Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID-IIs Side Impact Crash Test Dummy; 5th Percentile Adult Female, 29862-29898 [E9-13605]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29862
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 572
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0002]
RIN 2127–AK26
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID–
IIs Side Impact Crash Test Dummy; 5th
Percentile Adult Female
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 14, 2006 final rule
establishing a new small adult female
side impact crash test dummy, called
the ‘‘SID–IIs’’ test dummy. The petitions
were submitted by the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, First
Technology Safety Systems, and Denton
ATD. In response to the petitions,
among other things today’s final rule
modifies the iliac performance criteria
to allow a new material formulation and
design to be used for the iliac wing of
the dummy’s pelvis, defines a time
period in which accelerations are
measured in the thorax with arm and
pelvis acetabulum tests, slightly
modifies some of the test procedures
used in the qualification tests (e.g., by
slightly lowering the impact speed of
the impactor in two tests and by
increasing the recovery time for the
pelvis-iliac and pelvis-acetabulum
tests), adjusts the performance corridors
for the various impact tests of the
dummy, and revises parts of the
drawing package and the user’s manual
for the dummy.
DATES: This final rule is effective August
24, 2009. The incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of August 24,
2009. If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your
petition must be received by August 7,
2009.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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. Lori
Summers, NHTSA Office of
Crashworthiness Standards (telephone
202–366–1740) (fax 202–493–2990). 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. Description of SID–IIs
a. General Description
b. Performance Characteristics
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Overview of Response to the Petitions
V. Issues Relating to the Pelvis of the Dummy
a. Iliac Wing Material
b. Iliac Load Cell Stand-Off Design
c. Iliac Qualification Procedure
1. Use of OSRP Procedure
2. Pelvic Iliac Probe Acceleration
3. Specification of Tape
4. Corrections
d. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification
Procedure
1. Pelvic Plug Pre-Crush and Associated
Variability
2. Pelvic Plug Qualification Corridor
3. Pelvis Acceleration Requirement
4. Measuring Peak Pelvis Lateral
Acceleration 5 ms or More After Contact
VI. Shoulder Qualification Procedures
a. Impact Velocity
b. Arm Position
VII. Thorax with Arm Qualification
Procedures
a. Peak Impactor Acceleration
b. Time Zero
c. Reported Noise in Potentiometers
VIII. Thorax Without Arm Petitioned Issues
a. Peak Impactor Acceleration
b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench
IX. Abdomen Qualification Procedure
a. Impact Velocity
b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench
X. Other Testing Issues
a. Dummy Clothing
b. Recovery Time Between Tests
c. Soak Time
d. Tolerance on the Impactor Mass
e. Neck Cable Torque in PADI
f. Pendulum Deceleration Pulse
g. Neck Potentiometers
XI. Qualification Performance Corridors
a. Shoulder Qualification Corridors
b. Thorax with Arm Qualification
Corridors
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
c. Thorax without Arm Qualification
Corridors
d. Abdomen Qualification Corridors
e. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification
Corridors
f. Pelvis Iliac Qualification Corridors
XII. Drawing Package and PADI
a. Issues Raised By Both FTSS and Denton
b. Issues Raised By FTSS
c. Issues Raised By Denton
d. Agency Corrections and Clarifications
XIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Introduction
This final rule responds to petitions
for reconsideration of a December 14,
2006 final rule (71 FR 75342; Docket No.
NHTSA–2006–25442) that amended 49
CFR part 572 to add specifications and
qualification requirements for a 5th
percentile adult female side impact test
dummy, called the ‘‘SID–IIs.’’ The
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
preceding the December 14, 2006 final
rule was published on December 8, 2004
(69 FR 70947; Docket NHTSA–2004–
18865; reopening of comment period,
March 8, 2005, 70 FR 11189). The SID–
IIs is used by NHTSA and other testing
organizations in side impact test
programs. The use of the SID–IIs test
dummy in NHTSA’s enforcement
program assessing vehicles’ compliance
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214 (‘‘Side
impact protection,’’ 49 CFR 571.214)
was discussed in and made part of a
final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214
published on September 11, 2007.1 In
the upgrade, NHTSA added a dynamic
pole test to FMVSS No. 214, to
supplement the moving deformable
barrier (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 SID–IIs test dummy
representing small adult females and the
other using an ‘‘ES–2re’’ test dummy
representing mid-size adult males.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,
1 72 FR 51908, Docket No. NHTSA–2007–29134;
response to petitions for reconsideration, June 9,
2008, 73 FR 32473; Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0104.
NHTSA will be publishing a second response to
petitions for reconsideration addressing other
issues.
2 NHTSA added the specifications for the ES–2re
to 49 CFR part 572 (see final rule, December 14,
2006, 71 FR 75304, Docket No. NHTSA–2004–
25441; response to petitions for reconsideration,
June 16, 2008, 73 FR 33903, Docket No. NHTSA
2008–0111).
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
which simulates a vehicle-to-vehicle,
‘‘T-bone’’ type intersection crash.3
II. Description of SID–IIs
a. General Description
The December 14, 2006 final rule
incorporated specifications for the SID–
IIs (or SID–IIsD) consisting of: (a) A
drawing package containing all of the
technical details of the dummy; (b) a
parts list; and (c) a user manual
containing procedures for inspection,
assembly, disassembly, use, and
adjustments of dummy components.4
The anthropometry and mass of the
SID–IIsD are based on the Hybrid III 5th
percentile frontal female dummy and
also generally match the size and weight
of a 12- to 13-year-old child. The head
and neck designs are based on the
Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy.
The legs are Hybrid III 5th percentile
female design available also with femur
load cell instrumentation. At the same
time, unlike the Hybrid III series of
dummies, the SID–IIsD’s torso
construction is particularly oriented for
assessing the potential for side impact
injury. The dummy’s upper torso is
made up of a rigid metallic spine to
which six spring steel bands lined with
bonded polymer damping material are
attached to simulate the impact
performance of the human shoulder (1
rib), thorax (3 ribs) and abdomen (2
ribs). Linear potentiometers are attached
from the ribs to the spine for
compression measurements. Provisions
are available for mounting tri-axial
accelerometer packs to the spine at T1
and T12 and at each rib.5 Replaceable
foam pads are secured directly to the
ribs and a neoprene jacket covers the
complete chest assembly. The upper
torso accommodates the attachment of
the neck at the upper end and the
lumbar spine at the lower end.
A stub arm on the impacted side is
attached to the lateral aspect of the
shoulder through a three-axis load cell.
Tri-axial accelerometer packs can also
be installed at the shoulder and at the
upper and lower parts of the stub arm
3 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.
4 The drawings, parts list and user manual
incorporated by reference by the December 14, 2006
final rule were placed in NHTSA Docket No. 2006–
25442. Materials that have been updated by today’s
final rule are placed in the docket for today’s
document.
5 T –sensor location on the dummy’s thoracic
1
spine equivalent to the first thoracic vertebra on the
human spine. T12–sensor location on the dummy’s
thoracic spine equivalent to the 12th thoracic
vertebra on the human spine.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
for assessing injuries in upper
extremities in side crashes.
The dummy’s pelvis is a machined
assembly with detachable hard urethane
iliac wings at each side and covered by
vinyl flesh. The pelvis design is shaped
in a seated human-like posture and
allows the attachment of the lumbar
spine at its top and the legs at the left
and right sides. The pelvis can be
impacted from either side without any
change in hardware. Foam crush plugs
at the hip joint, which are replaced after
each impact, are used to control the
lateral pelvis response. The pelvis
design allows the measurement of
impact loads at the acetabulum and iliac
wing as well as accelerations at the
pelvis center of gravity (cg). A thin steel
backer plate between the iliac wing and
iliac load cell prevents the iliac wing
material from deforming and offloading
a portion of the iliac load cell
measurement.
b. Performance Characteristics
The December 14, 2006 final rule also
specified a qualification process for the
SID–IIs 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. 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 tests and response
ranges (or performance corridors) for the
SID–IIs, specified in 49 CFR part 572
subpart V, 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
SID–IIs as set forth in the December 14,
2006 final rule established performance
levels for the dummy’s head, neck
assembly, shoulder, thorax with arm,
thorax without arm, abdomen, pelvis
acetabulum, and pelvis iliac.
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
The Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers 6 (Alliance) and test
dummy manufacturers First Technology
Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD
(Denton) petitioned for reconsideration
6 Members at the time of the petition for
reconsideration were: BMW Group,
DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and
Volkswagen. DaimlerChrysler separated subsequent
to the petition for reconsideration, and additional
members at the time of this final rule are Mazda and
Mercedes-Benz USA.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29863
of the December 14, 2006 final rule.7
The petitioners generally supported the
incorporation of the SID–IIs into 49 CFR
part 572, but had concerns with
technical aspects of the Part 572
specifications and with the drawings
incorporated by reference into the
regulation. The main suggestions of
each of the petitioners are briefly
summarized below:
a. The Alliance suggested using a
material to manufacture the iliac wing
that is recommended by the Occupant
Safety Research Partnership (OSRP)
SID–IIs task group,8 a material that the
Alliance believes is ‘‘more
manufacturable and stable’’ than the
material referenced in the final rule.
(The petitioners refer to the
recommended material as ‘‘Material
#3.’’) The Alliance also petitioned to
change aspects of the test procedures of
the shoulder (dummy arm orientation;
probe impact velocity), of the thorax
with arm (time when peak acceleration
should be measured), and of the
abdomen (probe impact velocity)
qualification tests, and made other
suggestions regarding general test
procedures. The Alliance also
petitioned for changes to the
performance corridors for the tests of
the shoulder, thorax with and without
arm, abdomen, pelvis iliac wing (based
on the use of Material #3, or ‘‘M3’’), and
pelvis acetabulum.9
b. FTSS petitioned to change to M3
and a standoff design for the iliac wing,
and suggested changes relating to the
tests of the thorax with arm (time when
peak acceleration should be measured)
and pelvis acetabulum (time when peak
acceleration should be measured). The
7 Additionally, a letter in support of the Alliance
and FTSS petitions was received from the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
8 OSRP is a consortium of the U.S. Council for
Automotive Research (USCAR). USCAR was formed
in 1992 by DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General
Motors as a research and development organization.
The SID–IIs was originally developed by the OSRP,
in conjunction with FTSS. The dummy was
extensively tested in the late 1990s and early 2000s
by Transport Canada, and to a limited extent by
U.S. automobile manufacturers and suppliers, and
IIHS. Modification of and upgrades to the SID–IIs
design ultimately lead to the development of the
build level D version of the dummy. The December
14, 2006 final rule adopted the SID–IIs Build Level
D test dummy into 49 CFR part 572.
9 On December 13, 2007, the Alliance submitted
additional SID–IIsD qualification data and
recommended performance corridors as an
appendix to their petition for reconsideration to the
FMVSS No. 214 final rule published on September
11, 2007. Because the submission was received late
in the rulemaking process, these data were not
incorporated into the NHTSA/FTSS data set for
inclusion in statistical analyses. However, the new
Alliance data were considered in the formation of
corridors by comparing the Alliance-recommended
corridors to those derived using the NHTSA/FTSS
data set, and adjusting the NHTSA corridors, if
warranted.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29864
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
petitioner also suggested changes to the
performance corridors for the tests of
the shoulder, thorax without arm,
abdomen, and pelvis iliac and
acetabulum. The petitioner 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. Denton suggested that NHTSA
adopt performance corridors
recommended by the Society of
Automotive Engineers Dummy Testing
Equipment Subcommittee (SAE DTES)
of the Human Biomechanics and
Simulation Standards Committee.
Denton also identified regulatory text
and drawings that the petitioner
suggested needed correction.
IV. Overview of Response to the
Petitions
Today’s document responds to the
following issues raised in the petitions
for reconsideration in the following
order: issues relating to the pelvis of the
dummy; shoulder qualification
procedures; thorax with arm
qualification procedures; thorax without
arm qualification procedures; abdomen
qualification procedures; other testing
issues (e.g., dummy clothing, recovery
and soak times); qualification corridors;
and changes to the drawing package and
to NHTSA user’s manual for the dummy
(Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly
and Inspection).
Among other things, today’s final rule
amends iliac performance criteria to
allow for a new material formulation to
be used for the iliac wing of the
dummy’s pelvis, defines a time period
in which accelerations are measured in
the thorax with arm and pelvis
acetabulum tests, slightly modifies some
of the test procedures used in the
qualification tests (e.g., by slightly
lowering the impact speed of the
impactor in several tests and by
increasing the recovery time for the
pelvis-iliac and pelvis-acetabulum
tests), adjusts the performance corridors
for the various impact tests of the
dummy, and revises parts of the
drawing package and the user’s manual
for the dummy.
V. Issues Relating to the Pelvis of the
Dummy
a. Iliac Wing Material
As explained in the December 2006
final rule, during the course of NHTSA’s
evaluation of the repeatability and
reproducibility of the SID–IIs dummy
eventually adopted into part 572, the
agency observed that its set of left side
iliac wings had been used extensively
for several years and was showing signs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
of wear. The agency obtained new
replacement iliac wings from the
dummy manufacturer (FTSS) and later
observed that the replacement wings
produced approximately 20 percent
lower impact responses in dynamic
impact tests than the previously-tested
wings. NHTSA contacted FTSS and was
informed that formulation of the
polyurethane material for the wings
changed in 2004 because the raw
material previously used was no longer
available due to toxicity issues.10 The
agency analyzed the post-2004 iliac
wings and estimated that using them in
NHTSA’s FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing
program 11 would have had the effect of
lowering the average driver occupant
pelvis force approximately 8 percent
and that of the passenger about 3
percent, which would have amounted to
only one instance out of 25 in which the
pelvis force changed from just being
above the Injury Assessment Reference
Value (IARV) limit to just being below.12
In view of those findings and because
the material formulation of the iliac
wings prior to 2004 (for convenience,
we refer to this material formulation as
‘‘Material #1’’ or ‘‘M1’’) was no longer
available, NHTSA decided to specify
pendulum response data for the iliac
wing that reflected the use of the softer
post-2004 iliac material formulation
(henceforth referred to as ‘‘Material #2’’
or ‘‘M2’’). (71 FR at 75355; December 14,
2006.)
Requested Change
In response to the final rule, all the
petitioners requested that the regulation
specify performance characteristics
enabling the use of a new material
formulation, which will be referred to as
Material #3 (M3), for the iliac wing in
place of M2.
FTSS stated that it began
manufacturing wings composed of M3
on June 1, 2006, in response to direction
from the OSRP SID–IIs task group and
after finding that M3 was a suitable
replacement for M1 and M2. FTSS also
stated that it stopped manufacturing M2
iliac wings on May 30, 2006. According
to FTSS, M3 iliac wings retain their
shape better over time and are not
subject to a warping found in M2 iliac
wings.
In its petition, the Alliance noted that:
after extensive tests and evaluation, the
OSRP SID–IIs task group recommended the
10 Docket
No. NHTSA–2004–18865–36.
was made using data from the
NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS 214 Upgrade, MY
2004–2005, Docket No. NHTSA–2007–29134–0003.
12 As stated in the December 2006 final rule, this
estimate was based on calculated adjustments of the
total force on the pelvis by taking into account
lower impact responses of the softer iliac wing.
11 Determination
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
use of material #3 for the following reasons:
(1) it is available; (2) it is more
manufacturable and stable than material #2;
and (3) it has demonstrated repeatable
performance. Material #3 is generally slightly
stiffer than the original pre April 2004
(material #1) and may result in higher
recorded loads.
Denton also supported the use of
Material #3. The petitioner submitted
information from SAE DTES which
indicated there was no statistical means
of choosing between M2 and M3, but
that permanent deformation was
observed in M2. The information also
suggested that M3 will have less
variability in manufacturing.
In its February 8, 2007 letter
supporting the petitions for
reconsideration from the Alliance and
FTSS, IIHS stated that ‘‘[t]he most
important aspect of the petitions is the
request to change the specification for
the SID–IIs iliac wing to the updated
design supported by the’’ OSRP and
FTSS.13 IIHS stated that the updated
iliac wing includes a material change to
improve repeatability and durability,
and integral metal standoffs to prevent
interference with measurements from
the iliac load cell that occurs over time
due to compression of the softer
material at the interface of the original
design. IIHS stated that it converted all
the SID–IIs dummies (Build Level C)
used in its consumer information side
impact test program to include the
updated design. IIHS believed that it is
important to harmonize the dummies
used in its tests with the SID–IIs dummy
(Build Level D) used in NHTSA’s tests,
and that adoption of the Material #3
iliac wing is critical to avoid differences
in test results that could occur if
organizations used different wing
designs. IIHS also believed that using
two different iliac wing designs would
result in additional cost to laboratories
that conduct both NHTSA-compliance
and IIHS consumer information crash
tests.
Agency Response
NHTSA is granting the petitions to
adjust performance criteria so that
Material #3 (M3) can be used for the
iliac wings.14 NHTSA’s Vehicle
Research and Test Center (VRTC)
conducted quasi-static testing in the
13 IIHS stated in its letter that it also supported
the request of the petitioners for NHTSA to consider
data from multiple laboratories when establishing
performance criteria for dummy verification tests.
IIHS stated that ‘‘This is necessary to account for
normal variability among laboratories.’’
14 We note, however, that the material
specification on the iliac wing drawings
(Polyurethane 85–95 Shore A or equivalent) does
not have to be changed to permit M3, so we are not
changing it.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
evaluation of the M3 iliac, which is
described in the report ‘‘SID–IIsD Iliac
Wing Studies’’ placed in the docket for
this final rule. In these quasi-static tests,
isolated iliac wings were loaded to
4,000 N over a period of several
minutes. Quasi-static compression
results from at least three tests on each
of six new M3 iliac wings indicate that
M3 is much closer in stiffness to M1
than M2. The agency used SID–IIs
dummies with iliac wings made from
M1 in agency vehicle and sled testing,
so there is a large body of data related
to the M1 wings. These data were used
in part to develop the IARV referenced
in FMVSS No. 214 for the pelvic load
criterion measured by the SID–IIs.
Because M3 is a material formulation
that is very close in stiffness to the M1
iliac wings, NHTSA is adopting M3
since the agency has knowledge of and
a familiarity with the properties of M1
wings, while NHTSA’s experience with
the M2 wings is more limited. Further,
we agree with IIHS that using M3 iliac
wings would better harmonize the test
dummies used by NHTSA, IIHS and the
industry, and would make the test
results obtained by the testing
components of each organization more
comparable and better focused on the
development of appropriate
countermeasures. Also, according to the
petitioners, M3 is more stable than M2,
demonstrates repeatable performance, is
readily available while M2 is not, and
does not exhibit deformation
characteristics exhibited by M2. For
these reasons, the petitioners’ request to
specify characteristics that recognize the
use of M3 in the manufacture of the iliac
wing is granted.
29865
The Alliance in its petition for
reconsideration said that Material #3 is
generally slightly stiffer than Material
#1 and may result in higher recorded
loads. We agree that in quasi-static tests,
M3 wings were shown to be slightly
stiffer than M1 wings, as seen in the
‘‘SID–IIsD Iliac Wing Studies’’ report,
supra. However, the difference in
stiffness between these wings is very
small, so large differences in response in
dynamic test environments are not
expected. The similarity of response for
the two different iliac wing material
formulations is illustrated by the pelvisiliac qualification test results. Table 1
shows that the average peak iliac force
measured in qualification tests with M3
wings was 4588 N, while the average
force in qualification tests with M1
wings was 167 N (3.6%) higher at 4755
N.15
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF M1 AND M3 QUALIFICATION DATA
Probe velocity
M3 .......................................
Maximum
probe acceleration
Maximum pelvis Y acceleration
Maximum Iliac
force
(m/s)
M1 .......................................
Probe energy
(J)
(g)
(g)
(N)
Min ......................................
Max .....................................
Average ..............................
SD ......................................
CV ......................................
Min ......................................
Max .....................................
Average ..............................
SD ......................................
CV ......................................
4.21
4.43
4.35
0.04
1.02%
4.21
4.34
4.29
0.03
0.69%
126.02
137.02
133.51
2.38
1.78%
123.67
133.44
129.55
2.57
1.98%
In evaluating these results, we kept in
mind that there were some factors that
could have affected the iliac force
measurements for each data set. First,
when M1 was used, the design of the
iliac wing did not incorporate two
features that have since been added to
prevent off-loading of the iliac load cell:
integral metal ‘‘standoffs’’ within the
wing; and a thin steel backer plate
between the iliac wing and load cell (see
Section V.b).
Second, deformation was observed on
the left side M1 wings after extensive
use, as noted in the report ‘‘SID–IIs Iliac
Certification Development,’’ which was
placed in the docket with the December
2006 final rule. These two issues could
lead to an increased chance of the iliac
wing deforming under load and shorting
the iliac load cell, which would in turn
result in lower measured iliac loads.
This problem of iliac load cell shorting
was first identified with the M2 iliac
wings, which are much softer than the
M1 wings. Thus, it is unknown whether
this occurred with M1 wings. If load cell
shorting did occur in any of the M1
qualification tests, it would have the
effect of lowering the average response
somewhat.
Second, although all M3 wings
included the new integral metal
‘‘standoffs,’’ a number of tests in the M3
data set did not have a backer plate
installed. If shorting did occur in any of
these tests, the M3 average peak force
may be slightly lower than it would
have been without load cell shorting.
However, there is no evidence that these
M3 wings without a backer plate will
contact the iliac load cell in
qualification tests as illustrated in the
‘‘SID–IIsD Iliac Wing Studies’’ report.
Thus, we do not believe the absence of
a backer plate affected the load cell
responses for M3 wings in qualification
tests (see Section V.b).
15 M1 qualification data and plots comparing M1
and M3 iliac force responses can be found in the
38
46
41.36
1.55
3.76%
35.55
45.98
40.84
2.09
5.13%
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3986
5448
4755.26
373.49
7.85%
3430
5275.53
4588.36
329.64
7.18%
Third, in general, the M1 tests were
conducted at a slightly higher impact
velocity than the M3 tests, which
intuitively could result in higher force
readings in M1 tests. However, when
plotting a linear regression through M1
iliac force responses vs. impact velocity,
there was no strong correlation with
impact velocity (R2 = 0.21). Therefore,
we do not believe these slight
differences in impact velocities had a
significant effect on the average peak
iliac forces.
In view of the quasi-static and
dynamic test results from M1 and M3
iliac wings, we believe that their
performance in the crash test
environment will be very similar. Quasistatic test results show that the new M3
wings are slightly stiffer, while dynamic
test results indicate slightly higher
forces in M1 wings. This seeming
discrepancy leads us to believe that
differences between the wings are
memo ‘‘M1 qualification data and comparison to
M3 qualification data.’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008
29
45
34.99
3.34
9.55%
27.24
40.93
34.03
3.41
10.03%
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
within the natural variation of response
that is seen in different types of test
environments. Because of this, we
believe that the wings perform very
similarly, and that the use of M3 wings
will not result in iliac forces that are
consistently higher than M1 iliac wings.
Thus, allowing a change in the wing
material formulation is not likely to
have a significant effect on pelvis force
measurements in FMVSS No. 214.
and –2) with an embedded steel support
plate (Dwg. 180–4321). Additionally,
the final rule specified the use of a thin
steel backer plate between the iliac wing
and the iliac load cell to prevent the
iliac material from off-loading force to
the center of the load cell. Figure 1
illustrates how the backer plate is used
in conjunction with the iliac wing and
load cell, as specified in the December
2006 final rule.
b. Iliac Load Cell Stand-Off Design
The SID–IIsD final rule adopted an
iliac wing design that was a
polyurethane wing (Dwgs. 180–4320–1
Requested Change
In response to the final rule, FTSS
noted that, in general, the iliac wing
specified in the final rule has the
FTSS stated that it has designed a
new iliac substructure (support plate)
that has a positive bearing surface
contact between the iliac wing and the
load cell to create a rigid mounting
surface between the iliac wing and load
cell.17 Essentially, the 1⁄8-inch thick
polyurethane material around the
mounting screw holes was replaced
with 1⁄8-inch thick steel ‘‘standoffs’’ that
extend from the embedded plate to the
edge of the wing so that the mounting
screws would draw the iliac wing to the
load cell through a metal contact instead
of through polyurethane. According to
FTSS, this design eliminated the
potential for load path shorting since
standard fastener torque values can now
be specified for the iliac wing mounting
hardware without losing the torque over
time, and it also eliminated the material
creep found in the original iliac design.
FTSS recommended that NHTSA
evaluate this new design and include it
in the drawing package in place of the
original.
The Alliance and IIHS also
recommend the use of Material #3 iliac
wings with the standoff design. The
Alliance ‘‘agree[d] with the observation
that the original wing design can deform
and off-load the loads being transferred
to the iliac load cell resulting in
16 SID–IIsD final rule drawing package, Docket
No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0012.
propensity to cause a load path short
due to its design. According to FTSS,
the original iliac wing design resulted in
1⁄8-inch polyurethane material being
sandwiched between the embedded
iliac wing support plate and the iliac
load cell. It found that the amount of
loading force the iliac is able to
accurately measure can vary depending
upon how much torque the iliac
mounting screws are under, how much
the polyurethane material creeps over
time, and how much the iliac maintains
its original shape.
17 The FTSS iliac wing design is illustrated in its
petition, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0031.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
artificially low measurements.’’ It
stated, however, that while the use of
the thin steel backer plate specified in
the final rule (as shown in Figure 1) will
reduce the likelihood of off-loading the
load cell, it will not reduce deformation
of the polyurethane iliac wing. It
suggested that a more robust solution
would be to use a rigid steel plate with
standoffs that are embedded in the
polyurethane iliac wing during
manufacturing. The Alliance stated that
‘‘this stronger plate with standoffs
eliminates the possibility of off-axis
loading.’’
The Alliance petition for
reconsideration also included a
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
ER23JN09.000</GPH>
29866
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
presentation given by Denton to the
OSRP that discussed test results
supporting use of the standoff design.
Although details of this presentation are
not clear, it appears that when Denton
loaded an iliac load cell through a
simulated SID–IIs iliac wing without
standoffs, it observed extrusion of the
urethane when the mounting screws
were tightened to 60 inch-pounds (inlb), which it said caused ‘‘shorting’’ of
the load path. Without a mounting
screw preload,18 the center of the iliac
contacted the center of the load cell,
shorting the load path at approximately
750 lb (3,336 N). We believe the
presentation is indicating that without
standoffs, the mounting screws cannot
be tightened to a degree where load
shorting does not occur. I.e., when the
screws were tightened to 60 in-lb, the
load path was shorted by extrusion of
urethane, and when the mounting
screws were tightened to a lesser degree,
the path was shorted by contact of the
center of the wing to the load cell. With
standoffs, apparently Denton found that
shorting did not occur. With standoffs,
when 1000 lb (4,448 N) of load was
applied to the center and over each
mounting screw, a worst-case difference
of 4.3% resulted in measured versus
applied load, which Denton stated is
within acceptable limits. Denton did not
report any shorting of the load path
when the iliac plate with standoffs was
tested, although they did observe
extrusion of the urethane material when
high loads were applied to the
simulated wing outside the perimeter of
the load cell. In its conclusion, Denton’s
presentation stated that the iliac wings
without standoffs should not be used.19
Agency Response
After reviewing the data submitted by
the petitioners, NHTSA is granting the
request to have an iliac wing support
plate with standoffs as part of the iliac
design. The petitioners provided
extensive evidence in favor of the
standoffs.
