Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Q3s 3-Year-Old Child Side Impact Test Dummy, Incorporation by Reference, 69943-69982 [2013-27438]

Download as PDF Vol. 78 Thursday, No. 225 November 21, 2013 Part II Department of Transportation tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 572 Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Q3s 3-Year-Old Child Side Impact Test Dummy, Incorporation by Reference; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69944 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 572 [Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0118] RIN 2127–AL04 Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Q3s 3Year-Old Child Side Impact Test Dummy, Incorporation by Reference National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: This document proposes to amend our regulations to add specifications and qualification requirements for an anthropomorphic test device (ATD) representing a 3-yearold child, called the ‘‘Q3s’’ side impact test dummy. The agency plans to use the Q3s to test child restraint systems to new side impact performance requirements which NHTSA will propose to adopt into the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for child restraint systems by way of a separate NPRM. Adopting side impact protection requirements is consistent with a statutory provision set forth in the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ (July 6, 2012), that the agency issue a final rule to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts. DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than January 21, 2014. Proposed effective date: The CFR would be amended on the date 60 days after date of publication of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: (202) 493–2251. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at 202–366– 9324. Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Peter Martin, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202–366–5668) (fax 202– 493–2990). For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202–366–2992) (fax 202– 366–3820). Mailing address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background a. Evolution of the Dummy b. Developments c. Build Level D III. Description a. General Construction b. Instrumentation IV. Biofidelity a. Anthropometry b. Biofidelity Assessment Under Dynamic Loading V. Repeatability and Reproducibility a. R&R in Sled Tests b. R&R in Component Qualification Tests VI. Qualification Tests a. Overview of Proposed Corridors b. Rationale for the Tests c. New and Modified Part 572 Tests and Equipment d. Proposed Test Specifications and Performance Requirements VII. Durability a. High-Energy Component Tests b. Q3s Servicing and Maintenance VIII. Drawings and Patents IX. Consideration of Alternatives X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices XI. Public Participation PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 I. Introduction This document proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 572 to add specifications and qualification requirements for a test dummy representing a 3-year-old child, called the ‘‘Q3s’’ side impact test dummy. The Q3s is a modified version of a European side impact dummy. In accordance with the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ (MAP–21) (Pub. L. 112–141), NHTSA will be issuing a proposal, which we expect to publish shortly, to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint systems’’ (49 CFR 571.213), to adopt side impact protection requirements for child restraints.1 The agency is considering a proposal that incorporates the Q3s in the side impact compliance test procedure. This document proposes to incorporate specifications and qualification requirements for the Q3s into 49 CFR Part 572, ‘‘Anthropomorphic test devices.’’ The Q3s would be specified in a new subpart W. This NPRM proposes incorporating by reference a parts list, a set of design drawings, and a ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI)’’ document, to ensure that all Q3s dummies are the same in their design and construction.2 Subpart W of 49 CFR Part 572 would specify performance tests that serve to assure that the Q3s responses are within the established qualification corridors and further assure the uniformity of dummy assembly, structural integrity, consistency of response, and adequacy of instrumentation. These specifications ensure the repeatability and reproducibility of the dummy’s impact response in child restraint compliance tests. The agency plans to propose adding a side impact test to FMVSS No. 213, one in which child restraint systems (CRSs) sold for children weighing up to 18 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)) must protect the child occupant in a dynamic sled test simulating a vehicle-to-vehicle side impact.3 We are considering using 1 Subtitle E of MAP–21, entitled ‘‘Child Safety Standards,’’ includes § 31501(a) which states that, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impact crashes. 2 Drawings and the PADI for the Q3s are available for examination in the docket for this NPRM. 3 A discussion of NHTSA’s research evaluating and developing the side impact test procedure can be found in Sullivan et al., ‘‘NHTSA’s Evaluation of a Potential Child Side Impact Test Procedures,’’ 22nd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 2011–0227 (2011). E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules the Q3s to test child restraints recommended for children in a weight range that includes 10 kg to 18 kg (22 to 40 lb). Among other things, we are considering a proposal that would require those child restraints to limit the risk of head and chest injury to children in a side impact. We are considering using the Q3s to measure the risk of head injury by way of a head injury criterion (HIC) (computed within a specified timeframe, e.g., 15 millisecond (ms) (HIC15)), and the risk of chest injury using thorax deflection as a criterion. NHTSA seeks to adopt side impact protection requirements in FMVSS No. 213 that would be evaluated in a dynamic test simulating an actual vehicle crash. Our goal has been to use an anthropomorphic test device (ATD) that has a sound biofidelic response under lateral loading, with internal instrumentation sufficient to record injurious body loads. We seek to adopt an ATD that is suitable for use in regulatory tests with demonstrated repeatability, reproducibility, and durability. Within a test laboratory, the ATD would be practical to handle and maintain. The dummy would be available at a reasonable cost. The Q3s test dummy appears to have all of the above attributes. As discussed in this NPRM, NHTSA is satisfied with the overall biofidelity of the Q3s and we have found that it exhibits repeatable and reproducible performance in CRS side impact sled testing and in component-level qualification testing. The Q3s demonstrates sufficient durability in high-energy qualification tests and in CRS side impact sled testing. The agency has tentatively concluded that the dummy is a reliable test device that will provide valuable data in assessing the potential for injury in side impacts and is suitable for incorporation into Part 572. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 II. Background a. Evolution of the Dummy The Q3s evolved from predecessor P-series test dummies developed by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). The P-series first was introduced into European CRS standards in 1981 with the adoption of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation No. 44, ‘‘Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Restraining Devices for Child Occupants of Power-Driven Vehicles (Child Restraint Systems).’’ Initially, the P-series of dummies served only as CRS loading devices to assure CRS integrity in a frontal dynamic sled test. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 In 1993, the European Commission formed a child dummy working group to develop a successor series of dummies called the Q-series. It was envisioned that the Q-series dummies would be used in frontal and side impact tests, and would be more anthropometrically correct than the Pseries, and instrumented to enable injury assessment for the head, neck, and chest. The conceptual dummy design was led by TNO, while working group members as a whole established the anthropometry, biofidelity, and measurement requirements for the new Q-series. In late 1997, the specifications for the first dummy of the Q-series, the three-year-old version known as the ‘‘Q3,’’ were reported by TNO. In 1999, a dummy manufacturer then named First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) 4 acquired the dummy development and manufacturing business of TNO. At that time, testing indicated that the Q3 dummy’s performance was suboptimal in frontal testing and even more so in lateral.5 Around 2001, FTSS initiated the design cycle for the Q3s, which was an improved side impact version of the Q3. In early 2002, NHTSA tested a prototype version of the Q3s.6 NHTSA evaluated this Q3s unit using qualification-style pendulum and impactor tests to assess functionality, durability, and biofidelity. We determined that the thorax of the prototype appeared biofidelic and repeatable, but the shoulder and pelvis were much too stiff. Moreover, the neck was a single-piece rubber column (i.e., it was not segmented by aluminum discs as is typical in other dummy necks), and we found its biofidelity to be marginal in frontal and lateral flexion. In our tests, we observed that the rubber neck material tended to bunch together at maximum flexion, which appeared to improperly restrict the neck bending. 4 In 2010, FTSS was merged into a new company, Humanetics Innovative Solutions (Humanetics). In this preamble, when we discuss work done by the company prior to 2010, we use the name FTSS. When we refer to the company’s activities after 2010, we will refer to the name ‘‘Humanetics.’’ 5 The Q3 was assessed in: Berliner et al. (2000), Comparative evaluation of the Q3 and Hybrid III 3Year-Old dummies in biofidelity and static out-ofposition airbag tests, Stapp Car Crash Journal, V44: 25–50. Since the Q3 had yet to show it was suitable for side impact testing, NHTSA chose to use the HIII–3C in child restraint side impact testing the agency conducted following on the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act of 2000 (TREAD Act). The testing led up to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) which NHTSA published on May 2, 2002, 67 FR 21836. 6 The unit was a modified Q3 that NHTSA had owned. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 69945 Other organizations acquiring prototype Q3s units included Transport Canada and Takata Holdings (Takata). Transport Canada explored the biofidelity of the Q3s through impacts delivered by pendulums and impactor testing. Takata exercised the dummy by performing several sets of sled tests with the ATD seated within a CRS.7 Both Transport Canada and Takata found problems with their Q3s units similar to those found by NHTSA. These problems were conveyed to FTSS through public critiques, and through committee meetings of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and SAE International (SAE).8 Meanwhile, SAE developed new biofidelity response targets for childsized side impact ATDs, including a three-year-old child dummy, to support work on side impact protection for children.9 The new child targets were determined by scaling adult biofidelity targets previously established by ISO.10 These targets became a new set of criteria for FTSS to incorporate into the dummy design, in addition to solving the functionality and durability problems noted by NHTSA and the other organizations. FTSS continued to work on the Q3s and in April 2006, released the Q3s Build Level A, its first production version of a new, Q3s-specific design. Within a year, several additional upgrades were incorporated into the design and by July 2007 Build Level C was released. b. Developments In 2007, the Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP),11 together with 7 Takata was developing a ‘‘sled-on-sled’’ test methodology. Takata was also involved with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and UNECE Reg. No. 44 committees on CRS sled test development, and for this purpose Takata also tested the P3, Q3, and the HIII–3C on its sled system. 8 ISO is a worldwide standards-setting organization. The Q3s dummy was discussed in the meetings of ISO Technical Committee TC 22, Road vehicles, Subcommittee SC 12, Passive safety crash protection systems. SAE is also a worldwide standards-setting organization. 9 The work of SAE to establish biofidelity targets for child ATDs was overseen by the Biomechanics and Simulation Standards Committee. The targets and methodologies are published in Irwin AL, Mertz HJ, Elhagediab AM, Moss S (2002), Guidelines for Assessing Biofidelity of Side Impact Dummies of Various Sizes and Ages. Stapp Car Crash Journal V46: 297–319. 10 ISO/TR 9790:1999 Road vehicles— Anthropomorphic side impact dummy—Lateral impact response requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy. 11 OSRP is an organization of the ‘‘United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR),’’ which is a collaborative technology organization of Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Company. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69946 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules Transport Canada (TC), tested Q3s Build Level C units to evaluate the biofidelity and durability of the dummy, as did NHTSA. Extensive testing was conducted to evaluate the biofidelity of the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, and pelvis against the new SAE side impact response corridors. In addition, the dummy was evaluated against targets for the response of the neck in flexion and the response of the shoulder under lateral loading.12 As a result of the OSRP/TC and NHTSA evaluations of Build Level C units, three key deficiencies emerged: (1) The neck did not provide biofidelic responses in the lateral bending mode; (2) the upper femur ball could dislodge from the hip socket during sled tests; and (3) the thorax exhibited cracks near the spine box following typical lateral impacts. c. Build Level D Over the next several years, FTSS (hereinafter ‘‘Humanetics’’) improved the performance of the Q3s as a result of the findings of OSRP/TC and NHTSA. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Neck and Femur and Hip Redesigns Although Humanetics had incorporated a redesign of the neck into Build Level C, the OSRP/TC and NHTSA tests indicated that the neck was in need of further work. Previously, NHTSA had designed a head and neck retrofit for side impact applications for the Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy (HIII–3C). Tests of this redesigned neck showed that it provided a more biofidelic response in lateral flexion, and better limited the amount of axial twist than the neck of the Q3s Build Level C.13 The NHTSA-developed neck specifications 14 were applied by 12 The fore-aft neck targets had previously served as design targets for the Q-series (Irwin, AL and Mertz, HJ (1997), ‘‘Biomechanical Basis for the CRABI and Hybrid III Child Dummies,’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal V41: 1–12, SAE International, Warrendale, PA), while the shoulder targets were newly developed (Bolte, JH et al., (2003), ‘‘Shoulder impact response and injury due to lateral and oblique loading,’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, V47, SAE International, Warrendale, PA). NHTSA’s test results were reported in: Rhule, R (2008), Side impact child dummy development, 2008 SAE Government/Industry Meeting, Washington DC, May 2008. Download at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/ Research/Public+Meetings/SAE+2008+Government +Industry+Meeting (last accessed March 25, 2013). OSRP results were reported in ISO committee meetings. 13 Test results were reported in: Wang, ZJ (2009), Q3s improvement and Q6s development, 2009 SAE Government/Industry Meeting, Washington DC, Feb. 2009. Download at: https://www.sae.org/events/ gim/presentations/2009/jerrywang.pdf (last accessed March 25, 2013). 14 NHTSA’s retrofit package included highly detailed specifications, including engineering drawings for fabrication of the neck component and response specifications for its dynamic performance. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Humanetics to the Q3s, and the new neck was incorporated into the Q3s in 2009, with subsequent revisions by NHTSA to the neck center cable in 2012. NHTSA also contributed to the redesign of the femur and hip and several other minor parts of the dummy. The revisions were undertaken to resolve the problem of the upper femur ball becoming dislodged from the pelvis hip cup. This was accomplished by replacing the femur ball and plastic hip cup with hardened aluminum components. The new pelvis design was incorporated into the Q3s in 2009. Thorax Material Selection The thorax of the Q3s is a one-piece plastic casting. The cracks near the spine box have been addressed by a change to a new castable polyurethane resin material known by its trade name, Adiprene. To assess the durability of the Q3s, NHTSA had established thorax durability criteria consisting of 100 lateral impacts conducted using the qualification test parameters (3.8 kg (8.4 lb) impactor at 3.3 meters per second (m/s)) and ten additional high-severity impacts at 4.2 m/s. In 2011, Humanetics incorporated Adiprene into the production level Q3s. Test dummies with the new thorax material were able to meet the agency’s thorax durability criteria. Built Level D Retrofit The above revisions have been incorporated in a production version of the Q3s dummy that is commercially available from Humanetics. Humanetics’ latest version of the Q3s, Build Level D, was released in December 2010 and updated in 2011 with the Adiprene thorax, and again in 2012 with a revision to the neck center cable. The latest revisions have been retrofitted to the four Q3s units owned by NHTSA. In the agency’s subsequent tests— including CRS sled testing and qualification-style impact testing—the revised neck was demonstrated to meet NHTSA’s performance criteria, and the revised pelvis and thorax have shown no signs of failure and no degradation of performance.15 III. Description The Q3s weighs 14.5 kg (32.0 lb). The 539 millimeter (mm) seated height of the dummy is representative of a 50th 15 NHTSA has prepared and docketed a technical report, ‘‘Evaluation of the Q3s Three Year Old Child Side Impact Dummy: Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Durability (2012),’’ which includes a section that demonstrates the durability of the Q3s. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 percentile 3-year-old child. The cost of an uninstrumented Q3s unit is about $48,750. The cost of a minimum set of instruments needed for qualification and compliance testing adds approximately $18,200, for a total cost of about $66,950. a. General Construction With the exception of fasteners, instrument mounting plates, and stiffeners for the femurs, the Q3s is almost completely devoid of steel. The Q3s has about half the number of parts as the HIII–3C, which eases its assembly and disassembly compared to the Hybrid III child dummies. The main parts of the dummy are described below.16 Head The Q3s head is a fiberglass mold and consists of the skull and a removable rear skull cap. Both parts are covered with a softer plastic material that simulates flesh and provides a biofidelic response to impact. The Q3s has a featureless face. The flesh is bonded directly to the skull and skull cap to ensure a proper fit and cannot be separated. The head cavity is large enough to allow use of several instruments, including linear accelerometers and angular velocity sensors. Thorax The thorax of the Q3s consists of a one-piece solid ribcage molded of polyurethane with a thin layer of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ‘‘skin’’ bonded to the outer aspect. The ribcage is bolted to an aluminum spine. The molded part is contoured to take the shape of a human. The variable thickness of the part is purposefully designed so that, together with a properly selected polyurethane density, the thorax provides a biofidelic response to impact loading. An internally mounted IR– TRACC 17 measures the deflection of the 16 The Q3s leg femur bone is constructed of polyurethane molded around a steel rod that reinforces the bone. The lower leg bone is made of polyurethane. Both the upper and lower leg bones are surrounded by moldings that simulate flesh. The feet have no bone structure or articulation. The Q3s’s arms are a combination of plastics and metal. The elbow joint can be adjusted and set in a selected position. Vinyl/foam coverings surround the bones and hands are part of the lower arm covering. 