawing number
175–1000
175–2000
175–2500
175–3000
175–3500
175–3800
175–4000
Neck assembly.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Soak the neck-headform assembly
in a test environment as specified in
§ 572.189(n);
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Time zero is defined in
§ 572.189(j).
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)—ES–2re Neck
Certification Pendulum Velocity
Corridor
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) The pendulum deceleration pulse
is to be characterized in terms of
decrease in velocity as determined by
integrating the filtered pendulum
acceleration response from time-zero.
*
*
*
*
*
I 5. Section 572.185 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (c)(2),
to read as follows:
§ 572.185
175–5000
175–5500
175–6000
175–7000–1
175–7000–2
175–8000
Thorax (upper torso) assembly.
*
(2) ‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572
Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib
Extensions (ES2re), February 2008,’’
containing 8 pages, incorporated by
reference in § 572.180,
(3) A listing of available transducerscrash test sensors for the ES–2re Crash
VerDate Aug<31>2005
§ 572.183
*
TABLE A
Component assembly
Test Dummy is shown in drawing 175–
0000 sheet 4 of 6, dated February 2008,
incorporated by reference in § 572.180,
(4) Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of
the ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test
Dummy, February 2008, incorporated by
reference in § 572.180,
(5) Sign convention for signal outputs
reference document SAE J1733
Information Report, titled ‘‘Sign
Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing’’
dated December 1994, incorporated by
reference in § 572.180.
(b) Exterior dimensions of ES–2re test
dummy are shown in drawing 175–0000
sheet 3 of 6, dated February 2008.
(c) Weights of body segments (head,
neck, upper and lower torso, arms and
upper and lower segments) and the
center of gravity location of the head are
shown in drawing 175–0000 sheet 2 of
6, dated February 2008.
*
*
*
*
*
I 4. Section 572.183 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(5), the
heading of Table 1 to Paragraph (a), and
paragraph (c)(1), to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Soak the rib modules (175–4002) in
a test environment as specified in
572.189(n);
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Performance Criteria.
(i) The individual rib modules shall
conform to the following range of
deflections:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33921
(A) Upper rib not less than 34 mm
and not greater than 41 mm;
(B) Middle rib not less than 37 mm
and not greater than 45 mm;
(C) Lower rib not less than 37 mm and
not greater than 44 mm.
(ii) The impactor force shall be
computed as the product of the impact
probe acceleration and its mass. The
peak impactor force at any time after 6
ms from time zero shall be not less than
5100 N and not greater than 6200 N.
I 6. Section 572.187 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5), to
read as follows:
§ 572.187
Lumbar spine.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Soak the lumbar spine-headform
assembly in a test environment as
specified in § 572.189(n);
* * *
(5) Time zero is defined in
§ 572.189(j).
*
*
*
*
*
I 7. Section 572.188 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(4), adding
paragraph (b)(6), and revising paragraph
(c), to read as follows:
§ 572.188
Pelvis.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) The impactor is guided, if needed,
so that at contact with the pelvis its
longitudinal axis is within ±0.5 degrees
of a horizontal plane and perpendicular
to the midsagittal plane of the dummy
and the centerpoint on the impactor’s
face is within 5 mm of the center of the
H-point in the pelvis, as shown in
Figure U6 in Appendix A to this
subpart;
* * *
(6) Time zero is defined in
§ 572.189(k).
(c) Performance criteria.
(1) The impactor force (probe
acceleration multiplied by its mass)
shall be not less than 4,700 N and not
more than 5,400 N, occurring between
11.8 ms and 16.1 ms from time zero;
(2) The pubic symphysis load,
measured with load cell specified in
§ 572.189(f) shall be not less than 1,230
N and not more than 1,590 N occurring
between 12.2 ms and 17.0 ms from time
zero.
I 8. Figure U2–A in ‘‘APPENDIX A TO
SUBPART U OF PART 572—FIGURES’’
is revised to read as follows:
Appendix A To Subpart U Of Part
572—Figures
* * *
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
33922
*
*
*
*
Issued: May 30, 2008.
James F. Ports, Jr.,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–13063 Filed 6–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 080123074–8654–02]
RIN 0648–AW31
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Northeast Multispecies
Fishery; Scallop Dredge Exemption
Areas; Addition of Monkfish Incidental
Catch Trip Limits
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action modifies the
regulations implementing the Northeast
(NE) Multispecies Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) to create three NE
Multispecies Scallop Exemptions that
are identical to the current scallop
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
exemptions, except for the addition of
an incidental monkfish catch limit.
These new scallop exemptions are
restricted to vessels issued either a
General Category Atlantic sea scallop
permit or a limited access Atlantic sea
scallop permit (when not fishing under
a scallop days-at-sea (DAS) limitation),
when fishing for scallops with small
dredge gear (combined width not to
exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m)). Vessels that land
an incidental catch of monkfish within
these new scallop exemptions are
required to possess, and have onboard,
a valid limited access monkfish permit,
or an open access monkfish Incidental
Catch permit. The intent of this action
is to allow small scallop dredge vessels
to land monkfish that are currently
being discarded, consistent with the
bycatch reduction objectives of the FMP
and National Standard 9 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
DATES:
Effective July 16, 2008.
Copies of this regulatory
amendment, and its small entity
compliance guide, are available from
Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. The small entity
compliance guide is also accessible via
the Internet at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov/.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy Cardiasmenos, Fishery Policy
Analyst, phone (978) 281–9204, fax
(978) 281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Current regulations, implemented
under Framework Adjustment 9 to the
FMP, and expanded under Amendment
7 to the FMP, contain a NE multispecies
fishing mortality and bycatch reduction
measure that is applied to the Gulf of
Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB), and
Southern New England (SNE)
Exemption Areas. This measure
prohibits vessels from fishing in these
areas unless they are fishing under a NE
multispecies or a scallop DAS
allocation, are fishing with exempted
gear, are fishing under the Small Vessel
Handgear (A or B) or Party/Charter
permit restrictions, or are fishing in an
exempted fishery. The procedure for
adding, modifying, or deleting fisheries
from the list of exempted fisheries is
found in § 648.80. A fishery may be
exempted by the Administrator,
Northeast Region, NMFS (RA), after
consultation with the New England
Fishery Management Council (Council),
if the RA determines, based on available
data or information, that the bycatch of
regulated species is, or can be reduced
to, on average, less than 5 percent per
trip, by weight on board, and that such
E:\FR\FM\16JNR1.SGM
16JNR1
ER16JN08.006</GPH>
*
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 116 (Monday, June 16, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33903-33922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13063]
[[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