At the same time, we are also
specifying use of the thin steel backer
plate. When the agency evaluated the
standoff design, VRTC conducted
qualification testing of the M3 iliac with
standoffs, with and without the backer
29867
plate between the wing and load cell, as
specified by the final rule (Table 2).
VRTC found that qualification test
results from these two iliac
configurations were very similar. The
average response from wings without a
backer plate was always lower than that
from wings with a backer plate as seen
in Table 2, but was also always less than
a 2.5% reduction from the response
with a plate.20 Thus, the influence of the
backer plate appears to be negligible.
However, the plate can act to prevent
load path shorting through wing contact
with the center of the load cell.
Although there were no instances of
load path shorting during qualification
tests without a plate, two quasi-static
tests without a backer plate were
conducted on both the softest and
stiffest M3 iliac wings with standoffs. In
this set of tests, the softest iliac wing
made contact with the center of the load
cell at a load of about 3,700 N (831.8 lb).
To prevent this from happening, we
have decided to retain use of the thin
steel backer plate between the iliac wing
and iliac load cell.
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF NHTSA M3 WITH STANDOFFS; ILIAC RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT BACKER PLATE
Pelvis skin No.
Iliac wing No.
Backer
plate?
Number of
tests
Peak probe
acceleration
Peak lateral
pelvis acceleration
Peak iliac
force
764 ....................................
L–318
Yes ..............
24
AVG. ...........
S.D. .............
%CV ............
40.27
0.55
1.4%
30.87
1.04
3.4%
4686.76
100.10
2.1%
764 ....................................
L–318
No ................
10
AVG. ...........
S.D. .............
%CV ............
39.44
0.77
1.9%
30.43
1.34
4.4%
4574.26
148.69
3.3%
¥2.06%
¥1.43%
¥2.40%
Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response
765 ....................................
R–310
Yes ..............
6
AVG. ...........
S.D. .............
%CV ............
41.79
0.53
1.3%
35.32
1.08
3.0%
4930.00
102.09
2.1%
765 ....................................
R–310
No ................
6
AVG. ...........
S.D. .............
%CV ............
41.50
0.33
0.8%
34.62
0.96
2.8%
4913.20
70.88
1.4%
¥0.69%
¥1.98%
¥0.34%
Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response
c. Iliac Qualification Procedure
The final rule established a
qualification procedure for the pelvis
iliac load cell, in addition to a
procedure that assessed the performance
of the acetabulum load cell. The pelvis
iliac procedure checks the response
consistency of the iliac load cell as
installed in the dummy’s pelvis. In the
pelvis iliac test, a 13.97 kilogram (kg)
impactor is accelerated to 4.3 ± 0.1
meters per second (m/s) and directed
laterally into the pelvis of the dummy
such that its impact surface strikes the
centerline of the iliac access hole in the
iliac load cell. Performance limits are
set for peak impactor and pelvis lateral
accelerations and peak iliac forces. The
procedure was documented in the
report ‘‘SID–IIs Iliac Certification
Development,’’ (August 29, 2006).21
18 We are unsure what is meant by ‘‘mounting
screw preload,’’ however we believe that it means
that the mounting screws were tightened to an
amount less than 60 in-lb.
19 The SAE/DTES material Denton enclosed with
its petition recommended the standoff design rather
than the backer plate design. It stated that based
upon mechanical principles, the standoff design
eliminates the possibility of material creep that
could lead to screws loosening.
20 Although the backer plate adds mass to the
lower torso, it only adds 0.2 lb, or 0.7% of the lower
torso weight. This small mass increase is not
expected to appreciably increase the forces
measured in qualification tests.
21 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–19.
1. Use of OSRP Procedure
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29868
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Requested Change
In its petition for reconsideration, the
Alliance requested that the iliac
qualification procedure be replaced by
an OSRP procedure since the
petitioner’s member companies had no
experience with the final rule test
condition and probe.
Agency Response
This request is denied. The petitioner
provided no comparative analysis of
how the OSRP procedure differs from
that of the final rule, how Alliance
members would be negatively impacted
by the final rule procedure, or how the
repeatability and reproducibility of the
OSRP procedure compares to that of the
final rule.
Among the differences between the
two procedures, the OSRP procedure
uses a calibration bench rather than a
flat, rigid, horizontal surface; it requires
the dummy to use the torso jacket and
cotton underwear pants (unlike the final
rule that requires removal of the
clothing); it seats the dummy with the
pelvis overhanging the seat surface by
78 ±2 millimeters (mm); and it uses the
impactor specified for the abdominal
impact test.
During NHTSA’s development of the
iliac qualification test procedure,
various test conditions and probe faces
were evaluated, including use of a
calibration bench and an abdominal
impactor face as suggested by the OSRP.
The agency determined that use of the
calibration bench caused concern since
it can be difficult to hit the target impact
area without the pendulum, or its guide
wires, interfering with the bench. With
regard to the use of the abdominal
impactor face, we found that due to the
geometry of the pelvis, setting the
abdominal probe face such that it
interacted with the iliac region in a
repeatable fashion was difficult, even
with careful positioning. Because of
this, a new probe face and procedure
were developed by the agency for the
final rule that enable certification of the
iliac without impacting the pelvis plug.
Use of an alignment tool was also
recommended to aid in a repeatable
setup. Furthermore, NHTSA is satisfied
that the final rule qualification
procedure works well and there are no
identifiable shortcomings of its use by
the petitioners.
2. Pelvis Iliac Probe Acceleration
In the December 14, 2006 final rule,
§ 572.199 (c)(1) specifies a peak
‘‘lateral’’ acceleration of the impactor of
not less than 34 g and not more than 40
g.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Requested Change
The Alliance recommended deleting
the word ‘‘lateral’’ from the term ‘‘peak
lateral acceleration of the impactor
* * * ’’ Denton believes that ‘‘lateral’’
should be replaced with ‘‘longitudinal.’’
Agency Response
The agency agrees to delete the word
‘‘lateral’’ from § 572.199(c)(1), but does
not agree to add the word
‘‘longitudinal.’’ The peak impactor
acceleration is measured on the long
axis of the probe, so we agree that the
term ‘‘lateral’’ is inappropriate.
However, it is unnecessary to state that
the acceleration is longitudinal.
3. Specification of Tape
In the December 14, 2006 final rule,
the specification for use of tape is found
in figures V9–A and V9–B of the
regulatory text, which indicate the use
of ‘‘masking tape as required to hold
dummy in position.’’ The use of tape is
also found in the supporting report,
‘‘Certification Procedures for the SID–IIs
Build Level D Side Impact Crash Test
Dummy,’’ (June 21, 2006), hereinafter
referred to as the ‘‘2006 certification
procedures document.’’ 22 This report
states for the iliac qualification
procedure: ‘‘using masking tape from
the top of the dummy’s head to the
seating surface, level the shoulder rib so
that the fore/aft plane is 0ß±1 relative to
horizontal,’’ and later states to ‘‘adjust
the masking tape as necessary’’ to
ensure proper dummy positioning.
Requested Change
The Alliance petitioned to request
that if NHTSA retains the pelvis-iliac
test as specified in the final rule, then
it recommends that the width and
amount of tape allowed to hold the
dummy in its initial position be
specified.
Agency Response
We agree to this request. We have
revised the 2006 certification
procedures document, now named
‘‘Qualification Procedures for the SID–
IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy,’’ 23
to clarify the use of tape for dummy
22 The June 21, 2006 Certification Procedures
document is available at Docket No. NHTSA–2006–
25442–0018. The document provides for illustration
purposes detailed descriptions of the test
procedures specified for the SID–IIs in 49 CFR part
572, subpart V, and illustrates how the various tests
are conducted by NHTSA.
23 Dated July 1, 2008 and placed in the docket
with this final rule. ‘‘Certification’’ was changed to
‘‘Qualification’’ for consistency of terminology in
NHTSA technical reports and final rules. This 2008
report updates the 2006 document to reflect all the
changes discussed in today’s final rule and to make
minor corrections/clarifications of the text.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
alignment, as follows: ‘‘Using
approximately 3 feet of standard 1″ wide
masking tape from the top of the
dummy’s head to the seating surface,
level the shoulder rib so that the fore/
aft plane is 0°±1° relative to horizontal.’’
A footnote has been added that states,
‘‘Alternatively, a material with
maximum static breaking strength of
311 N (70 lb) may be used to support the
dummy in position.’’ (This specification
was based on a similar specification in
FMVSS No. 208, paragraph S24.4.2.4,
which states, ‘‘If necessary, material
with a maximum breaking strength of
311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be
used to support the dummy in
position.’’) We have also revised Figures
V9–A and V9–B of the regulatory text
for the SID–IIs dummy to add the
footnote, to provide information about
the characteristics of the masking tape.
4. Corrections
A. Specification of Load Cell in
Regulatory Text
FTSS informed NHTSA of an error in
the pelvis-iliac section of the regulatory
text, section 572.199(a).24 This error was
also discovered by the agency. The
section specifies the use of acetabulum
load cell SA572–S68. We agree with
FTSS that the section should instead
specify the iliac wing load cell SA572–
S66.
B. Impactor Alignment in Regulatory
Text
While reviewing the SID–IIsD final
rule regulatory text, the agency
identified an error in the iliac
qualification test procedures. Section
572.199(b)(7) describes probe alignment
prior to the pelvis iliac qualification
test, and states that ‘‘the 88.9 mm
dimension of the probe’s impact surface
is aligned horizontally.’’ The 88.9 mm
dimension of the probe’s impact surface
should be aligned vertically, since the
probe face is a rectangle, 50.8 × 88.9
mm, and the shorter side of the probe
face is oriented horizontally, as seen in
the 2008 qualification procedures
document. We are making this
correction in this final rule in
572.199(b)(8).
d. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification
Procedure
1. Pelvic Plug Pre-Crush and Associated
Variability
In the December 14, 2006 final rule,
NHTSA specified a compression force
requirement that the pelvis plugs must
exhibit when pre-crushed a depth of
2.5–3.5 mm. The pelvis plug crush
24 Docket
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0042.
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
development was discussed in the
technical report entitled, ‘‘SID–IIs Pelvis
Plug Certification Development,’’ (May
3, 2006, Docket 2006–25442–010), and
the pre-crush procedures and plug
qualification 25 requirements were set
forth in the plug drawing 180–4450.
Requested Change
In petitions for reconsideration,
Denton/SAE DTES agreed that a precrush depth of 3 mm should be used.
However, the Alliance expressed
concern about the levels of variability of
the pelvic region that it said it observed
in NHTSA 26 and OSRP tests. The
Alliance also stated that it observed
significant differences in acetabulum
forces in three tests of identical vehicles
where one test was conducted with a
pelvis plug pre-crushed 3 mm and two
tests were conducted with a pelvis plug
pre-crush of 2 mm. The Alliance
provided time-history plots of the
acetabulum force, iliac wing force,
combined pelvis force, and pelvis
acceleration from three oblique pole
tests conducted at three different
laboratories. The petitioner stated that it
is not clear whether the differences in
the acetabulum response are due to the
differences in the depth of pre-crush or
due to other variables, and urged
NHTSA to investigate this further and
take the variability into consideration
when developing the final rule for
FMVSS No. 214.
Agency Response
We are not making any changes to the
pelvis plug pre-crush procedure. The
Alliance provided no discussion related
to its concern about the variability of
OSRP data and NHTSA data in the
qualification and sled test
environments. Additionally, the OSRP
data was not submitted to the docket, so
no comparisons could be made by the
agency.
In response to the three vehicle test
results, no conclusions can be drawn
from the figures provided by the
Alliance because two of the pelvis plugs
used in the tests were pre-crushed only
2 mm. We have found that the pelvis
response using plugs pre-crushed only 2
mm is unpredictable. As discussed in
the ‘‘SID–IIs Pelvis Plug Certification
Development’’ report released with the
25 NHTSA
now uses the phrase ‘‘plug
qualification’’ instead of ‘‘plug certification,’’ in
agreement with the terminology for evaluating
whether a dummy meets the criteria of Part 572.
26 NHTSA data presented in ‘‘Repeatability and
Reproducibility Analysis of the SID–IIs Build Level
D Dummy in the Certification Test Environment,’’
and ‘‘Repeatability, Reproducibility and Durability
Evaluation of the SID–IIs Build Level D in the Sled
Test Environment’’ (Docket No. NHTSA–2006–
25442).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
December 2006 final rule,27 VRTC has
found that the pelvis plug requires at
least 3 (±0.5) mm of crush in order to
characterize the plug response and
ensure repeatable and reproducible
pelvis responses in qualification, sled
and vehicle tests. This is because the
plug response does not become linear
until after 2.5 mm of crush, as shown in
Figure 5 of this report. It is necessary to
reach this linear region during plug
qualification so that plug behavior at
higher levels of compression (e.g., in
qualification, sled and vehicle tests) can
be predicted. At 2 mm of crush, as was
used in two of the vehicle tests referred
to by the Alliance, the plug response is
still within a transition region, where
plug behavior at higher levels of crush
cannot be predicted. Thus, 2 mm of plug
pre-crush is insufficient.
Based on the agency’s experience
with the pelvis plugs, the Alliance’s
finding that the acetabulum forces and
other pelvis measurements were
different for plugs pre-crushed 2 mm
and plugs pre-crushed 3 mm is not
surprising. Since the high-crush
responses of plugs pre-crushed 2 mm
are not predictable, the responses
derived from these plugs are not
comparable to those from 3 mm precrushed plugs. Differences between the
2 mm plug traces and the 3 mm plug
trace could have occurred because these
two 2 mm plugs had similar properties
that did not match those of the 3 mm
plug, but ultimately, there is no way of
knowing what the behavior of these two
2 mm pre-crushed plugs was going to
be. Furthermore, we do not know the
extent by which the responses may have
been affected by the variability in
dummy set-up procedures and crash
tests at the three different labs.
2. Pelvic Plug Qualification Corridor
In the December 14, 2006 final rule,
plug qualification requirements were
provided in the ‘‘SID–IIs Pelvis Plug
Certification Development’’ (May 3,
2006) report and on drawing 180–4450
of the SID–IIsD drawing package.
Following the final rule, FTSS
indicated that it carried out extensive
testing on the pelvis plug according to
the final rule procedures and corridors,
testing close to one thousand pelvis
plugs. Compression force at deflections
of 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.5
mm and 3.0 mm were provided and
plotted in their petition addendum.28
From this data, FTSS petitioned NHTSA
to alter the loading portion of the pelvis
27 Docket
No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0024.
addendum to their petition for
reconsideration, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–
0038. We note that the figure in this petition
incorrectly depicts the final rule loading corridor.
29869
plug qualification corridor so that it has
the following coordinates: Lower bound
(0.5 mm, 50 N) and (1.5 mm, 915 N);
upper bound (0.5 mm, 850 N) and (1.5
mm, 1715 N). The lower bound of the
FTSS-proposed corridor is slightly
steeper in slope, but very close to the
lower bound of the final rule corridor,
which has the coordinates (0.5 mm, 50
N) and (1.5 mm, 850 N). The upper
bound of the FTSS proposed corridor
allows for forces 250–315 N higher than
the upper bound of the final rule
corridor, which has the coordinates (0.5
mm, 600 N) and (0.5 mm, 1400 N). FTSS
did not petition to change the
requirements at the end of the plug
compression, therefore, the forcedeflection ‘‘box’’ at 3 ± 0.5 mm of
deflection would be the same.
Agency Response
The agency is denying this request.
NHTSA’s concern is that it is unknown
whether the loading portion of the plug
force-deflection response has an effect
on the dummy response in qualification,
sled or vehicle tests. After receiving the
petition, VRTC requested FTSS to
explain its comment by providing
pelvis-acetabulum qualification data
that corresponded to the plug data
provided in their petition. Such data
could better show the agency that the
dummy could still pass this
qualification test using plugs that met
the FTSS-suggested plug loading
corridor and the force-deflection
corridor at 3±0.5 mm.29 In response to
this request, FTSS provided data, but
the data were unhelpful. The passing
test results that were provided had
either pelvis plug traces that fell within
the suggested loading corridor and the
final rule loading corridor, or did not
meet the force-deflection box at 3±0.5
mm. Therefore, it could not be
determined whether plugs that have
traces that fell within the suggested
corridor but outside the final rule
corridor would still pass pelvisacetabulum qualification tests. NHTSA
is denying FTSS’s petition to change the
loading portion of the pelvis plug
qualification corridor because it has not
been demonstrated that the suggested
corridor is acceptable.
3. Pelvis Acceleration Requirement
The December 14, 2006 final rule
specified a pelvis acetabulum
qualification procedure and set
performance corridors for peak pelvis
lateral acceleration (§ 572.198).
28 FTSS
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29 A memorandum describing this
communication has been placed in the docket for
this final rule.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29870
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Requested Change
Denton/SAE DTES recommended
removing the pelvis lateral acceleration
requirement from the test due to what
was believed to be a large variability of
response. An attachment to the
petitioner’s submission stated that a
member of the SAE DTES presented
pelvis lateral acceleration data from
three different laboratories where the
data looked distinctly different. It was
noted in the attachment that the shape
of the pelvis lateral acceleration peak
varied widely, even with a single
dummy in one lab. The DTES discussed
possible reasons for the high variability
of the first peak, but were not able to
discern a definite explanation for this
behavior. Although they agreed that
variability was reduced when the
acceleration peak was taken after 5 ms,
they did not think that the measurement
was necessary for qualification of the
dummy and therefore recommended
that the peak pelvis lateral acceleration
be dropped. Alternatively (as seen in the
next section), if the pelvis lateral
acceleration parameter were not
dropped, Denton/SAE DTES
recommended to take the peak after 5
ms to eliminate the variable first peak.
Agency Response
We are denying the request to remove
the peak pelvis lateral acceleration from
the pelvis acetabulum qualification
procedure. The petitioner’s request that
the pelvis lateral acceleration
measurement be removed appears to
have originated from the
subcommittee’s observation of
variability in the first peak. This first
peak is primarily dependent on the plug
characteristics. The petitionerreferenced data was obtained from plugs
pre-crushed to 2 mm. As discussed in
the previous section, 2 mm of crush is
not sufficient to assure consistent
performance of the plug in high-crush
environments. Therefore, it is likely that
the variation observed by the petitioner
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
was due to varying plug characteristics
resulting from insufficient plug precrush. Because the petitioner based its
request on pelvis plugs pre-crushed 2
mm, there is no reasonable basis for
removing the measurement of peak
pelvis lateral acceleration. In addition,
the pelvis lateral acceleration
measurement provides additional
information as to the whole pelvis
response which further assesses the
response of the parts, and its
requirement in the final rule should be
maintained. (However, we are limiting
the time period during which peak
lateral acceleration will be measured, as
discussed in the next section.)
4. Measuring Peak Pelvis Lateral
Acceleration 5 ms or More After Contact
In the NPRM proposed regulatory
text, S572.197(c)(2) 30 specified that the
peak lateral pelvis acceleration was to
be taken at 5 ms or more after the
impactor contacts the dummy. The final
rule did not include a time specification
for this measurement.
Requested Change
FTSS requested that the peak lateral
pelvis acceleration be taken 5 ms or
more after the impactor contacts the
dummy. FTSS believed that the
variation in the data was much greater
when the overall peak was taken instead
of the peak after 5 ms, and noted that
the first, larger peak is an inertial peak
due to loading of the pelvis plug. The
Alliance referenced a recommendation
from the SAE DTES suggesting that this
peak be taken after 5 ms.
Agency Response
We agree that there should be a time
specification for the measurement of the
peak pelvis lateral acceleration. The
final rule preamble did not discuss why
the proposed time specification was not
adopted. As discussed in the previous
30 69
PO 00000
FR at 70961, December 8, 2004.
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
section, the first peak of the pelvis
lateral acceleration response, which
occurs in the first 5–6 ms, is based
primarily on the plug response. Since
the pelvis-acetabulum test aims to verify
the pelvis response, not the plug
response, the acceleration during the
first 5–6 ms should not be included.
However, NHTSA examined pelvis
lateral acceleration traces in 11 side
impact crash tests conducted with the
SID–IIs Build Level D dummy to
determine if the first peak, which results
from initial pelvis plug crush in
qualification tests, was part of the
dummy response in vehicle tests. (If the
first peak were part of the dummy
response, we would be disinclined to
disregard this peak in dummy
qualification.) Crash test results showed
generally unimodal pelvis Y
accelerations, indicating that in vehicle
tests, the initial plug crush does not
play a significant role in the results.
To determine after what point in time
the peak lateral pelvis acceleration
should be taken, NHTSA analyzed
pelvis lateral acceleration traces for 46
pelvis-acetabulum qualification tests
from four dummies and two labs. The
data clearly showed multiple, distinct
peaks as seen in Figure 2. As mentioned
previously, the first main peak and
second small ‘‘bump’’ in the data are
due to the pendulum impacting the
pelvis plug and (most likely) the pelvis
flesh, respectively. The second major
peak (called the ‘‘second peak’’
henceforth) represents the response of
the dummy after the leg mass comes
into play, and is the measure of interest
for qualification of the dummy. As the
petitioners claimed, the first peak was
consistently higher than the second
peak. In order to prevent measuring this
first, less meaningful peak for
qualification, the petitioners
recommended that the peak pelvis
acceleration value be taken after 5 ms
after probe contact with the dummy.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
two tests, the peak of the main dummy
response occurred just before 6 ms (see
Figure 4), causing the peak after 6 ms to
be slightly less than the actual peak.
This occurrence was rare, though, and
only resulted in an error of
approximately 0.1 g for both tests. As a
result of this evaluation, this final rule
specifies that the peak pelvis lateral
acceleration be taken after 6 ms.
Currently, there is no definition for
‘‘time zero’’ in the pelvis-acetabulum
qualification test procedures (section
572.198(b)). Because of this, the time
point ‘‘6 ms’’ cannot be defined.
Therefore, to implement measuring the
pelvis lateral acceleration after 6 ms, the
agency is adding a provision to
§ 572.198(b) that defines time zero.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Time zero was defined in the 2006
certification procedures document that
was released concurrently with the
December 2006 final rule, but there was
not a need then to include the definition
in the regulatory text of the final rule.
Time zero was defined in the 2006
certification procedures document as
follows: ‘‘Time zero is defined as the
time of contact between the impact
probe and the pelvis plug. All channels
are at a zero level at this point.’’ Since
defining time zero is now needed, this
final rule adds a section 572.198(b)(11)
to the regulatory text that specifies that
time zero is defined as the time of
contact between the impact probe and
the pelvis plug.
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
ER23JN09.001</GPH>
It was not clear from the data that 5
ms was the most appropriate time to
begin measuring a peak value. For each
of these 46 traces, the peak values after
5 ms, 6 ms and 7 ms were obtained in
order to determine how much time after
probe impact should be disregarded to
prevent the first peak from being
measured. It was found that in five of
the 46 tests, the maximum value after 5
ms was higher than that after 6 or 7 ms,
because the value of the decreasing
‘‘first peak’’ response at 5 ms was higher
than the main dummy response peak
value. Four of these 5 instances
occurred in Dummy S/N 20, and are
seen in Figure 3 below. These cases led
the agency to determine that the peak
should be taken after 6 ms. However, in
29871
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
ER23JN09.002</GPH>
ER23JN09.003</GPH>
29872
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
VI. Shoulder Qualification Procedures
a. Impact Velocity
The December 14, 2006 final rule
specified an impact velocity of 4.4 ±0.1
m/s for the shoulder and abdomen
qualification test procedures. The thorax
without arm and pelvis iliac tests use an
impact velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s.
Requested Change
The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES
recommended that the impact velocity
of the shoulder and abdomen
qualification procedures be consistent
with the thorax without arm and pelvis
iliac tests. The Alliance specifically
recommended that all the subject tests
use an impact velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s
to minimize setup errors in conducting
qualification tests. It further suggested
that the lower speed was more
consistent with shoulder rib deflection
measurements from NHTSA’s FMVSS
No. 214 fleet testing program. It found
the following average shoulder rib
deflections in NHTSA’s testing: 32.4
mm for driver in pole tests; 19.3 mm for
driver in MDB tests; and 27.9 mm for
rear passenger in MDB tests. It also
found that the average deflection for
qualification tests conducted between
4.2 and 4.4 m/s from FTSS and NHTSA
is 33.7 mm, which is greater than
average shoulder deflections in the fleet
tests and which, the petitioners
believed, further supported a reduction
in impact velocity for the shoulder
qualification test.
Agency Response
We are granting this request. We agree
that having the same impact speed for
all subject qualification tests would be
more convenient than having different
speeds. However, because the tests used
to support the December 2006 final rule
were conducted at 4.4±0.1 m/s, and data
submitted in petitions for
reconsideration contained tests
conducted at 4.4±0.1 m/s, little data
29873
existed between 4.2–4.3 m/s. Therefore,
to evaluate the petitioners’ request,
VRTC conducted six shoulder
qualification tests, with two tests on
each of three dummies, at velocities
ranging from 4.20–4.23 m/s. These tests
were included with the existing
shoulder qualification data, which was
then analyzed as two separate data sets:
one with tests conducted at impact
velocities from 4.2–4.4 m/s and one
with tests conducted at 4.3–4.5 m/s. The
mean responses in each data set are very
similar, as shown in Table 3. However,
it is important to note that in looking at
Figure 5, the average of the entire
4.4±0.1 m/s data set is close to the
average of the responses between only
4.3–4.4 m/s, which make up the
majority of the 4.3±0.1 m/s data set.
Thus, similarity of means between the
4.4±0.1 m/s and 4.3±0.1 m/s data sets
may be partially due to the majority of
points in the 4.3±0.1 m/s data set being
between 4.3–4.4 m/s.
TABLE 3—STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SHOULDER QUALIFICATION TEST RESULTS AT 4.3 VS. 4.4 M/S IMPACT VELOCITIES
Peak probe
acceleration
4.3±0.1 m/s impact velocity ........................................................................
4.4±0.1 m/s impact velocity ........................................................................
Figure 5 shows the peak shoulder
deflection responses with respect to the
impact speed of the pendulum. It is
observed that the peak deflections are
noticeably lower at impact speeds of
approximately 4.2 m/s. Because of this
observation, the qualification
performance corridors have been formed
with the mindset that the statistical
corridor (which is centered at the mean
N .........................
Mean ...................
SD .......................
CV .......................
N .........................
Mean ...................
SD .......................
CV .......................
of the data set) may have to be adjusted
to accommodate low deflections at the
low impact velocities, since the mean of
the 4.2–4.4 m/s data set may be slightly
high due to the majority of tests being
conducted between 4.3–4.4 m/s. The
revised corridors are discussed in
‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response
to Petitions for Reconsideration (July 1,
67
15.53
0.99
6.40%
120
15.79
0.93
5.90%
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50
19.26
1.19
6.19%
69
19.43
1.10
5.67%
Peak shoulder
deflection
67
33.33
2.05
6.16%
120
33.50
1.61
4.81%
2008),’’ 31 and in section XI.a of this
preamble. We believe that by adjusting
the performance corridor to reflect
deflection responses at lower impact
velocities, the new performance corridor
will satisfactorily represent dummy
responses over the full range of the
revised specified impact velocities.