17 The Infra Red Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest Compression (IR–TRACC) was developed by General Motors, and first presented in: Rouhana SW., Elhagediab AM, Chapp JJ (1998), ‘‘A highspeed sensor for measuring chest deflection in crash test dummies,’’ Proceedings of the 16th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, May 31–June 4, 1998, Paper Number 98– S9–O–15, 1998. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules lateral aspect of the ribcage relative to the spine. A neoprene suit fits over the torso, similar to a wetsuit. Neck The Q3s neck is a segmented design that consists of a column of three natural rubber segments bonded to four aluminum disks. A six-axis upper neck load cell is mounted at the neck/head interface. The rubber segments have an oval-like shape with circumferential Vshaped grooves. A safety cable made from wire rope runs through the center of the neck and provides axial resistance. Shoulder The Q3s shoulder design is molded from natural rubber into a hollowed, rectangular structure that allows controlled buckling when the shoulder is struck on the lateral aspect. The shoulder joint itself consists of a ball and socket in order to simulate the humerus-scapula joint. The upper arm has urethane flesh covering the entire outer surface of the arm which helps reduce the inertial peak from a pendulum impact. A string potentiometer is built into the shoulder assembly to measure the lateral deflection of the shoulder socket joint relative to the spine. Spine A short interface block connects the lower neck to the upper thoracic spine. The thoracic spine itself is a rectangular column machined from aluminum and about 140 mm long. It interfaces with a rubber cylindrical prism in the upper lumbar region. A short block connects the rubber lumbar column to the pelvis assembly. Abdomen The abdomen is similar to other ATDs in that it consists of a molded, foamfilled shell with a PVC outer skin. This shell is uninstrumented and fits between the ribcage and the pelvis. Pelvis The pelvis has two parts: A pelvic bone casting made of a zinc alloy encased snuggly within a molded polyurethane flesh. The pelvis casting is configured to accept an accelerometer array and a pubic subassembly accommodating a pubic load cell. The hip cups and femur heads are hardened aluminum. Reversibility The Q3s design incorporates reversibility features to accommodate the dummy’s use for both left and right side impacts. In NHTSA’s proposed 69947 upgrade to FMVSS No. 213, the Q3s could be used to test forward-facing and rear-facing CRSs. The sled system proposed for use by NHTSA would position the dummy for a left side impact when testing forward-facing CRSs, and for a right side impact when testing rear-facing CRSs. The PADI manual describes the steps to convert the instrumentation from a left to a right side impact. b. Instrumentation Table 1 contains a list of instrumentation needed to qualify the Q3s, i.e., the instrumentation needed for the dummy to meet the qualification requirements included in the proposed subpart W. Note that the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test that NHTSA is considering focuses on measuring head acceleration, using the three uni-axial accelerometers at the head center of gravity (C.G.), and chest deflection, using the IR–TRACC in the thorax. Nonetheless, the other instrumentation listed in the table would be needed for the qualification test to assess the performance of significant parts of the dummy and to ensure the soundness of the dummy as a whole. The Q3s accepts additional instrumentation other than that listed below, such as angular rate sensors in the dummy’s head. TABLE 1—REQUIRED INSTRUMENTATION TO QUALIFY THE Q3S DUMMY UNDER PART 572 Location Measurement Q3s head C.G. .............................................................. Q3s upper neck ............................................................ Q3s thorax .................................................................... Q3s shoulder ................................................................ Q3s lumbar spine ......................................................... Q3s pubic symphysis .................................................... Qualification test equipment ......................................... Acceleration .................................................................. Forces and moments ................................................... Deflection ..................................................................... Deflection ..................................................................... Forces and moments ................................................... Force ............................................................................ Neck, lumbar rotation ................................................... IV. Biofidelity tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 a. Anthropometry The anthropometry and dummy segment mass properties of the Q3s were defined in the early design stage of the original Q3 based on TNO’s data in its Child Anthropometric Database (CANDAT).18 For the most part, the 18 According to TNO publications (Beusenberg et al., 1993; Van Ratingen, et al., 1997), CANDAT is built upon various anthropometry surveys conducted in the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan from 1970–1993 of external dimensions and overall mass of children from birth up to 18 years old. Each survey source examined a different age group, and each had its own set of unique collection parameters. To handle gaps and inconsistencies within the source data, TNO applied regression routines and interpolation techniques to derive the anthropometry of a particular body segment size as a function of age or total body mass. Regression was based on the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 same anthropometry and mass distributions have been retained all the way through to the Build Level D production version of the Q3s. The Q3s represents a 50th percentile three-yearold child, based on the data derived from CANDAT. Biofidelity targets for a particular dummy are a function of its anthropometry and mass. Our assessment of the Q3s made use of biofidelity targets derived by SAE. These response targets were derived specifically for side impact dummies that have the same characteristic dimensions and masses as the Hybrid III assumption that growth is a smooth and continuous process. The anthropometry surveys identified by TNO as the basis of CANDAT were performed by organizations other than TNO. CANDAT is the property of TNO and Humanetics. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Instrument Accelerometer (3 req.). Load cell. IR–TRACC. String potentiometer. Load cell. Load cell. Angular rate sensor (2 req.). family of dummies. Unlike the TNO studies used for the Q3s, the anthropometric basis of the Hybrid III three-year-old child dummy was derived by SAE using survey data of children in the United States only (Irwin and Mertz, 1997).19 SAE also used slightly different assumptions to specify the body segment mass properties. Nonetheless, the SAE specifications for the anthropometry and mass of a three-year-old are very similar to those based on CANDAT. The Q3s generally matches up with SAE specifications as well as it does with CANDAT specifications. 19 Irwin and Mertz (1997). Biomechanical Basis for the CRABI and Hybrid III Child Dummies. Stapp Car Crash Journal V41: 1–12, SAE International, Warrendale, PA. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69948 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules There are small differences in body segment mass properties between the two ATDs due to differences in the manner in which TNO and SAE apportioned the segments. For instance, the TNO torso does not include parts of the thighs, whereas the SAE target does (the HIII–3C’s thighs are included in a sitting form pelvis consistent with other Hybrid III dummies, which are built with a one-piece vinyl covering that fits around the pelvis and extends midthigh). Since the Q3s is not constructed in this way, its torso mass is lower than the SAE target because it includes only the torso, not part of the thighs. Conversely, the Q3s thigh mass is higher than the SAE target, since it includes more of the thigh segment. The total body mass of the Q3s matches that of the HIII–3C, and is very close to the most recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) growth charts.20 Table 2, below, provides the anthropometry and mass of various body segments for the Q3s along with the reference specifications of both CANDAT (TNO) and SAE. For reference, CDC data for height and total mass are footnoted in the table. (Note that, unlike the erect posture of CDC subjects, the reference posture of the Q3s is reclined and the pelvis angle reflects a child’s seating position in a CRS. Also, the neck of the Q3s is angled such that the head is leveled when the dummy is seated. Thus, the Q3s height measurement is an approximation only because the dummy cannot be positioned in the same fully erect posture taken by children when their height is measured.) The TNO and SAE specifications for anthropometry appear essentially the same. The anthropometry of the Q3s is also close to these specifications, with the exception of the chest depth and the waist circumference (both larger in the Q3s). As compared to a human, the Q3s torso is more rounded in order to provide greater internal space for the installation of the IR–TRACC. When struck laterally, the rounded torso also helps to give the dummy a biofidelic response in terms of the force needed to achieve proper chest deflection. For the waist, the difference reflects the seated reference posture of the Q3s as compared to the standing posture of children represented in CANDAT. When comparing mass, Table 2 shows that the Q3s head is close to the TNO target, but it is light in comparison to the SAE target. For the neck, the Q3s also is aligned with the TNO target, but is light in comparison to the SAE. As discussed in the section below, these differences in anthropometry specifications are not significant in terms of the biofidelity of the Q3s under impact loading. The other body segment masses shown in Table 2 (in italics) do not reflect a one-to-one comparison because of differences in apportioning. We note also that the mass of the upper extremities is lighter than the SAE value to compensate for the cumulative excess mass of the other dummy segments, to enable the total mass of the Q3s to be on target. TABLE 2—Q3S ANTHROPOMETRY AND MASS COMPARED TO TNO AND SAE TARGETS ANTHROPOMETRY (mm) TNO Standing height* ........................................................................................ Sitting height .............................................................................................. Shoulder height, sitting .............................................................................. Shoulder breadth (max) ............................................................................. Hip breadth (seated) .................................................................................. Head depth ................................................................................................ Head breadth ............................................................................................. Head circumference ................................................................................... Chest breadth ............................................................................................ Chest depth ............................................................................................... Chest circumference, axilla ....................................................................... Waist circumference .................................................................................. Thigh height, sitting ................................................................................... Buttock-knee length ................................................................................... Shoulder-elbow distance ........................................................................... Elbow to tip of finger .................................................................................. SAE 954 551 340 246 194 177 134 500 161 122 508 475 78 293 190 250 % Difference, Q3s vs. SAE Q3s 953 546 334 246 193 177 135 498 173 122 505 480 84 284 193 254 986 556 340 247 202 180 138 502 174 151 523 521 86 305 186 240 +3 +2 +2 0 +5 +2 +2 +1 +1 +24 +4 +9 +2 +7 ¥4 ¥6 MASS (kg) Total mass** .............................................................................................. 14.5 Head .......................................................................................................... Neck ........................................................................................................... Torso assembly ......................................................................................... Upper extremities ....................................................................................... Lower extremities ....................................................................................... 14.5 2.90 0.30 6.20 3.50 1.50 3.05 0.40 6.61 1.82 2.63 14.26 ¥2 2.81 0.31 5.78 1.41 3.55 ¥8 ¥23 ¥13 ¥22 +35 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * Comparable reference: CDC 2000, 50th percentile three-year-old, standing fully erect: boys: height=950 mm; total mass=14.3 kg girls: height=940 mm; total mass=13.8 kg **Total mass of Q3s includes its body suit, 0.40 kg. 20 CDC growth charts for year 2000 are reported by Kuczmarski RJ, et al. (2002), 2000 CDC growth VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 charts for the United States: Methods and PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 development. National Center for Health Statistics.Vital Health Stat 11(246), 2002. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules b. Biofidelity Assessment Under Dynamic Loading Our assessment of the Q3s is based primarily on biofidelity targets established by SAE 21 for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, and pelvis of a threeyear-old. (A biofidelity target is the desired performance that a dummy should attain to be considered replicating the biomechanical response of a human.) In addition, we assessed the Q3s against additional shoulder targets based on tests carried out at Ohio State University (Bolte, 2003),22 and against abdominal targets formulated by TNO.23 For the most part, the biofidelity targets are based on pendulum impacts to body segments using cylindrical test probes suspended by wire. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Scaling of Adult Human Response Data Biofidelity targets are based on observed human responses to impact loading. Generally, to assess a dummy’s biofidelity, the human’s response characteristics must be known. To assess adult dummies, adult post mortem human subjects (PMHS) are exposed to controlled forces, loads, and impacts and their responses are measured. However, biomechanical response data on children under impact loading is nonexistent or very limited, so other means must be used to estimate the human child’s response characteristics. Scaling adult PMHS data to the child’s size using mass, anthropometry, and stiffness ratios represents the best available method of estimating the human child’s response characteristics (see Irwin and Mertz, 1997 and Irwin, 2002, for details on the scaling theory and assumptions applied by SAE). 21 NHTSA has evaluated the SAE targets and is satisfied with the technical bases underlying them. The SAE targets were derived systematically using a defined process. The scaling theories as well as the underlying anthropometric and biomechanical test data have all been vetted and released to the public domain. SAE methods have been used by NHTSA to assess the biofidelity of the majority of Part 572 ATDs and we find them to be sound, datadriven, and well-founded scientifically. 22 The test procedure and biofidelity targets are described in: Bolte JH, Hines NH, Herriot RG, Donnelly BR, McFadden JD (2003). Shoulder impact response and injury due to lateral and oblique loading, Stapp Car Crash Journal, V47, SAE International, Warrendale, PA. 23 We have used this TNO biofidelity target because there is none for the Q3s abdomen developed by the SAE. We have not used the TNO biofidelity targets for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, and pelvis because they are derived from assumptions and underlying data within CANDAT, some of which have not been made fully accessible to the public. Thus, due to the transparency and reliability of the SAE targets and because the TNO targets cannot be fully judged to the same degree that SAE targets can be, we have decided to use primarily the SAE targets in assessing the biofidelity of the Q3s. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Thus, scaling techniques were used to derive a set of biomechanical targets for the Q3s whereby adult PMHS data were scaled to a three-year-old child. The targets were determined by scaling the biomechanical responses observed for various body segments of the midsize adult male down to a three-year-old. Given the lack of pediatric biomechanical data and the many assumptions made in the scaling process, there is greater uncertainty associated with child biofidelity targets compared to the adult targets from which they were derived. Therefore, NHTSA does not consider the biofidelity targets applied herein to be strict prerequisites to accept the dummy. Although biofidelity targets are central to evaluating the dummy, we have had to carefully analyze the findings to assess the biofidelity of the child ATD, judging, among other factors, the extent to which the child ATD met or missed the scaled target, and whether this would affect the usefulness of the ATD in its intended application. Q3s Biofidelity Assessment The agency has prepared a supporting document, ‘‘Biofidelity Assessment of the Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Side Impact Dummy (July 2012),’’ which provides a detailed discussion of the agency’s biofidelity assessment, which is summarized below. A copy of the report has been placed in the docket for this NPRM. The report discusses the performance of the Q3s relative to the biofidelity targets. A body part-by-body part synopsis of the biofidelity performance of the Q3s under dynamic loading is given below. For pendulum impacts, biofidelity is generally assessed as ‘‘external’’ or ‘‘internal.’’ External biofidelity is related to the force generated on the face of a pendulum impact probe upon striking a subject. In other words, probe forces generated by dummies are compared against probe forces generated by PMHS. Internal biofidelity is related to a measurement on or within the subject itself, such as shoulder deflection or spine acceleration, for which corresponding measurements are made on both the PMHS and the dummy. Head Given that the use of the Q3s in the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test under consideration would be to measure risk of head injury (using a linear acceleration-based head injury criterion, HIC), we consider head biofidelity to be highly important for the ATD. For the Q3s, we assessed head biofidelity in both frontal (Irwin and Mertz, 1997) and PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 69949 lateral (Irwin, 2002) orientations using Part 572-style head drop procedures. The responses of the Q3s head are well within the SAE corridors for both frontal and lateral drops, i.e., the responses wholly met the biofidelity target for the head. Neck The behavior of the neck in lateral flexion affects the overall motion of the head. We tested the Q3s neck to lateral flexion according to the SAE protocol (Irwin, et al., 2002), which uses a standard Part 572 neck pendulum to observe the moment-angle relationship. The Q3s neck response is entirely within the SAE corridors, completely meeting the biofidelity target. We also assessed the biofidelity of the Q3s neck in frontal flexion (Irwin and Mertz, 1997). In the frontal flexion assessment, we found that the Q3s neck data generally follows the shape of the corridor of the biofidelity target, although the curve is not completely contained within the corridor. Given that neck flexion occurs mainly in the lateral direction under the intended use of the dummy, a slight nonconformity in frontal flexion is not disconcerting. On balance, we find the biofidelity of the Q3s neck to be satisfactory for use in our CRS side impact safety standard under consideration. Shoulder Although there is no shoulder IARV being contemplated for the Q3s, the shoulder does interact with the CRS during the test procedure under consideration for FMVSS No. 213. In view of this, NHTSA evaluated the biofidelity of the Q3s shoulder in component testing under the loading of a pendulum. The unpadded test involved the SAE protocol (Irwin, 2002), which uses a rigid pendulum in a pure lateral direction. Response criteria included corridors for lateral shoulder displacement and for probe force. The Q3s shoulder showed high stiffness with respect to lateral shoulder displacement and probe force under this test protocol. Next we reexamined shoulder biofidelity under conditions that correspond more closely to the intended use of the Q3s in the FMVSS No. 213 test procedure being contemplated: Those of the Ohio State protocol (Bolte et al., 2003), which uses the same impactor mass and speed as the SAE test but with foam padding attached to the impactor face. The latter condition was considered because the FMVSS No. 213 impact being contemplated exposes the Q3s to the padded side structure E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69950 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules (‘‘wing’’) of the child restraint in the test. Under the Ohio State protocol, test results also indicate that the shoulder of the Q3s is stiff when assessed for biofidelity as measured by its internal deflection. However, the force response of the padded probe (external biofidelity) nearly matches the target. As such, the Q3s shoulder appears to be biofidelic in the manner in which it would exert force on the child restraint system. This loading of the child restraint, which would affect the overall motion of the dummy’s upper torso and head (through which the FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria under consideration would be measured), appears representative of an actual human. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Thorax The biofidelity of the thorax under lateral loading is an important performance target for the Q3s since the agency is considering a proposal to adopt thorax deflection as an injury assessment reference value (IARV) in the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test. Thorax biofidelity is assessed via high (6.0 m/s) and low (4.3 m/s) speed pendulum impacts prescribed by SAE. Pendulum force corridors are used to assess the external biofidelity of the dummy, and upper torso (T1) acceleration is used to assess internal biofidelity. (SAE did not develop a biofidelity target based on thorax deflection because PMHS in the underlying tests were not instrumented as such.) Test results indicate that the pendulum forces generated by the Q3s are within the corridors for both high and low speed tests. The magnitude of the internal T1 acceleration is also on target, though it is slightly out of phase with the biofidelity corridor (i.e., the peak magnitude is within the limit afforded by the corridor, but it occurs about 10 ms too early). We believe this phase difference, which is related to the mechanics of human thoracic tissues vs. the Q3s polymer thorax, is an acceptable compromise in producing a dummy that is affordable, durable, and otherwise practicable for use as a regulatory tool. Abdomen We assessed the biofidelity of the abdomen in an oblique pendulum impact using probe force targets established by TNO. This assessment was carried out with the probe striking the antero-lateral aspect of the dummy rather than the full lateral aspect because neither TNO nor SAE had established biofidelity targets for the latter. Furthermore, abdominal biofidelity is important mostly in frontal VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 impacts in relation to lap belt loading. Since the Q3s would primarily be used in side impacts to test CRSs having an internal harness, abdominal loads are not expected to be excessive. Nonetheless, the loading to the abdomen in the FMVSS No. 213 testing under consideration may have some frontal component, with the resultant loading being oblique. Therefore, the biofidelity assessment was performed with an oblique impact. The Q3s performed very favorably when examined against the TNO established targets.24 Moreover, noting that an assumption was made by TNO that the child abdomen is stiffer than the adult, NHTSA re-formulated the corridor by assuming that abdomen stiffness is a function of the elastic modulus of soft tissue, and that child and adult moduli are the same. (This assumption was also employed in developing the SAE corridors for other body regions.) When compared against the re-formulated corridor, the Q3s performs a little less favorably, but still follows along the upper bound of the corridor. Details of this comparison are provided in our supporting document, ‘‘Biofidelity Assessment of the Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Side Impact Dummy,’’ supra at p. 17. Pelvis The external biofidelity of the pelvis was assessed using an SAE pendulum impact protocol (lateral impact of 2.27 kg rigid impact probe at 4.5 m/s) and pendulum force limits. The test results indicate that the Q3s pelvis appears stiff relative to a child. The dummy had been redesigned with hardened aluminum hips replacing plastic ones to improve its durability, and this change may have resulted in a greater force response. Nonetheless, in our repeatability and reproducibility testing with Cozy Cline CRSs (discussed later), the wide scatter in pelvis response did not seem to have any effect on HIC15 and chest deflection. Further, the tradeoff in biofidelity for improved durability may be necessary for use of the dummy in a regulatory environment. 24 The TNO targets are based on a scaling of adult PMHS data in which subjects were struck in the abdomen by a pendulum aligned 30 degrees from lateral (i.e., an oblique impact). The PMHS data is from a test series where subjects initially underwent thoracic impacts and then were re-used for abdominal impacts. The thoracic impact data were used to establish thorax corridors in the ISO 9790 Technical Report, the underlying source document upon which the SAE three-year-old targets have been derived. The repeat abdominal tests, however, were not used by ISO and thus no SAE targets are provided for abdominal biofidelity subjected to pendulum impacts. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Summary Our biofidelity assessment of the Q3s is based on head drops and pendulum tests, which have demonstrated the biofidelity of the test dummy. Our test results indicate that the biofidelity of the Q3s is most satisfactory for the head, thorax, and neck. It is in these three body segments where proper biofidelity is most critical for the intended use of the dummy in the FMVSS No. 213 test procedure under consideration. Relative to humans, the dummy appears to be stiff in the shoulder and pelvis. For a CRS under test, the shoulder and pelvis could conceivably act as load paths such that the thorax deflection in the Q3s may be unrealistically low relative to a human. However, it may not be feasible to engineer a biofidelic design into the shoulder and pelvis at this time without sacrificing some other critical performance features, such as durability. While a child test dummy with a more biofidelic shoulder and pelvis may be developed in the future, the agency tentatively concludes that the Q3s is a suitable and valuable test device for use in child restraint side impact testing at this time. On balance, the agency is satisfied with the overall biofidelity of the Q3s. V. Repeatability and Reproducibility A test dummy’s repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) is demonstrated in sled tests and component tests. Sled tests establish the consistency of the dummy’s kinematics, its impact response as an assembly, and the integrity of the dummy’s structure and instrumentation under controlled and representative crash environment test conditions. In component tests, the impact input as well as the test equipment is carefully controlled to minimize external effects on the dummy’s responses. NHTSA has assessed the repeatability and reproducibility of the Q3s in CRS side impact sled tests and in component tests. Repeatability is defined as the similarity of responses from a single dummy when subjected to multiple repeats of a given test condition. Reproducibility is defined as the similarity of test responses from multiple dummies when subjected to multiple repeats of a given test condition. A quantitative assessment of R&R is achieved using a statistical analysis of variance. The percent coefficient of variation (%CV) is a measure of variability expressed as a percentage of the mean. The %CV is calculated as follows: E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69951 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules Where s = standard deviation of responses 25 X = mean of responses We have used a %CV scale shown in Table 3 to assess the quality of repeatability and reproducibility of the Q3s. This approach was first introduced by NHTSA as a means of evaluating dummy repeatability when the original subpart B Hybrid II 50th percentile male ATD was proposed (40 FR 33466, August 8, 1975). Since then, the agency has used this approach for other 49 CFR Part 572 rulemakings, including those to adopt side impact dummies such as the ES–2re midsize adult male side impact dummy (subpart U, 71 FR 75304, December 14, 2006) and the SID–IIs 5th percentile adult female side impact dummy (subpart V, 71 FR 75342, December 14, 2006). TABLE 3—%CV SCORE CATEGORIZATION FOR REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY Repeatability % CV Score Reproducibility % CV Score %CV ≤ 5 .................................................................................... 5 < %CV ≤ 8 .............................................................................. 8 < %CV ≤ 10 ............................................................................ %CV > 10 .................................................................................. %CV ≤ 6 ................................................................................... 6 < %CV ≤ 11 ........................................................................... 11 < %CV ≤ 15 ......................................................................... %CV > 15 ................................................................................. For repeatability and reproducibility assessments, acceptable limits are ‘‘MARGINAL’’ and above. For repeatability, the MARGINAL limit is set at a %CV value of 10 percent. For MARGINAL reproducibility, a slightly greater %CV of 15 percent is used since multiple dummies produce a wider dispersion of response measurement than in testing a single dummy for repeatability. These limits were most recently used in adopting the HIII–10C 10-year-old child dummy into 49 CFR Part 572 (subpart T, 77 FR 11651, February 27, 2012). All R&R values in the ‘‘POOR’’ category were investigated to assess the cause of the high variance. If needed, corrective measures were made to the dummy. a. R&R in Sled Tests In the sled tests, a CRS was mounted on a generic bench seat which was allowed to slide into a padded wall, generating lateral impact loading on the CRS and the Q3s dummy. The deceleration pulse of the sliding bench seat was controlled by the crush of aluminum honeycomb. The peak lateral acceleration of the test buck was approximately 25.4 g and the peak velocity was 31.4 km/h (19.5 mph).26 The configuration and sled pulse generally corresponded to the procedure under consideration for the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test, except the loadwall had a uniform surface. To assess the R&R of the Q3s in sled tests, two dummies were each tested five times using the sliding seat sled buck. The simulated wall padding was replaced after each test. Two sets of seat padding for the sliding bench were alternated after each test. The locations of multiple dummy landmarks were measured before each test to minimize test-to-test variation in the dummy’s seated position. All tests were performed with identical forward-facing Graco Cozy Cline child restraints, with a new child restraint used for each test. These child restraints were sold for children weighing 9 to 18 kg (20 to 40 lb). In CRS tests performed in support of NHTSA’s proposed rulemaking to add a side Assessment EXCELLENT. GOOD. MARGINAL. POOR. impact test to FMVSS No. 213, the Cozy Cline child restraint produced Q3s metrics that were generally high relative to those produced by other CRSs. Thus, we chose to evaluate the R&R of the Q3s with the Cozy Cline child restraint because the data indicated that these child restraints more vigorously exercised the dummy’s assessment of the injury criteria of interest compared to other CRSs we have tested. The sled test results indicated ‘‘GOOD’’ to ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ repeatability and reproducibility.27 The statistical analysis of select measurements in all tests for each dummy and both dummies combined is summarized in Table 4. NHTSA has prepared and docketed a technical report, ‘‘Evaluation of the Q3s Three Year Old Child Side Impact Dummy: Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Durability (2012),’’ which discusses the test procedures and results in greater detail. The report also provides references for the location of the test data including sensor signals and videography. TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF SLED TEST RESPONSES FOR SELECT CHANNELS Parameter Std dev tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Avg FMVSS 1 ............................ P572 2 & FMVSS 1 ............ Part 572 2 .......................... R&D 3 ................................ Part 572 2 .......................... Part 572 2 .......................... R&D 3 ................................ R&D 3 ................................ R&D 3 ................................ HIC15 ............................... Thorax Y-Disp, mm .......... Head Res-Accel, g ........... Neck Y-force, N ................ Neck X-Moment, Nm ........ Shoulder Y-Disp, mm ....... Up spine Res-Accel, g ...... Lumbar Y-Force, N ........... Pelvis Res-Accel, g .......... 25 Standard deviations are based on a sample and calculated using the ‘‘n-1’’ method. 26 The acceleration of the test buck is intended to mimic the impulse experienced by a CRS installed in the rear seat of a small passenger vehicle VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 700 34 97 744 31 24 65 324 101 Dummy S/N 007 % CV 14.8 0.8 2.1 56.5 3.8 1.0 3.3 20.7 15.8 2 2 2 8 12 4 5 6 16 Avg 708 33 96 687 28 24 65 343 106 subjected to a side impact by a moving deformable barrier as specified in FMVSS No. 214, ‘‘Side impact protection.’’ 27 Qualification tests were performed on each dummy before and after the sled test series to PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Std dev Combined Data % CV 19.4 2.8 2.0 57.3 2.3 0.8 8.2 38.8 22.9 3 9 2 8 8 3 13 11 22 Avg 704 34 96 716 29 24 65 333 104 Std dev 16.8 2.0 2.0 61.4 3.4 0.8 5.9 31.0 18.7 % CV 2 6 2 9 12 4 9 9 18 evaluate the Q3s’s durability. The dummies met all of the preliminary qualification response requirements, both before and after the sled series. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 EP21NO13.000</GPH> Dummy S/N 006 Used for: 69952 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF SLED TEST RESPONSES FOR SELECT CHANNELS—Continued Dummy S/N 006 Used for: Parameter Std dev Avg Part 572 2 .......................... Pubic Y-Force, N .............. 388 Dummy S/N 007 % CV 43.4 11 Avg 324 Std dev Combined Data % CV 75.5 23 Avg 356 Std dev 67.1 % CV 19 1 CRS requirement under consideration for a FMVSS No. 213 side impact test. 2 Qualification for proposed Part 572. 3 Injury assessment for research and development (R&D) only. The following discusses the sled test results that relate to responses of primary importance to the dummy’s use in side impact, i.e., primarily measurements under consideration for use in the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test, and measurements that would serve as Part 572 qualification targets. Other measurements commonly examined in research efforts are also discussed below. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Head Acceleration and HIC15 As seen in Table 4, head acceleration and HIC15 both displayed ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ repeatability and reproducibility. Since these responses are being considered as injury criteria for our CRS side impact requirements, we believe it is very important for these responses to exhibit a high degree of repeatability. It is notable that the average HIC15 value was 704. This value exceeds the IARVs under consideration for our CRS requirements, thus demonstrating that the dummy has very good R&R up to and beyond the expected pass/fail limit. Thorax Deflection Thorax deflection (labeled ‘‘Thorax YDisp’’ in Table 4), as measured by the IR–TRACC, also displayed ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ reproducibility when the responses of both dummies were combined. The average measurement of 34 mm exceeds the IARVs under consideration for our CRS requirements, which attests to the reliable performance of the dummy at pass/fail limits. We note that for dummy serial number 007, the thorax y-displacement is only ‘‘MARGINAL.’’ Closer inspection of the lateral thorax displacement data indicates that the response for one of the tests was quite different than that of the previous four tests. Our review of the pre-test positioning data revealed that in test 5, the dummy’s elbow location relative to other body landmarks was farthest away from the average location. We believe that the elbow position relative to the dummy’s torso played a critical role in the amount of subsequent lateral thorax displacement. Because these data show an apparent sensitivity VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 to elbow positioning, the agency has developed a procedure to position the elbow at a specific angle relative to the thorax. Neck Y-Force and X-Moment Neck Y-force and X-moment responses exhibited ‘‘GOOD’’ and ‘‘MARGINAL’’ reproducibility, respectively. A closer inspection of the data indicates that the peak neck force in one of the tests for dummy serial number 006 was about 40 percent lower than the other four tests, for reasons that could not be determined by the test technicians. If test 3 were removed from the dataset, the repeatability of dummy 006 for neck X-moment becomes ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ and the overall reproducibility becomes ‘‘GOOD.’’ Shoulder Y-Displacement The shoulder displacement, as measured by the Q3s’s internal string potentiometer, also displayed ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ repeatability in both dummies as well as in its overall reproducibility when the responses of both dummies are combined. Although there is no IARV associated with shoulder displacement, the average measurement of 24 mm is fairly high in comparison to the values obtained in research tests from other tested CRSs. Again, this attests to the good performance of the dummy in conditions beyond those to which the ATD will typically be exposed in an FMVSS No. 213 compliance test. Upper Spine Acceleration The overall reproducibility of both dummies combined was ‘‘GOOD,’’ although the upper spine resultant acceleration for dummy 007 displayed ‘‘POOR’’ repeatability. However, as with the lateral thorax displacement responses, the upper spine acceleration for test 5 of dummy 007 was anomalous as compared to the previous four tests. We believe that this result is related to the issue of arm position. We note that if test 5 were removed from the dataset, the ‘‘POOR’’ repeatability of dummy 007 for upper spine acceleration becomes ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ and the overall PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 reproducibility also becomes ‘‘EXCELLENT.’’ Pelvis Resultant-Acceleration, Lumbar Y-Force, and Pubic Y-Force Poor repeatability was observed in the pelvic and lumbar responses. Pelvis resultant acceleration response curves revealed a sharp spike in the data around 90 ms. These spikes obscured the true data peaks, which occurred around 85 ms, and therefore present a negative effect on the repeatability analysis. A similar spike, of lesser magnitude, was evident in the lumbar Y-force responses, also around the 90 ms mark of the event. The source of the data spikes were subsequently determined by NHTSA to emanate from ‘‘knee knock.’’ The dummy’s knees are hard plastic components, and they contacted each other precisely at the instant that the spikes occurred in the pelvis acceleration and lumbar Y-force channels. This condition has since been mitigated in the final Q3s design which incorporates a padded covering over the medial aspect of the knees to dampen the force of impact. The repeatability of the pubic Y-force measurement was also shown to be ‘‘POOR.’’ This rating is not attributed to the knee knock condition. Rather, pubic Y-force appears to be a measurement that is highly sensitive to any variation in the test conditions. Nonetheless, variations in pubic Y-force do not appear to affect the dummy’s head acceleration and thorax Y-displacement (the IARVs we are exploring for the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test under consideration), which exhibited low variability despite the scatter in pubic force. Supplemental Tests In consideration of the ‘‘MARGINAL’’ performance observed for some of the responses in the previous sled test series, we ran another series of Cozy Cline tests with the final version of the Q3s. The final Q3s incorporated the aforementioned pads on the medial surfaces of the knees as well as a simplified design of the neck center cable. The older cable design was E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules thought to contribute to the nonuniformity observed in the earlier sled tests. Additionally, we added a padded door panel and positioned the arm at 25 degrees to be more consistent with what is under consideration for the proposed side impact test protocol. The results for this supplemental test series are shown in Table 5. As compared to the previous set of tests shown in Table 4, the supplemental series demonstrate improved repeatability in measurements of shoulder and thorax deflection, neck loads, and pelvis acceleration. These improvements are directly related to a new arm positioning protocol, the 69953 revised neck center cable, and the elimination of knee knock, respectively. Pubic force repeatability was again rated as ‘‘POOR.’’ Since the revisions to the dummy and test protocol were not aimed at improving this measure, the ‘‘POOR’’ rating was not unexpected. TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL SLED TEST RESPONSES FOR SELECT CHANNELS Dummy S/N 004 Used for: Parameter Avg FMVSS 1 .............................................................. P572 2 & FMVSS 1 .............................................. Part 572 2 ............................................................ R&D 3 .................................................................. Part 572 2 ............................................................ Part 572 2 ............................................................ R&D 3 .................................................................. R&D 3 .................................................................. R&D 3 .................................................................. Part 572 2 ............................................................ HIC15 ................................................................. Thorax Y-Disp, mm ............................................ Head Res-Accel, g ............................................. Neck Y-force, N .................................................. Neck X-Moment, Nm .......................................... Shoulder Y-Disp, mm ......................................... Up spine Res-Accel, g ....................................... Lumbar Y-Force, N ............................................ Pelvis Res-Accel, g ............................................ Pubic Y-Force, N ................................................ 795 17.8 110 630 28.0 24.3 129 765 97.1 557 Std dev % CV 22.2 0.7 3.6 42 1.9 0.5 6.8 69 8.5 118 3 4 3 7 7 2 5 9 9 21 1 CRS requirement under consideration for a FMVSS No. 213 side impact test. for proposed Part 572. 3 Injury assessment for research and development (R&D) only. 2 Qualification tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. R&R in Component Qualification Tests Test dummies specified in 49 CFR Part 572 are subjected to a series of qualification tests to ensure that their components are functioning properly. The qualification tests proposed for the Q3s are discussed further in a later section. We have proposed qualification tests for the dummy’s head, neck, shoulder, thorax, lumbar, and pelvis, assessing 35 response mechanisms for the dummy. We tested NHTSA’s four Q3s units to the proposed qualification tests, assessing among other matters the performance of the units when tested to the qualification tests, and the repeatability and reproducibility of the dummies. The findings are discussed in the technical report, ‘‘Evaluation of the Q3s Three Year-Old Child Side Impact Dummy: Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Durability,’’ supra. R&R in the component qualification tests were assessed by testing the four Q3s dummies, all conforming to the latest available revision level. Tests were run for both right and left side impacts. Average, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were computed for each required measurement parameter of each qualification procedure. We used the same guidelines to rate R&R as was used previously in our R&R evaluation using sled tests (see Table 3, supra). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Head Drop Tests Head qualification consisted of two test components: Frontal and lateral head drops. The frontal head drop was conducted from a height of 376 mm, while the lateral head drop was conducted at 200 mm. Four Q3s dummy heads were each subjected to six frontal head drops, five left-side lateral drops, and five rightside lateral drops. The responses are summarized in Table 6 for frontal drops and in Table 7 with left- and right-side tests combined. Each individual head was rated as having ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ repeatability in both the frontal and lateral modes. When combining the responses, the reproducibility of all four heads was also rated as ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ in both the frontal and lateral test modes. TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF FRONTAL HEAD DROP RESPONSES Resultant accel (g) Dummy S/N 004 ................ 006 ................ 007 ................ 008 ................ All .................. PO 00000 Frm 00011 avg .............. stdev ........... %CV ............ avg .............. stdev ........... %CV ............ avg .............. stdev ........... %CV ............ avg .............. stdev ........... %CV ............ avg .............. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 273.0 3.86 1.41 276.5 2.48 0.90 282.0 4.35 1.54 263.5 5.12 1.94 273.8 TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF FRONTAL HEAD DROP RESPONSES—Continued Resultant accel (g) Dummy S/N stdev ........... %CV ............ 7.68 2.80 TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF LATERAL HEAD DROP RESPONSES Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 004 ................ Avg .............. Stdev ........... %CV ............ Avg .............. Stdev ........... %CV ............ Avg .............. Stdev ........... %CV ............ avg .............. stdev ........... %CV ............ avg .............. stdev ........... %CV ............ 006 ................ 007 ................ 008 ................ All .................. Resultant accel (g) 131.3 3.50 2.67 124.7 3.64 2.92 127.1 3.92 3.08 123.2 4.08 3.31 126.6 4.78 3.78 Neck Pendulum Tests Flexion Tests. The two flexion tests utilized the Part 572 neck pendulum and a headform designed to mimic the inertial properties of the head (Part 572, Subpart E, Figure 22). The frontal flexion test was at a 4.7 m/s impact speed and the lateral test was at a 3.8 m/s speed. Both tests prescribed a deceleration pulse. For the frontal E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69954 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules flexion tests, four Q3s dummy necks were subjected to five tests. For lateral flexion, each of the four necks was subjected to five left-side tests and five right-side tests. The responses are summarized in Table 8 (frontal flexion) and Table 9 (lateral flexion). For the frontal flexion and lateral flexion tests, each individual neck provided ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ repeatability for all criteria considered. Reproducibility was also ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ for all four necks combined. Neck Torsion. During CRS testing, the Q3s neck may flex with varying degrees of neck twist. We have therefore developed a procedure to assure that the neck is repeatable under twist. The new neck torsion test uses a special test fixture attached to the Part 572 pendulum, which imparts a pure torsion moment to the isolated neck. The test specifies a 3.6 m/s impact speed with a defined deceleration pulse. Each of the four Q3s dummy necks was subjected to five left-side tests and five right-side tests. The responses are summarized in Table 10 with left- and right-side tests combined. Each individual neck provided ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ repeatability for all criteria considered. Reproducibility was also ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ for all four necks combined. TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF FRONTAL FLEXION NECK PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES Max angle Dummy S/N 004 .................................. 006 .................................. 007 .................................. 008 .................................. All .................................... angle deg Avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. Avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. Avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. Avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. Avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. Peak Y-moment time ms 77.1 0.42 0.55 77.5 0.74 0.96 74.3 0.79 1.07 74.8 0.69 0.92 76.1 1.77 2.33 moment N-m 58.5 0.62 1.06 59.3 0.84 1.42 58.3 0.70 1.20 57.9 0.65 1.12 58.7 1.12 1.90 Head rotation decay time, ms time ms 47.1 0.63 1.35 46.0 1.10 2.40 46.8 0.71 1.51 46.9 1.90 4.04 46.4 1.50 3.23 54.3 1.02 1.88 56.1 1.89 3.38 55.7 1.47 2.64 54.2 1.10 2.03 55.5 2.00 3.61 52.2 0.10 0.20 52.2 0.20 0.38 51.3 0.17 0.34 51.2 0.23 0.45 51.7 0.48 0.93 TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF LATERAL FLEXION NECK PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES Max angle Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 004 .................................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. 006 .................................. 007 .................................. 008 .................................. All .................................... angle deg Peak X-moment time ms 83.3 0.53 0.63 85.2 0.32 0.37 81.0 0.44 0.55 81.7 0.73 0.89 82.8 1.69 2.04 moment N-m 68.8 0.60 0.87 69.9 0.64 0.91 68.0 0.79 1.16 67.7 0.56 0.82 68.6 1.08 1.57 Head rotation decay time, ms time ms 28.4 1.48 5.23 28.8 0.82 2.84 27.7 0.59 2.14 27.9 0.71 2.53 28.2 1.05 3.72 69.5 0.78 1.13 70.6 0.55 0.77 69.4 0.90 1.29 68.8 0.70 1.02 69.6 0.98 1.41 66.6 0.53 0.79 66.8 0.68 1.01 65.5 0.60 0.92 65.8 0.87 1.32 66.2 0.86 1.30 TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF TORSIONAL NECK PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES Max angle tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 004 .................................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. 006 .................................. 007 .................................. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 angle deg Peak Z-moment time ms 84.9 0.39 0.46 89.7 0.53 0.59 80.7 1.22 1.51 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 moment N-m 102.3 0.51 0.50 108.4 0.52 0.48 98.7 0.60 0.61 Sfmt 4702 time ms 9.0 0.03 0.28 8.3 0.07 0.84 9.2 0.31 3.35 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 96.2 0.82 0.85 102.1 2.03 1.99 90.8 1.39 1.53 Head rotation decay time, ms 93.8 0.64 0.68 99.0 0.51 0.52 89.8 1.05 1.17 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69955 TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF TORSIONAL NECK PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES—Continued Max angle Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 008 .................................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. All .................................... Shoulder Impact This test assures that the shoulder acts uniformly in the way it deforms under load and distributes the load under a direct lateral impact, thus helping to assure that whole-body kinematics of the ATD are consistent. angle deg Peak Z-moment time ms 81.3 1.50 1.85 84.2 3.71 4.40 moment N-m 99.3 0.72 0.72 102.2 3.89 3.80 Shoulder tests consisted of a lateral impact to the shoulder using a 3.8 kg probe at an impact speed of 3.6 m/s. Each of the four Q3s dummies was impacted five times on both their left and right shoulders. The responses are summarized in Table 11 with left- and Head rotation decay time, ms time ms 9.0 0.08 0.84 8.9 0.37 4.21 91.9 0.78 0.85 95.2 4.64 4.87 90.9 0.77 0.84 93.4 3.62 3.88 right-side tests combined. The shoulder responses for each individual dummy were rated as having ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ repeatability. The reproducibility of shoulder responses for all four dummies combined was also rated as ‘‘EXCELLENT.’’ TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF SHOULDER TEST RESPONSES Shoulder displacement (mm) Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 004 .............................................................................. Avg ............................................................................. Stdev .......................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... Avg ............................................................................. Stdev .......................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... Avg ............................................................................. Stdev .......................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... Avg ............................................................................. Stdev .......................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... Avg ............................................................................. Stdev .......................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... 006 .............................................................................. 007 .............................................................................. 008 .............................................................................. All ................................................................................ Thorax Impacts The thorax qualification tests were conducted two ways: Without arm interaction (as in the SAE test) and with the arm attached and down such that the impact probe strikes the upper arm. Both tests utilized a lateral impact with a 3.8 kg probe. In the ‘‘thorax without arm’’ test, the arm was completely removed from the dummy. The 3.8 kg test probe was aligned with the thorax displacement IR–TRACC and impacted the thorax 18.4 0.47 2.57 19.0 0.35 1.84 18.8 0.46 2.46 18.6 0.83 4.48 18.7 0.58 3.12 Probe force (N) 1281.5 27.99 2.18 1270.3 12.91 1.02 1295.0 13.55 1.05 1280.1 10.75 0.84 1281.7 19.16 1.50 laterally at a speed of 3.3 m/s. Each of the agency’s four dummies was impacted five times on both the left and right sides. Table 12 below provides a summary of the responses with left- and right-side tests combined. TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF THORAX WITHOUT ARM QUALIFICATION TEST RESPONSES Thorax displacement (mm) Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 004 .............................................................................. avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 006 .............................................................................. 007 .............................................................................. 008 .............................................................................. All ................................................................................ VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 27.3 0.45 1.66 28.6 0.77 2.69 28.1 0.19 0.67 26.3 0.19 0.70 27.6 Probe force (N) 705.2 15.52 2.20 665.1 27.83 4.18 692.1 22.92 3.31 710.9 19.51 2.74 693.3 69956 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF THORAX WITHOUT ARM QUALIFICATION TEST RESPONSES—Continued Thorax displacement (mm) Orientation L&R Dummy S/N stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... For the ‘‘arm attached’’ test, the upper arm was positioned vertically and aligned with the dummy’s thorax. The lower arm was positioned to make a 90 degree angle with the upper arm. The impact speed of the probe was 5.0 m/ s. Each of the four test dummies was impacted five times on both the left and right sides. Table 13 provides a 1.00 3.63 Probe force (N) 27.63 3.99 summary of the test results with leftand right-side tests combined. TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF THORAX WITH ARM ATTACHED QUALIFICATION TEST RESPONSES Thorax displacement (mm) Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 004 .............................................................................. avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... 006 .............................................................................. 007 .............................................................................. 008 .............................................................................. All ................................................................................ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 For thorax impacts both with and without the arm, each dummy was rated as having ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ repeatability. Furthermore, the responses of all four dummies combined produced a rating of ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ reproducibility. Note that the peak probe force was taken after 5 ms to separate the probe’s initial inertial response during arm VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 contact from the probe’s response due to its interaction with the thorax. The typical probe force response curve exhibited dual peaks of nearly equal magnitude, with the first peak occurring upon initial impact of the probe with the arm and the second peak occurring as the arm loaded the thorax (see Figure PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 26.0 0.63 2.41 26.3 0.55 2.09 25.9 0.37 1.44 25.2 0.48 1.92 25.9 0.64 2.46 Peak probe force after 5 ms (N) 1527.5 28.58 1.87 1567.1 46.47 2.97 1512.7 60.32 3.99 1542.3 45.96 2.98 1537.4 49.28 3.21 1 below). Analysis of the response curves indicated that the first peak typically occurred before 5 ms, and the second peak occurred after 5 ms. Because the second peak is more closely related to the resistive force of the thorax, we concluded that the first peak was not determinative. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules Lumbar Pendulum Tests Lumbar testing consisted of two types of pendulum tests: A frontal test and a lateral test. For both tests, the lumbar spine element containing the flexible column was removed from the dummy similar to the neck qualification tests. Lumbar tests were conducted using the same Part 572 neck pendulum and the headform device utilized in the neck qualification tests. Frontal and lateral tests were conducted at an impact speed of 4.4 m/s. Five frontal tests were carried out on lumbar elements from each of the four test dummies. For the lateral tests, five were conducted on the left side and five on the right side. The results are 69957 summarized in Table 14 (frontal) and Table 15 (lateral) with left- and rightside tests combined. The repeatability of each lumbar element was rated as either ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ or ‘‘GOOD’’ for all test measurements. The reproducibility of responses of all four lumbar elements combined was ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ for all measurements. TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF FRONTAL LUMBAR PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES 004 .................................. 006 .................................. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 007 .................................. 008 .................................. All .................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 angle deg avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Peak Y-moment time ms 52.8 1.05 1.99 52.5 1.79 3.40 53.4 1.41 2.65 51.4 1.13 2.19 52.5 1.47 2.79 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 moment N-m 55.1 0.89 1.61 54.8 0.81 1.48 56.1 0.89 1.58 54.4 0.71 1.31 55.1 0.99 1.79 Sfmt 4702 84.2 1.46 1.74 87.1 0.85 0.97 84.2 1.38 1.64 88.5 2.21 2.49 86.0 2.39 2.78 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM Head rotation decay time, ms time ms 21NOP2 51.2 3.75 7.31 51.4 2.81 5.48 51.4 3.02 5.88 50.8 2.06 4.06 51.2 2.74 5.35 53.8 0.34 0.63 52.7 0.61 1.15 53.9 0.68 1.26 52.3 0.27 0.52 53.2 0.85 1.60 ep21no13.001</GPH> Max angle Dummy S/N 69958 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF LATERAL LUMBAR PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES Max angle Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 004 .................................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. avg ................................ stdev ............................. %CV .............................. 006 .................................. 007 .................................. 008 .................................. All .................................... Pelvis Impact A lateral impact with the 3.8 kg probe at 4.0 m/s was used to test the pelvis. Repeat tests were conducted according to the test procedures described in the technical report, ‘‘Qualification Procedures for the Q3s Child Side Impact Crash Test Dummy,’’ supra. For each dummy in the evaluation, NHTSA conducted five impacts to both the left and right side of the pelvis. A summary angle deg Peak X-moment time ms 52.7 1.58 3.01 53.5 2.05 3.82 51.7 1.75 3.39 54.2 1.51 2.79 53.0 1.93 3.63 moment N-m 54.3 1.47 2.71 54.6 1.30 2.38 54.5 1.13 2.07 55.6 1.04 1.88 54.7 1.29 2.36 of the test results can be found in Table 16 with left- and right-side tests combined. The repeatability of each individual dummy’s response was rated as ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ except for the peak pubic force response of dummy serial number 006, which was rated as ‘‘GOOD.’’ For this particular dummy, the pubic force was about 75 N higher for right side impacts than left side Head rotation decay time, ms time ms 86.2 2.23 2.59 89.2 3.01 3.38 88.4 2.57 2.91 86.7 3.26 3.76 87.6 2.96 3.38 50.2 3.75 7.47 51.1 2.38 4.67 52.7 2.74 5.20 51.2 2.29 4.47 51.3 2.89 5.63 53.4 0.88 1.66 52.8 0.83 1.56 54.8 2.17 3.96 51.6 2.07 4.01 53.1 1.94 3.66 impacts. For the other three dummies, the difference was only 50–60 N. Despite the differences, repeatability— when assessed by combining right and left impacts—only fell out of the ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ category for dummy serial number 006. When left and right impacts for all dummies were combined, reproducibility was rated as ‘‘EXCELLENT’’ for both the peak pubic force and the peak probe force. TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF PELVIS QUALIFICATION TEST RESPONSES Dummy S/N Orientation L&R 004 .............................................................................. avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... avg .............................................................................. stdev ........................................................................... %CV ........................................................................... 006 .............................................................................. 007 .............................................................................. 008 .............................................................................. All ................................................................................ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 VI. Qualification Tests This NPRM proposes a set of qualification tests for the Q3s. In general, Part 572 qualification tests assess the components that play a key role in the dummy’s performance in the intended regulatory application. The tests qualify the dummy as an objective and suitable test device for the assessment of occupant safety in VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 compliance tests specified in Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for other testing purposes. Performance within these corridors assures that the dummy is capable of responding properly in a compliance or research test, while performance outside of these corridors indicates the need for adjustment, repair or replacement. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Pubic force (N) 745.3 31.33 4.20 782.3 41.07 5.25 801.0 29.31 3.66 822.3 27.02 3.29 787.7 42.48 5.39 Probe force (N) 1651.0 22.78 1.38 1698.9 20.68 1.22 1679.1 25.59 1.52 1738.1 20.69 1.19 1691.8 38.71 2.29 a. Overview of Proposed Corridors Proposed qualification requirements for the Q3s are shown in Table 16. NHTSA has published a technical document, ‘‘Qualification Procedures for the Q3s Child Side Impact Crash Test Dummy (NHTSA, 2013),’’ describing the equipment, test set-ups and procedures. A copy of the report has been placed in the docket. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69959 TABLE 17—PROPOSED Q3S QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Test Measurement Head—Frontal ........... Head—Lateral ........... Neck—Flexion ........... Resultant acceleration ..................................................................... Resultant acceleration ..................................................................... Maximum rotation ............................................................................ Time of max rotation ........................................................................ Peak moment (My) .......................................................................... Time of peak My .............................................................................. Decay time to 0 from peak angle .................................................... Maximum rotation ............................................................................ Time of max rotation ........................................................................ Peak moment (Mx) .......................................................................... Time of peak Mx .............................................................................. Decay time to 0 from peak angle .................................................... Maximum rotation ............................................................................ Time of max rotation ........................................................................ Peak moment (Mz) .......................................................................... Time of peak Mz .............................................................................. Decay time to 0 from peak angle .................................................... Lateral displacement ........................................................................ Peak probe force ............................................................................. Lateral displacement ........................................................................ Peak probe force ............................................................................. Lateral displacement ........................................................................ Peak probe force ............................................................................. Maximum rotation ............................................................................ Time of max rotation ........................................................................ Peak moment (My) .......................................................................... Time of peak My .............................................................................. Decay time to 0 from peak angle .................................................... Maximum rotation ............................................................................ Time of max rotation ........................................................................ Peak moment (Mx) .......................................................................... Time of peak Mx .............................................................................. Decay time to 0 from peak angle .................................................... Peak pubic load ............................................................................... Peak probe force ............................................................................. Neck—Lateral ............ Neck—Torsion ........... Shoulder .................... Thorax with Arm ........ Thorax without Arm ... Lumbar—Flexion ....... Lumbar—Lateral ........ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Pelvis ......................... The bounds we have proposed for the qualification targets (the corridors) are wide enough to account for normal variations in dummy and laboratory differences, and narrow enough to assure consistent and repeatable measurements in compliance testing. Our proposed bounds are based on tests conducted at a single laboratory, NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC). The data were collected using four Q3s units. For each measurement, performance targets were derived using either ±3 standard deviations from the mean or 10 percent from the mean, whichever is narrower. Upper and lower bounds were rounded to the next whole number away from the mean using three significant digits. We recognize that from a probabilistic standpoint, three standard deviations is an unusually wide bound. A bound of 10 percent around a target is typical of most Part 572 ATD qualifications. Our reason for initially setting the bounds to be wide for this NPRM stem from a current lack of test data for the Q3s.28 28 For other Part 572 ATDs, we set qualification bounds by examining data from multiple test labs, several dummies, and dummies built by different VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Units Given that all Q3s qualification data were collected from a single laboratory (VRTC), we could not factor into account unknown variability associated with different labs, operators, dummies, and other allowable variances such as temperature and humidity that may not be present in our dataset. We will continue to collect qualification data, and we will examine all qualification data provided to us by commenters. We anticipate that when new qualification data are combined with our current set of data, in a final rule our bounds will be narrowed as reasonably possible and may be no greater than two standard deviations. b. Rationale for the Tests The technical document cited earlier in this preamble, ‘‘Evaluation of the Q3s Three Year-Old Child Side Impact Dummy, Repeatability, Reproducibility, dummy manufacturers. For example, the qualification bounds for the HIII–10C (the most recent test dummy to be incorporated into part 572) were derived from tests on about 30 different dummies, with data supplied from about 10 different laboratories. On average, the bound widths for the HIII–10C are about 10% of the mean, with a low of 7.4% and a high of 16.3%. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Corridor G G deg msec N-m msec msec deg msec N-m msec msec deg msec N-m msec msec mm kN mm kN mm N deg msec N-m msec msec deg msec N-m msec msec N kN 250–297 113–140 70–82 55–63 41–51 49–62 50–54 77–88 65–72 25–32 66–73 63–69 75–93 91–113 8–10 85–105 84–103 16–21 1.24–1.35 23–28 1.38–1.69 24–31 620–770 48–57 52–59 78–94 46–57 50–56 47–59 50–59 78–97 46–57 47–59 700–870 1.57–1.81 and Durability,’’ discusses how the agency’s four Q3s units conform to the qualification requirements. This report also discusses our rationale for the tests and proposed response requirements needed to qualify the Q3s. For each test, the impact energy level and the selection of the targeted measurements were chosen by balancing multiple criteria, as described below. Dummy Functionality For each test, certain dummy sensors and signal characteristics (such as the magnitude and timing) have been specified as qualification targets. By monitoring these sensors, the qualification tests assure that the dummy is functioning properly. Loose or damaged dummy hardware is often manifested in a signal that does not conform to the qualification requirements, thus alerting test technicians that dummy maintenance may be needed. Conformity also assures that the sensors themselves are working properly. Test protocols are also designed to properly demonstrate dummy functionality by mirroring dummy loading patterns seen in CRS sled tests E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69960 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules conducted in support of the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test under consideration. For example, we have observed the Q3s undergoing asymmetric motion as the dummy simultaneously moves forward and laterally. In doing so, the motion of the dummy is such that it may twist itself around the edge of the CRS so that the head may strike the door panel near its forehead. The degree to which the dummy wraps around the seat can vary widely depending upon the design of the CRS. Thus, we have included separate frontal and lateral qualification requirements for the head. We have also included separate requirements for the neck and lumbar spine elements of the dummy, which are flexible rubber components that experience both frontal and lateral flexion during a CRS test. Additionally, a torsion test is prescribed for the neck since the neck also twists along its long axis to some degree. For the shoulder, thorax, and pelvis, we believe that only pure lateral qualification requirements are needed, since almost all loads pass through their lateral aspects even in cases where the dummy twists within the CRS during testing. Assure Biofidelity Many of the qualification test protocols are very similar to the dynamic tests used to assess biofidelity. This helps to assure that a qualified dummy is also a biofidelic dummy. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Sufficient Energy The impact speeds and probe masses have been selected to demonstrate that the various body segments of the Q3s are working properly at energy levels at or near those associated with injury thresholds. These include pass/fail thresholds that we are considering for the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test. For measurements not associated with IARVs, such as the neck torsion requirement, the energy levels are chosen to be consistent with high-end responses observed in CRS testing. In general, the energy level is chosen to exercise the dummy but without causing damage. Proven Soundness of Part 572 To the extent possible, we have based the proposed test protocols and devices on qualification tests set forth for other test dummies in Part 572. The qualification tests have been proven reliable and sound in qualifying NHTSA’s other test dummies. Moreover, using the same basic tests minimizes the amount of new qualification equipment VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 needed by test laboratories that may already have such equipment in place for qualifying other ATDs. c. New and Modified Part 572 Tests and Equipment This NPRM proposes only one new test not found elsewhere in Part 572, a method to assure the functionality of the Q3s neck under torsion. This is a fairly simple procedure added to assure that the neck is repeatable under twist. The test involves the use of a special test fixture attached to the Part 572 pendulum which imparts a pure torsion moment to the isolated neck. Additionally, a few minor changes to established Part 572 protocol and equipment have been introduced to improve the ease and consistency of the qualification tests. The pendulum probe used to qualify the Q3s is specified to be 3.81 kg, which is about twice as large as the 1.70 kg probe used for the HIII– 3C, Subpart P qualifications (Hybrid III 3-year-old child test dummy used for frontal testing). This probe was chosen to enable the same probe to be used for all Q3s qualification tests that use a probe. The heavier probe allows a range of reasonable test speeds to be used to attain the desired response level. Tests speeds range from 3.6 m/s (shoulder impact) up to 5.0 m/s (thorax with arm). In contrast, the test speed for the thorax test of the HIII–3C with the lighter probe is 6.0 m/s. We have also proposed a new test instrument for the flexion tests of the neck and the lumbar spine. These tests measure relative rotation by means of two angular rate sensors (ARSs). The ARSs that we specify represent a relatively new technology. For similar tests with all other Part 572 dummies, relative rotation is measured using a system of rotary potentiometers and a linking rod. Because the potentiometer system is mounted off-axis, it creates an asymmetry that can create problems with a small dummy like the Q3s. We are concerned that the added mass and inertia of a potentiometer system can introduce twisting of the head simulator, which may affect the accuracy of the measurements. ARS units, on the other hand, are lightweight and compact. They do not require a connecting rod and they can be mounted very near to the headform’s axis of symmetry so that their propensity to twist during a test due to the added mass is greatly reduced. Furthermore, throughout our testing of the Q3s the angular rate sensors have been observed to produce very accurate measures of rotation. We tentatively conclude that use of the ARS units in PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 this application would be an improvement over potentiometers. d. Proposed Test Specifications and Performance Requirements NHTSA proposes the following performance specifications for the head in drop tests, and for the neck, shoulder, thorax, lumbar spine, and pelvis in pendulum tests. Performance requirements in the lateral direction must be met by carrying out the tests in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. For example, if the dummy is to be used in an impact to the left side of a CRS, qualification tests on the left aspect of the dummy’s head, neck, shoulder, thorax, lumber spine, and pelvis are carried out. The fore-aft performance requirements for the head, neck, and lumbar spine must be met for all impact tests. That is, in addition to the lateral tests, the fore-aft tests are conducted on the ATD regardless of which side of the CRS is tested. Head Drop Tests The correct kinematic response of the head-neck system is of substantial importance to quantify the protection offered by CRSs in terms of head motion and acceleration during an impact. This test serves to assure the uniformity of the impact response. Head qualification consists of two test components: Frontal and lateral head drops. The frontal head drop is conducted from a height of 376 mm, while the lateral head drop is conducted at 200 mm. The head must respond with peak resultant acceleration between: 250 g and 297 g when dropped from 376 mm height such that the forehead lands onto a flat rigid surface; and between 113 g and 140 g when dropped from a 200 mm height such that the side of the head lands onto a flat rigid surface. Neck Pendulum Test We believe that a repeatable kinematic response of the head-neck system is important to quantify the protection offered by CRSs in terms of limiting head excursion and head acceleration in both a head impact and a non-impact situation. Under the CRS test protocol under consideration by the agency, the primary kinematic motion of the head is in the lateral direction, but the head also twists and turns in other directions to a lesser extent. Given the importance of head motion, we believe a full set of neck qualification requirements is warranted to assure uniformity. Therefore, our proposed neck qualification consists of three test components: Frontal flexion, lateral E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules For the ‘‘arm attached’’ test, the upper arm is positioned vertically and aligned with the dummy’s thorax. The lower arm is positioned to make a 90 degree angle with the upper arm. The loading of the ribcage goes through the arm. The impact speed of the probe is 5.0 m/s. This test assures uniformity of the arm in the way it absorbs energy and interacts with the thorax under a direct lateral impact. The thorax exposed to a pendulum impact: • At 3.3 m/s, without arm, is to exhibit a peak thorax deflection between 24 mm and 31 mm, and a peak resistance force between 620 N and 770 N; and, • at 5.0 m/s, with arm attached, is to exhibit a peak thorax deflection between 23 mm and 28 mm, and a peak resistance force between 1,380 N and 1,690 N occurring after 5 ms from time zero. As explained previously, the peak probe force is taken after 5 ms to separate the probe’s initial inertial response during arm contact from its response due to its interaction with the thorax. The net effect of recording the peak probe force after 5 ms is the elimination of the first peak. Shoulder Impact Test Though injury assessment is not generally associated with the shoulder, the way the shoulder absorbs energy can affect the overall kinematics of the dummy. This test assures that the shoulder acts uniformly in the way it distributes the load under a direct lateral impact. The shoulder exposed to a pendulum impact at 3.6 m/s is to exhibit a peak shoulder deflection between 16 mm and 21 mm, and a peak resistance force between 1,240 N and 1,350 N. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 flexion, and torsion neck pendulum tests. The neck would have to allow the headform to articulate in pendulum tests at: • 4.7 m/s in frontal flexion, at between 70 degrees and 82 degrees occurring between 55 ms and 63 ms from time zero and decaying back to the zero angle between 50 ms and 54 ms after the peak rotation; the value of the maximum moment must be between 41 N-m and 51 N-m occurring between 49 ms and 62 ms from time zero, • 3.8 m/s in lateral flexion, at between 77 degrees and 88 degrees occurring between 65 ms and 72 ms from time zero and decaying back to the zero angle between 63 ms and 69 ms after the peak rotation; the value of the maximum moment must be between 25 N-m and 32 N-m occurring between 66 ms and 73 ms from time zero, and • 3.6 m/s in torsion, at between 75 degrees and 93 degrees occurring between 91 ms and 113 ms from time zero and decaying back to the zero angle between 84 ms and 103 ms after the peak rotation; the value of the maximum moment must be between 8 N-m and 10 N-m occurring between 84 ms and 103 ms from time zero. Lumbar Tests Thorax Impact Tests The thorax qualification tests are very similar to the SAE test used to assess lateral thorax biofidelity. For qualification, however, the test is conducted two ways: Without arm interaction (as in the SAE test) and with the arm attached such that the impact probe strikes the upper arm. Both tests utilize a lateral impact with a 3.8 kg probe. The thorax ‘‘without arm’’ test assures uniformity of the thorax structure, including its mount to the spine, and its response to a direct impact in terms of rib deflection. The arm is completely removed from the dummy. The 3.8 kg test probe is aligned with the thorax displacement IR–TRACC and impacts the thorax laterally at a speed of 3.3 m/s. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 The rubber lumbar column bends to some extent during a CRS side impact test. This bending might affect the overall kinematics of the dummy, including the excursion of the head. It could also affect lateral loads and the deflection of the thorax. We believe that this rubber element can be a source of variability, so we have included a qualification test to assure the uniformity and integrity of this component. Lumbar testing would consist of two types of pendulum tests: A frontal test and a lateral test. For both tests, the lumbar spine element containing the flexible column is removed from the dummy, similar to the neck qualification tests. Lumbar tests are conducted using the same Part 572 neck pendulum and headform device utilized in the neck qualification tests. In the case of lumbar qualification, the headform is not intended to represent the inertial properties of any particular body region, but merely provides an apparatus that helps to ensure a repeatable test condition. The frontal and lateral pendulum tests are conducted at the same impact speed of 4.4 m/s and specify the same pendulum impulse. We propose that the lumbar spine must allow the headform to articulate: PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 69961 • In frontal flexion, at not less than between 48 degrees and 57 degrees occurring between 52 ms and 59 ms from time zero and decaying back to zero angle between 50 ms and 56 ms after the peak rotation; the value of the maximum moment must be between 78 N-m and 94 N-m occurring between 46 ms and 57 ms from time zero; and, • in lateral flexion, at not less than between 47 degrees and 59 degrees occurring between 50 ms and 59 ms from time zero and decaying back to zero angle between 47 ms and 59 ms after the peak rotation; the value of the maximum moment must be between 78 N-m and 97 N-m occurring between 46 ms and 57 ms from time zero. Pelvis Impact A lateral impact with the 3.8 kg probe at 4.0 m/s is used to test the pelvis. This test protocol is very similar to the SAE biofidelity test. The pelvis exposed to a pendulum impact at 4.0 m/s is to exhibit a peak pubic load between 700 N and 870 N, and a peak force measured by the pendulum between 1570 N and 1810 N. Other We have not included a qualification test aimed specifically at the Q3s abdomen. We tentatively believe that any non-uniformity in stiffness due to the absence of a qualification requirement for the abdomen would have an insignificant effect on the overall kinematics of the dummy in a side impact test. Also, the abdomen of the Q3s is uninstrumented and is thus not generally used to assess injury potential in a side impact. Nevertheless, comments are requested on the need for a qualification test for the abdomen. The abdomen is made of a high density, compressible foam material, whose compressive characteristics can vary from one abdomen to another and whose properties can change with aging and other factors. We request comments on an abdominal test protocol similar to that which we used to assess the biofidelity of the Q3s abdomen. VII. Durability No durability problems arose with the Q3s dummies in any of the sled tests or component tests. a. High-Energy Component Tests We also conducted high-energy component tests to assess durability and no durability problems arose in those. In these tests, we raised the kinetic energy of the impact to levels that exposed the dummy to loading conditions slightly greater than those that might be E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69962 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules expected in the dummy’s regulatory application. High-energy tests were conducted for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax (with and without arm), lumbar, and pelvis. As discussed below, we found no damage to the dummy’s structural components or instrumentation. High-Energy Head Drop Tests We performed frontal and lateral head drop tests using the qualification test setup procedures, except the drop heights were increased to achieve kinetic energy increases of 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent, as compared to the standard qualification test. Frontal head drop responses are summarized in Table 18. The peak resultant head acceleration at 30 percent increased energy was 318.5 g. This impact resulted in a HIC15 value of 1732.5, which is well above the proposed injury criterion limit of 700 and demonstrates the severity of the test. Post-test inspection of the head revealed no structural damage to the synthetic skull material or to the vinyl skin. Lateral head drop responses are summarized in Table 19. For the most severe condition, the peak resultant head acceleration was 146.6 g. No structural damage of the head was observed in the post-test inspection of the head assembly. TABLE 18—HIGH-ENERGY FRONTAL HEAD DROP TEST RESPONSES Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Test No. Baseline ....................................................................................................................................... 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 3 ................................................................................................................................................... Drop height (mm) 0 10 20 30 376 414 451 489 Peak resultant accel (g) 265.5 284.6 304.4 318.5 TABLE 19—HIGH-ENERGY LATERAL HEAD DROP TEST RESPONSES Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Test No. Baseline ....................................................................................................................................... 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 3 ................................................................................................................................................... High-Energy Neck Pendulum Tests We conducted frontal, lateral, and torsional neck pendulum tests at the increased impact speeds. Tests were conducted according to the qualification procedures, except for the increase in impact speeds. Frontal Flexion Tests. The results of the high-energy frontal neck flexion tests are summarized in Table 20. Three repeat tests were run at 5.5 m/s. This speed represents a 34 percent increase in energy over the qualification speed. We chose this condition because it is consistent with the test protocol used to qualify the HIII–3C (a frontal impact dummy). We found no signs of damage or unusual wear to the Q3s neck or neck cable at the elevated speed. The response curves were smooth, indicating that no unusual contact occurred during the tests. The tests also demonstrate that the Q3s neck would be repeatable if the dummy were used in a frontal impact mode. Lateral Flexion Tests. The results of the high-energy lateral neck flexion tests are summarized in Table 21. Drop height (mm) 0 10 20 30 200 220 240 260 Peak resultant accel (g) 121.5 127.3 141.6 146.6 Incremental tests were run at impact speeds needed to achieve increases in kinetic energy of 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent. In all cases, the response signals were smooth with no indication of damage. Torsion Tests. The high-energy neck torsion tests were also run at impact speeds needed to achieve energy increases of 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent. The responses are summarized in Table 22. In all cases, the response signals were smooth with no indication of damage. TABLE 20—FRONTAL FLEXION NECK PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Test No. Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Baseline ....................... 1 ................................... 2 ................................... 3 ................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Max angle Impact speed, m/s 0 34 34 34 Jkt 232001 4.7 5.5 5.5 5.5 PO 00000 Frm 00020 angle deg time ms 74.0 78.8 80.1 79.4 Fmt 4701 Peak Y-moment Sfmt 4702 moment N-m 58.2 55.9 55.4 57.0 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 44.9 62.3 66.0 63.2 21NOP2 time ms 54.1 53.0 52.7 53.2 Head rotation decay time, m/s 51.5 48.0 47.7 47.6 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69963 TABLE 21—LATERAL FLEXION NECK PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Test No. baseline ........................ 1 ................................... 2 ................................... 3 ................................... Max angle Impact speed, m/s 0 10 20 30 angle deg 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.3 Peak Y-moment moment N-m time ms 80.9 82.3 85.1 86.8 68.7 68.9 67.2 66.8 Head rotation decay time, m/s time ms 26.9 27.1 31.9 34.3 70.2 70.1 66.8 66.3 64.8 65.5 63.2 62.3 TABLE 22—NECK TORSION PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Test No. baseline .................................................... 1 ............................................................... 2 ............................................................... 3 ............................................................... Impact speed angle 0 10 20 30 High-Energy Shoulder Impact Tests The agency conducted shoulder impacts according to the qualification test setup procedures, except the impact speeds were increased to achieve increases in kinetic energy of 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.1 time moment time Head rotation decay time Deg m/s Max angle Peak Z-Moment Ms N-m ms ms 80.9 83.3 83.8 87.4 99.5 102.9 101.5 103.1 approximately 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent as compared to the qualification test. Table 23 provides a summary of the responses for the highenergy shoulder impact tests. At the 30 percent increased energy level, the peak lateral shoulder deflection was 20.4 mm 9.35 9.35 9.40 9.73 92.1 95.5 95.0 96.9 88.7 91.7 91.2 91.0 and the response curve was smooth, indicating that the shoulder string pot did not reach its maximum allowable stroke. The peak probe force was 1450 N. Post-test inspections revealed no structural damage to the dummy or instrumentation. TABLE 23—HIGH-ENERGY SHOULDER IMPACT TEST RESPONSES Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Test No. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 baseline ............................................................................................ 1 ....................................................................................................... 2 ....................................................................................................... 3 ....................................................................................................... High-Energy Thorax Impact Tests We conducted high-energy thorax impact tests with and without the arm. We followed the set-up procedures used in the qualification tests, except we increased the probe impact speeds to supply a corresponding increase in the kinetic energy. For the ‘‘with arm’’ tests, we conducted one impact at 20 percent increased kinetic energy and two at a 30 percent increase. Table 24 summarizes the responses for the high-energy thorax with arm impacts. The highest lateral thorax displacement was 28.7 mm and the response curve was smooth. Posttest inspections demonstrated that no damage occurred to any portion of the dummy’s torso. For the thorax ‘‘without arm’’ test condition (Table 25), because thorax VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Impact speed (m/s) 0.0 10 20 30 durability was a concern with earlier versions of the Q3s, we conducted tests at higher severity levels to provide a rigorous assessment of the durability of the thorax. For the thorax ‘‘without arm’’ test condition, we conducted an impact at 50 percent increased kinetic energy and another impact at a 70 percent increase. No structural damage was observed during post-test inspections of the dummy’s thorax and IR–TRACC displacement transducer. In addition, for the thorax ‘‘without arm’’ test condition, we conducted tests at increased severity levels to assess further the durability of the IR–TRACC device. The maximum allowable lateral thorax displacement before damage occurs to the IR–TRACC displacement measurement device is approximately 40 mm. Considering this physical PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Shoulder displacement (mm) 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.1 17.6 19.7 20.1 20.4 Probe force (N) 1269 1348 1443 1450 limitation, we increased the probe impact speed until the lateral displacement approached 38 mm. We found that the impact speed corresponding to roughly 38 mm of displacement was 4.4 m/s (approximately an 80 percent increase in kinetic energy). Accordingly, we conducted two additional impact tests at that speed. For the three tests conducted at 80 percent increased kinetic energy, the lateral thorax displacement ranged from 37.1–37.9 mm and the response curves were smooth, indicating that the transducer did not exceed its maximum allowable stroke. No structural damage was observed during post-test inspections of the dummy’s thorax and IR–TRACC displacement transducer. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69964 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 24—HIGH-ENERGY THORAX WITH ARM IMPACT TEST RESPONSES Test No. Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Impact speed (m/s) baseline ............................................................................................ 1 ....................................................................................................... 2 ....................................................................................................... 3 ....................................................................................................... 0 20 30 ............................ 5.0 5.5 5.7 ............................ Thorax displacement (mm) Probe force (N) 25.0 27.0 28.3 28.7 1526 1663 1625 1652 TABLE 25—HIGH-ENERGY THORAX WITHOUT ARM IMPACT TEST RESPONSES Test No. Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Impact speed (m/s) baseline ............................................................................................ 1 ....................................................................................................... 2 ....................................................................................................... 3 ....................................................................................................... 4 ....................................................................................................... 5 ....................................................................................................... 0 50 70 80 ............................ ............................ 3.3 4.0 4.3 4.4 ............................ ............................ High-Energy Lumbar Pendulum Tests We conducted high-energy frontal and lateral lumbar pendulum tests according to the qualification test set-up procedures, except the impact speeds were increased. For frontal pendulum tests, the impact energy was increased up to approximately 30 percent greater than the qualification test, while lateral tests were increased up to approximately 40 percent greater than the qualification test. The frontal test results are summarized in Table 26 and the lateral results are summarized in Table 27. The Thorax displacement (mm) Probe force (N) 26.0 32.8 36.2 37.9 37.3 37.1 732 784 772 799 814 815 lumbar moment and rotation responses did not indicate any unusual issues with the lumbar spine element or load cell in either of the test conditions. No damage or delamination was observed in post-test inspections of the lumbar components. TABLE 26—HIGH-ENERGY FRONTAL LUMBAR PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Test No. Baseline ............................................................................. 1 ......................................................................................... 2 ......................................................................................... Max angle Impact speed, m/s 0 20 30 4.4 4.8 5.0 Angle deg 53.3 57.5 60.3 Peak Y-moment Time ms Moment N-m 56.6 56.8 57.5 85.7 88.6 95.6 Time ms 53.9 51.9 53.5 Head rotation decay time, ms 54.2 55.0 55.0 TABLE 27—HIGH-ENERGY LATERAL LUMBAR PENDULUM TEST RESPONSES Energy increase (nominal) (percent) Test No. Baseline ............................................................................. 1 ......................................................................................... 2 ......................................................................................... 3 ......................................................................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 High-Energy Pelvis Impact Tests We conducted high-energy pelvis impacts in accordance with the qualification test set-up procedures, except we increased impact speeds to achieve increases in kinetic energy of VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Max angle Impact speed, m/s 0 20 30 40 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.2 Angle deg 53.9 59.0 60.7 62.9 approximately 15 percent, 40 percent, and 55 percent. The responses for the high-energy pelvis impact tests are summarized in Table 28. At the highest energy level, the lateral pubic load was 1057 N (well beyond the 450 N maximum observed in the Cozy Cline PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Peak Y-moment Time ms Moment N-m 56.0 57.3 57.4 56.6 83.5 95.7 100.8 107.7 Time ms 50.3 54.0 54.0 53.3 Head rotation decay time, ms 49.2 54.0 54.0 53.3 R&R series) and the probe force was 2357 N. Analysis of the lateral pubic load response revealed a smooth curve, indicating no unusual contact internal to the dummy. No damage to the pelvis region was observed during post-test inspections. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69965 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 28—HIGH-ENERGY PELVIS IMPACT TEST RESPONSES Energy Increase (nominal) (percent) Test No. baseline .................................................................................................................................................. 