31 The document has been placed in the docket
for this final rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Peak T1
acceleration
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
To support its petition, the Alliance
also made the argument that the impact
velocity should be reduced to 4.3 ±0.1
m/s because the average shoulder
deflections in agency crash tests are
lower than those resulting from
qualification tests. This is true; the
average shoulder deflections in agency
crash tests were somewhat lower than
the average deflections in qualification
tests (shown in Table 3). However, we
do not agree that it is necessary for the
average shoulder deflections in
qualification tests to align precisely
with the average deflection in crash
tests. This is due to the large variations
in crash test shoulder deflection
measurements 32 as compared to the
relative closeness of shoulder deflection
responses at a 4.3±0.1 m/s vs. 4.4±0.1
m/s impact velocity. Additionally, the
agency usually establishes qualification
tests to exercise dummy components at
the level of the IARV, not at the level
of the average recorded measurement in
a crash test. Here, however, since there
32 Shoulder deflections in NHTSA crash tests
ranged from 4.7–40.7 mm and 15.9–40.4 mm for the
driver and passenger (respectively) in MDB tests,
and from 8.6–51.2 mm for the driver in FMVSS No.
214 pole tests (NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS 214
Upgrade, MY 2004–2005; test data memorandum in
NHTSA Docket No. 2007–29134–003). Additional
32 km/h (20 mph) pole tests conducted on six 2006
and 2007 MY vehicles produced shoulder rib
deflections ranging from 18.9–58.4 mm, with an
average of 38.0 mm (tests are summarized in Table
1, 73 FR at 32477, and data are available in the
NHTSA vehicle crash test database).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
are no proposed shoulder injury criteria
with which to establish a ‘‘target’’
deflection for qualification tests, we
believe that the deflections obtained at
either the 4.3 ±0.1 m/s or 4.4 ±0.1 m/s
test speeds are acceptable, given that
compared to the variation in shoulder
deflections in crash tests, the deflections
at 4.3 ±0.1 m/s versus 4.4 ±0.1 m/s are
relatively close. Therefore, we are
agreeable to reducing the test’s impact
velocity to 4.3 ±0.1 m/s.
b. Arm Position
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(§ 572.194(b)(7)) states, ‘‘Orient the arm
to point forward at 90 degrees relative
to the interior-superior orientation of
the upper torso spine box incline.’’ 33
Requested Change
The Alliance recommended replacing
the sentence with, ‘‘Orient the arm
forward into the 90 degree detent
position.’’
Agency Response
This request is denied. It is important
for this test that the arm be oriented at
the angle as described in the final rule
regulatory text. We recognize that the
arm would likely be in the same
physical location when it is ‘‘in the 90
33 There is a typographical error in the final rule
regulatory text: the arm position should be
measured relative to the ‘‘inferior-superior’’
orientation of the upper torso spine box incline. We
are correcting this error in this final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
degree detent position’’ as when it is
oriented ‘‘to point forward at 90 degrees
relative to the inferior-superior
orientation of the upper torso spine box
incline.’’ However, it is possible that the
detent could become worn over time,
resulting in an arm position that is
somewhat off of 90 degrees. Therefore,
the arm angle specification will remain
as stated in the final rule. Additionally,
to make the agency’s intent clearer,
Figure V4–A is amended such that
‘‘ARM IN 90° DETENT’’ is replaced with
‘‘ARM 90° ± 2° RELATIVE TO UPPER
TORSO’’ and a dashed line indicating
the reference line of the upper torso is
added. The qualification procedures
document is also amended by adding
the ±2° tolerance to the specified angle.
Relatedly, we note that the thorax
with arm, pelvis acetabulum, and pelvis
iliac tests specify that the SID–IIs arm
should be oriented so it is in the ‘‘lowest
detent.’’ We believe this wording could
cause confusion, as it may be unclear
whether the ‘‘lowest detent’’ should
place the arm pointing downward or in
a direction parallel to the orientation of
the upper torso. For this reason, and for
consistency with the wording used in
the shoulder test, we have made the
following changes to the regulatory text.
In the thorax with arm test procedure,
section 572.195(b)(7), ‘‘Orient the arm
downward to the lowest detent’’ is
changed to ‘‘Orient the arm downward
to the lowest detent such that the
longitudinal centerline of the arm is
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
ER23JN09.004</GPH>
29874
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
parallel to the inferior-superior
orientation of the spine box.’’ Similarly,
in the pelvis-acetabulum test procedure,
section 572.198(b)(7), ‘‘Rotate the arm
downward to the lowest detent’’ is
changed to ‘‘Rotate the arm downward
to the lowest detent such that the
longitudinal centerline of the arm is
parallel to the inferior-superior
orientation of the spine box.’’ In the
pelvis-iliac test, section 572.199 does
not include arm positioning procedures,
but Figure V9–A referenced in this
section shows the arm pointing
downward and notes that it is in the
‘‘lowest detent.’’ For consistency with
other test procedures and to clarify arm
position, we have added in section
572.199 the following text: ‘‘Orient the
arm downward to the lowest detent
such that the longitudinal centerline of
the arm is parallel to the inferiorsuperior orientation of the spine box.’’
VII. Thorax With Arm Qualification
Procedures
a. Peak Impactor Acceleration
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(§ 572.195(c)(3)) specified a corridor for
the peak acceleration of the impactor.
Requested Change
Petitioners FTSS, the Alliance, and
Denton requested that the criterion for
peak acceleration of the impactor be
limited to all values after 5 ms after time
zero. FTSS stated that a review of recent
FTSS qualification data shows that 20%
of 200 Thorax with Arm impact tests fail
if the initial spike (within the first 5 ms)
is measured, but only 4% of these same
tests fail if the initial acceleration spike
is disregarded and the peak acceleration
is measured after 5 ms. The petitioner
concluded that the initial spike is a
result of the initial contact of the probe
with the arm and is not a factor when
assessing the performance of the ribs.
The Alliance also stated that the first
peak of the impactor acceleration is due
to the inertial response of the arm,
which, the petitioner stated, is
demonstrated to have greater variability
than the response of the thorax (later
peak). The Alliance thus recommended
a time requirement be added to the
performance criteria for the peak
impactor acceleration. The Alliance also
provided example traces where the
inertial peak was both larger and
smaller than the peak response of the
thorax.
Agency Response
The agency agrees that the peak
impactor acceleration should be taken
after 5 ms. Data traces from 12 tests at
the Transportation Research Center
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
29875
(TRC) were analyzed in the same
manner as the pelvis lateral acceleration
traces discussed above in this preamble.
Unlike the peak pelvis lateral
acceleration, however, the first peak of
the thorax with arm impactor
acceleration is almost always lower than
the main response. In fact, in all of these
12 tests, as well as in an additional 11
tests conducted at TRC, 19 at MGA,34
and in the 25 tests from FTSS that were
included in the SAE DTES meeting
minutes attached to the Denton
petition,35 the overall peak was after 5
ms. However, given that the petitioners
provided evidence that the first peak
can be larger than the second, taking the
peak impactor acceleration after 5 ms
would provide a safeguard against
measuring the inertial response.
Therefore, the request is granted.
January 19, 2007. The petitioners did
not recommend a rulemaking action to
be taken. The agency analyzed the
provided data traces, as well as agency
data from thorax-with-arm and shoulder
qualification tests, and does not believe
there to be a problem with the dummy
design. This issue is discussed more
fully in the memorandum, ‘‘Analysis of
Reported Noise in Potentiometers,’’
docketed with this final rule.
b. Time Zero
As previously discussed for the peak
pelvis lateral acceleration in pelvis
acetabulum tests, it is necessary to
define time zero in the regulatory text
for the thorax with arm test. Time zero
will be defined as the time of contact
between the impact probe and the arm,
similar to how the agency has defined
time zero elsewhere in this regulation.
This definition will be incorporated into
section 572.195(b)(11) of the regulatory
text.
The Alliance recommended deleting
the word ‘‘lateral’’ from the term ‘‘peak
lateral impactor acceleration.’’
c. Reported Noise in Potentiometers
The Alliance stated that it observed
noise in the data from the half-inch
servo potentiometers in the shoulder
and thorax-with-arm qualification tests.
The SAE DTES meeting minutes
reported that drop testing showed clean
signals with the potentiometers, so it
was not known whether the noise was
an electrical problem or a potentiometer
problem. The Alliance stated that in
some cases, the magnitude of the noise
exceeded the magnitude of the primary
response and may inadvertently be used
as the peak value for comparison to the
performance criteria. Data were
provided by Denton in Attachments 4
and 5 of the SAE DTES minutes dated
While reviewing the Part 572
regulatory text for the SID–IIsD, the
agency found two slight errors in
section 572.196(b)(3). The final rule
stated: ‘‘Align the outermost portion of
the pelvis flesh of the impacted side of
the seated dummy tangent to a vertical
plane located within 25 mm of the side
edge of the bench as shown in Figure
V4–A * * *.’’ However, as seen in the
figures at the end of the subpart, the
figure corresponding to the thorax
without arm test is Figure V6–A, not
V4–A, and the vertical plane for dummy
alignment is located within 10 (not 25)
mm of the side edge of the bench. The
regulatory text is corrected to refer to
Figure V6–A and to the 10 mm value.
VIII. Thorax Without Arm Petitioned
Issues
a. Peak Impactor Acceleration
In the December 14, 2006 final rule,
§ 572.196(c)(3) reads, ‘‘Peak lateral
impactor acceleration shall not be less
than 14 g and not more than 18 g.’’
Requested Change
Agency Response
This request is granted. The peak
impactor acceleration is measured on
the long axis of the probe, thus the term
‘‘lateral’’ is inappropriate. Section
572.196(c)(3) is changed to state: ‘‘Peak
impactor acceleration shall not be
* * *,’’ as petitioned.
b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench
IX. Abdomen Qualification Procedure
34 Overall
and ‘‘after 5 ms’’ peak accelerations
collected at TRC and MGA are included in an
agency memo with SID–IIs qualification data
(NHTSA–2006–25442–0043) and in the appendix to
the report ‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration, (July 1, 2008).’’
Additionally, data traces for MGA data are available
in crash test reports for pole and MDB crash tests
conducted at MGA in support of the FMVSS No.
214 upgrade. Reports are available in NHTSA’s
vehicle crash database, and test numbers are
provided in Docket No. NHTSA–2007–29134–0003.
35 FTSS was contacted to determine whether the
peak probe accelerations were taken after 5 ms. See
ex parte memorandum, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–
25442–0039.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
a. Impact Velocity
As previously discussed, the
December 14, 2006 final rule specifies
an impact velocity of 4.4 ±0.1 m/s for
the shoulder and abdomen qualification
test procedures. The thorax without arm
and pelvis iliac tests use an impact
velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s.
Requested Change
The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES
recommended that the impact velocity
of the shoulder and abdomen
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29876
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
qualification procedures be consistent
with the thorax without arm and pelvis
iliac tests. The Alliance specifically
recommended that all the subject tests
use an impact velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s
to minimize setup errors in conducting
qualification tests. The petitioner also
stated that the NPRM proposed an
impact velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s and the
final rule gave no reason for the
increase. The Alliance further stated
that NHTSA indicated that the agency
will be monitoring the deflections
measured by the abdominal ribs and
considering for future rulemaking an
Injury Assessment Reference Value
(IARV) of 45 mm for the ribs. The
petitioner stated that in NHTSA’s
abdominal qualification tests conducted
at 4.5 m/s, half of the specimens
exceeded 45 mm of deflection in one or
both of the abdominal ribs. The Alliance
believed that by lowering the impact
velocity from 4.4 ±0.1 m/s to 4.3 ±0.1 m/
s, the goal of selecting an appropriate
impact speed near the magnitude of the
research limit is better achieved.
conducted between 4.2–4.3 m/s prior to
the final rule, and the results of new
data from VRTC.36 Using the entire data
set, NHTSA re-evaluated the impact
velocity responses both at the 4.3±0.1
m/s and 4.4±0.1 m/s impact velocity
ranges. A summary of the 4.3 m/s and
4.4 m/s data sets is provided in Table 4.
(We must note again, however, that only
13 tests were conducted at impact
velocities that produced input energies
less than those allowed for the 4.4 ± 0.1
m/s data set. Therefore, the majority of
the data in the 4.3 m/s data set is also
included in the 4.4 m/s data set.)
Agency Response
We agree to the petitioners’ request.
To evaluate the request, we examined
the results of the few abdomen tests
TABLE 4—STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF ABDOMINAL QUALIFICATION RESULTS FROM TESTS CONDUCTED AT 4.3±0.1 M/S
VS. 4.4±0.1 M/S IMPACT VELOCITY
Peak probe
acceleration
(g)
4.3 m/s impact velocity .........................................................
4.4 m/s impact velocity .........................................................
N ....................
Mean .............
SD .................
CV .................
N ....................
Mean .............
SD .................
CV .................
Peak upper rib
deflection
(mm)
Peak lower rib
deflection
(mm)
64
41.99
3.00
7.15%
115
43.62
2.53
5.80%
64
39.78
3.47
8.72%
115
42.10
2.92
6.95%
64
13.97
0.93
6.64%
115
13.78
0.90
6.57%
As shown in Table 4, the mean
responses were somewhat lower and
more variable at 4.3 ± 0.1 m/s for rib
deflection measurements. However, we
have accounted for this by lowering and
slightly expanding the qualification
corridor bounds, as discussed in Section
XI.d.
While we have reduced the test’s
impact velocity, we do not agree with
the petitioner’s argument that the
impact velocity should be reduced
because the 4.4 ±0.1 m/s test speed is
too severe. We reduced the velocity
because the deflections obtained in the
4.3 ±0.1 m/s data set are also close to the
proposed IARV, and because we do not
anticipate any problems from
conducting the test at a slightly lower
speed. When looking at abdomen
qualification tests with input energies
corresponding to impact velocities of
4.4 ±0.1 m/s, approximately 20% of
abdominal rib deflections are greater
than 45 mm. This percentage drops to
about 10.5% for the 4.3 ±0.1 m/s data
set. Based on these percentages, we
believe that either impact speed would
be acceptable in terms of the test’s
severity compared to the IARV. But,
because the test was proposed to be
conducted at 4.3 ±0.1 m/s in the NPRM,
and because we do not anticipate any
problems with reducing the test speed,
we are granting the petitioner’s request.
Details about the qualification data and
performance corridors are provided in
the report ‘‘Analysis and Development
of SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications
in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration,’’ supra, and in section
XI of this preamble.
36 Results of tests conducted by VRTC between
4.2 and 4.3 m/s can be found in an agency
memorandum providing the revised SID–IIs
qualification data set (NHTSA–2006–25442–0043),
and in the report ‘‘Analysis and Development of
SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications in Response
to Petitions for Reconsideration,’’ July 1, 2008.
Seven additional tests conducted after this
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench
In section 572.197(b)(3), the December
14, 2006 final rule stated: ‘‘Align the
outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of
the impacted side of the seated dummy
tangent to a vertical plane located
within 25 mm of the side edge of the
bench as shown in Figure V7–A * * *.’’
However, as seen in the figure at the end
of the subpart, the vertical plane for
dummy alignment is located within 10
(not 25) mm of the side edge of the
bench. The regulatory text is corrected
to refer to the 10 mm value.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Peak T12
lateral
acceleration
(g)
64
11.71
1.07
9.17%
115
11.78
1.07
9.09%
X. Other Testing Issues
a. Dummy Clothing
The December 14, 2006 final rule
specified that the shoulder, thorax with
arm, thorax without arm and abdomen
qualification tests be conducted with
the dummy wearing its torso jacket
(180–3450) and cotton underwear pants.
The pelvis-acetabulum and pelvis-iliac
tests, however, were to be conducted
without the torso jacket and without the
cotton underwear pants. The dummy
was not to wear shoes for any of the
above qualification tests.
Requested Change
The Alliance petitioned that all fullbody qualification impact tests be
conducted with the torso jacket, cotton
underwear pants and shoes installed
due to time and effort involved in
removing and replacing the dummy’s
clothes and shoes.
Agency Response
The request is denied. The clothing
specifications were put in place to better
ensure that accurate and repeatable test
measurements could be obtained during
dummy qualification. For the pelvismemorandum was placed in the docket are
included in the appendix of the previously
mentioned qualification report.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
iliac and pelvis-acetabulum tests, the
cotton underwear pants are removed to
eliminate the effect that the clothing
could have on the measured response.
Additionally, removal of the pants
simplifies alignment of the probe and
better ensures that probe interaction
with the dummy is consistent from test
to test. The chest jacket must be
removed because the ‘‘crotch strip’’
(drawing 180–3450, sheet 2 of 3), which
is guided through the dummy’s legs to
attach the front of the jacket to the back
of the jacket, can cause the dummy to
rock slightly on the test surface. This
‘‘rocking’’ can also lead to problems
with misalignment of the probe or
inconsistent probe interaction with the
dummy. Further, removal of the chest
jacket is very easy and not burdensome.
The agency considered whether
removing or adjusting the crotch strip,
while keeping the chest jacket on the
dummy, would simplify the test
procedure. The agency determined that
although it would be possible to
conduct the pelvis tests with only the
crotch strip removed or adjusted,
keeping the jacket on the dummy for the
pelvis acetabulum test would make
positioning the dummy against the seat
back more difficult.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided,
the dummy clothing specifications will
remain as specified in the final rule.
b. Recovery Time Between Tests
The December 14, 2006 final rule
specified a minimum recovery time of
30 minutes between repeat tests of the
same qualification test for the neck
qualification test. A recovery time of 30
minutes is also given for the shoulder,
thorax, abdomen and pelvis-acetabulum
qualification tests in the 2006
certification procedures document. The
head, which references the procedure
given in 49 CFR 572.112(a), is given a
recovery time of 2 hours between repeat
tests in the December 2006 final rule.
The pelvis-iliac test procedure provided
in the 2006 certification procedures
document specifies a recovery time of 1
hour.
Requested Change
The Alliance petitioned for a
minimum recovery time of 30 minutes
between repeat tests of the same
qualification test for all tests, except for
the lateral head drop test, which the
petitioner recommended should have a
recovery time of 2 hours between
repeats of the same qualification test.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Agency Response
The petitioner suggested a change to
the final rule’s specification of the
pelvis-iliac recovery time but did not
provide any data or rationale in support
of its request. VRTC first conducted
quasi-static tests to determine if a 30
minute recovery time, which is common
in Hybrid III dummy qualification test
procedures, would be sufficient for full
recovery of the iliac wing. Because these
tests are more controlled than dynamic
tests, it is easier to determine if
variability in iliac wing response is due
to the recovery time, rather than some
other factor.
As shown in the report ‘‘SID–IIsD
Iliac Wing Studies’’ docketed with this
final rule, results from quasi-static tests
indicated that reducing the iliac
recovery time to 30 minutes from 1 hour
did not affect the iliac wing responses.
However, because quasi-static tests only
account for the response of the iliac
wing and not the entire pelvis assembly,
VRTC also conducted dynamic tests to
determine if the pelvis assembly will
perform consistently with a recovery
time of only 30 minutes. VRTC
performed a series of ten iliac
qualification tests (using the Material #3
with standoffs wing and a backer plate),
where one test was performed on a fully
recovered pelvis to serve as a baseline,
four tests were conducted after a
recovery time of 30 minutes, and five
tests were conducted after a recovery
time of one hour.
Results from the iliac qualification
tests are shown in the ‘‘SID–IIsD Iliac
Wing Studies’’ report. The results
indicated that after successive impacts
with 30 minutes or one hour recovery
time, the iliac responses from each
recovery time showed a trend of slight
increase in magnitude. In addition, tests
performed with 30 minutes of recovery
time between tests showed overall larger
magnitude responses than tests with one
hour recovery time. Because the iliac
wing did not require more than 30
minutes of recovery time according to
the quasi-static data, NHTSA
determined that this rise in response is
probably attributable to the pelvis flesh
needing more time for recovery, as the
flesh part is a major component of the
pelvis that is directly impacted. Since a
major element of the pelvis flesh is
foam, it appears that the foam needs
more than one hour to fully recover
from impact. To determine what
recovery time would be appropriate, the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29877
agency conducted six additional pelvisiliac qualification tests, with one test
conducted as another baseline response
from a fully recovered pelvis, and five
tests performed with two hours of
recovery time between each test. The
results of this series did not show a
trend of increase in response with
successive tests, as shown in the ‘‘SID–
IIsD Iliac Wing Studies’’ report.
Additionally, when comparing the
average responses of tests for all
recovery times, the responses after two
hour recovery times were most similar
to those of fully recovered dummy
pelves, indicating that after two hours,
the pelves have returned to a fullyrecovered state (Table 5).
Since the dynamic test results
indicate that a 30 minute recovery time
is not long enough to ensure full
recovery of the dummy’s pelvis, and no
supporting data were provided by the
petitioner, we are denying the Alliance
petition. Furthermore, since
investigation of this issue revealed that
two hours between tests is necessary to
ensure the dummy pelvis is fully
recovered, we are implementing a two
hour recovery time for the pelvis-iliac
test. Also, given that the pelvis flesh is
also impacted in the pelvis-acetabulum
test, the agency believes it is logical to
assign a recovery time of two hours for
the pelvis-acetabulum test as well.37
These recovery times, as well as 30
minute recovery times for the shoulder,
thorax with arm, thorax without arm
and abdomen qualification tests are
added to their respective sections in the
Part 572 regulatory text.
37 Qualification corridors for the pelvis iliac and
acetabulum tests were determined with data
collected after 30 minute recovery times. However,
we do not expect this to have an effect on the
placement of the corridors for the following
reasons. In the pelvis-iliac test, peak impactor
acceleration and peak iliac force data from FTSS
were generally lower than NHTSA data, resulting in
corridors that would easily include lower NHTSA
responses, if a longer recovery period would have
produced somewhat lower measurements. For the
pelvis acceleration performance criterion, some of
the NHTSA data is on the low side of corridor;
however, the established corridor is already very
wide to account for the wide range of responses
from NHTSA and FTSS, and it would not be
desirable to widen it any further, even if some
NHTSA responses would fall slightly below the
corridor if a two hour recovery time was
implemented. In the pelvis acetabulum test, many
of the data came from tests where dummies were
impacted once or twice per day, meaning that any
rise in response due to repeat tests would probably
have a minimal impact on the data set as a whole
(and therefore, have a minimal impact on the
corridor placement).
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29878
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5—AVERAGE PELVIS-ILIAC QUALIFICATION MEASUREMENTS FOR FULLY, 30 MINUTES, 1 HOUR, AND 2 HOUR
RECOVERED DUMMY PELVES
Average
peak probe
acceleration
(g)
Fully Recovered ...........................................................................................................................
1⁄2 hr recovery ..............................................................................................................................
1 hr recovery ................................................................................................................................
2 hr recovery ................................................................................................................................
c. Soak Time
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.200) provides the requirements for
instrumentation and test conditions and
states at 572.200(j) that ‘‘Performance
tests are conducted unless specified
otherwise, at any temperature from 20.6
to 22.2 degrees C (69 to 72 degrees F)
and at any relative humidity from 10%
to 70% after exposure of the dummy to
those conditions for a period of 3
hours.’’
Requested Change
Denton ATD/SAE DTES stated that
the final rule requires a 3 hour soak time
instead of the normal 4 hour soak time
for all other dummies. It noted that prior
temperature studies have shown that
even 4 hours might be insufficient. It
recommended that NHTSA make the
soak time 4 hours to match all other
dummies.
Agency Response
This request is granted. This final rule
amends 572.200(j) to require a 4 hour
soak time to match the requirements of
other dummies. We do not believe that
requiring an additional hour of soak
time will have any negative effect on the
dummy’s responses. Further, a 4 hour
soak time for all test components was
specified in the FTSS SID–IIs User
Manual (December 4, 2003). The revised
qualification procedures document has
also been updated to reflect this change.
d. Tolerance on the Impactor Mass
The impactor mass tolerance for the
SID–IIsD shoulder, thorax with arm,
thorax without arm, abdomen, pelvis
acetabulum and pelvis iliac
qualification tests is specified in
§ 572.137(a) in Subpart O of 49 CFR part
572, which sets forth specifications for
the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult
Average
peak pelvis
Y acceleration
(g)
43
45
44
43
Average
peak iliac
force
(N)
38
40
39
37
4942
5163
5044
4934
female test dummy (HIII5F). The
impactor mass is specified as ‘‘13.97 ±
0.23 kg (30.8 ±0.05 lbs).’’ 38
Requested Change
The Alliance recommended that the
tolerance on the impactor mass for
shoulder, thorax with arm, thorax
without arm, abdomen, pelvis
acetabulum and pelvis iliac
qualification tests for the SID–IIs be
changed to ±0.023 kg, rather than ±0.23
kg. The SAE DTES supported this
requested change.
Agency Response
The request is denied. The agency has
evaluated the probe mass tolerances
specified for other Part 572 crash test
dummies. Table 6 displays the results of
this evaluation.
TABLE 6—IMPACT PROBE MASSES AND TOLERANCES FOR DUMMIES SPECIFIED IN 49 CFR PART 572
Part 572 subpart & dummy name
Probe type
Probe metric/english specification and
tolerance
Subpart N, Six-year-old Child Test
Dummy, Beta Version.
Subpart N, Six-year-old Child Test
Dummy, Beta Version.
Subpart P, HIII 3-Year-Old Child Crash
Test Dummy, Alpha Version.
Subpart V, SID–IIs Side Impact Crash
Test Dummy (refers to Subpart O,
HIII5F).
Petitioned SID–IIs/HIII5F probe mass tolerance.
Thorax ....................................................
2.86±0.02 kg ..........................................
(6.3±0.05 lb) ...........................................
0.82±0.02 kg ..........................................
(1.8±0.05 lb) ...........................................
1.70±0.02 kg ..........................................
(3.75±0.05 lb) .........................................
13.97±0.23 kg ........................................
(30.8±0.05 lb) .........................................
*tolerances not equivalent
13.97±0.023 kg ......................................
Knee .......................................................
Thorax ....................................................
Thorax/Abdomen/Iliac (for HIII5F, Thorax).
Thorax/Abdomen/Iliac (for HIII5F, Thorax).
Tolerance
percentage of
specified probe
mass/weight
0.70
(.79)
2.44
(2.78)
1.18
(1.33)
1.65
(0.162)
0.164
The petitioner’s request to change the
mass tolerance to 0.023 kg would result
in a tolerance that is similar to the 3year-old and 6-year-old dummy probe
tolerances (0.02 kg). However, 0.02 kg is
0.70% to 2.44% of the mass of the child
dummy probes. Because the SID–IIs/
HIII5F probe mass is larger than those
for the child dummies, the requested
0.023 kg tolerance is only 0.16% of the
probe mass for the 5th percentile adult
female dummies, which is a very tight
tolerance for the larger probe. The
current mass tolerance of 0.23 kg is
more consistent with child dummy
probe mass tolerances in terms of the
percentage of the probe mass (0.23 kg is
1.65% of the SID–IIs/HIII5F probe
mass). Further, although it is possible
for the probes to be produced to a tight
tolerance of 0.16%, several labs,
including those at VRTC, TRC, MGA
and GM, would not meet the mass
specification with this lower tolerance
for all probes (Table 7). Under a 0.23 kg
tolerance, the VRTC and TRC probe
masses would meet specifications and
38 There was an incorrect conversion in
§ 572.137(a) between the metric and English
tolerance. The ‘‘0.05 lbs’’ should read ‘‘0.5 lbs.’’