1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 ............................................................................................................................................................. b. Q3s Servicing and Maintenance In our experience with other Part 572 ATDs, deformable parts typically have the shortest service lives. The two most often replaced parts are the ribcage and the molded neck. For example, we have found the typical service life for HIII– 10C rib sets and neck assemblies to be about thirty sled tests. Vinyl flesh materials—particularly the chest flesh— are also replaced on a recurring basis as they become aged, abraded, or torn. NHTSA owns four Q3s units of the final Build Level D version, which include the updated parts to improve the durability of the thorax, neck, and pelvis. There have been no durability problems with the ATDs since they have been upgraded to the latest build level. Given the record of low maintenance to our own Q3s units, we consider the dummy to be highly suitable for proposed use in FMVSS No. 213 in terms of its durability. Our records indicate that we have had relatively few instances of Q3s part replacements of any sort. VIII. Drawings and Patents Throughout the notice and comment period of this Part 572 rulemaking, the Q3s dummy will be available from Humanetics. The Q3s engineering drawings used to fabricate the dummy are available in the docket for public review and comment. The Q3s engineering drawings are a proprietary product owned by Humanetics,29 with the exceptions noted in this section. Thus, during the comment period most drawings will display the Humanetics name in the title block and will have the following restrictive note: This drawing is the sole property of Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. and is being provided to NHTSA and other related organizations for evaluation and comment related to NHTSA’s rulemaking process. Except for commenting purposes pursuant to this process, the drawing shall not be copied or used for any other purpose without the written consent of Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. For the final rule, the note will be removed and the dummy drawings and designs will be free from any restrictions. This includes their use in fabrication and in building computer simulation models of the dummy. During this comment period, some drawings will not have the Humanetics name in the title block and will not have the restrictive note on them. In these cases, NHTSA contracted with Humanetics to provide the part or expressly contributed to the design of the part. As described earlier in this preamble, Humanetics fabricated the Impact speed (m/s) 0.0 15 40 55 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.0 Pubic force (N) 796 843 1001 1057 Probe force (N) 1712 1896 2209 2357 Build Level D neck using detailed specifications provided by NHTSA. These specifications included detailed engineering drawings and a prototype of the neck itself. In addition, NHTSA also contributed to the design of the femur, hip, and several other minor parts of the dummy. The list of drawings related to those agency’s efforts is shown in Table 29. On these drawings, the NHTSA name appears in the title block and the restrictive note does not appear. These drawings are available to the public for use during this NPRM stage without restriction. NHTSA is aware that Humanetics has filed a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office covering certain parts of the Q3s dummy. Prior to the publication of any final rule, NHTSA plans to meet with Humanetics and come to some agreement that ensures the continued availability of the Q3s dummy to the general public at a reasonable price. Notwithstanding the intellectual property issues identified in this section, NHTSA emphasizes that readers should take this opportunity to review the information provided in this NPRM and provide responses on the substantive aspects of the proposal. TABLE 29—LIST OF Q3S DRAWINGS FOR WHICH NO RESTRICTIVE NOTE APPEARS tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Drawing No. 020–2400 020–2401 020–2402 020–2403 020–2404 020–2405 020–2406 020–2407 020–2408 020–2409 020–9611 020–9511 020–9607 Description .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. Neck assembly, Q3s ............................................................................................ Molded neck, Q3s ................................................................................................ Neck plate, top Q3s ............................................................................................. Neck plate, middle, Q3s ....................................................................................... Neck plate, bottom, Q3s ...................................................................................... Retaining ring, Q3s neck ..................................................................................... Square crimp, Q3s neck ...................................................................................... Bottom crimp, Q3s neck cable ............................................................................. Neck cable assembly, Q3s .................................................................................. Retaining nut, Q3s neck ...................................................................................... Femur, Right ........................................................................................................ Femur, Left ........................................................................................................... Femur reinforcement, Right ................................................................................. 29 FTSS/Humanetics’ development of the Q3s dummy was not performed directly under a government research and development contract. NHTSA procured its Q3s units under a standard purchase order in which the FTSS/Humanetics products were listed within a catalog with a price VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Used on schedule. Using this same purchase mechanism, our units were periodically sent back to FTSS/ Humanetics for warranty maintenance and upgrades. As we performed subsequent tests on our Q3s units, we routinely shared our results with FTSS/Humanetics, and concurrently reported them PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 020–2400 020–2400 020–2400 020–2400 020–2400 020–2400 020–2400 020–2400 020–2400 020–2400 020–9616 020–9516 020–9616 in public and in SAE and ISO committee meetings, providing test results, identifying problems, and suggesting ways to correct problems. FTSS/ Humanetics produced parts based on this information, and periodically provided new components to NHTSA for evaluation. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69966 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 29—LIST OF Q3S DRAWINGS FOR WHICH NO RESTRICTIVE NOTE APPEARS—Continued Drawing No. 020–9507 020–3537 020–9903 020–7116 020–7113 020–7115 020–7114 020–7117 020–7118 020–7103 020–7104 020–9000 020–9001 020–9002 020–9003 020–9004 020–9005 Description .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. Femur reinforcement, Left .................................................................................... Ball shoulder ........................................................................................................ End stop ............................................................................................................... Hip joint assembly, Right ..................................................................................... Hip joint assembly, Left ........................................................................................ Hip cup assembly, Right ...................................................................................... Hip cup assembly, Left ........................................................................................ Hip cup, upper ...................................................................................................... Hip cup, lower ...................................................................................................... Detent peg ............................................................................................................ Spring retainer plate ............................................................................................. Q3s positioning tool ............................................................................................. Indicator arm ........................................................................................................ Extension bracket ................................................................................................. Cross beam .......................................................................................................... Knee spacer ......................................................................................................... Pivot screw ........................................................................................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 IX. Consideration of Alternatives We considered the merits of alternative test dummies for use in the side impact test under consideration for FMVSS No. 213. The closest viable alternatives were the modified Hybrid III 3-year-old child test dummy (HIII– 3C) and the Q3. Consideration of the Modified HIII–3C (‘‘3Cs’’) The HIII–3C was originally developed in 1992. It is used in FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ to evaluate air bag aggressiveness or air bag suppression when a child is close to a deploying air bag, and in FMVSS No. 213’s frontal sled test for the evaluation of child restraint performance. The HIII– 3C was not designed for lateral impacts. Under lateral loading, the shoulder and torso exhibit highly stiff behavior and do not fully replicate a child’s kinematics. NHTSA considered using the HIII–3C in the 2002 FMVSS No. 213 ANPRM published in response to the TREAD Act (see footnote 4, supra), but concluded that the ATD was not acceptable for use in side impact testing. After the agency assessed the HIII–3C in side impacts, NHTSA developed a retrofit package for the dummy to install a new head and neck with better lateral biofidelity. The retrofitted dummy is referred to as the ‘‘3Cs.’’ NHTSA evaluated the 3Cs and the Q3s concurrently. Based on our biofidelity evaluations, the 3Cs did not achieve nearly as good a ranking as the Q3s. The technical report, ‘‘Biofidelity Assessment of the Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Side Impact Dummy,’’ supra, discusses the performance of the two ATDs. The Q3s outperformed or is equivalent to the 3Cs in every aspect of biofidelity related to a dummy’s response in a side impact. Given the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 Used on superior biofidelity of the Q3s, we believe that it more accurately represents the response expected of a human child. In addition, the Q3s has thorax deflection instrumentation, which the 3Cs does not. We tentatively conclude that the Q3s is a better dummy than the 3Cs to measure injury assessment values in side impacts and is a preferable ATD for use in the proposed side impact upgrade to FMVSS No. 213. Consideration of the Q3 As discussed in section II of this preamble, the design of the Q3s was derived from the original Q3 dummy developed by the European community. The Q3 is intended for use in frontal, side, and rear impacts. Around the same time Humanetics was working to bring the Q3s up to production level, the Q3 underwent a significant design revision. Starting in 2003, a ‘‘new’’ Q3 took shape. Many of the new design concepts included in the Q3s were also built into the Q3 as Humanetics worked concurrently on both dummies (e.g., thorax string potentiometers were replaced by IR– TRACCs in both dummies). Still, as reported by the European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (Wismans, et al., 2008), the new Q3 does not respond well in lateral biofidelity tests. Furthermore, the thorax of the new Q3 has become even less biofidelic than the original. Therefore, NHTSA does not consider the Q3 preferable to the Q3s. Conclusion The agency tentatively concludes that the improved biofidelity and additional injury assessment capability of the Q3s compared to the other commercially available child side impact test dummies supports a decision to adopt PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 020–9516 020–9616, 020–9616, 020–7116 020–7113 020–7116, 020–7116, 020–7116, 020–7116, 020–7116, 020–7116, 020–9000 020–9000 020–9000 020–9000 020–9000 020–9000 020–9516 020–9516 020–7113 020–7113 020–7113 020–7113 020–7113 020–7113 the Q3s into 49 CFR Part 572. The Q3s dummy is a state-of-the-art device that would allow for a better assessment of the risk of injury to child occupants than the alternative test dummies. The availability of Q3s’s injury measuring capability also is important to the design, development and evaluation of the side impact protection of child restraint systems. The Q3s test dummy is available today, and has been thoroughly evaluated for suitable reproducibility and repeatability of results. X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures NHTSA has considered the impacts of this regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. This rulemaking action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. The rulemaking has also been determined to be non-significant under DOT’s regulatory policies and procedures. This document would amend 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for a test dummy representative of a 3-year-old child that the agency would possibly use in FMVSS No. 213 side impact compliance tests and possibly for research purposes. This Part 572 proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone. Businesses are affected only if they choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. Because the economic impacts of this proposed rule are minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary. There are benefits associated with this rulemaking but they cannot be quantified. The incorporation of the test dummy into 49 CFR Part 572 would E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 enable NHTSA to use the ATD in a new dynamic side impact test that we are considering adopting into FMVSS No. 213. Adoption of side impact protection requirements in FMVSS No. 213 enhances child passenger safety and accords with MAP–21. In addition, the availability of this dummy in a regulated format would be beneficial by providing a suitable, stabilized, and objective test tool to the safety community for use in better protecting children in side impacts. The cost of an uninstrumented Q3s dummy is approximately $48,750. The minimum set of instrumentation needed for qualification and compliance type testing includes three uni-axial accelerometers (part no. SA572–S4), one neck/spine load cell (SA572–S8), one shoulder potentiometer set (SA572–S38 and S39), one single axis IR–TRACC (SA572–S37), and one pubic load cell (SA572–S7). The cost of this instrumentation adds approximately $18,200 for a total cost of about $66,950. We have not estimated the costs of the equipment needed to perform the qualification tests other than the instrumentation needed (two angular rate sensors, $1,230 apiece; one test probe accelerometer, $500; one rotary potentiometer, $500.) With the exception of the neck torsion fixture, the angular rate sensors, and the 3.8 kg test probe, all fixtures and instruments are common with those used to qualify other Part 572 dummies. We recognize that dummy refurbishments and part replacements are an inherent part of ATD testing. Various parts will likely have to be refurbished or replaced, but we do not know which parts are likely to be worked on the most. However, since the dummies are designed to be reusable, costs of the dummies and of parts can be amortized over a number of tests. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the addition of the test dummy to Part 572 would not impose any requirements on anyone. NHTSA would use the ATD in agency testing but would not require anyone to manufacture the dummy or to test motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment with it. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Executive Order 13045 and 13132 (Federalism) Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. NHTSA has examined today’s proposed 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 proposed rule would not have federalism implications because the proposed rule would not have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ This proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone. Businesses will be affected only if they choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 69967 Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect of today’s proposed rule. NHTSA’s safety standards can have preemptive effect in two ways. This proposed rule would amend 49 CFR Part 572 and is not a safety standard.30 This Part 572 proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone. Civil Justice Reform With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement. Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court. 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 proposed rule would not have any requirements that are considered to be information 30 With respect to the safety standards, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied preemption: State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69968 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules collection requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 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. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The following voluntary consensus standards have been used in developing the Q3s: • SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar 95, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Tests—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation’’; and, • SAE J1733 of 1994–12 ‘‘Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing.’’ Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the UMRA. This proposed rule does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for a 3-year-old child side impact test dummy that the agency could use in FMVSS No. 213 and for research purposes. This proposed rule would affect only those businesses that VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. It would not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: Has the agency organized the material to suit the public’s needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? 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 rulemaking easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, please send them to NHTSA. 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. XI. Public Participation How do I prepare and submit comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure better that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging into https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB’s guidelines may be accessed at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. How can I be sure that my comments were received? If you wish the Docket Management Facility to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket Management Facility will return the postcard by mail. How do I submit confidential business information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel’s office, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket Management Facility at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.) Will the agency consider late comments? We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for a future rulemaking action. How can I read the comments submitted by other people? You may read the comments received by the Docket Management Facility at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69969 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules Internet, go to https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, 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). List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572 Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 572 as follows: PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 572 would be amended to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 2. 49 CFR Part 572 would be amended by adding a new Subpart W consisting of 572.210–572.219 to read as follows: ■ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart W—Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy Secs. 572.210 Incorporation by reference. 572.211 General description. 572.212 Head assembly and test procedure. 