This error is corrected by today’s final rule. We
have also corrected the tolerance for the HIII–5F
knee probe in 572.137(b) to be 2.99±0.23 kg (6.6±0.5
lbs).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the MGA probes would be only slightly
outside the allowable range. Because
data showing a need to change the
tolerance of 0.23 kg to 0.023 kg has not
29879
been shown, the agency is denying the
request.
TABLE 7—SID–IISD IMPACT PROBE MASSES AT VARIOUS LABORATORIES
Lab
Probe mass
Meets 0.23 kg
tolerance?
MGA .................................................................
TRC (before 5/4/07) .........................................
TRC (5/4/07–present) .......................................
14.22 kg (all) ...................................................
13.97 kg (all) ...................................................
13.94 kg (sh/thx/acet) .....................................
13.96 kg (abd and iliac) ..................................
14.1195 kg (sh/thx/acet); 14.1014 kg (abd);
14.1558 kg (iliac).
13.950 kg (sh/thx/acet); 13.972 kg (abd);
13.955 kg (iliac).
14.302 kg (abdomen) ......................................
NO ..............................
YES ............................
YES ............................
YES ............................
YES ............................
NO.
YES.
NO.
YES.
NO.
YES ............................
YES.
NO ..............................
NO.
VRTC ................................................................
FTSS ................................................................
GM ....................................................................
e. Neck Cable Torque in PADI
In the ‘‘Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of
the SID–IIsD Side Impact Crash Test
Dummy’’ 39 incorporated by reference
by the December 14, 2006 final rule, a
torque of 10–12 in-lb is required for the
neck cable jam nut.
Requested Change
Denton/SAE DTES suggested that
since the SID–IIs neck is the same as
that of the HIII5F, the neck cable jam
nut torque specification should be
changed to 12±2 in-lb to match the
HIII5F.
Agency Response
This request is denied. The petitioner
did not provide any neck qualification
data to support its recommendation. To
evaluate the request, VRTC conducted
neck qualification tests with neck cable
torques of 12 and 14 in-lb to determine
the effect of increased cable torque on
neck response. The results of these tests
are presented and explained in a
memorandum entitled, ‘‘Results of Neck
Cable Torque Investigation,’’ which has
been placed in the agency’s docket for
today’s final rule. The results indicated
that one out of three tests on one neck
and two out of three tests on a second
neck tested with a cable torque of 14 inlb failed the neck qualification test
(specifically, the peak OC moment was
higher than allowed by the performance
criteria). In contrast, all six tests with a
neck cable torque of 12 in-lb and
meeting pendulum deceleration
requirements passed the neck
qualification test. Data from the forward
and headform potentiometers indicated
that the tests conducted with a cable
torque of 14 in-lb produced a lower
peak rotation than those conducted at
12 in-lb., i.e., the higher cable torque
appears to cause a slightly stiffer neck
39 NHTSA
Docket NHTSA–2006–25442–14, page
19.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
response. Although the difference in
response is small, at this higher torque
laboratories may experience difficulty in
passing the neck qualification test
performance criteria, especially if the
neck is somewhat stiff, as the
performance corridors were formed
using necks with cable torques of 10–12
in-lb. Accordingly, the agency has
decided against changing the neck cable
torque specification in the PADI.
f. Pendulum Deceleration Pulse
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.193(c)) specifies that the pendulum
deceleration pulse is characterized in
terms of decrease in velocity as obtained
by integrating the pendulum
acceleration output from time zero. In
an interpretation request received by
NHTSA on May 21, 2008, FTSS asked
about the time measurement at >25.0
and <100 milliseconds (ms). FTSS asked
whether the requirement is to record the
singular peak value of the Pendulum
Delta-V, or whether the Pendulum
Delta-V must fall between ¥5.50 to
¥6.20 meters per second throughout the
time period.
Agency Response
We have clarified the table in
572.193(c)(1) such that the specified
pendulum delta V for 25–100 ms
applies to the peak velocity in that time
period. We believe that there is no need
to record the pendulum Delta-V over the
range, as once the pendulum
acceleration stops, the pendulum DeltaV becomes relatively constant, reaching
an overall peak just after 25 ms and
slightly decreasing in magnitude after
that. Further, the peak may be easier to
tune than the whole range.
g. Neck Potentiometers
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.193) specifies the neck assembly
qualification tests. The test procedure
calls for the attachment of the neckheadform assembly in accordance with
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Meets 0.023 kg
tolerance?
Figure V2–A or V2–B (depending on the
direction of impact) of the Appendix of
the subpart. These figures show the use
of three angle potentiometer assemblies
for measuring the maximum translationrotation of the midsagittal plane of the
headform disk.
Requested Change
Since only two potentiometers
(‘‘pots’’) are used for the measurement
requirements of the neck qualification
test, Denton/SAE DTES inquired about
either eliminating the third pot (the aft/
inner angle pot assembly shown in
Figures V2–A, –B, –C) or making it
optional, and including a spacer mass in
its place.
Agency Response
We do not agree to this change.
Denton/SAE DTES is correct that only
the fore/outer angle potentiometer
assembly and the headform angle
potentiometer assembly are used to
calculate the maximum translation/
rotation of the headform. However, the
aft/inner potentiometer assembly has
been installed throughout the
development of the dummy and neck
performance corridors, as use of this
assembly was originally specified in the
FTSS SID–IIs user’s manual. The agency
has not conducted any tests without this
potentiometer assembly, and no data of
this kind were provided to support
removing the third pot. Therefore, it is
unknown how removal of this assembly
will affect the overall response
characteristics of the neck during this
test. In order to obtain neck
qualification results consistent with
those that have been derived using all
three potentiometers, the aft/inner angle
pot assembly cannot be eliminated
without compensating for the absent
part. The petitioner has not provided a
replacement part that can achieve this
end result.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29880
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
XI. Qualification Performance Corridors
In response to the final rule, the
petitioners provided additional
qualification data and recommendations
for revised performance corridors. To
the extent possible, NHTSA
incorporated the data that had been
acquired in tests conducted according to
the final rule test procedures, or to the
procedures amended today, as
appropriate, into the NHTSA data set.40
To provide as extensive and variable a
data set as possible, the agency also
added to this data set tests performed at
TRC that had been overlooked at the
time of the final rule, tests conducted at
TRC following the publication of the
final rule, and shoulder, abdomen, and
pelvis iliac qualification tests conducted
at VRTC in support of the agency’s
evaluation of the petitions for
reconsideration. Additionally, the
‘‘time-of-purchase’’ qualification test
results performed at FTSS on dummies
purchased by the agency for research or
compliance purposes were added.
However, some data from these
sources were not used because the
agency was not confident that the tests
were conducted under the appropriate
test procedures and conditions. The
details of test removal are described in
the report, ‘‘Analysis and Development
of SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications
in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration,’’ supra. As discussed
in that document, qualification tests
were removed for the following reasons:
Impact energy did not fall within the
allowable range (see discussion below);
the time history trace showed unusual
behavior; or the test was improperly
conducted.
With regard to impact energy, during
NHTSA’s examination of the December
2006 final rule data set, the agency
found that many of the probe
acceleration values were calculated
from probe force values using an
assumed probe mass of 13.97 kg. To
obtain more precise acceleration values
with which to form performance
corridors, the agency requested
information about probe masses from
the test labs that had provided probe
force rather than acceleration data. We
found that the probe masses used at
some test laboratories were greater than
allowed by the probe mass tolerance
specified in 572.137(a). To account for
these higher probe masses, we
calculated the allowable impact energy
range using the specified tolerances for
40 As noted earlier, the Alliance data provided as
part of their petition for reconsideration was
considered in the formation of recommended
corridors but was not incorporated into the NHTSA
data set for inclusion in the statistical analyses.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
mass and velocity and the impact
energy of each individual test (where
Energy = 1⁄2mv2). We removed from the
data set tests with impact energies that
did not meet the allowable range. This
process of ‘‘filtering’’ tests by impact
energy rather than impact velocity was
performed only for the purpose of
evaluating the performance criteria.
When a test lab conducts the Part 572
tests specified in subpart V, we expect
them to ensure that the probe mass and
impact velocity requirements specified
in subpart V are met.
We considered several other factors in
responding to the petitions pertaining to
the revision of the performance
corridors. Performance corridors are
generally based on the mean, standard
deviation (SD), and coefficient of
variation (CV) of the data set. Bounds
are preliminarily set at a certain
distance from the mean value,
depending on the CV. Corridor bounds
are initially set based on the CV of the
data set as follows: for CV less than 3%,
the bounds are set at ±3 standard
deviations (SD) from the mean; for CV
between 3% and 5%, ±2 SD from the
mean; for CV greater than 5%, ±10%
from the mean. After setting a
preliminary corridor based on the CV,
the bounds are rounded to the next
whole number away from the mean to
obtain the ‘‘statistically-derived’’
corridor. Either bound could then be
adjusted slightly to account for outside
data points, if warranted (71 FR at
75360). In its petition for
reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES
recommended that ±3 standard
deviations (such that ∼99% of the
available data would be included) be
used to create corridors instead of ±2
standard deviations (which includes
only ∼95% of the available data)
because, the petitioner believed, there
was limited data accounting for lab-tolab and technician-to-technician
variability to create acceptable corridors
that would accommodate this expected
level of variation.
We have considered Denton’s request
but have decided against its
recommendation. Use of the NHTSA
guidelines for setting performance
corridors better ensures that the corridor
width is appropriate for the variation in
the data set, because the width of each
corridor is based on the CV of the data.
Forming corridors according to ±3
standard deviations from the mean can
result in corridors that provide an
unnecessary ‘‘buffer zone’’ around the
data, and allow for too large a range of
responses. Performance corridors must
be constrictive enough to identify and
disqualify dummies whose responses
fall significantly away from the mean.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Further, the petitioner made the
suggestion about using a corridor width
of ±3 standard deviations out of concern
about the limited variability in the data.
The revised data set adopted today in
response to the petitions for
reconsideration incorporates all the
relevant test results that have been made
available and represents five
laboratories and a much larger sample of
dummies than the December 2006 final
rule data set, which represented two
laboratories and four dummies for all
tests but the iliac test (which
represented four dummies and one
laboratory).41 We believe this expanded
data source is sufficient to capture the
behavior of the majority of dummies
tested at different labs.
Another factor we considered in
responding to the petitions pertaining to
the performance corridors related to the
use of rounded integers by NHTSA in
developing the corridors of the
December 14, 2006 final rule. NHTSA
published a final report ‘‘Development
of Certification Performance
Specifications for the SID–IIsD Crash
Test Dummy,’’ 42 in the establishment
of qualification corridors. The report
included tabulated data, as well as plots
of the adopted corridors. In its petition
for reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES
noted that many of the data presented
in this report appear to be rounded to
even integers for the T1 acceleration in
the thorax without arm test.
We reviewed the data in response to
the petition and have observed that
rounded integers were used. To improve
the data tables, we have replaced the
rounded values for T1 acceleration and
other thorax without arm qualification
test measurements, as well as
measurements in other tests such as
shoulder, abdomen, etc., with more
precise values obtained from NHTSA
crash test reports, supporting reports for
the SID–IIsD final rule,43 and electronic
data (as available). The improved data
were used to evaluate the performance
criteria for the thorax without arm and
41 The shoulder test had samples of 13 different
dummies; the thorax with and without arm tests
had samples of at least 29–30 different dummies;
the abdomen test had samples of 10 different
dummies; the pelvis acetabulum test had a sample
of 18 different dummies; and the pelvis iliac test
used 48 different iliac wings and 6 pelvis skins.
42 Available in Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–
16.
43 Data were obtained from the following reports:
(a)‘‘Certification and Maintenance Records of the
SID–IIs Build Level D Dummies Used in NHTSA
Rulemaking Support Tests, May 2005 through
November 2005,’’ NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety
Research, February 2006, Docket No. 25442–5; (b)
‘‘Repeatability and Reproducibility Analysis of the
SID–IIs Build Level D Dummy in the Certification
Test Environment,’’ Jessica Gall, MGA Research
Corporation, September 2005, Docket No. 25442–6.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
all other qualification tests. The revised
tables are shown in the report,
‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response
to Petitions for Reconsideration,’’ supra.
Table 8 shows the whole-body
qualification tests conducted in each
body region that are available for
29881
corridor formation. However, note that
for some measurements within each
test, responses are not present or not
applicable.44
TABLE 8—TOTAL NUMBER OF QUALIFICATION TESTS USED TO FORM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Test performer
Shoulder
(4.3 m/s)
Thorax
w/ arm
Thorax
w/o arm
Abdomen
(4.3 m/s)
NHTSA—final rule data set .............................................
NHTSA—newly added data .............................................
FTSS with NHTSA R&D/Compliance dummies ..............
FTSS—petition for reconsideration ..................................
GM—Denton/SAE DTES petition for reconsideration .....
26
15
14
12
....................
48
11
28
25
....................
51
11
28
25
....................
Total .................................................................................
* 67
** 112
115
PelvisAcetabulum
PelvisIliac
23
16
7
16
2
46
15
56
....................
....................
....................
123
....................
83
206
64
† 117
155
* 50 measurements were available for the peak upper spine (T1) acceleration.
** 66 measurements were available for the peak impactor acceleration after 5 ms.
† 61 measurements were available for the peak pelvis lateral acceleration after 6 ms.
a. Shoulder Qualification Corridors
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.194) specified a shoulder
qualification procedure where, for a
specified impact velocity, performance
corridors were set for: peak shoulder rib
deflection, peak lateral acceleration of
the upper spine (T1), and peak impactor
acceleration. The values are shown in
Table 9.
Requested Change
The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE
DTES petitioned for changes to these
qualification corridors. The Alliance
recommended a corridor that is ±2 s.d.
from the mean of the data pooled from
FTSS and NHTSA. In accordance with
its recommendation that the impact
speed for the test be reduced to 4.3 ±0.1
m/s, the Alliance excluded tests with an
impact speed greater than 4.4 m/s in
their January 2007 petition, however, in
their December 2007 petition, they
provided data for tests conducted with
an impact velocity of 4.4±0.1 m/s. FTSS
created corridors based on a 4.4 ±0.1 m/
s impact speed. It pooled data from
FTSS and NHTSA and created corridors
using the NHTSA procedure. Denton/
SAE DTES created corridors based on a
4.4 ±0.1 m/s impact speed. It pooled
data from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA and TRC
and created corridors at ±3 s.d. from the
mean. It was not clear from Denton if
any test data was excluded from the
data pool based on impact speed. The
petitioners’ recommended corridors are
set forth in Table 9.
TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED SHOULDER QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Petitioned recommendations
December 14,
2006 final rule
corridor
Shoulder qualification test
Alliance—
January 2007
4.3–4.5
30–37
17–19
14–18
4.2–4.4
31–37
16–22
14–17
Impact Velocity (m/s) ..................................................................
Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm) ...........................................
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ..........................................
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ..................................................
Alliance—
December
2007
FTSS
Denton/
SAE DTES
Same as FR
.....................
17–22 ..........
.....................
Same as FR
Same as FR
17–21 ..........
Same as FR
Same as FR.
29–38.
15–23.
13–19.
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
the agency decided to lower the impact
velocity to 4.3 ±0.1 m/s for the shoulder
qualification test. Therefore, only tests
conducted within the energy range
corresponding to this impact velocity
range were used to establish new
performance corridors. Performance
corridors for the shoulder were formed
following the method described earlier,
using the mean, SD, and CV of the data
set and setting bounds at a certain
distance from the mean value,
depending on the CV. The report
‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response
to Petitions for Reconsideration’’
provides the statistics of the data and
compares the corridors established in
this rule to the petitioners’
recommendations. For the peak upper
spine lateral acceleration and the peak
impactor acceleration, the statistically-
derived corridors provided in Table 10
were adopted. The lower bound of the
peak shoulder rib deflection corridor
was expanded by 2 mm to account for
expected lower deflections at impact
velocities from 4.2–4.3 m/s. The
corridors established in this final rule
are in agreement with or slightly larger
than those proposed by the Alliance
(December 2007) and FTSS, and the
shoulder deflection and impactor
acceleration corridors are close to those
44 For each test, multiple dummy measurements
are taken to check whether the dummy meets the
performance criteria. But, in some tests, one or
more measurements might not have been collected,
or might have been removed. For example, in the
table there are 120 shoulder tests, but as indicated
in the footnote to the table, there were only 69 T1
acceleration measurements. Sometimes there is
only one measurement missing, e.g., one of the
upper rib deflection values was deleted from the
thorax with arm data set because the recorded value
was a late spike. So, even though the table indicates
that there are 112 thorax with arm tests, there are
not 112 upper rib deflection measurements. The
number of measurements used for forming each
performance corridor are provided in the report
‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration,’’ July 1, 2008.
Agency Response
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29882
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
recommended by Denton/SAE DTES.
Although peak upper spine lateral
acceleration corridor is somewhat
narrower than that suggested by Denton/
SAE DTES, we feel that it sufficiently
includes the data and should not be
made wider. The final corridors are
shown in Table 10.
TABLE 10—SHOULDER QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
December 14,
2006 corridor
Shoulder qualification measurement
Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm) ................................................................................
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ...............................................................................
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) .......................................................................................
30–37
17–19
14–18
Requested Change
b. Thorax with Arm Qualification
Corridors
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.195) specified a thorax with arm
qualification test involving the
measurement of seven dummy
responses: Peak shoulder rib deflection,
peak thoracic rib deflections for the
upper, middle, and lower ribs, peak
upper and lower spine lateral
accelerations, and peak impactor
acceleration.
Statistical
corridor
The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES
petitioned for changes to these
qualification corridors. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, these
petitioners, as well as FTSS, had
requested that the peak impactor
acceleration be taken after 5 ms to avoid
measurement of an inertial peak. The
Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES
recommended new corridors based on
their analyses of the NHTSA final rule
Today’s final rule
corridor
30–37
17–22
13–18
28–37
17–22
13–18
data set plus additional tests conducted
by FTSS, accounting for the 5 ms limit.
Denton/SAE DTES also suggested that
corridors should be formed based on ±3
standard deviations rather than ±2
standard deviations from the mean
because, the petitioner believed, data
from very few labs are available to
provide sufficient lab-to-lab variation in
the data set. Table 11 provides a
summary of petitioner-recommended
corridors.
TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED THORAX WITH ARM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Petitioned recommendations
December 14,
2006 final rule
corridor
Thorax with arm qualification test
Alliance—
January 2007
6.6–6.8
31–40
26–32
30–36
32–38
34–43
28–35
31–36
Same as FR
30–41
25–32
30–35
Same as FR
34–44
28–36
Same as FR
Impact Velocity (m/s) ..................................................................
Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm) ...........................................
Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ...................................
Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ...................................
Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ...................................
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ..........................................
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ..........................................
Peak Impactor Acceleration after 5 ms (g) .................................
† Conditions
Alliance—
December
2007
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
30–37 ..........
30–36 † ........
Denton/
SAE DTES
FTSS
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
as
as
as
as
as
as
as
as
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
Same as FR.
27–44.
24–33.
29–36.
31–39.
32–46.
26–38.
30–37.
were not provided, but it is assumed that peaks were taken after 5 ms.
Agency Response
The mean, standard deviation, and CV
of the expanded data set were used to
generate performance corridors for the
thorax with arm qualification test as
described in ‘‘Analysis and
Development of SID–IIsD Qualification
Specifications in Response to Petitions
for Reconsideration.’’ Following
statistical analysis and visual
examination of the data, only three
corridors were changed from those
given in the December 2006 final rule:
The peak upper thorax rib deflection,
the peak lower spine lateral
acceleration, and the peak impactor
acceleration (after 5 ms). The upper
thorax rib deflection and impactor
acceleration corridors were changed to
agree with the statistically-derived
corridors, which are also in agreement
with (or slightly larger than) the
corridors recommended by the Alliance
and FTSS. The lower spine acceleration
corridor was expanded slightly from the
statistically-formed corridor to better
include the spread of the data. The rest
of the performance criteria were
unchanged, due to the fact that the
December 2006 final rule corridor
sufficiently contained the data and was
in agreement with, or slightly larger
than, the statistically-derived corridor.
The final corridors are shown in Table
12.
TABLE 12—THORAX WITH ARM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Thorax with arm
qualification measurement
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
December 14,
2006 Corridor
Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm) ................................................................................
Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................................................
Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) .......................................................................
Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................................................
Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ...............................................................................
Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ...............................................................................
Impactor Acceleration (g) .......................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Statistical
Corridor
31–40
26–32
30–36
32–38
34–43
28–35
31–36
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
32–40
25–32
30–35
32–38
34–43
29–36
N/A
Today’s Final
Rule Corridor
31–40
25–32
30–36
32–38
34–43
29–37
N/A
29883
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 12—THORAX WITH ARM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS—Continued
Thorax with arm
qualification measurement
December 14,
2006 Corridor
Peak Impactor Acceleration after 5 ms (g) .....................................................................
Statistical
Corridor
N/A
c. Thorax without Arm Qualification
Corridors
acceleration, and peak impactor
acceleration.
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.196) specified a thorax without arm
qualification procedure in which, for a
specified impact velocity, performance
corridors were set for: peak upper
thorax rib deflection, peak middle
thorax rib deflection, peak lower thorax
rib deflection, peak upper spine lateral
acceleration, peak lower spine lateral
Requested Change
The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE
DTES petitioned for changes to these
qualification corridors. The Alliance
pooled data from FTSS and NHTSA and
created corridors using ±2 s.d. from the
mean. FTSS pooled data from FTSS and
NHTSA and created corridors using
NHTSA’s procedure (based on the
Today’s Final
Rule Corridor
30–36
30–36
mean, SD, and CV of the data set),
except the method used to create the
T12 corridor used ±2 s.d. instead of
10%, as the petitioner believed it was
more appropriate due to the fact that
this acceleration has a low magnitude in
this test. Denton/SAE DTES pooled data
from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA and TRC to
create corridors using ±3 s.d. from the
mean. The corridor recommendations
are summarized in Table 13.
TABLE 13—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED THORAX WITHOUT ARM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Petitioned recommendations
December 14,
2006 final rule
corridor
Thorax without arm qualification test
Impact Velocity (m/s) ..............................................................................................
Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ...............................................................
Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ...............................................................
Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ...............................................................
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ......................................................................
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ......................................................................
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ..............................................................................
Agency Response
Based on an impact velocity of
4.3±0.1 m/s, the performance corridors
were formed based on the statistics of
the expanded data set (see, ‘‘Analysis
and Development of SID–IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response
to Petitions for Reconsideration’’). Four
of the thorax without arm performance
criteria are changed in this final rule.
4.2–4.4
33–40
39–45
36–43
14–17
7–10
14–18
Two of these, the peak upper thorax rib
deflection and the peak upper spine
lateral acceleration, were expanded
slightly, in agreement with the
statistically-derived corridor from the
new data set. The peak lower thorax rib
deflection corridor was expanded
beyond the statistically-derived corridor
because the statistical corridor excluded
data that met the final rule corridor. As
Alliance—
January
2007
FTSS
Denton/SAE
DTES
Same as FR
Same as FR
39–44 ..........
Same as FR
Same as FR
7–11 ............
15–18 ..........
Same as FR
Same as FR
Same as FR
Same as FR
Same as FR
7–11 ............
Same as FR
Same as FR
31–41
37–45
34–44
13–17
6–12
Same as FR
indicated by FTSS, the magnitude of the
peak lower spine acceleration is fairly
low. Therefore, we agree with the
petitioner that applying a corridor of
±10% would be inappropriate, and have
instead set this corridor to agree with
the Alliance and FTSS
recommendations. The statistical and
adopted qualification corridors are as
shown in Table 14.
TABLE 14—THORAX WITHOUT ARM CORRIDORS
December 14,
2006 corridor
Thorax without arm qualification measurement
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................................................
Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) .......................................................................
Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................................................
Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ...............................................................................
Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ...............................................................................
Impactor Acceleration (g) .......................................................................................
d. Abdomen Qualification Corridors
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.197) specified an abdomen
qualification procedure in which, for a
specified impact velocity, performance
corridors were set for: Peak upper
abdominal rib deflection, peak lower
abdominal rib deflection, peak lower
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
spine lateral acceleration, and peak
impactor acceleration.
Requested Change
The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE
DTES petitioned for changes to these
qualification corridors, based on their
analyses of larger data sets as described
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Statistical
corridor
33–40
39–45
36–43
14–17
7–10
14–18
32–40
37–45
35–42
13–17
8–11
14–18
Today’s final rule
corridor
32–40
39–45
35–43
13–17
7–11
14–18
below. Table 15 presents the petitioned
corridors.
The Alliance recommended a corridor
that is ±2 s.d. from the mean of pooled
data from FTSS and NHTSA and
excluded data from tests conducted at
speeds greater than 4.4 m/s in their
January 2007 petition, but used an
impact velocity range of 4.4 ±0.1 m/s in
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29884
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
their December 2007 petition. FTSS
pooled data from FTSS, NHTSA and
GM, based on 4.4 ±0.1 m/s impact
speed. It created corridors using the
NHTSA procedure, except the T12
corridor was created using ±2 s.d.
instead of 10%. Denton/SAE DTES
created corridors using ±3 s.d. from the
mean of 4.4 ±0.1 m/s impact data pooled
from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA and TRC.
TABLE 15—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED ABDOMEN QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Petitioned recommendations
December 14,
2006 final rule
corridor
Abdomen qualification test
Impact Velocity (m/s) .....................................................................
Peak Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm) ................................
Peak Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm) ................................
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ............................................
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) .....................................................
Agency Response
As discussed previously, NHTSA is
reducing the impact velocity to 4.3 ±0.1
m/s. Accordingly, the performance
corridors were formed using only those
tests with input energies corresponding
to impact velocities of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s. The
report ‘‘Analysis and Development of
SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications in
Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration’’ describes the statistics
and rationale used for the placement of
corridor bounds, and provides figures
showing the responses for each
qualification measurement. In this
4.3–4.5
39–47
37–46
11–14
12–16
Alliance—
January
2007
Alliance—
December
2007
FTSS
Denton/
SAE DTES
4.2–4.4 ........
37–50 ..........
35–49 ..........
9–15 ............
Same as FR
Same as FR
37–49 ..........
35–49 ..........
9–14 ............
Same as FR
Same as FR
Same as FR
Same as FR
9–14 ............
Same as FR
Same as FR
36–51
33–53
9–15
11–16
qualification test, both rib deflection
criteria were expanded and/or shifted
downward slightly from the final rule
corridors. The statistical corridors for
these measurements were formed using
the NHTSA method and the 4.3 ±0.1
m/s data set. However, due to low
deflection responses at impact velocities
from 4.2—4.3 m/s, the lower bound of
the upper rib deflection statistical
corridor was reduced 1 mm, and the
lower bound of the lower rib deflection
statistical corridor was reduced 2 mm.
These corridors are narrower than those
suggested by the Alliance and Denton/
SAE DTES, but we believe they contain
the data sufficiently well. The peak
lower spine acceleration corridor was
set by placing the bounds at ±2 s.d. from
the mean, rather than ±10% from the
mean as specified by the NHTSA
method for corridor formation. Like in
the thorax with arm test, this is because
the low magnitude of this measurement
results in a narrow corridor when its
bounds are placed at ±10% of the mean,
so it is more appropriate to set the
corridor bounds at ±2 s.d. from the
mean. The final corridors are shown in
Table 16.
TABLE 16—ABDOMEN QUALIFICATION CORRIDOR
December 14,
2006 corridor
Abdomen qualification measurement
Statistical
corridor
Today’s final rule
corridor
Impact Velocity (m/s) .......................................................................................................
Peak Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm) ..................................................................
Peak Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm) ..................................................................
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ...............................................................................
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) .......................................................................................
4.3–4.5
39–47
37–46
11–14
12–16
e. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification
Corridors
FTSS, Ford and NHTSA with 2 mm and
3 mm pre-crushed plugs combined. It
created corridors using the NHTSA
procedure described in section XI of this
preamble. Denton/SAE DTES also
analyzed combined data from 2 mm and
3 mm pre-crushed plugs. It created
corridors using ±3 s.d. from the mean of
pooled data from FTSS, Ford and
NHTSA. The recommended
qualification corridors are set forth
below in Table 17.
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.198) specified a pelvis acetabulum
qualification procedure where for a
given impact velocity, performance
corridors were set for: peak impactor
acceleration, peak lateral pelvis
acceleration, and peak acetabulum
force.
Requested Change
The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE
DTES requested changes to the pelvis
acetabulum qualification corridors with
the condition that the peak lateral pelvis
acceleration be taken 5 ms or more after
the impactor contacts the dummy. The
Alliance separately analyzed data from
tests with 2 mm and 3 mm pre-crushed
plugs. It recommended a corridor width
of ±2 s.d., regardless of which pre-crush
amount is used. FTSS pooled data from
............................
37–47
35–44
10–13
12–16
4.2–4.4
36–47
33–44
9–14
12–16
TABLE 17—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED ACETABULUM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Petitioned recommendations
December 14,
2006 final rule
corridor
Pelvis-Acetabulum qualification test
Impact Velocity (m/s) .....................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
6.6–6.8
Sfmt 4700
Alliance—
January
2007
Alliance—
December
2007
FTSS
Denton/
SAE DTES
Same as FR
Same as FR
Same as FR
Same as FR.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29885
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 17—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED ACETABULUM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS—Continued
Petitioned recommendations
December 14,
2006 final rule
corridor
Pelvis-Acetabulum qualification test
Alliance—
January
2007
Alliance—
December
2007
FTSS
Denton/
SAE DTES
3-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Impactor Acceleration (g) .....................................................
Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) .......................................................
Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 5 ms (g) ...........................
Acetabulum Force (kN) ........................................................
38–47
41–50.
........................
3.8–4.6
Same as FR.
30–45.
3.7–4.4.
2-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
Impactor Acceleration (g) .....................................................
Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) .......................................................
Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 5 ms (g) ...........................
Acetabulum Force (kN) ........................................................
........................
40–47.
........................
........................
31–45.
3.8–4.3.
2- and 3-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) .....................................................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) .......................................................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 5 ms (g) ...........................
........................
........................
........................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
30–45* .........
Same as FR
.....................
34–42 ..........
Peak Acetabulum Force (kN) ........................................................
........................
.....................
3.6–4.4* .......
3.6–4.4 ........
38–49.
REMOVE.
IF KEEP,
28–48.
3.64–4.42.
* It is unknown how the plugs were crushed for the data submitted by the Alliance in December 2007. Therefore, we have included their petitioned corridors in the ‘‘2 and 3-mm pre-crushed plugs’’ category.
Agency Response
NHTSA pooled all the relevant data
for 3 mm pre-crushed plugs in the
formulation of new corridors for the
pelvis acetabulum qualification test.
While the petitioners provided
numerous pelvis-acetabulum
qualification test results to support their
recommendations for corridor
adjustment, all tests conducted by FTSS
and Ford were performed using 2 mm
pre-crushed plugs. Because the plug
response characteristics cannot be
determined from pre-crushing 2 mm,
the results derived from these plugs
cannot be considered valid for the
agency’s corridor analysis. Likewise, the
petitioners’ recommendations for
performance corridors based on analysis
of 2 mm pre-crushed plugs cannot be
considered.
Performance corridors for the pelvisacetabulum were formed following the
methods described in section XI of this
preamble. The report, ‘‘Analysis and
Development of SID–IIsD Qualification
Specifications in Response to Petitions
for Reconsideration,’’ describes the
statistics and rationale used for the
placement of corridor bounds, and
provides figures showing the responses
for each qualification measurement. The
corridors for peak lateral pelvis
acceleration (now after 6 ms) and peak
acetabulum force were revised to reflect
the statistics of the expanded data set,
which includes tests performed by
NHTSA and FTSS (on dummies
purchased by NHTSA). These corridors
sufficiently contained the variation in
the data, and are adopted in this final
rule. The final corridors are shown in
Table 18.
TABLE 18—PELVIS-ACETABULUM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Pelvis-Acetabulum
qualification measurement
Peak
Peak
Peak
Peak
December 14,
2006 corridor
Impactor Acceleration (g) .......................................................................................
Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) (over entire test period) ..................................................
Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 6 ms (g) ..............................................................
Acetabulum Force (kN) ..........................................................................................
f. Pelvis Iliac Qualification Corridors
The December 14, 2006 final rule
(572.199) specified an iliac qualification
procedure where three performance
corridors were set for a specified impact
velocity: Peak impactor acceleration,
peak lateral pelvis acceleration, and
peak iliac wing force.
Requested Change
The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE
DTES petitioned for changes to these
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
qualification corridors. The Alliance
pooled data from FTSS, Ford and GM in
the evaluation of M3 wings with
standoffs tested to the OSRP procedure.
It also used M3 wings with standoffs
data from FTSS using the final rule iliac
qualification procedure. Each set of
recommended corridors were created
using ±2 s.d. from the mean. FTSS
provided data for M3 wings with
standoffs, but did not propose corridors.
It did propose corridors for M2, in case
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Statistical
corridor
38–47
41–50
N/A
3.8–4.6
39–46
N/A
34–42
3.60–4.30
Today’s final rule
corridor
38–47
N/A
34–42
3.60–4.30
M3 was not adopted. It pooled data from
FTSS and NHTSA and used the NHTSA
statistical procedure for its M2
recommendation. Denton/SAE DTES
used data from FTSS to establish
corridors for M3 with standoffs. It also
pooled data from FTSS and NHTSA to
establish M2 corridors. Each set of
recommended corridors were created
using ±3 s.d. from the mean. The data
are summarized in Table 19.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29886
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 19—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED PELVIS-ILIAC QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Petitioned recommendations
December 14,
2006 final rule
corridor
Pelvis-iliac
qualification test
Alliance (±2
s.d.)
FTSS
(NHTSA
procedure)
4.2–4.4
Same as FR
Same as FR
Impact Velocity (m/s) ............................................................................................
Denton/
SAE DTES
(±3 s.d.)
Same as FR
Material #2 w/NHTSA plate—Final Rule procedure
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ............................................................................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) ..............................................................................
Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN) ..................................................................................
34–40
27–33
3.7–4.5
.....................
.....................
.....................
33–40 ..........
Same as FR
3.6–4.4 ........
32–41
22–37
3.2–4.8
37–44 ..........
29–41 ..........
3.7–5.1 ........
.....................
.....................
.....................
35–46
26–44
3.3–5.5
35–42 ..........
28–37 ..........
3.6–4.8 ........
.....................
.....................
.....................
........................
........................
........................
Material #3 w/standoffs—Final Rule procedure
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ............................................................................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) ..............................................................................
Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN) ..................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
Material #3 with standoffs—OSRP procedure
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ............................................................................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) ..............................................................................
Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN) ..................................................................................
Agency Response
Although the Alliance, IIHS, FTSS,
and Denton/SAE DTES petitioned for
the use of the iliac wing design of M3
with standoffs and provided an
extensive amount of iliac qualification
data for this wing design, no data was
provided for M3 wings with standoffs
and a backer plate. In today’s final rule,
NHTSA has specified use of the backer
plate along with the M3 with standoffs
design because quasi-static tests showed
that it is still possible for the M3 with
standoffs iliac wing to off-load the iliac
load cell when used without a backer
plate. However, because the plate has
little effect on iliac response in
qualification tests (see Table 2 in section
V.b of this preamble), NHTSA has
decided that the petitioners’ ‘‘M3 with
standoffs’’ data using the NHTSA final
rule test procedure are valid and should
be considered for corridor formation.
........................
........................
........................
In response to the petitions for
reconsideration, NHTSA has developed
the iliac performance criteria based on
an analysis of 83 ‘‘M3 with standoffs’’
tests performed by FTSS, multiple series
of agency pelvis-iliac qualification tests
using a total of four pelvis skins and six
(three right, three left) M3 iliac wings
with standoffs and a backer plate, and
agency tests of two pelvis skin/iliac
wing combinations with no backer
plate. In total, 123 impacts were
included from agency testing, 107 of
which were with and 16 were without
a backer plate.45
Performance corridors for the pelvisiliac were formed following the methods
described above using the mean, SD,
and CV of the data set and setting
bounds at a certain distance from the
mean value, depending on the CV. The
report ‘‘Analysis and Development of
SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications in
Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration’’ describes the statistics
and rationale used for the placement of
corridor bounds, and provides figures
showing the responses for each
qualification measurement. In general,
the corridors were shifted upward from
those established in the December 2006
final rule to account for the higher
responses of M3 over M2. Final
placement of the corridors was
primarily based on the responses of a
subset of the NHTSA tests (n = 53) that
were conducted with a minimum twohour recovery time, as specified in this
final rule. The peak lateral pelvis
acceleration corridor was expanded
somewhat from the statistical corridor
(set at ±10% from the mean) to account
for the variation in response seen for
this measurement. The peak impactor
acceleration and peak iliac wing force
corridors were revised based on the
statistics of the two-hour recovery time
(n = 53) data set. The final corridors are
shown in Table 20.
TABLE 20—PELVIS-ILIAC QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS
Pelvis-iliac
qualification measurement
December 14,
2006 corridor
Statistical
corridor
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) .......................................................................................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) .........................................................................................
Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN) .............................................................................................
34–40
27–33
3.7–4.5
XI. Drawing Package and PADI
drawing package that was incorporated
by reference into the part 572 regulatory
text set forth in the December 14, 2006
final rule. These requests are discussed
below, along with agency responses.
Because the drawings in the drawing
determined that this occurrence will not be
problematic in compliance environments. Our
analysis of this observation is presented in the
report ‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration.’’
The petitions for reconsideration
suggested a number of changes to the
45 In evaluating these test results, it was noticed
that the first impact in a series of impacts often had
a lower response than subsequent impacts. It was
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
36–45
29–36
4.10–5.10
Today’s final rule
corridor
36–45
28–39
4.10–5.10
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 into part 572.
The updated drawing package, parts list,
and PADI referenced by today’s final
rule are dated July 1, 2008.
Data submitted by FTSS and Denton
relating to the drawing package has been
compiled by NHTSA and submitted to
the docket in a memorandum entitled,
‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data.’’ This
section refers to tables set forth in this
memorandum. Other memorandums
have been submitted to the docket that
document communications between
NHTSA and FTSS and Denton regarding
the SID–IIsD drawing package.
As a result of the changes made by
today’s final rule, the total weight of the
dummy is adjusted to 97.26 ±2.40 lb.
Changes to weights and masses
discussed in the following sections are
reflected in Drawing 180–0000 Sheet 4
of 5 and in Table 20 of the PADI. For
a compilation of center of gravity (CG)
and weight measurements used to
respond to these petitions for
reconsideration, see Tables 1–4 in the
docket memorandum, ‘‘Drawing
Package Petition Data,’’ id.
a. Issues Raised by Both FTSS and
Denton
1. Referenced Drawings
FTSS stated that the following
drawings refer to Hybrid III drawings
and believed that the contents in the
title blocks, such as material and finish,
should be removed: 180–1003, 180–
1004, 180–1005, 180–2009, 180–3005,
180–5160–1/–2, 180–5141–1/–2, 180–
5381, 180–5303, 180–5301, 180–5382,
180–5540, 180–5504, 180–5503, 180–
5508, 180–5703, 180–5704, 180–5709,
180–5906–1/–2, 180–5902, 180–5905,
180–5904, and 180–5706. Denton also
listed drawing 180–5903. Denton stated
that all of these prints simply provide a
reference back to another print that is
the same. The petitioner believed that
the drawings include a material callout
which should be removed.
Agency Response: We agree with the
petitioners and have removed the
material callouts on these drawings.
Also, the note ‘‘scale’’ has been
removed, because it does not apply to a
blank reference drawing. However, the
finish specification is part of the general
dimension and tolerance block and will
be maintained. While reviewing the
drawing package, we found that
drawing 180–5708, which is ‘‘same as
part number A–1887,’’ also has a
defined scale that has been removed.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
2. Drawing 180–3113, Side, Plate—
Spine Box
FTSS stated that the dimension .788
(grid reference C4) should read (.788), a
reference dimension. Denton suggested
deleting this .788 dimension in the left
view, as it is double dimensioned.
Agency Response: These comments
are correct. We have added parentheses
around the .788 dimension in the left
view to make it a reference dimension.
3. Drawing 180–3361, Lower Bib—Ribs
FTSS stated that 12xR.05 (B1) should
read 8xR.05. Denton stated that the 12X
radius callout should be 8X.
Agency Response: These comments
are correct. In drawing 180–3361, we
have changed 12xR.05 in grid B1 to
8xR.05.
4. Drawing 180–3343, Neck Mount
Block, Machined
FTSS stated that dimension 2.4 (B5) is
not clear, and should read 2.40 (CTR OF
R.25). Denton stated that the 2.40
dimension is unclear and should be
replaced with a dimension to the corner.
Agency Response: We agree that the
dimension is not clear. However, a
dimension to the corner would not
describe the part as well as a dimension
to the center of the radius. The 2.4 inch
(in) dimension needs to be labeled as
the center of the 0.25 in radius.
Accordingly, we have added ‘‘(CTR OF
R.25)’’ to the dimension, as well as a
center of radius symbol, for
clarification.
5. Drawing 180–3501, Sternum
FTSS stated that R.500 (B2) should
read 4xR.500. Denton also stated that
the R.500 should have 4X added in front
of it.
Agency Response: We agree that this
radius needs to be labeled 4x to describe
all four edges. We have added ‘‘4x’’
before the R.500 dimension in grid B2
of drawing 180–3501.
6. Drawing 6000075, Bearing Spherical
.500 X 1.000
FTSS believed that dimension
;.156+.002/¥.000 should read 2x
;.156+.002/¥.000 THRU. Denton stated
that the .156 dia should have 2X added
to it since it does not go through.
Agency Response: There are two
holes, so we have added ‘‘2x’’ before the
0.156 diameter dimension in grid C3,
drawing 6000075. However, the holes
do not go all the way through, so
‘‘THRU’’ was not added.
7. Drawing 180–3363, Lower Ribs—
Bending Upper Torso
FTSS stated that the tolerance for the
dimensions is too tight for
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29887
manufacturing; Hybrid III dummies use
a tolerance of ±0.30 for the general
dimension and ±0.12 for the bend
radius. FTSS recommended following
Hybrid III dummy rib dimension
tolerance practice, and change the
4xR2.75 to 4xR2.75±0.12, change
9.45±0.20 to 9.45±0.30, and change
7.48±0.20 to 7.48±0.30.46 Denton also
believed that the tolerances on the rib
bending are unrealistically tight. Denton
believed appropriate tolerances should
match what is on the H–III50M ribs
such as 78051–31: The 2.75 radius
dimension should have a tolerance of
±.12 to match the radius tolerance on
78051–31. The size dimensions 7.48,
4.03, 3.45, and 9.95 should have
tolerances of ±.03 to match 78051–31.
Denton believed that the dimensions
4.73 and 7.20 should be made reference
because they are almost impossible to
measure.
Agency Response: We have changed
the tolerance of ±0.02 for the 7.48 and
9.95 dimensions to ±0.03 to match that
of the Hybrid III dummy ribs, and have
added the tolerance of ±0.12 to the bend
radius dimension, as requested. In
addition, we have added a tolerance of
±0.03 to the 4.03 and 3.45 dimensions.
The dimensions 4.73 and 7.20 are made
reference.
8. Drawing 180–3366, Shoulder Rib—
Bending Upper Torso
For the same reason as stated above
for drawing 180–3363, FTSS
recommended that NHTSA follow
Hybrid III dummy rib dimension
practice and change 4xR1.93 to
4xR1.93±0.12, change 5.88±.20 to
5.88±.30 and change 9.98±.20 to
9.98±.30. Denton believed that the
tolerances on the rib bending are
unrealistically tight and that appropriate
tolerances would match what is on the
HIII50M ribs, e.g., 78051–31. Denton
recommended that the 1.93 radius
dimension should have a tolerance of
±.12 to match the radius tolerance on
78051–31, and that the size dimensions
5.88, 3.23, 2.65, and 9.98 should have
tolerances of ±.03 to match 78051–31.
The petitioner suggested that
dimensions 3.95 and 8.05 should be
made reference because they are almost
impossible to measure.
Agency Response: The same errors are
present in FTSS’s recommended
changes as noted in #7 above.
Otherwise, the petitioners are correct.
We have changed the tolerance of ±0.02
46 There are several typos in FTSS’s comment.
The tolerance for general dimensions on the Hybrid
III dummies is ±0.03, not ±0.30. The petitioner asks
to change ‘‘9.45±0.20’’ to ‘‘9.45±0.30’’. The
dimension and tolerances are in error. The petition
should ask to change ‘‘9.95±0.02’’ to ‘‘9.95±0.03.’’
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29888
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
on the 9.98 and 5.88 dimensions to
±0.03 to match that of the Hybrid III
dummy ribs and have added the
tolerance of ±0.12 to the bend radius
dimension. In addition, a tolerance of
±0.03 is added to the 3.23 and 2.65
dimensions, and the dimensions 3.95
and 8.05 are made reference.
9. Drawing 180–9060, Spacer
FTSS and Denton stated that
dimension 0.194 +0.001/-0.000 (C2)
should read 0.194 +0.010/-0.000.
Agency Response: NHTSA agrees and
has changed the tolerance as petitioned.
10. Drawing 180–5900–1/–2, Foot
Assembly Molded 45°, Left and Right
FTSS stated that the weight
specification in note 1 should read
1.78±.10 lbs to be consistent with
weight table in drawing 180–0000 sheet
4 and the HIII5F specification.47 Denton
believed that the weight tolerance
should be ±.10 lb, similar to the
standard HIII5F foot 880105–650/651.
Agency Response: The HIII5F drawing
and the SID–IIs foot weight specification
on sheet 4 of 180–0000 specify 1.75
±0.10 lbs. Drawings 180–5900–1 and –2
specify a weight of 1.75 +/- 0.08 lbs. We
agree with the petitioners and have
changed the weight specification in note
1 on 180–5900–1, –2 to read 1.75 ±0.10
lbs to be consistent with weight table in
drawing 180–0000 sheet 4, and the
HIII5F. In addition, Note 4 is revised
such that the phrase, ‘‘* * * weight
tolerance was 0.10 * * *’’ is removed.
b. Issues Raised By FTSS
1. Drawing 180–0000, SID–IIsD
Complete Assembly, Sheet 4 of 5
A. Arm CGy: FTSS proposed to
change the tolerance from ±0.15 to ±0.30
inch (in). In its addendum to the
petition for reconsideration, FTSS
proposed to change the arm CGy from
0.50±0.15 to 0.49±0.20 in.
Agency Response: The final rule CG
location of 0.50 in should be retained
because it is very close to the FTSS
recommendation and it sufficiently
represents the average of the data.
However, increasing the tolerance to
0.20 in is acceptable because
measurement of the arm CG is
susceptible to error due to the pivot
point of the arm. Thus, the arm CGy is
changed from 0.50 ±0.15 in to 0.50 ±0.20
in.
B. Arm CGz: FTSS suggested changing
the dimension from 3.40 to 3.56 in. In
47 It is believed that the FTSS petitioned weight
specification had a typographic error and was
meant to read 1.75± 0.10 lbs since that is what was
specified on drawing 180–0000 sheet 4 and on the
HIII5F drawings 880105–650/651.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
its petition addendum, item #5b, FTSS
proposed to change this value from
3.40±0.30 to ¥3.56 ± 0.20 in.48
Agency Response: We are changing
the arm CGz from 3.40±0.30 in to 3.55
±0.30 in. A dimension of 3.55 ±0.30 in
retains the original tolerance level while
still including the FTSS recommended
range. 3.55 in is the average of all arm
CGz values measured by FTSS and
NHTSA, and includes all measurements
from NHTSA-owned dummies (see
Table 1 of the memorandum entitled,
‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ in the
docket for today’s final rule.)
C. Upper Torso Weight: FTSS
suggested changing this dimension from
24.65 to 24.26 lb.
Agency Response: We have changed
the upper torso assembly without chest
jacket weight from 24.65 ±0.40 lb to
24.50 ±0.45 lb. An average was taken of
all available data (see Table 2, ‘‘Drawing
Package Petition Data,’’ id.) with the
lower abdominal potentiometer
(hereafter referred to as the (‘‘5th pot’’)
excluded.49 A tolerance of 0.45 lb
around a mean of 24.50 lb includes all
of the available data.
D. Upper Torso CGy: FTSS suggested
changing the specification from
0.63±0.15 to ¥0.70±0.20 in.
Agency Response: We agree to change
the upper torso CGy to 0.70 ±0.20 in. An
average was taken of the data provided
by FTSS (see Table 2 in ‘‘Drawing
Package Petition Data,’’ id.) with the 5th
pot excluded. A specification of 0.70
±0.20 in includes all the relevant data.
E. Upper Torso CGz: FTSS suggested
changing the specification from 4.30 to
4.38 in.
Agency Response: We agree to the
suggestion to change the nominal value
of the upper torso CGz to 4.38 in. A CGz
of 4.38 in is slightly higher than that
specified in the final rule, which is
understandable since FTSS did not
include the 5th pot in their
measurements of the upper torso. As the
location of the 5th pot is moved to the
lower torso, a higher upper torso CGz is
expected. An average was taken of the
data provided by FTSS (see Table 2 in
‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id.)
with the 5th pot excluded. A
specification of 4.38 ±0.20 in includes
all of the relevant data.
48 FTSS drawings of the SID–IIsD show CG
origins and axes with a defined positive direction,
thus, CG values that fall on the negative side of the
axis are labeled as negative CG’s. In contrast,
NHTSA drawings do not indicate positive/negative
direction of the CG axes, so all CG’s are positive in
sign.
49 The lower abdominal rib potentiometer (or 5th
pot) has been moved from the upper torso to the
lower torso for purposes of measuring the weight
and cg of these dummy segments. This change is
discussed later in this preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
F. Lower Torso Weight: FTSS
suggested changing the specification
from 27.50 to 27.43 lb.
Agency Response: We are denying the
request to change the lower torso weight
to 27.43 lb, but we are changing the
lower torso weight to 27.60 ±0.40 lb in
accordance with FTSS and NHTSA
adjusted data. The petitioner’s suggested
specification for lower torso weight
included the 5th deflection
potentiometer, but did not include the
iliac wing backer plates.50 In the revised
drawing package, the lower torso will
include the 5th pot and the iliac wing
backer plates. Thus, the FTSS
measurements were adjusted by adding
the weight of the backer plates, and the
NHTSA measurements made per the
final rule (with the 5th pot in the upper
torso) were adjusted by adding the
weight of the potentiometer. Then, the
mean of all NHTSA and FTSS measured
weights was calculated to be 27.61 lb
(Table 3, ‘‘Drawing Package Petition
Data,’’ id.). The lower torso weight
specification is centered at this mean.
G. Lower Torso CGx: FTSS suggested
changing the tolerance from 0.10 to 0.15
in.
Agency Response: We agree to change
the lower torso CGx tolerance to ±0.15
in as this tolerance is reasonable and
acceptable.
H. Jacket Weight: FTSS suggested
changing the specification from
1.40±0.10 to 1.27±0.11 lb (578±50
grams).
Agency Response: FTSS suggested a
large change in weight because the
jacket is being manufactured by a new
supplier. We agree to changing the
weight, but we believe that a new
weight specification should include as
many of the old jackets as possible.
NHTSA is thus specifying a jacket
weight of 1.30 ±0.15 lb. This tolerance
would include all but one of the agency
measurements and the whole range
suggested by FTSS (see Table 4 in
‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id.).
I. Lower Torso CGy: FTSS suggested a
specification of 0.08±0.20 in.
Agency Response: This request is
denied. No specification for lower torso
CGy was given in the final rule; this is
because the lower torso is symmetrical
according to the final rule drawing
package. The CG offset amount
suggested by FTSS is likely due to the
asymmetry of the 5th potentiometer,
which FTSS included in its lower torso
measurements. Although this final rule
includes the 5th potentiometer in the
lower torso for weight and CG
measurements, FTSS’s suggested CG is
so close to zero that it is not deemed
50 See
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
ex parte memorandum in the docket.
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
necessary to specify a CG requirement
in the y-direction.
J. Lower Torso CGz: FTSS suggested a
specification of 1.01±0.20 in.
Agency Response: We agree with this
suggestion. The proposed CGz location
is very close to the final rule
specification, and FTSS based this
recommendation on measurements of 33
dummies with the 5th potentiometer
included. Although General Dynamics
measured five NHTSA lower torsos
without the 5th pot and found an
average CGz location of 0.88 in, the
method General Dynamics used to hold
the lower torso while measuring the CG
resulted in the pelvis flesh compressing
and inaccurate data may have been
obtained (see note following Table 3 in
‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id.).
The data from General Dynamics was
thus disregarded in the analysis.
Although FTSS did not include the iliac
wing backer plates in their lower torso
measurements, this part should not
affect the CGz of the assembly because
it is centered on the CG origin.
2. Drawing 180–1000, 6 Axis Head
Assembly
FTSS requested changing the head
skin thickness dimension 0.480±.030 to
0.510±.030 to ensure the head
performance.
Agency Response: We agree to change
the head skin thickness to 0.510 in, as
petitioned, but we have increased the
tolerance so that the thickness
specification will be changed as follows:
From 0.480 ±0.030 in (0.450–0.510 in) to
0.51 ±0.05 in (0.46–0.56 in).
Prior to the final rule, FTSS provided
thickness measurements for two head
skins. These measurements, as well as
VRTC head skin measurements from
new dummies, were used to evaluate
the FTSS suggestion, and are shown in
Tables 5 through 7 of the memorandum
‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id..
VRTC noted that some of the FTSS
measurements would fail the thickness
dimension suggested by FTSS. When
asked by VRTC why it had
recommended such a large shift in head
skin thickness, FTSS replied:
The original SID–IIs head skin mold was
not symmetrical left to right and produced
head skins that required FTSS to manually
trim the head skin thickness to meet the
Head Drop corridors on both sides of the
head. The original head skin mold was a
legacy problem and was a carry over from the
Hybrid III 5th Female dummy. This caused
problems in manufacturing quality head
skins. A new head skin mold was
manufactured about a year ago to ensure left
side to right side symmetry of the head skins.
The new mold provides symmetrical head
skins, but the skin thickness needed to be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
increased to 0.510 inches to meet the Head
Drop test corridors.
Based on the head skin thicknesses
provided by FTSS and obtained by the
agency, this final rule specifies a head
skin thickness of 0.51 ± 0.05 in. This
specification is met for most dummies
in critical areas (i.e., areas that receive
impact in vehicle and qualification
tests). Additionally, this range includes
nearly all of the thickness values
allowed by the final rule, resulting in
minimal impact on the ability of older
skins or skins from different
manufacturers to pass the thickness
specification. The corresponding head
drop test results for agency dummies are
shown in Table 8 in the memorandum,
‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id.
The results of these tests indicate that
the recommended head skin thickness
does not compromise the dummy’s
ability to pass the head drop test.
However, it is emphasized that while
the head skin thickness is specified to
facilitate consistency between dummies,
it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to
meet all head specifications, including
skin thickness, weight, cg, and
qualification specifications.
3. Drawing 180–4320–1/2, Iliac Wing
FTSS stated that the right view of
180–4320–1 and the left view of 180–
4320–2 needs to be updated to reflect
the actual part.
Agency Response: This aspect of the
FTSS petition is moot, as it refers to
drawings that are replaced with
drawings of the new M3 with standoffs
iliac wing.51 This final rule replaces
drawings 180–4320–1/2 with drawings
180–4322–1/2 of the new iliac wing
design. We are also replacing drawing
180–4321, Iliac Wing Support Plate (the
steel plate that is molded within the
iliac wing), with drawing 180–4323,
which has the ‘‘standoffs.’’
Corresponding changes have also been
made to Table 9 and multiple figures in
the PADI.
4. Drawing 180–3000, Upper Torso
Assembly
The petitioner believes that the
orientation of Item 34 is not correct and
that it needs to be rotated 180 degrees.
Agency Response: The orientation of
Item 34 is correct as is and will not be
changed. However, the view in sheet 1
51 The agency had contacted FTSS to request
clarification of this aspect of the petition, and FTSS
responded by providing drawings for these parts
(see ex parte communication) that showed an
additional radius in the right view of 180–4320–1
and the left view of 180–4320–2. However, it
appeared that the parts did not have this additional
radius and that the original iliac wing drawings
reflect the parts as they were.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29889
shows the rear of the dummy thorax
while sheet 2 shows the front view,
which may have caused confusion.
Thus, we are adding a note to sheet 2
that indicates the view shown in the
drawing.
5. Drawing 180–3623, Lower Rib Pad—
Upper Torso
FTSS believed that fastening the
lower rib pad to the spine box can result
in conditions of over-tightening and/or
under-tightening the pad fasteners
during the installation process, due to
the elasticity of the part. Over-tightening
the pad can cause interference with
another fastener in the spine box. FTSS
redesigned the lower rib pad to include
an aluminum insert at the site of
attachment to the spine box, and
requested the following changes:
Obsolete drawing 180–3623, Lower
Rib Pad—Upper Torso;
Add drawing 180–3628, Lower Rib
Pad Assembly, Upper Torso;
Add drawing 180–3627, Lower Rib
Pad Insert.
An addendum to the petition (Docket
No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0040.1)
requested a change to the rib pad
inserts. Originally, the inserts were
rectangular, but FTSS found that this
design could possibly tear the rib pad
during handling of the parts. Thus,
FTSS suggested that the inserts should
be of a circular design.
Agency Response: The agency is
granting the request to include circular
aluminum inserts within the rib pad,
and has incorporated the suggested
drawings into the SID–IIsD drawing
package with the following part
descriptions: Drawing 180–3628, Rib
Pad Assembly—Upper Torso; Drawing
180–3627, Rib Pad Insert—Upper Torso.
The circular inserts are not expected to
have any effect on the performance of
the part. VRTC purchased and evaluated
two rib pads with the original
rectangular inserts, and found that the
proposed rib pads are acceptable and
will cause no foreseeable detriment.
Because the inserts have only been
added to provide a non-deformable
material within the rib pad for
attachment to the spine box, there is no
foreseeable problem with this design
change. Additionally, VRTC purchased
and evaluated a rib pad with the
circular inserts, and found that the
inserts have no effect on proper
installation of the rib pad. Thus, it was
concluded that this was an acceptable
design change. Table 7 and Figure 58 of
the PADI have also been amended to
reflect this change.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29890
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
6. Drawing 180–3450, Jacket
In its addendum, FTSS suggested a
material thickness specification of 0.286
±0.030 in (7.26 ±0.76 mm). FTSS
requested this change in jacket
thickness to reflect a change in jacket
characteristics due to a change in the
jacket supplier.
Agency Response: We are amenable to
including FTSS’s suggested thickness
range for currently-manufactured jackets
while also including specifications that
would accommodate jackets made to the
December 14, 2006 final rule
specifications. The final rule specified a
neoprene thickness of 1⁄4 in ±3/64 in (a
range of 0.203–0.297 in), laminated on
both sides with lightweight circular
jersey-net nylon fabric of thickness .020
±.005 in. FTSS requested a thickness
ranging from 0.256–0.316 in. Based on
comparisons of the final rule and FTSSrecommended thickness ranges, the
agency is adopting a thickness
specification of 0.26 ±0.05 in, which
would include nearly all of both ranges,
while only slightly increasing the
tolerance from that specified in the final
rule. This specification is for the overall
thickness of the jacket (Neoprene and
laminated fabric). However, the fabric
thickness specification will remain on
the drawing to ensure that the fabric and
Neoprene thicknesses (and thus,
dummy thorax performance) will be
consistent among different
manufacturers. Accordingly, note 2 in
drawing 180–3450 is changed to read:
‘‘Material: 100% neoprene material,
laminated on both sides with
lightweight circular jersey-net nylon
fabric, 0.20 ± .005; overall thickness
0.26 ± 0.05.’’
7. Drawings 180–6011–1/2, Arm Flesh,
Molded Left/Right
FTSS asked for changes to the
drawing package specifications
regarding the test dummy’s overall arm
length, arm depth, arm width, and also
with regard to additional NHTSA
dimensions specified in the drawings.
The petitioner requested the changes to
reflect what FTSS believed are
improvements made to the SID–IIs left
arm and the right arm molds to
eliminate left side to right side
variations between the two previous
arm molds and to improve the overall
quality of the dummy. The petitioner
believed that the changes bring
consistency to the dummy with respect
to the Thorax Impact With Arm test
when impacting the dummy on either
the left side or right side.
FTSS submitted arm dimension data
to support its petition for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
reconsideration.52 The data were
measured and collected on nine SID–IIs
arms manufactured by FTSS. All arms
are from FTSS’s new SID–IIs arm molds,
varying in production dates ranging
from October 2006 through March 2007.
FTSS did not request a change to the
overall arm length, but petitioned for
the following corrections or
clarifications to drawings 180–6011–1
and 180–6011–2 based on the data
provided: (A) Overall arm depth—
change the arm depth dimensional
tolerance from +0/-0.10 in to ±0.10 in;
(B) overall arm width—correct tolerance
to be +0/-0.10 in; and (C) drawing
clarity—FTSS believed that several
dimensions that NHTSA had on these
drawings are not adequately defined to
produce consistent measured values.
Agency Response
A. Overall arm depth: The agency
believes that a tolerance of ±0.10 in is
too large, since the arm depth must be
fairly well controlled to ensure good
responses in the crash environment.
Arm depths measured by FTSS and
VRTC (see Table 9 of the memorandum,
‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data’’ for
VRTC data) were compared to obtain a
specification that would include as
many dummies as possible. We
determined that a dimension of 2.30 ±
0.06 in (2.24–2.36 inches) includes all
NHTSA and FTSS dummies and
increases the overall tolerance only by
0.02 in from the final rule. Accordingly,
we are changing the specification for
arm depth to 2.30 ±0.06 in.
B. Overall arm width: FTSS observed
that the NHTSA drawing specifies the
arm width dimension to be 3.47 +0/
¥0.01 in. It stated that the tolerance of
+0/¥0.01 in is not attainable for this
dimension and was specified in error,
and that when the SID–IIs Build Level
D drawings were under development for
NHTSA, they specified an arm width
tolerance of +0/¥0.10 in, which is an
achievable tolerance for vinyl and foam
dimensions. In response, we note that
drawing 180–6011–1 incorrectly
specifies the arm width dimension
tolerance as +0/¥0.01 in, as noted by
the petitioner, but that drawing 180–
6011–2 correctly specifies a tolerance of
+0/¥0.10 in. Therefore, we agree with
the petitioner regarding drawing 180–
6011–1 and are correcting the tolerance
on drawing 180–6011–1 to be +0/¥0.10
in.
C. Drawing clarity:
FTSS stated that certain dimensional
measurements specified in Revision B of
52 FTSS Report re: Drawing of Arm for SID–IIs
Dummy. Submitted following their petition for
reconsideration, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–
37.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
drawings 180–6011–1 and 180–6011–2
‘‘are not adequately defined to produce
consistent measured values.’’
(i) 1.75 ±0.05 inch dimension. FTSS
stated that ‘‘it is unclear where this
dimension is to be measured from,’’ and
further suggested that ‘‘this dimension
should be a reference dimension given
that the material being measured is
made of vinyl and foam, which can vary
due to aging.’’ 53
(ii) 2.90 inch reference dimension,
2.18 inch reference dimension, and
1.00±0.05 inch dimension. FTSS stated
that ‘‘it is unclear where [these
dimensions are] to be measured from,’’
and that the 1.00 dimension ‘‘should be
a reference dimension since the bottom
surface is vinyl. FTSS notes that a
tolerance of ±0.05 in for vinyl and foam
material is not achievable.’’ The
petitioner submitted a figure that FTSS
believed should be made part of the
drawing package, depicting the arm in
side view.
Agency Response: The four
dimensions addressed by the petitioner
were not shown well on the December
2006 final rule arm drawings, and are
confusing. They were meant to locate
points to define the curvature of the
arm. NHTSA has removed these
dimensions from the end view and has
created two sections (one at 0.19 in from
the elbow end, and one at 6.5 in from
the elbow end, just below the shoulder
portion) with dimensions shown
clearly. A note has been added to clarify
that the dimensions locate points to
define the curvature of the arm. In
addition, we have added to the section
views a dimension indicating the height
of the section so that the taper of the
outside surface of the arm is somewhat
defined.
(iii) Tolerance values. FTSS also
commented generally on tolerance
values established for drawings. The
petitioner stated:
On drawings 180–6011–1 and 180–6011–2,
note #4 states: Tolerance ±0.05 apply to all
dimensions unless otherwise specified. FTSS
does not believe this tolerance is achievable
for vinyl and foam parts. We base this
statement on our many years of experience in
manufacturing dummy parts. Vinyl and foam
shrinks at varying rates and dimension
tolerances must reflect these characteristics.
FTSS recommends that NHTSA avoid using
any vinyl or foam tolerance smaller than
±0.10 in.
Agency Response: VRTC checked all
vinyl/foam parts in the drawing package
53 It appears that due to confusion about where
the 1.75 in dimension should be measured from,
FTSS’s measurements of this dimension were taken
incorrectly. Accordingly, their measurements do
not indicate a problem with the value of the 1.75
inch dimension. (See next section of this preamble.)
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and the only tolerances smaller than
±0.10 in were on 180–6011–1 and –2.
These tolerances were ±0.05 in. The
agency agrees that these tolerances
should be changed to ±0.10 in for
practicability reasons. Accordingly, note
#4 in drawings 180–6011–1/2 is
changed to read ‘‘Tolerance ±.10 apply
to all dimensions unless otherwise
specified.’’
c. Issues Raised By Denton
1. Drawings 180–1007, 180–4701, 180–
5302, 180–5360, 180–5340, 180–5505,
180–5509, 180–5501, 180–5700, 180–
5701, 180–5702, 180–5707, 180–5900–1,
180–5900–2, 180–5901–1, 180–5901–2,
180–5705
Denton stated, ‘‘the last note on each
of these drawings says that it is the same
as some other drawing for a different
dummy except for a change described in
this note. We request that this last note
be deleted from each drawing. We think
that keeping these notes will cause
confusion.’’
Agency Response: NHTSA disagrees.
We asked Denton to elaborate on the
reason for the confusion.54 Denton
responded that the notes are difficult to
explain to customers, because it is
expected that identical parts will be
referenced to each other, while different
parts will not be. We do not believe this
reason warrants deleting the notes.
These notes clarify how the SID–IIsD
drawing is different from another very
similar drawing and facilitates easy
identification of those differences.
Accordingly, we are denying this
request and will keep clarification notes
on these drawings.
2. Drawing 180–4212, Flange, Lower
Denton stated that ‘‘the material
should be 1018 or equivalent.’’ Denton
informed NHTSA that it believes ‘‘there
is no reason for 1117 steel to be called
out for this part. 1018 steel is used on
many parts in the dummy and meets all
of the requirements for this part. Calling
out a special steel for one part simply
adds cost to the part for no reason since
a special material must be ordered in
small quantities and handled just for
this part.
Agency Response: We agree to change
the material for drawing 180–4212 to
CRS 1018. We investigated
specifications for flange material in the
HIII5F dummy drawing and compared
those to the SID–IIsD package. The
HIII5F drawings for the lumbar flanges
(880105–1093 & –1097) call for SAE
1117 steel; the SID–IIs upper lumbar
flange (180–4211) calls for 1018 CRS;
54 See
ex parte memorandum in the docket.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
and the SID–IIs lower lumbar flange
(180–4212) calls for SAE 1117 steel.
FTSS, the dummy manufacturer
initially involved with development of
the SID–IIsD, indicated that SAE 1117
and CRS 1018 have similar yield
strength. The agency has determined
that specifying CRS 1018 is appropriate
for the reasons provided by Denton and
FTSS. However, the agency is not
adding ‘‘or equivalent.’’ This allowance
‘‘or equivalent,’’ is given for non-metal
materials in the SID–IIs because
plastics, rubbers, and other non-metals
do not have well-defined material
properties. With the exception of the
ES–2re, other dummy drawing packages
do not generally allow equivalent metal
materials.55
3. Drawing 180–1000, 6 Axis Head
Assembly
Denton stated that ‘‘the skin thickness
should be defined over a region of at
least ±20 degrees on each side of each
plane A to cover a region in the back
view. Also, the thickness should be
confined to a region in the side view.
This would define an impact region on
each side of the head that must meet the
thickness requirements.’’
Agency Response: The petitioner
provided no head skin thickness data
with which to make a specification in
these regions. The agency declines to
expend resources at this time to develop
further specifications in this area.
4. Drawing 180–2006, Upper Neck
Bracket
Denton noted that ‘‘this drawing
appears identical to 880105–207, and
should therefore be treated like other
identical drawings, such as 180–2009
where there is simply a reference to the
identical drawing. Also, if this is done
the material callout should be
removed.’’
Agency Response: The request is
granted. VRTC has examined the
differences between the drawing for the
HIII5F upper neck bracket part (880105–
207) and that for the SID–IIsD (180–
2006) and has determined small
differences between them will not affect
part functionality or interchangeability.
FTSS, the dummy manufacturer
originally involved with development of
the SID–IIsD, confirmed that the ‘‘minor
differences [between the two drawings]
are on tolerance level, and would not
55 The ES–2re allows equivalent materials,
including metals, as indicated by the ‘‘Material
Ref.’’ label in the title block. We believe this is due
to the fact that the ES–2re is a modification of the
EuroSID, which was originally developed in
Europe, and the original materials were defined by
European material standards. Thus, by defining a
reference material, equivalent American materials
could be used.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29891
affect the interchangeability between the
two parts.’’ Accordingly, we have
removed the schematic, material
specification, and scale from the
drawing and added a note stating,
‘‘Same as 880105–207 rev I.’’
5. Drawings SA572–S62, 3 Axis
Shoulder Load Cell, and 180–3330,
Shoulder Loadcell Simulator, Assembly
Denton stated that: ‘‘the center hole in
the load cell for mounting the arm is
incorrect. The structural replacement
(180–3330) calls out a hole of .391
diameter × .230 ±.001 deep. The Load
Cell (SA572–S62) calls out .375
diameter × .220 deep. These two
drawings should match each other. Both
drawings should be changed to .375
±.001 diameter × .230 ±.002 deep. This
will provide a precision fit for the
shoulder screw that mounts into this
hole.’’
Agency Response: To assess this
aspect of the petition, the agency
evaluated the load cells from both FTSS
and Denton, as well as the structural
replacements. FTSS load cells measure
0.375 × 0.232 deep. The Denton load
cell could not be located, but as this is
Denton’s comment, it is assumed that
the petitioner’s load cells match its
recommendation. Accordingly, NHTSA
has determined that Denton is correct.
The load cell drawing SA572–S62 is
corrected so that it matches the physical
load cells, specifying .375 ±.001
diameter × .230 ±.002 deep. The
structural replacement drawing 180–
3330 is also modified to specify .375
±.001 diameter × .230 ±.002 deep, so
that it matches the load cell.
6. Drawing SA572–S64, 6–Axis Lumbar
Spine Load Cell
With respect to the 6-axis lumbar
spine load cell, Denton stated that ‘‘the
side view of the load cell in the drawing
shows a neutral axis .900 in from the
top of the load cell. Denton has
manufactured this load cell since 1995
with a neutral axis .875 in from the top
face of the load cell. Either the
dimension is in error or it must be noted
to consult the load cell manufacturer for
the correct dimension.’’
Agency Response: We agree that a
dimension defining the neutral axis of
the load cell is not appropriate in this
case as FTSS and Denton produce load
cells with different neutral axes. (The
neutral axis distance for the FTSS load
cell is 0.900 in.) 56 Accordingly, we have
removed the .900 dimension and have
added a note in its place that states to
56 See
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
ex parte memorandum in docket.
23JNR3
29892
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
consult with the load cell manufacturer
for the neutral axis dimension.
d. Agency Corrections and Clarifications
In this section, the agency makes
further corrections and clarifications of
the drawings and PADI.
1. Drawing 180–0000 (sheet 4 of 5), SID–
IIsD Complete Assembly CG Location
In the final rule drawing package, CG
locations were specified as negative
values for the Neck CGx, Upper Leg
CGx, Lower Leg CGz, and Foot CGz.
However, assembly drawings for these
components illustrating the CG location
do not denote positive or negative axis
directions. Thus, the agency believes
that CG locations are clearer if all CG
locations are specified as positive
values, located at the locations shown in
the drawing package. Accordingly, we
have changed the Neck CGx from ¥0.30
to 0.30, the Upper Leg CGx from ¥5.01
to 5.01, the Lower Leg CGz from ¥5.94
to 5.94, and the Foot CGz from ¥2.00
to 2.00. Also on this drawing, an
asterisk was added after the quantity of
‘‘Arm Assembly, Molded’’ to clarify that
only one arm is installed on the
complete dummy. This clarification is
also found in Table 26 of the PADI.
Finally, in the upper torso parts table,
in the note (without chest jacket),* the
asterisk was moved inside the
parentheses to clarify that this line
refers to the upper torso assembly
drawing without the chest jacket.
2. Drawing 180–1000, Head Assembly
In drawing 180–1000, items 13–17
were labeled as reference. Items 13, 14,
16 and 17 are called out on drawing
180–0000, sheet 2 of 5, and thus are
referenced on this drawing. However,
item 15 is not called out on another
drawing, thus it should not be labeled
as reference. We have thus removed
‘‘REF’’ from the description for item 15,
‘‘Screw, SHCS 10–24 X 7/16.’’ Also on
this drawing, the description for item 9
was changed to agree with the part’s
drawing.
3. Drawing 180–2000, Neck Assembly
The description of Item #12, ‘‘Washer,
3/8″; Flat,’’ needed correction. This
washer is placed around the threaded
portion of the neck cable to prevent the
lower neck bushing from damage due to
tightening of the nut to the neck cable.
However, this portion of the neck cable
has a diameter of 1⁄2 in (thus, it is
physically impossible for a 3⁄8 in washer
to fit around it). A washer is also used
on the HIII5F neck, but in the HIII5F
neck assembly drawing (880105–250),
the description for the same part
number is ‘‘Washer, 1.06 OD. X .53 ID.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
X .06 CAD Plate.’’ The correct
description for Item #12 on drawing
180–2000 is ‘‘1.06 OD X .53 ID X .06
WASHER.’’ Drawing 180–2000 and
Table 6 of the PADI have been amended
to reflect this correction.
4. Drawing 180–4000, Lower Torso
Assembly; and drawing 180–3000,
Upper Torso Assembly
For the purposes of CG and weight
measurements, the location of the lower
abdominal rib potentiometer is changed
from the upper torso to the lower torso.
The final rule drawing package
indicates that this potentiometer
assembly is considered part of the upper
torso (180–3000). During
communication with FTSS regarding
clarification of the petitioner’s various
requests,57 we found that FTSS was
including the lower abdominal rib
potentiometer in the lower torso for
weight and CG measurement, because
the potentiometer is mounted in the
lower torso. NHTSA believes it is
reasonable to consider the
potentiometer assembly as part of the
lower torso for weight and CG
measurements because, while the end of
the potentiometer assembly is mounted
to the lower abdominal rib (upper
torso), the potentiometer housing,
which is the heaviest portion of the
assembly, is mounted in the lower torso.
As a practical matter, this change in
where the lower abdominal rib pot is
located for purposes of CG and weight
measurement does not change in any
manner the fully assembled dummy, but
it does harmonize the specification with
industry practice. Thus, we are
amending the drawings to show the
lower abdominal rib potentiometer in
the lower torso assembly as follows: we
have changed the quantity of 1⁄2 inch
potentiometers (item 42, 180–3881)
from 6 to 5 in the upper torso assembly
(180–3000 sheet 1 of 2); removed ‘‘REF’’
from 1⁄2 inch potentiometer assembly
(item 21, 180–3881) in the lower torso
assembly drawing (180–4000 sheet 1 of
2); added the potentiometer assembly
schematic to the lower torso CG drawing
(180–4000 sheet 2 of 2); and updated
complete assembly drawing 180–0000,
sheet 4 of 5 with new CG and weight
values. Additionally, we have modified
Table 7 (Upper Torso Assembly
Components), Table 9 (Lower Torso
Assembly Components) and Table 20
(SID–IIsD Total and Segment Masses) of
the PADI to reflect these changes in the
drawing package. We have also made
modifications to Section 5.3.1
(instructions for removal of the upper
torso), Section 5.5.1 (disassembly of the
57 See
PO 00000
ex parte memorandum in docket.
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lower torso), Section 6.5.4.2 (installation
of the lower abdominal displacement
potentiometer), and Section 8.1
(Thoracic and Abdominal Rib
Structure), and related figures to
account for the 5th pot being part of the
lower torso assembly.
5. Drawing 180–4000, Lower Torso
Assembly, Sheet 1 of 2
The description of item 18 is changed
from ‘‘HEX NUT, JAM 5⁄8–18’’ TO
‘‘NUT, HEX JAM 5⁄8–18 LOCK NUT’’ to
reflect the actual part. A lock nut
ensures that the parts do not become
loose.
6. Drawing 180–4000, Lower Torso
Assembly, Sheet 2 of 2
The orientation of the CG x-axis
needed clarification as it is not clear in
this drawing. We have added a second
note to this drawing that states, ‘‘The X
axis is parallel to the top surface of the
lumbar spine load cell simulator.’’
7. Drawing 180–4402, Femur Holding
Shaft—Pelvis
The diameter of the shaft (0.49 +.000/
¥.002 in) needed correction. This shaft
passes through a spherical bearing
(9002608) with ID 0.5000 +.0025/
¥.0005 in, contained within the femur
assembly (180–4423–1/–2). However, if
the shaft were made to the existing final
rule specification, ‘‘slop’’ between the
bearing and shaft would result because
of too much space between them.
Physical measurements of multiple
shafts indicate that it has a diameter of
0.498 in, which is 0.008 in out of
specification. We have changed the
femur holding shaft diameter to .498
±.001 in to reflect currently
manufactured parts and to ensure good
fit between the shaft and bearing.
8. Drawing 180–9000, SID–IIsD
Headform Assembly, Sheet 1 of 2
The orientation of the nodding blocks
on the neck did not represent their
orientation in the physical neck/
headform assembly. Their orientation
on the drawing is corrected to reflect the
physical assembly.
9. Drawing Package Changes for
Consistency of Part Names
Corrections were made to the part
descriptions in the following assembly
drawings to match the part names on
individual drawings: Drawing 180–0000
sheet 1 of 5, Item 3; Drawing 180–3881,
Item 4; Drawing 180–5000–1/2, Item 7;
Drawing 180–5501, Item 2; Drawing
180–5901–2, Item 5; Drawing 180–9000,
Item 10; and Drawing 180–9002, Items
3 and 7.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
10. Other Changes to PADI and to Parts/
Drawings List
• PADI Section 6.5.2, Installation of
Rib Accelerometers: Instruction number
2 in this section, stating that
accelerometer configuration for each rib
is identical, is incorrect. The
accelerometers mounted in thoracic ribs
1 and 2 and abdominal rib 1 are
configured differently than those
mounted in thoracic rib 3 and
abdominal rib 2. This instruction has
been corrected and a new figure added
to illustrate the difference in
configuration.
• PADI page 2: the website to find
docket materials was changed from
https://dms.dot.gov to
www.regulations.gov
• Some PADI figures were updated to
improve clarity of instructions.
• The Parts/Drawings List was
updated to reflect changes made to the
drawing package in this final rule.
• The part names for drawings 180–
1005 and 180–3005 were changed in the
PADI to agree with the part name in the
drawing package.
• The Parts/Drawings List was
updated to reflect changes made to the
drawing package in this final rule. In
addition to the changes previously
discussed in this preamble, the
following part descriptions in the parts/
drawings list were changed for
consistency with part names in the
drawing package: 180–1005, 180–3005,
6000075, 180–5504, 180–5508, 180–
5708, 180–5900–1/2, and 180–5905.
XII. 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).
NHTSA’s specifications in 49 CFR
part 572 for a 5th percentile adult
female 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
they choose to manufacture or test with
the dummy. The cost of an
uninstrumented SID–IIsD is
approximately $47,000. Instrumentation
adds approximately $24,000 for
minimum requirements. The total cost
of a minimally-instrumented
compliance dummy is approximately
$71,000. 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.
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29893
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 a 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
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
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29894
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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
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,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:04 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 SID–IIsD dummy:
• SAE Recommended Practice J211,
Rev. Mar95 ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact
Tests’’; and
• SAE J1733 of 1994–12 ‘‘Sign
Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing’’.
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?
—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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
Incorporation by reference, Motor
vehicle safety.
■ 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:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th Percentile
Female Test Dummy, Alpha Version
2. Section 572.137 is amended by
revising the third sentence in paragraph
(a) and the third sentence in paragraph
(b), to read as follows:
■
§ 572.137 Test conditions and
instrumentation.
(a) * * * The impactor shall have a
mass of 13.97 ±0.23 kg (30.8 ±0.5 lbs)
and a minimum mass moment of inertia
of 3646 kg-cm2 (3.22 lbs-in-sec2) in yaw
and pitch about the CG of the probe.
* * *
(b) * * * The impactor shall have a
mass of 2.99±0.23 kg (6.6±0.5 lbs) and a
minimum mass moment of inertia of
209 kg-cm2 (0.177 lb-in-sec2) in yaw and
pitch about the CG of the probe. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart V, SID–IIsD Side Impact Crash
Test Dummy, Small Adult Female
3. Section 572.190 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1), the
introductory text of paragraph (a)(2),
paragraphs (a)(3), (b), and (c)(1), to read
as follows:
■
§ 572.190
Incorporated materials.
(a) * * *
(1) A parts/drawing list entitled,
‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart
V, SID–IIsD, July 1, 2008,’’
(2) A drawings and inspection
package entitled ‘‘Drawings and
Specifications for the SID–IIsD Small
Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572
Subpart V, July 1, 2008,’’ consisting of:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) A procedures manual entitled,
‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly,
and Inspection (PADI) of the SID–IIsD
Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, July 1,
2008,’’ incorporated by reference in
§ 572.191;
*
*
*
*
*
(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/ibr_locations.html. For
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 V, SID–IIsD, July 1, 2008,
referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the package entitled Drawings
and Specifications for SID–IIsD Small
Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572
Subpart V, July 1, 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
www.Regulations.gov and in paper
format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of
New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road,
Gaithersburg, MD 20879, (301) 670–
0090.
■ 4. Section 572.191 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), to
read as follows:
§ 572.191
General Description.
(a) The SID–IIsD Side Impact Crash
Test Dummy, small adult female, is
defined by:
(1) The drawings and specifications
contained in the ‘‘Drawings and
Specifications for SID–IIsD Small
Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572
Subpart V, July 1, 2008,’’ which
includes the technical drawings and
specifications described in Drawing
180–0000, the titles of which are listed
in Table A;
TABLE A
Component assembly
6 Axis Head Assembly .........
Neck Assembly .....................
Upper Torso Assembly .........
Clamping Washer .................
Lower Torso Assembly Complete ..................................
Complete Leg Assembly,
Left ....................................
Complete Leg Assembly,
Right ..................................
Arm Assembly Left Molded ..
Arm Assembly Right Molded
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
5. Section 572.193 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 572.193
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *.
(1) The pendulum deceleration pulse
is characterized in terms of decrease in
velocity as obtained by integrating the
pendulum acceleration output from
time zero:
10.0 ...................
15.0 ...................
20.0 ...................
25.0 ...................
>25.0 < 100 ......
¥2.20
¥3.30
¥4.40
¥5.40
¥5.50
to
to
to
to
to
¥2.80
¥4.10
¥5.40
¥6.10
¥6.20
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 572.194 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(10), and
(c) adding paragraph (b)(11), to read as
follows:
■
Shoulder.
180–1000
180–2000
180–3000
180–3005
180–4000
180–5000–1
180–5000–2
180–6000–1
180–6000–2
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(7) Orient the arm to point forward at
90 ±2 degrees relative to the inferiorsuperior orientation of the upper torso
spine box incline.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) The dummy’s arm-shoulder is
impacted at 4.3 ± 0.1 m/s with the
impactor meeting the alignment and
contact point requirements of paragraph
(b)(9) of this section.
(11) Allow a period of at least thirty
(30) minutes between successive tests of
the same shoulder assembly.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Performance criteria.
(1) While the impactor is in contact
with the dummy’s arm, the shoulder
shall compress not less than 28 mm and
not more than 37 mm measured by the
potentiometer specified in (a);
(2) Peak lateral acceleration of the
upper spine (T1) shall not be less than
17 g and not more than 22 g;
(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall
be not less than 13 g and not more than
18 g.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
7. Section 572.195 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(7), adding
paragraphs (b)(11) and (b)(12), revising
paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) and (c)(3), to
read as follows:
■
§ 572.195
Sfmt 4700
Thorax with arm.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(7) Orient the arm downward to the
lowest detent such that the longitudinal
centerline of the arm is parallel to the
inferior-superior orientation of the spine
box.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Time zero is defined as the time
of contact between the impact probe and
the arm.
(12) Allow a period of at least thirty
(30) minutes between successive tests of
the same thorax assembly.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Upper thorax rib not less than 25
mm and not more than 32 mm;
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Peak lateral acceleration of the
upper spine (T1) shall not be less than
34 g and not more than 43 g, and the
lower spine (T12) not less than 29 g and
not more than 37 g;
(3) Peak impactor acceleration after 5
ms after time zero shall be not less than
30 g and not more than 36 g.
8. Section 572.196 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(1)(i),
(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2), and (c)(3), and by
adding paragraph (b)(10), to read as
follows:
■
§ 572.196
*
Drawing
number
Jkt 217001
Neck assembly.
*
§ 572.194
(2) The ‘‘Parts/Drawing List, Part 572
Subpart V, SID–IIsD,’’ dated July 1, 2008
and containing 7 pages,
(3) A listing of available transducerscrash test sensors for the SID–IIsD Side
Impact Crash Test Dummy, 5th
percentile adult female, is shown in
drawing 180–0000 sheet 2 of 5, dated
July 1, 2008,
(4) ‘‘Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of
the SID–IIsD Side Impact Crash Test
Dummy, July 1, 2008,’’ and,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
(5) Sign convention for signal outputs
reference document SAE J1733
Information Report, titled ‘‘Sign
Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing,’’
dated July 12, 1994, incorporated by
reference in § 572.200(k).
(b) Exterior dimensions of the SID–
IIsD Small Adult Female Side Impact
Crash Test Dummy are shown in
drawing 180–0000 sheet 3 of 5, dated
July 1, 2008.
(c) Weights and center of gravity
locations of body segments are shown in
drawing 180–0000 sheet 4 of 5, dated
July 1, 2008.
*
*
*
*
*
29895
Thorax without arm.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Align the outermost portion of the
pelvis flesh of the impacted side of the
seated dummy tangent to a vertical
plane located within 10 mm of the side
edge of the bench as shown in Figure
V6–A, while the midsagittal plane of the
dummy is in vertical orientation.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) Allow a period of at least thirty
(30) minutes between successive tests of
the same thorax assembly.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Upper thorax rib not less than 32
mm and not more than 40 mm;
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Lower thorax rib not less than 35
mm and not more than 43 mm;
(2) Peak acceleration of the upper
spine (T1) shall not be less than 13 g
and not more than 17 g and the lower
spine (T12) not less than 7 g and not
more than 11 g;
(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall
not be less than 14 g and not more than
18 g.
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
29896
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
9. Section 572.197 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(9), (c)(1),
and (c)(2), and by adding paragraph
(b)(10), to read as follows:
■
§ 572.197
Abdomen.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Align the outermost portion of the
pelvis flesh of the impacted side of the
seated dummy tangent to a vertical
plane located within 10 mm of the side
edge of the bench as shown in Figure
V7–A in Appendix A to this subpart,
while the midsagittal plane of the
dummy is in vertical orientation.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) The dummy’s abdomen is
impacted at 4.3 ± 0.1 m/s.
(10) Allow a period of at least thirty
(30) minutes between successive tests of
the same abdomen assembly.
(c) * * *
(1) While the impact probe is in
contact with the dummy’s abdomen, the
deflection of the upper abdominal rib
shall be not less than 36 mm and not
more than 47 mm, and the lower
abdominal rib not less than 33 mm and
not more than 44 mm.
(2) Peak acceleration of the lower
spine (T12) laterally oriented
accelerometer shall be not less than 9 g
and not more than 14 g;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Section 572.198 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(7), adding
paragraphs (b)(11) and (b)(12) and by
revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3), and
to read as follows:
§ 572.198
Pelvis acetabulum.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(7) Rotate the arm downward to the
lowest detent such that the longitudinal
centerline of the arm is parallel to the
inferior-superior orientation of the spine
box.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Time zero is defined as the time
of contact between the impact probe and
the pelvis plug.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(12) Allow a period of at least 120
minutes between successive tests of the
same pelvis assembly.
(c) * * * * *
(2) Peak lateral acceleration of the
pelvis after 6 ms after time zero is not
less than 34 g and not more than 42 g;
(3) Peak acetabulum force is not less
than 3.60 kN and not more than 4.30
kN.
11. Section 572.199 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b)(4) through
(b)(9), by adding paragraphs (b)(10) and
(b)(11), and by revising paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3), to read as
follows:
■
§ 572.199
Pelvis iliac.
(a) The iliac is part of the lower torso
assembly shown in drawing 180–4000.
The iliac test is conducted by impacting
the side of the lower torso of the
assembled dummy (drawing 180–0000).
The dummy is equipped with a laterally
oriented pelvis accelerometer as
specified in 49 CFR 572.200(d), and
iliac wing load cell SA572–S66,
mounted as shown in sheet 2 of 5 of
drawing 180–0000. When subjected to
the test procedure as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, the pelvis
shall meet performance requirements of
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) * * * * *
(4) Orient the arm downward to the
lowest detent such that the longitudinal
centerline of the arm is parallel to the
inferior-superior orientation of the spine
box.
(5) The midsagittal plane of the
dummy is vertical, and superior surface
of the lower half neck assembly load
cell replacement (180–3815) in the
lateral direction is within ±1 degree
relative to the horizontal as shown in
Figure V9–A.
(6) While maintaining the dummy’s
position as specified in paragraphs
(b)(3), (4) and (5) of this section, the top
of the shoulder rib mount (180–3352)
orientation in the fore-and-aft direction
is within ±1.0 degree relative to
horizontal as shown in Figure V9–B in
Appendix A to this subpart.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(7) The pelvis impactor is specified in
49 CFR 572.200(c).
(8) The dummy is positioned with
respect to the impactor such that the
longitudinal centerline of the impact
probe is in line with the longitudinal
centerline of the iliac load cell access
hole, and the 88.9 mm dimension of the
probe’s impact surface is aligned
horizontally.
(9) The impactor is guided, if needed,
so that at contact with the pelvis, the
longitudinal axis of the impactor is
within ±1 degree of a horizontal plane
and perpendicular to the midsagittal
plane of the dummy.
(10) The dummy’s pelvis is impacted
at the iliac location at 4.3±0.1 m/s.
(11) Allow a period of at least 120
minutes between successive tests of the
same pelvis assembly.
(c) * * * * *
(1) Peak acceleration of the impactor
is not less than 36 g and not more than
45 g;
(2) Peak acceleration of the pelvis is
not less than 28 g and not more than 39
g;
(3) Peak iliac force is not less than
4.10 kN and not more than 5.10 kN.
12. Section 572.200 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 572.200 Instrumentation and test
conditions.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Performance tests are conducted,
unless specified otherwise, at any
temperature from 20.6 to 22.2 degrees C.
(69 to 72 degrees F.) and at any relative
humidity from 10% to 70% after
exposure of the dummy to those
conditions for a period of 4 hours.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Figures V4–A, V9–A and V9–B in
‘‘Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572–
Figures’’ are revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572—
Figures
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
*
29897
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
ER23JN09.005</GPH>
ER23JN09.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
29898
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Issued: June 5, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–13605 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:17 Jun 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM
23JNR3
ER23JN09.007</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29862-29898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13605]
[[Page 29861]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 572
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID-IIs Side Impact Crash Test Dummy; 5th
Percentile Adult Female; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29862]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 572
[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0002]
RIN 2127-AK26
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID-IIs Side Impact Crash Test
Dummy; 5th Percentile Adult Female
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 14, 2006 final rule establishing a new small adult female side
impact crash test dummy, called the ``SID-IIs'' test dummy. The
petitions were submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
First Technology Safety Systems, and Denton ATD. In response to the
petitions, among other things today's final rule modifies the iliac
performance criteria to allow a new material formulation and design to
be used for the iliac wing of the dummy's pelvis, defines a time period
in which accelerations are measured in the thorax with arm and pelvis
acetabulum tests, slightly modifies some of the test procedures used in
the qualification tests (e.g., by slightly lowering the impact speed of
the impactor in two tests and by increasing the recovery time for the
pelvis-iliac and pelvis-acetabulum tests), adjusts the performance
corridors for the various impact tests of the dummy, and revises parts
of the drawing package and the user's manual for the dummy.
DATES: This final rule is effective August 24, 2009. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 24, 2009.
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition
must be received by August 7, 2009.
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.
Lori Summers, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202-
366-1740) (fax 202-493-2990). 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. Description of SID-IIs
a. General Description
b. Performance Characteristics
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Overview of Response to the Petitions
V. Issues Relating to the Pelvis of the Dummy
a. Iliac Wing Material
b. Iliac Load Cell Stand-Off Design
c. Iliac Qualification Procedure
1. Use of OSRP Procedure
2. Pelvic Iliac Probe Acceleration
3. Specification of Tape
4. Corrections
d. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification Procedure
1. Pelvic Plug Pre-Crush and Associated Variability
2. Pelvic Plug Qualification Corridor
3. Pelvis Acceleration Requirement
4. Measuring Peak Pelvis Lateral Acceleration 5 ms or More After
Contact
VI. Shoulder Qualification Procedures
a. Impact Velocity
b. Arm Position
VII. Thorax with Arm Qualification Procedures
a. Peak Impactor Acceleration
b. Time Zero
c. Reported Noise in Potentiometers
VIII. Thorax Without Arm Petitioned Issues
a. Peak Impactor Acceleration
b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench
IX. Abdomen Qualification Procedure
a. Impact Velocity
b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench
X. Other Testing Issues
a. Dummy Clothing
b. Recovery Time Between Tests
c. Soak Time
d. Tolerance on the Impactor Mass
e. Neck Cable Torque in PADI
f. Pendulum Deceleration Pulse
g. Neck Potentiometers
XI. Qualification Performance Corridors
a. Shoulder Qualification Corridors
b. Thorax with Arm Qualification Corridors
c. Thorax without Arm Qualification Corridors
d. Abdomen Qualification Corridors
e. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification Corridors
f. Pelvis Iliac Qualification Corridors
XII. Drawing Package and PADI
a. Issues Raised By Both FTSS and Denton
b. Issues Raised By FTSS
c. Issues Raised By Denton
d. Agency Corrections and Clarifications
XIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Introduction
This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
December 14, 2006 final rule (71 FR 75342; Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442)
that amended 49 CFR part 572 to add specifications and qualification
requirements for a 5th percentile adult female side impact test dummy,
called the ``SID-IIs.'' The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
preceding the December 14, 2006 final rule was published on December 8,
2004 (69 FR 70947; Docket NHTSA-2004-18865; reopening of comment
period, March 8, 2005, 70 FR 11189). The SID-IIs is used by NHTSA and
other testing organizations in side impact test programs. The use of
the SID-IIs test dummy in NHTSA's enforcement program assessing
vehicles' compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 214 (``Side impact protection,'' 49 CFR 571.214) was discussed in
and made part of a final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214 published on
September 11, 2007.\1\ In the upgrade, NHTSA added a dynamic pole test
to FMVSS No. 214, to supplement the moving deformable barrier (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 SID-IIs test dummy
representing small adult females and the other using an ``ES-2re'' test
dummy representing mid-size adult males.\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,
[[Page 29863]]
which simulates a vehicle-to-vehicle, ``T-bone'' type intersection
crash.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 72 FR 51908, Docket No. NHTSA-2007-29134; response to
petitions for reconsideration, June 9, 2008, 73 FR 32473; Docket No.
NHTSA-2008-0104. NHTSA will be publishing a second response to
petitions for reconsideration addressing other issues.
\2\ NHTSA added the specifications for the ES-2re to 49 CFR part
572 (see final rule, December 14, 2006, 71 FR 75304, Docket No.
NHTSA-2004-25441; response to petitions for reconsideration, June
16, 2008, 73 FR 33903, Docket No. NHTSA 2008-0111).
\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of SID-IIs
a. General Description
The December 14, 2006 final rule incorporated specifications for
the SID-IIs (or SID-IIsD) consisting of: (a) A drawing package
containing all of the technical details of the dummy; (b) a parts list;
and (c) a user manual containing procedures for inspection, assembly,
disassembly, use, and adjustments of dummy components.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The drawings, parts list and user manual incorporated by
reference by the December 14, 2006 final rule were placed in NHTSA
Docket No. 2006-25442. Materials that have been updated by today's
final rule are placed in the docket for today's document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anthropometry and mass of the SID-IIsD are based on the Hybrid
III 5th percentile frontal female dummy and also generally match the
size and weight of a 12- to 13-year-old child. The head and neck
designs are based on the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. The
legs are Hybrid III 5th percentile female design available also with
femur load cell instrumentation. At the same time, unlike the Hybrid
III series of dummies, the SID-IIsD's torso construction is
particularly oriented for assessing the potential for side impact
injury. The dummy's upper torso is made up of a rigid metallic spine to
which six spring steel bands lined with bonded polymer damping material
are attached to simulate the impact performance of the human shoulder
(1 rib), thorax (3 ribs) and abdomen (2 ribs). Linear potentiometers
are attached from the ribs to the spine for compression measurements.
Provisions are available for mounting tri-axial accelerometer packs to
the spine at T1 and T12 and at each rib.\5\
Replaceable foam pads are secured directly to the ribs and a neoprene
jacket covers the complete chest assembly. The upper torso accommodates
the attachment of the neck at the upper end and the lumbar spine at the
lower end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ T1-sensor location on the dummy's thoracic spine
equivalent to the first thoracic vertebra on the human spine.
T12-sensor location on the dummy's thoracic spine
equivalent to the 12th thoracic vertebra on the human spine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A stub arm on the impacted side is attached to the lateral aspect
of the shoulder through a three-axis load cell. Tri-axial accelerometer
packs can also be installed at the shoulder and at the upper and lower
parts of the stub arm for assessing injuries in upper extremities in
side crashes.
The dummy's pelvis is a machined assembly with detachable hard
urethane iliac wings at each side and covered by vinyl flesh. The
pelvis design is shaped in a seated human-like posture and allows the
attachment of the lumbar spine at its top and the legs at the left and
right sides. The pelvis can be impacted from either side without any
change in hardware. Foam crush plugs at the hip joint, which are
replaced after each impact, are used to control the lateral pelvis
response. The pelvis design allows the measurement of impact loads at
the acetabulum and iliac wing as well as accelerations at the pelvis
center of gravity (cg). A thin steel backer plate between the iliac
wing and iliac load cell prevents the iliac wing material from
deforming and offloading a portion of the iliac load cell measurement.
b. Performance Characteristics
The December 14, 2006 final rule also specified a qualification
process for the SID-IIs 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. 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 tests and
response ranges (or performance corridors) for the SID-IIs, specified
in 49 CFR part 572 subpart V, 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
SID-IIs as set forth in the December 14, 2006 final rule established
performance levels for the dummy's head, neck assembly, shoulder,
thorax with arm, thorax without arm, abdomen, pelvis acetabulum, and
pelvis iliac.
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers \6\ (Alliance) and test
dummy manufacturers First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton
ATD (Denton) petitioned for reconsideration of the December 14, 2006
final rule.\7\ The petitioners generally supported the incorporation of
the SID-IIs into 49 CFR part 572, but had concerns with technical
aspects of the Part 572 specifications and with the drawings
incorporated by reference into the regulation. The main suggestions of
each of the petitioners are briefly summarized below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Members at the time of the petition for reconsideration
were: BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
DaimlerChrysler separated subsequent to the petition for
reconsideration, and additional members at the time of this final
rule are Mazda and Mercedes-Benz USA.
\7\ Additionally, a letter in support of the Alliance and FTSS
petitions was received from the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. The Alliance suggested using a material to manufacture the iliac
wing that is recommended by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership
(OSRP) SID-IIs task group,\8\ a material that the Alliance believes is
``more manufacturable and stable'' than the material referenced in the
final rule. (The petitioners refer to the recommended material as
``Material 3.'') The Alliance also petitioned to change
aspects of the test procedures of the shoulder (dummy arm orientation;
probe impact velocity), of the thorax with arm (time when peak
acceleration should be measured), and of the abdomen (probe impact
velocity) qualification tests, and made other suggestions regarding
general test procedures. The Alliance also petitioned for changes to
the performance corridors for the tests of the shoulder, thorax with
and without arm, abdomen, pelvis iliac wing (based on the use of
Material 3, or ``M3''), and pelvis acetabulum.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OSRP is a consortium of the U.S. Council for Automotive
Research (USCAR). USCAR was formed in 1992 by DaimlerChrysler, Ford
and General Motors as a research and development organization. The
SID-IIs was originally developed by the OSRP, in conjunction with
FTSS. The dummy was extensively tested in the late 1990s and early
2000s by Transport Canada, and to a limited extent by U.S.
automobile manufacturers and suppliers, and IIHS. Modification of
and upgrades to the SID-IIs design ultimately lead to the
development of the build level D version of the dummy. The December
14, 2006 final rule adopted the SID-IIs Build Level D test dummy
into 49 CFR part 572.
\9\ On December 13, 2007, the Alliance submitted additional SID-
IIsD qualification data and recommended performance corridors as an
appendix to their petition for reconsideration to the FMVSS No. 214
final rule published on September 11, 2007. Because the submission
was received late in the rulemaking process, these data were not
incorporated into the NHTSA/FTSS data set for inclusion in
statistical analyses. However, the new Alliance data were considered
in the formation of corridors by comparing the Alliance-recommended
corridors to those derived using the NHTSA/FTSS data set, and
adjusting the NHTSA corridors, if warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. FTSS petitioned to change to M3 and a standoff design for the
iliac wing, and suggested changes relating to the tests of the thorax
with arm (time when peak acceleration should be measured) and pelvis
acetabulum (time when peak acceleration should be measured). The
[[Page 29864]]
petitioner also suggested changes to the performance corridors for the
tests of the shoulder, thorax without arm, abdomen, and pelvis iliac
and acetabulum. The petitioner 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. Denton suggested that NHTSA adopt performance corridors
recommended by the Society of Automotive Engineers Dummy Testing
Equipment Subcommittee (SAE DTES) of the Human Biomechanics and
Simulation Standards Committee. Denton also identified regulatory text
and drawings that the petitioner suggested needed correction.
IV. Overview of Response to the Petitions
Today's document responds to the following issues raised in the
petitions for reconsideration in the following order: issues relating
to the pelvis of the dummy; shoulder qualification procedures; thorax
with arm qualification procedures; thorax without arm qualification
procedures; abdomen qualification procedures; other testing issues
(e.g., dummy clothing, recovery and soak times); qualification
corridors; and changes to the drawing package and to NHTSA user's
manual for the dummy (Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and
Inspection).
Among other things, today's final rule amends iliac performance
criteria to allow for a new material formulation to be used for the
iliac wing of the dummy's pelvis, defines a time period in which
accelerations are measured in the thorax with arm and pelvis acetabulum
tests, slightly modifies some of the test procedures used in the
qualification tests (e.g., by slightly lowering the impact speed of the
impactor in several tests and by increasing the recovery time for the
pelvis-iliac and pelvis-acetabulum tests), adjusts the performance
corridors for the various impact tests of the dummy, and revises parts
of the drawing package and the user's manual for the dummy.
V. Issues Relating to the Pelvis of the Dummy
a. Iliac Wing Material
As explained in the December 2006 final rule, during the course of
NHTSA's evaluation of the repeatability and reproducibility of the SID-
IIs dummy eventually adopted into part 572, the agency observed that
its set of left side iliac wings had been used extensively for several
years and was showing signs of wear. The agency obtained new
replacement iliac wings from the dummy manufacturer (FTSS) and later
observed that the replacement wings produced approximately 20 percent
lower impact responses in dynamic impact tests than the previously-
tested wings. NHTSA contacted FTSS and was informed that formulation of
the polyurethane material for the wings changed in 2004 because the raw
material previously used was no longer available due to toxicity
issues.\10\ The agency analyzed the post-2004 iliac wings and estimated
that using them in NHTSA's FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program \11\
would have had the effect of lowering the average driver occupant
pelvis force approximately 8 percent and that of the passenger about 3
percent, which would have amounted to only one instance out of 25 in
which the pelvis force changed from just being above the Injury
Assessment Reference Value (IARV) limit to just being below.\12\ In
view of those findings and because the material formulation of the
iliac wings prior to 2004 (for convenience, we refer to this material
formulation as ``Material 1'' or ``M1'') was no longer
available, NHTSA decided to specify pendulum response data for the
iliac wing that reflected the use of the softer post-2004 iliac
material formulation (henceforth referred to as ``Material 2''
or ``M2''). (71 FR at 75355; December 14, 2006.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18865-36.
\11\ Determination was made using data from the NHTSA Fleet
Testing for FMVSS 214 Upgrade, MY 2004-2005, Docket No. NHTSA-2007-
29134-0003.
\12\ As stated in the December 2006 final rule, this estimate
was based on calculated adjustments of the total force on the pelvis
by taking into account lower impact responses of the softer iliac
wing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested Change
In response to the final rule, all the petitioners requested that
the regulation specify performance characteristics enabling the use of
a new material formulation, which will be referred to as Material
3 (M3), for the iliac wing in place of M2.
FTSS stated that it began manufacturing wings composed of M3 on
June 1, 2006, in response to direction from the OSRP SID-IIs task group
and after finding that M3 was a suitable replacement for M1 and M2.
FTSS also stated that it stopped manufacturing M2 iliac wings on May
30, 2006. According to FTSS, M3 iliac wings retain their shape better
over time and are not subject to a warping found in M2 iliac wings.
In its petition, the Alliance noted that:
after extensive tests and evaluation, the OSRP SID-IIs task group
recommended the use of material 3 for the following
reasons: (1) it is available; (2) it is more manufacturable and
stable than material 2; and (3) it has demonstrated
repeatable performance. Material 3 is generally slightly
stiffer than the original pre April 2004 (material 1) and
may result in higher recorded loads.
Denton also supported the use of Material 3. The
petitioner submitted information from SAE DTES which indicated there
was no statistical means of choosing between M2 and M3, but that
permanent deformation was observed in M2. The information also
suggested that M3 will have less variability in manufacturing.
In its February 8, 2007 letter supporting the petitions for
reconsideration from the Alliance and FTSS, IIHS stated that ``[t]he
most important aspect of the petitions is the request to change the
specification for the SID-IIs iliac wing to the updated design
supported by the'' OSRP and FTSS.\13\ IIHS stated that the updated
iliac wing includes a material change to improve repeatability and
durability, and integral metal standoffs to prevent interference with
measurements from the iliac load cell that occurs over time due to
compression of the softer material at the interface of the original
design. IIHS stated that it converted all the SID-IIs dummies (Build
Level C) used in its consumer information side impact test program to
include the updated design. IIHS believed that it is important to
harmonize the dummies used in its tests with the SID-IIs dummy (Build
Level D) used in NHTSA's tests, and that adoption of the Material
3 iliac wing is critical to avoid differences in test results
that could occur if organizations used different wing designs. IIHS
also believed that using two different iliac wing designs would result
in additional cost to laboratories that conduct both NHTSA-compliance
and IIHS consumer information crash tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ IIHS stated in its letter that it also supported the
request of the petitioners for NHTSA to consider data from multiple
laboratories when establishing performance criteria for dummy
verification tests. IIHS stated that ``This is necessary to account
for normal variability among laboratories.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
NHTSA is granting the petitions to adjust performance criteria so
that Material 3 (M3) can be used for the iliac wings.\14\
NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) conducted quasi-static
testing in the
[[Page 29865]]
evaluation of the M3 iliac, which is described in the report ``SID-IIsD
Iliac Wing Studies'' placed in the docket for this final rule. In these
quasi-static tests, isolated iliac wings were loaded to 4,000 N over a
period of several minutes. Quasi-static compression results from at
least three tests on each of six new M3 iliac wings indicate that M3 is
much closer in stiffness to M1 than M2. The agency used SID-IIs dummies
with iliac wings made from M1 in agency vehicle and sled testing, so
there is a large body of data related to the M1 wings. These data were
used in part to develop the IARV referenced in FMVSS No. 214 for the
pelvic load criterion measured by the SID-IIs. Because M3 is a material
formulation that is very close in stiffness to the M1 iliac wings,
NHTSA is adopting M3 since the agency has knowledge of and a
familiarity with the properties of M1 wings, while NHTSA's experience
with the M2 wings is more limited. Further, we agree with IIHS that
using M3 iliac wings would better harmonize the test dummies used by
NHTSA, IIHS and the industry, and would make the test results obtained
by the testing components of each organization more comparable and
better focused on the development of appropriate countermeasures. Also,
according to the petitioners, M3 is more stable than M2, demonstrates
repeatable performance, is readily available while M2 is not, and does
not exhibit deformation characteristics exhibited by M2. For these
reasons, the petitioners' request to specify characteristics that
recognize the use of M3 in the manufacture of the iliac wing is
granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We note, however, that the material specification on the
iliac wing drawings (Polyurethane 85-95 Shore A or equivalent) does
not have to be changed to permit M3, so we are not changing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance in its petition for reconsideration said that Material
3 is generally slightly stiffer than Material 1 and
may result in higher recorded loads. We agree that in quasi-static
tests, M3 wings were shown to be slightly stiffer than M1 wings, as
seen in the ``SID-IIsD Iliac Wing Studies'' report, supra. However, the
difference in stiffness between these wings is very small, so large
differences in response in dynamic test environments are not expected.
The similarity of response for the two different iliac wing material
formulations is illustrated by the pelvis-iliac qualification test
results. Table 1 shows that the average peak iliac force measured in
qualification tests with M3 wings was 4588 N, while the average force
in qualification tests with M1 wings was 167 N (3.6%) higher at 4755
N.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ M1 qualification data and plots comparing M1 and M3 iliac
force responses can be found in the memo ``M1 qualification data and
comparison to M3 qualification data.''
Table 1--Comparison of M1 and M3 Qualification Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum probe Maximum pelvis Maximum Iliac
Probe velocity Probe energy acceleration Y acceleration force
............................ (m/s) (J) (g) (g) (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M1........................................ Min......................... 4.21 126.02 38 29 3986
Max......................... 4.43 137.02 46 45 5448
Average..................... 4.35 133.51 41.36 34.99 4755.26
SD.......................... 0.04 2.38 1.55 3.34 373.49
CV.......................... 1.02% 1.78% 3.76% 9.55% 7.85%
M3........................................ Min......................... 4.21 123.67 35.55 27.24 3430
Max......................... 4.34 133.44 45.98 40.93 5275.53
Average..................... 4.29 129.55 40.84 34.03 4588.36
SD.......................... 0.03 2.57 2.09 3.41 329.64
CV.......................... 0.69% 1.98% 5.13% 10.03% 7.18%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating these results, we kept in mind that there were some
factors that could have affected the iliac force measurements for each
data set. First, when M1 was used, the design of the iliac wing did not
incorporate two features that have since been added to prevent off-
loading of the iliac load cell: integral metal ``standoffs'' within the
wing; and a thin steel backer plate between the iliac wing and load
cell (see Section V.b).
Second, deformation was observed on the left side M1 wings after
extensive use, as noted in the report ``SID-IIs Iliac Certification
Development,'' which was placed in the docket with the December 2006
final rule. These two issues could lead to an increased chance of the
iliac wing deforming under load and shorting the iliac load cell, which
would in turn result in lower measured iliac loads. This problem of
iliac load cell shorting was first identified with the M2 iliac wings,
which are much softer than the M1 wings. Thus, it is unknown whether
this occurred with M1 wings. If load cell shorting did occur in any of
the M1 qualification tests, it would have the effect of lowering the
average response somewhat.
Second, although all M3 wings included the new integral metal
``standoffs,'' a number of tests in the M3 data set did not have a
backer plate installed. If shorting did occur in any of these tests,
the M3 average peak force may be slightly lower than it would have been
without load cell shorting. However, there is no evidence that these M3
wings without a backer plate will contact the iliac load cell in
qualification tests as illustrated in the ``SID-IIsD Iliac Wing
Studies'' report. Thus, we do not believe the absence of a backer plate
affected the load cell responses for M3 wings in qualification tests
(see Section V.b).
Third, in general, the M1 tests were conducted at a slightly higher
impact velocity than the M3 tests, which intuitively could result in
higher force readings in M1 tests. However, when plotting a linear
regression through M1 iliac force responses vs. impact velocity, there
was no strong correlation with impact velocity (R\2\ = 0.21).
Therefore, we do not believe these slight differences in impact
velocities had a significant effect on the average peak iliac forces.
In view of the quasi-static and dynamic test results from M1 and M3
iliac wings, we believe that their performance in the crash test
environment will be very similar. Quasi-static test results show that
the new M3 wings are slightly stiffer, while dynamic test results
indicate slightly higher forces in M1 wings. This seeming discrepancy
leads us to believe that differences between the wings are
[[Page 29866]]
within the natural variation of response that is seen in different
types of test environments. Because of this, we believe that the wings
perform very similarly, and that the use of M3 wings will not result in
iliac forces that are consistently higher than M1 iliac wings. Thus,
allowing a change in the wing material formulation is not likely to
have a significant effect on pelvis force measurements in FMVSS No.
214.
b. Iliac Load Cell Stand-Off Design
The SID-IIsD final rule adopted an iliac wing design that was a
polyurethane wing (Dwgs. 180-4320-1 and -2) with an embedded steel
support plate (Dwg. 180-4321). Additionally, the final rule specified
the use of a thin steel backer plate between the iliac wing and the
iliac load cell to prevent the iliac material from off-loading force to
the center of the load cell. Figure 1 illustrates how the backer plate
is used in conjunction with the iliac wing and load cell, as specified
in the December 2006 final rule.
Requested Change
In response to the final rule, FTSS noted that, in general, the
iliac wing specified in the final rule has the propensity to cause a
load path short due to its design. According to FTSS, the original
iliac wing design resulted in \1/8\-inch polyurethane material being
sandwiched between the embedded iliac wing support plate and the iliac
load cell. It found that the amount of loading force the iliac is able
to accurately measure can vary depending upon how much torque the iliac
mounting screws are under, how much the polyurethane material creeps
over time, and how much the iliac maintains its original shape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ SID-IIsD final rule drawing package, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-
25442-0012.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.000
FTSS stated that it has designed a new iliac substructure (support
plate) that has a positive bearing surface contact between the iliac
wing and the load cell to create a rigid mounting surface between the
iliac wing and load cell.\17\ Essentially, the \1/8\-inch thick
polyurethane material around the mounting screw holes was replaced with
\1/8\-inch thick steel ``standoffs'' that extend from the embedded
plate to the edge of the wing so that the mounting screws would draw
the iliac wing to the load cell through a metal contact instead of
through polyurethane. According to FTSS, this design eliminated the
potential for load path shorting since standard fastener torque values
can now be specified for the iliac wing mounting hardware without
losing the torque over time, and it also eliminated the material creep
found in the original iliac design. FTSS recommended that NHTSA
evaluate this new design and include it in the drawing package in place
of the original.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The FTSS iliac wing design is illustrated in its petition,
Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance and IIHS also recommend the use of Material 3
iliac wings with the standoff design. The Alliance ``agree[d] with the
observation that the original wing design can deform and off-load the
loads being transferred to the iliac load cell resulting in
artificially low measurements.'' It stated, however, that while the use
of the thin steel backer plate specified in the final rule (as shown in
Figure 1) will reduce the likelihood of off-loading the load cell, it
will not reduce deformation of the polyurethane iliac wing. It
suggested that a more robust solution would be to use a rigid steel
plate with standoffs that are embedded in the polyurethane iliac wing
during manufacturing. The Alliance stated that ``this stronger plate
with standoffs eliminates the possibility of off-axis loading.''
The Alliance petition for reconsideration also included a
[[Page 29867]]
presentation given by Denton to the OSRP that discussed test results
supporting use of the standoff design. Although details of this
presentation are not clear, it appears that when Denton loaded an iliac
load cell through a simulated SID-IIs iliac wing without standoffs, it
observed extrusion of the urethane when the mounting screws were
tightened to 60 inch-pounds (in-lb), which it said caused ``shorting''
of the load path. Without a mounting screw preload,\18\ the center of
the iliac contacted the center of the load cell, shorting the load path
at approximately 750 lb (3,336 N). We believe the presentation is
indicating that without standoffs, the mounting screws cannot be
tightened to a degree where load shorting does not occur. I.e., when
the screws were tightened to 60 in-lb, the load path was shorted by
extrusion of urethane, and when the mounting screws were tightened to a
lesser degree, the path was shorted by contact of the center of the
wing to the load cell. With standoffs, apparently Denton found that
shorting did not occur. With standoffs, when 1000 lb (4,448 N) of load
was applied to the center and over each mounting screw, a worst-case
difference of 4.3% resulted in measured versus applied load, which
Denton stated is within acceptable limits. Denton did not report any
shorting of the load path when the iliac plate with standoffs was
tested, although they did observe extrusion of the urethane material
when high loads were applied to the simulated wing outside the
perimeter of the load cell. In its conclusion, Denton's presentation
stated that the iliac wings without standoffs should not be used.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We are unsure what is meant by ``mounting screw preload,''
however we believe that it means that the mounting screws were
tightened to an amount less than 60 in-lb.
\19\ The SAE/DTES material Denton enclosed with its petition
recommended the standoff design rather than the backer plate design.
It stated that based upon mechanical principles, the standoff design
eliminates the possibility of material creep that could lead to
screws loosening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
After reviewing the data submitted by the petitioners, NHTSA is
granting the request to have an iliac wing support plate with standoffs
as part of the iliac design. The petitioners provided extensive
evidence in favor of the standoffs.
At the same time, we are also specifying use of the thin steel
backer plate. When the agency evaluated the standoff design, VRTC
conducted qualification testing of the M3 iliac with standoffs, with
and without the backer plate between the wing and load cell, as
specified by the final rule (Table 2). VRTC found that qualification
test results from these two iliac configurations were very similar. The
average response from wings without a backer plate was always lower
than that from wings with a backer plate as seen in Table 2, but was
also always less than a 2.5% reduction from the response with a
plate.\20\ Thus, the influence of the backer plate appears to be
negligible. However, the plate can act to prevent load path shorting
through wing contact with the center of the load cell. Although there
were no instances of load path shorting during qualification tests
without a plate, two quasi-static tests without a backer plate were
conducted on both the softest and stiffest M3 iliac wings with
standoffs. In this set of tests, the softest iliac wing made contact
with the center of the load cell at a load of about 3,700 N (831.8 lb).
To prevent this from happening, we have decided to retain use of the
thin steel backer plate between the iliac wing and iliac load cell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Although the backer plate adds mass to the lower torso, it
only adds 0.2 lb, or 0.7% of the lower torso weight. This small mass
increase is not expected to appreciably increase the forces measured
in qualification tests.
Table 2--Comparison of NHTSA M3 With Standoffs; Iliac Results With and Without Backer Plate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak lateral
Pelvis skin No. Iliac wing No. Backer plate? Number of Peak probe pelvis Peak iliac
tests acceleration acceleration force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
764............................ L-318 Yes................ 24 AVG............... 40.27 30.87 4686.76
S.D............... 0.55 1.04 100.10
%CV............... 1.4% 3.4% 2.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
764............................ L-318 No................. 10 AVG............... 39.44 30.43 4574.26
S.D............... 0.77 1.34 148.69
%CV............... 1.9% 4.4% 3.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response -2.06% -1.43% -2.40%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
765............................ R-310 Yes................ 6 AVG............... 41.79 35.32 4930.00
S.D............... 0.53 1.08 102.09
%CV............... 1.3% 3.0% 2.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
765............................ R-310 No................. 6 AVG............... 41.50 34.62 4913.20
S.D............... 0.33 0.96 70.88
%CV............... 0.8% 2.8% 1.4%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response -0.69% -1.98% -0.34%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Iliac Qualification Procedure
1. Use of OSRP Procedure
The final rule established a qualification procedure for the pelvis
iliac load cell, in addition to a procedure that assessed the
performance of the acetabulum load cell. The pelvis iliac procedure
checks the response consistency of the iliac load cell as installed in
the dummy's pelvis. In the pelvis iliac test, a 13.97 kilogram (kg)
impactor is accelerated to 4.3 0.1 meters per second (m/s)
and directed laterally into the pelvis of the dummy such that its
impact surface strikes the centerline of the iliac access hole in the
iliac load cell. Performance limits are set for peak impactor and
pelvis lateral accelerations and peak iliac forces. The procedure was
documented in the report ``SID-IIs Iliac Certification Development,''
(August 29, 2006).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29868]]
Requested Change
In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance requested that
the iliac qualification procedure be replaced by an OSRP procedure
since the petitioner's member companies had no experience with the
final rule test condition and probe.
Agency Response
This request is denied. The petitioner provided no comparative
analysis of how the OSRP procedure differs from that of the final rule,
how Alliance members would be negatively impacted by the final rule
procedure, or how the repeatability and reproducibility of the OSRP
procedure compares to that of the final rule.
Among the differences between the two procedures, the OSRP
procedure uses a calibration bench rather than a flat, rigid,
horizontal surface; it requires the dummy to use the torso jacket and
cotton underwear pants (unlike the final rule that requires removal of
the clothing); it seats the dummy with the pelvis overhanging the seat
surface by 78 2 millimeters (mm); and it uses the impactor
specified for the abdominal impact test.
During NHTSA's development of the iliac qualification test
procedure, various test conditions and probe faces were evaluated,
including use of a calibration bench and an abdominal impactor face as
suggested by the OSRP. The agency determined that use of the
calibration bench caused concern since it can be difficult to hit the
target impact area without the pendulum, or its guide wires,
interfering with the bench. With regard to the use of the abdominal
impactor face, we found that due to the geometry of the pelvis, setting
the abdominal probe face such that it interacted with the iliac region
in a repeatable fashion was difficult, even with careful positioning.
Because of this, a new probe face and procedure were developed by the
agency for the final rule that enable certification of the iliac
without impacting the pelvis plug. Use of an alignment tool was also
recommended to aid in a repeatable setup. Furthermore, NHTSA is
satisfied that the final rule qualification procedure works well and
there are no identifiable shortcomings of its use by the petitioners.
2. Pelvis Iliac Probe Acceleration
In the December 14, 2006 final rule, Sec. 572.199 (c)(1) specifies
a peak ``lateral'' acceleration of the impactor of not less than 34 g
and not more than 40 g.
Requested Change
The Alliance recommended deleting the word ``lateral'' from the
term ``peak lateral acceleration of the impactor * * * '' Denton
believes that ``lateral'' should be replaced with ``longitudinal.''
Agency Response
The agency agrees to delete the word ``lateral'' from Sec.
572.199(c)(1), but does not agree to add the word ``longitudinal.'' The
peak impactor acceleration is measured on the long axis of the probe,
so we agree that the term ``lateral'' is inappropriate. However, it is
unnecessary to state that the acceleration is longitudinal.
3. Specification of Tape
In the December 14, 2006 final rule, the specification for use of
tape is found in figures V9-A and V9-B of the regulatory text, which
indicate the use of ``masking tape as required to hold dummy in
position.'' The use of tape is also found in the supporting report,
``Certification Procedures for the SID-IIs Build Level D Side Impact
Crash Test Dummy,'' (June 21, 2006), hereinafter referred to as the
``2006 certification procedures document.'' \22\ This report states for
the iliac qualification procedure: ``using masking tape from the top of
the dummy's head to the seating surface, level the shoulder rib so that
the fore/aft plane is 0[ordm]1 relative to horizontal,''
and later states to ``adjust the masking tape as necessary'' to ensure
proper dummy positioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The June 21, 2006 Certification Procedures document is
available at Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0018. The document provides
for illustration purposes detailed descriptions of the test
procedures specified for the SID-IIs in 49 CFR part 572, subpart V,
and illustrates how the various tests are conducted by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested Change
The Alliance petitioned to request that if NHTSA retains the
pelvis-iliac test as specified in the final rule, then it recommends
that the width and amount of tape allowed to hold the dummy in its
initial position be specified.
Agency Response
We agree to this request. We have revised the 2006 certification
procedures document, now named ``Qualification Procedures for the SID-
IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy,'' \23\ to clarify the use of tape
for dummy alignment, as follows: ``Using approximately 3 feet of
standard 1'' wide masking tape from the top of the dummy's head to the
seating surface, level the shoulder rib so that the fore/aft plane is
0[deg]1[deg] relative to horizontal.'' A footnote has been
added that states, ``Alternatively, a material with maximum static
breaking strength of 311 N (70 lb) may be used to support the dummy in
position.'' (This specification was based on a similar specification in
FMVSS No. 208, paragraph S24.4.2.4, which states, ``If necessary,
material with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer
blocks may be used to support the dummy in position.'') We have also
revised Figures V9-A and V9-B of the regulatory text for the SID-IIs
dummy to add the footnote, to provide information about the
characteristics of the masking tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Dated July 1, 2008 and placed in the docket with this final
rule. ``Certification'' was changed to ``Qualification'' for
consistency of terminology in NHTSA technical reports and final
rules. This 2008 report updates the 2006 document to reflect all the
changes discussed in today's final rule and to make minor
corrections/clarifications of the text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Corrections
A. Specification of Load Cell in Regulatory Text
FTSS informed NHTSA of an error in the pelvis-iliac section of the
regulatory text, section 572.199(a).\24\ This error was also discovered
by the agency. The section specifies the use of acetabulum load cell
SA572-S68. We agree with FTSS that the section should instead specify
the iliac wing load cell SA572-S66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Impactor Alignment in Regulatory Text
While reviewing the SID-IIsD final rule regulatory text, the agency
identified an error in the iliac qualification test procedures. Section
572.199(b)(7) describes probe alignment prior to the pelvis iliac
qualification test, and states that ``the 88.9 mm dimension of the
probe's impact surface is aligned horizontally.'' The 88.9 mm dimension
of the probe's impact surface should be aligned vertically, since the
probe face is a rectangle, 50.8 x 88.9 mm, and the shorter side of the
probe face is oriented horizontally, as seen in the 2008 qualification
procedures document. We are making this correction in this final rule
in 572.199(b)(8).
d. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification Procedure
1. Pelvic Plug Pre-Crush and Associated Variability
In the December 14, 2006 final rule, NHTSA specified a compression
force requirement that the pelvis plugs must exhibit when pre-crushed a
depth of 2.5-3.5 mm. The pelvis plug crush
[[Page 29869]]
development was discussed in the technical report entitled, ``SID-IIs
Pelvis Plug Certification Development,'' (May 3, 2006, Docket 2006-
25442-010), and the pre-crush procedures and plug qualification \25\
requirements were set forth in the plug drawing 180-4450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NHTSA now uses the phrase ``plug qualification'' instead of
``plug certification,'' in agreement with the terminology for
evaluating whether a dummy meets the criteria of Part 572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested Change
In petitions for reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES agreed that a
pre-crush depth of 3 mm should be used. However, the Alliance expressed
concern about the levels of variability of the pelvic region that it
said it observed in NHTSA \26\ and OSRP tests. The Alliance also stated
that it observed significant differences in acetabulum forces in three
tests of identical vehicles where one test was conducted with a pelvis
plug pre-crushed 3 mm and two tests were conducted with a pelvis plug
pre-crush of 2 mm. The Alliance provided time-history plots of the
acetabulum force, iliac wing force, combined pelvis force, and pelvis
acceleration from three oblique pole tests conducted at three different
laboratories. The petitioner stated that it is not clear whether the
differences in the acetabulum response are due to the differences in
the depth of pre-crush or due to other variables, and urged NHTSA to
investigate this further and take the variability into consideration
when developing the final rule for FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ NHTSA data presented in ``Repeatability and Reproducibility
Analysis of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the Certification
Test Environment,'' and ``Repeatability, Reproducibility and
Durability Evaluation of the SID-IIs Build Level D in the Sled Test
Environment'' (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
We are not making any changes to the pelvis plug pre-crush
procedure. The Alliance provided no discussion related to its concern
about the variability of OSRP data and NHTSA data in the qualification
and sled test environments. Additionally, the OSRP data was not
submitted to the docket, so no comparisons could be made by the agency.
In response to the three vehicle test results, no conclusions can
be drawn from the figures provided by the Alliance because two of the
pelvis plugs used in the tests were pre-crushed only 2 mm. We have
found that the pelvis response using plugs pre-crushed only 2 mm is
unpredictable. As discussed in the ``SID-IIs Pelvis Plug Certification
Development'' report released with the December 2006 final rule,\27\
VRTC has found that the pelvis plug requires at least 3 (0.5) mm of crush in order to characterize the plug response and
ensure repeatable and reproducible pelvis responses in qualification,
sled and vehicle tests. This is because the plug response does not
become linear until after 2.5 mm of crush, as shown in Figure 5 of this
report. It is necessary to reach this linear region during plug
qualification so that plug behavior at higher levels of compression
(e.g., in qualification, sled and vehicle tests) can be predicted. At 2
mm of crush, as was used in two of the vehicle tests referred to by the
Alliance, the plug response is still within a transition region, where
plug behavior at higher levels of crush cannot be predicted. Thus, 2 mm
of plug pre-crush is insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the agency's experience with the pelvis plugs, the
Alliance's finding that the acetabulum forces and other pelvis
measurements were different for plugs pre-crushed 2 mm and plugs pre-
crushed 3 mm is not surprising. Since the high-crush responses of plugs
pre-crushed 2 mm are not predictable, the responses derived from these
plugs are not comparable to those from 3 mm pre-crushed plugs.
Differences between the 2 mm plug traces and the 3 mm plug trace could
have occurred because these two 2 mm plugs had similar properties that
did not match those of the 3 mm plug, but ultimately, there is no way
of knowing what the behavior of these two 2 mm pre-crushed plugs was
going to be. Furthermore, we do not know the extent by which the
responses may have been affected by the variability in dummy set-up
procedures and crash tests at the three different labs.
2. Pelvic Plug Qualification Corridor
In the December 14, 2006 final rule, plug qualification
requirements were provided in the ``SID-IIs Pelvis Plug Certification
Development'' (May 3, 2006) report and on drawing 180-4450 of the SID-
IIsD drawing package.
Following the final rule, FTSS indicated that it carried out
extensive testing on the pelvis plug according to the final rule
procedures and corridors, testing close to one thousand pelvis plugs.
Compression force at deflections of 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.5
mm and 3.0 mm were provided and plotted in their petition addendum.\28\
From this data, FTSS petitioned NHTSA to alter the loading portion of
the pelvis plug qualification corridor so that it has the following
coordinates: Lower bound (0.5 mm, 50 N) and (1.5 mm, 915 N); upper
bound (0.5 mm, 850 N) and (1.5 mm, 1715 N). The lower bound of the
FTSS-proposed corridor is slightly steeper in slope, but very close to
the lower bound of the final rule corridor, which has the coordinates
(0.5 mm, 50 N) and (1.5 mm, 850 N). The upper bound of the FTSS
proposed corridor allows for forces 250-315 N higher than the upper
bound of the final rule corridor, which has the coordinates (0.5 mm,
600 N) and (0.5 mm, 1400 N). FTSS did not petition to change the
requirements at the end of the plug compression, therefore, the force-
deflection ``box'' at 3 0.5 mm of deflection would be the
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ FTSS addendum to their petition for reconsideration, Docket
No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0038. We note that the figure in this petition
incorrectly depicts the final rule loading corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
The agency is denying this request. NHTSA's concern is that it is
unknown whether the loading portion of the plug force-deflection
response has an effect on the dummy response in qualification, sled or
vehicle tests. After receiving the petition, VRTC requested FTSS to
explain its comment by providing pelvis-acetabulum qualification data
that corresponded to the plug data provided in their petition. Such
data could better show the agency that the dummy could still pass this
qualification test using plugs that met the FTSS-suggested plug loading
corridor and the force-deflection corridor at 30.5 mm.\29\
In response to this request, FTSS provided data, but the data were
unhelpful. The passing test results that were provided had either
pelvis plug traces that fell within the suggested loading corridor and
the final rule loading corridor, or did not meet the force-deflection
box at 30.5 mm. Therefore, it could not be determined
whether plugs that have traces that fell within the suggested corridor
but outside the final rule corridor would still pass pelvis-acetabulum
qualification tests. NHTSA is denying FTSS's petition to change the
loading portion of the pelvis plug qualification corridor because it
has not been demonstrated that the suggested corridor is acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ A memorandum describing this communication has been placed
in the docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Pelvis Acceleration Requirement
The December 14, 2006 final rule specified a pelvis acetabulum
qualification procedure and set performance corridors for peak pelvis
lateral acceleration (Sec. 572.198).
[[Page 29870]]
Requested Change
Denton/SAE DTES recommended removing the pelvis lateral
acceleration requirement from the test due to what was believed to be a
large variability of response. An attachment to the petitioner's
submission stated that a member of the SAE DTES presented pelvis
lateral acceleration data from three different laboratories where the
data looked distinctly different. It was noted in the attachment that
the shape of the pelvis lateral acceleration peak varied widely, even
with a single dummy in one lab. The DTES discussed possible reasons for
the high variability of the first peak, but were not able to discern a
definite explanation for this behavior. Although they agreed that
variability was reduced when the acceleration peak was taken after 5
ms, they did not think that the measurement was necessary for
qualification of the dummy and therefore recommended that the peak
pelvis lateral acceleration be dropped. Alternatively (as seen in the
next section), if the pelvis lateral acceleration parameter were not
dropped, Denton/SAE DTES recommended to take the peak after 5 ms to
eliminate the variable first peak.
Agency Response
We are denying the request to remove the peak pelvis lateral
acceleration from the pelvis acetabulum qualification procedure. The
petitioner's request that the pelvis lateral acceleration measurement
be removed appears to have originated from the subcommittee's
observation of variability in the first peak. This first peak is
primarily dependent on the plug characteristics. The petitioner-
referenced data was obtained from plugs pre-crushed to 2 mm. As
discussed in the previous section, 2 mm of crush is not sufficient to
assure consistent performance of the plug in high-crush environments.
Therefore, it is likely that the variation observed by the petitioner
was due to varying plug characteristics resulting from insufficient
plug pre-crush. Because the petitioner based its request on pelvis
plugs pre-crushed 2 mm, there is no reasonable basis for removing the
measurement of peak pelvis lateral acceleration. In addition, the
pelvis lateral acceleration measurement provides additional information
as to the whole pelvis response which further assesses the response of
the parts, and its requirement in the final rule should be maintained.
(However, we are limiting the time period during which peak lateral
acceleration will be measured, as discussed in the next section.)
4. Measuring Peak Pelvis Lateral Acceleration 5 ms or More After
Contact
In the NPRM proposed regulatory text, S572.197(c)(2) \30\ specified
that the peak lateral pelvis acceleration was to be taken at 5 ms or
more after the impactor contacts the dummy. The final rule did not
include a time specificat