572.213 Neck assembly and test procedure. 572.214 Shoulder assembly and test procedure. 572.215 Thorax with arm assembly and test procedure. 572.216 Thorax without arm assembly and test procedure. 572.217 Lumbar spine assembly and test procedure. 572.218 Pelvis assembly and test procedure. 572.219 Test conditions and instrumentation. Appendix—Figures to Subpart W of Part 572 § 572.210 Incorporation by reference. (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, NHTSA must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12–140, telephone 202–366– 9826, and is available from the sources listed below. The material is available in electronic format through Regulations.gov, call 1–877–378–5457 or go to www.regulations.gov. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or go to https:// www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ ibr-locations.html. (b) NHTSA Technical Information Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202– 366–5965. (1) A parts/drawing list entitled, ‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart W, Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, May 2012,’’ IBR approved for § 572.211. (2) A drawings and inspection package entitled, ‘‘Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart W, Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, May 2012,’’ IBR approved for § 572.211, including: (i) Drawing No. 020–0100, Complete Assembly Q3s, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.212, 572.213, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.217, 572.218, and 572.219. (ii) Drawing No. 020–1200, Head Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.212, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219. (iii) Drawing No. 020–2400, Neck Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.213, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219. (iv) Drawing No. 020–9050, Headform, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.213, 572.217 and 572.219. (v) Drawing No. DL210–200, Neck Twist Fixture, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.213, and 572.219. (vi) Drawing No. 020–4500, Torso Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218 and 572.219. (vii) Drawing No. 020–6000, Lumbar Spine Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.217 and 572.219. (viii) Drawing No. 020–7500, Pelvis Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219. (ix) Drawing No. 020–8001, Q3s Suit, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219. (x) Drawing No. 020–9500, Complete Leg Assembly—left, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 572.218, and 572.219 as part of a complete dummy assembly. (xi) Drawing No. 020–9600, Complete Leg Assembly—right, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219 as part of a complete dummy assembly. (xii) Drawing No. 020–9700, Complete Arm Assembly—left, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219 as part of a complete dummy assembly. (xiii) Drawing No. 020–9800, Complete Arm Assembly—right, IBR approved for §§ 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219 as part of a complete dummy assembly. (3) A procedures manual entitled ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of the Q3s Child Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, September 2013,’’ IBR approved for §§ 572.211 and 572.219. (c) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, call 1–877–606–7323. (1) SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar 95, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Tests—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation,’’ IBR approved for § 572.219; (2) SAE Information Report J1733 of 1994–12, ‘‘Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing,’’ IBR approved for § 572.219. § 572.211 General description. (a) The Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy is defined by drawings and specifications containing the following materials: (1) The parts enlisted in ‘‘Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart W, Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, September 2013’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (2) The engineering drawings and specifications contained in ‘‘Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart W, Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, September 2013,’’ which includes the engineering drawings and specifications described in Drawing 020–0000, the titles of which are listed in Table A, and, (3) A manual entitled ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of the Q3s Child Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, September 2013.’’ TABLE A TO § 572.211 Component assembly (i) Head Assembly ............. (ii) Neck Assembly ............. (iii) Torso Assembly ........... (iv) Lumbar Spine Assembly. (v) Pelvis Assembly ........... E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Drawing number 020–1200 020–2400 020–4500 020–6000 020–7500 69970 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE A TO § 572.211—Continued Component assembly (vi) Complete Leg Assembly—left. (vii) Complete Leg Assembly—right. (viii) Complete Arm Assembly—left. (ix) Complete Arm Assembly—right. Drawing number 020–9500 020–9600 020–9700 020–9800 (b) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy conforms to this Subpart in every respect before use in any test. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 572.212 Head assembly and test procedure. (a) The head assembly for this test consists of the complete head (drawing 020–1200) with head accelerometer assembly (drawing 020–1013A), and a half mass simulated upper neck load cell (drawing 020–1050) (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (b) When the head assembly is tested according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, it shall have the following characteristics: (1) Frontal head qualification test. When the head assembly is dropped from a height of 376.0 ± 1.0 mm (14.8 ± 0.04 in) in accordance with subsection (c) of this section, the peak resultant acceleration at the location of the accelerometers at the head CG shall have a value between 250 G and 297 G. The resultant acceleration vs. time history curve shall be unimodal; oscillations occurring after the main pulse must be less than 10 percent of the peak resultant acceleration. The lateral acceleration shall not exceed 15 G (zero to peak). (2) Lateral head qualification test. When the head assembly is dropped from a height of 200.0 ± 1.0 mm (7.87 ± 0.04 in) in accordance with subsection (c) of this section, the peak resultant acceleration at the location of the accelerometers at the head CG shall have a value between 113 G and 140 G. The resultant acceleration vs. time history curve shall be unimodal; oscillations occurring after the main pulse must be less than 10 percent of the peak resultant acceleration. The Xcomponent acceleration shall not exceed 20 G (zero to peak). (c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the head assembly is as follows: (1) Soak the head assembly in a controlled environment at any temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 °C (66 and 78 °F) and a relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 (2) Prior to the test, clean the impact surface of the skin and the impact plate surface with isopropyl alcohol, trichloroethane, or an equivalent. The skin of the head and the impact plate surface must be clean and dry for testing. (3)(i) For the frontal head test, suspend and orient the head assembly with the forehead facing the impact surface as shown in Figure W1. The lowest point on the forehead must be 376.0 ± 1.0 mm (14.8 ± 0.04 in) from the impact surface. Assure that the head is horizontal laterally. Adjust the head angle so that the upper neck load cell simulator is 28 ± 2 degrees forward from the vertical while assuring that the head remains horizontal laterally. (ii) For the lateral head test, the head is dropped on the aspect that opposes the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. A left drop set up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in Figure W2. A right drop setup would be the mirror image of that shown in Figure W2. Suspend and orient the head assembly as shown in Figure W2. The lowest point on the impact side of the head must be 200.0 ± 1.0 mm (7.87 ± 0.04 in) from the impact surface. Assure that the head is horizontal in the fore-aft direction. Adjust the head angle so that the head base plane measured from the base surface of the upper neck load cell simulator is 35 ± 2 degrees forward from the vertical while assuring that the head remains horizontal in the fore-aft direction. (4) Drop the head assembly from the specified height by means that ensure a smooth, instant release onto a rigidly supported flat horizontal steel plate which is 50.8 mm (2 in) thick and 610 mm (24 in) square. The impact surface shall be clean, dry and have a micro finish of not less than 203.2 × 10¥6 mm (8 micro inches) (RMS) and not more than 2,032.0 × 10¥6 mm (80 micro inches) (RMS). (5) Allow at least 2 hours between successive tests on the same head. § 572.213 Neck assembly and test procedure. (a)(1) The neck and headform assembly (refer to § 572.210(b)(2)(iii) and § 572.210(b)(2)(iv)) for the purposes of the fore-aft neck flexion and lateral neck flexion qualification tests, as shown in Figures W3 and W4, consists of the headform (drawing 020–9050, sheet 1) with angular rate sensor installed (drawing SA572–S58), sixchannel neck/lumbar load cell (drawing SA572–S8), neck assembly (drawing PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 020–2400), neck/torso interface plate (drawing 020–9056) and pendulum interface plate (drawing 020–9051) with angular rate sensor installed (drawing SA572–S58) (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (2) The neck assembly (refer to § 572.210(b)(2)(iii) and § 572.210(b)(2)(v)) for the purposes of the neck torsion qualification test, as shown in Figure W5, consists of the neck twist fixture (drawing DL210–200) with rotary potentiometer installed (drawing SA572–S51), neck adaptor plate assembly (drawing DL210–220), neck assembly (drawing 020–2400), sixchannel neck/lumbar load cell (drawing SA572–S8), and twist fixture end plate (drawing DL210–210) (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (b) When the neck and headform assembly as defined in § 572.213(a)(1), or the neck assembly as defined in § 572.213(a)(2), is tested according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, it shall have the following characteristics: (1) Fore-aft neck flexion qualification test. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure W3, shall rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal centerline between 70 degrees and 82 degrees, which shall occur between 55 and 63 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572–S8) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) shall have a value between 41 N-m (30.2 ft-lbf) and 51 N-m (37.6 ft-lbf) occurring between 49 and 62 ms from time zero. (ii) The decaying headform rotation vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact relative to the pendulum centerline between 50 to 54 ms after the time the peak rotation value is reached. (iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when the longitudinal centerline of the neck and pendulum are parallel. (iv) The headform rotation shall be calculated by the following formula with the integration beginning at time zero: Headform rotation (deg) = ∫ [(Headform Angular Rate)y¥(Pendulum Angular Rate)y] dt (v) (Headform Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the headform (drawing 020–9050, sheet 1), and (Pendulum Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the pendulum interface plate (drawing 020– 9051) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules (2) Lateral neck flexion qualification test. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure W4, shall rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal centerline between 77 degrees and 88 degrees, which shall occur between 65 and 72 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572–S8) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) shall have a value between 25 N-m (18.4 ft-lbf) and 32 N-m (23.6 ft-lbf) occurring between 66 and 73 ms from time zero. (ii) The decaying headform rotation vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact relative to the pendulum centerline between 63 to 69 ms after the time the peak rotation value is reached. (iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when the longitudinal centerline of the neck and pendulum are parallel. (iv) The headform rotation shall be calculated by the following formula with the integration beginning at time zero: Headform rotation (deg) = ∫ [(Headform Angular Rate)y¥(Pendulum Angular Rate)y] dt (v) (Headform Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the headform (drawing 020–9050, sheet 1), and (Pendulum Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the pendulum interface plate (drawing 020– 9051) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (3) Neck torsion qualification test. (i) The neck twist fixture (drawing DL210–200), referenced in Figure W5, shall rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal centerline between 75 degrees and 93 degrees, as measured by the rotary potentiometer (drawing SA572–S51), and shall occur between 91 and 113 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572–S8) shall have a value between 8 N-m (5.9 ft-lbf) and 10 N-m (7.4 ft-lbf) occurring between 85 and 105 ms from time zero) (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (ii) The decaying neck twist fixture rotation vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact relative to the pendulum centerline between 84 to 103 ms after the time the peak rotation value is reached. (iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when the zero pins are installed such that the neck is not in torsion. (iv) Time zero is defined as the time of initial contact between the pendulum striker plate and the honeycomb material. All data channels shall be at the zero level at this time. (c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the neck assembly is as follows: (1) Soak the neck assembly in a controlled environment at any temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 °C (69 and 72 °F) and a relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test. (2)(i) For the fore-aft neck flexion test, mount the neck and headform assembly, defined in subsection (a)(1) of this section, on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that the midsagittal plane of the headform is vertical and coincides with the plane of motion of the pendulum, and with the neck placement such that the front side of the neck is closest to the honeycomb material. (ii) For the lateral neck flexion test, the test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the 69971 dummy is being qualified. A right flexion test set-up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale right side impact is depicted in Figure W4. A left flexion test set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W4. Mount the neck and headform assembly, defined in subsection (a)(1) of this section, on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that the midsagittal plane of the headform is vertical and coincides with the plane of motion of the pendulum, and with the neck placement such that the right (or left) side of the neck is closest to the honeycomb material. (iii) For the neck torsion test, the test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. A right torsion test setup that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale right side impact is depicted in Figure W5. A left flexion test set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W5. Mount the neck assembly, defined in subsection (a)(2) of this section, on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572, as shown in Figure W5 of this subpart. (3)(i) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely from a height to achieve an impact velocity of 4.7 ± 0.1 m/s (15.6 ± 0.3 ft/s) for fore-aft flexion, 3.8 ± 0.05 m/s (12.5 ± 0.2 ft/s) for lateral flexion, and 3.6 ± 0.1 m/s (11.8 ± 0.3 ft/s) for torsion, measured by an accelerometer mounted on the pendulum as shown in Figure 22 of this Part 572 at time zero. (ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an acceleration vs. time pulse that meets the velocity change as specified in Table B of this section. Integrate the pendulum accelerometer data channel to obtain the velocity vs. time curve beginning at time zero. TABLE B TO § 572.213 Fore-aft flexion Time (ms) m/s tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 10 20 30 1.1–2.1 2.8–3.8 4.1–5.1 Time (ms) ft/s 3.6–6.9 9.2–12.5 13.5–16.7 § 572.214 Shoulder assembly and test procedure. (a) The shoulder assembly for this test consists of the torso assembly (drawing 020–4500) with string pot assembly (drawing SA572–S38 or SA572–S39) installed (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 10 15 20 Lateral flexion m/s ft/s 1.7–2.2 2.5–3.0 3.4–3.9 5.6–7.2 8.2–9.8 11.2–12.8 (b) When the center of the shoulder of a completely assembled dummy (drawing 020–0100) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) is impacted laterally by a test probe conforming to § 572.219, at 3.6 ± 0.1 m/s (11.8 ± 0.3 ft/ s) according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section: PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Torsion Time (ms) m/s 10 15 20 0.9–1.3 1.4–2.0 2.0–2.6 ft/s 3.0–4.3 4.6–6.6 6.6–8.5 (1) Maximum lateral shoulder displacement (compression) relative to the spine, measured with the string pot assembly (drawing SA572–S38 or SA572–S39) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210), must not be less than 16 mm (0.63 in) and not more than 21 mm (0.83 in). The peak force, measured by the impact probe as defined in § 572.219 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69972 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules and calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall have a value between 1.24 kN (279 lbf) and 1.35 kN (303 lbf). (2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor mass and its measured deceleration. (c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the shoulder assembly is as follows: (1) The dummy is clothed in the Q3s suit (drawing 020–8001) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). No additional clothing or shoes are placed on the dummy. (2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 ßC (69 and 72 ßF) and a relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test. (3) The shoulder test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. A left shoulder test set-up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in Figure W6. A right shoulder set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W6. Seat the dummy on the qualification bench described in Figure V3 of 49 CFR 572.194, the seat pan and seat back surfaces of which are covered with thin sheets of PTFE (Teflon) (nominal stock thickness: 2 to 3 mm) (3/ 32- to 1/8-inch) along the impact side of the bench. (4) Position the dummy on the bench as shown in Figure W6, with the ribs making contact with the seat back oriented 24.6 degrees relative to vertical, the legs extended forward along the seat pan oriented 21.6 degrees relative to horizontal with the knees spaced 40 mm (1.57 in) apart, and the arms positioned so that the upper arms are parallel to the seat back (± 2 degrees) and the lower arms are perpendicular to the upper arms. (5) The target point of the impact is a point on the shoulder that is 15 mm above and perpendicular to the midpoint of a line connecting the centers of the bolt heads of the two lower bolts (part #5000010) that connect the upper arm assembly (020–9750) to the shoulder ball retaining ring (020– 3533). (6) Impact the shoulder with the test probe so that at the moment of contact the probe’s longitudinal centerline should be horizontal (± 1 degrees), and the centerline of the probe should be within 2 mm (0.08 in) of the target point. (7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 (8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make contact with the dummy during the test. § 572.215 Thorax with arm assembly and test procedure. (a) The thorax assembly for this test consists of the torso assembly (drawing 020–4500) with IR–TRACC (drawing SA572–S37) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) installed. (b) When the thorax of a completely assembled dummy (drawing 020–0100) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) is impacted laterally by a test probe conforming to § 572.219 at 5.0 ± 0.1 m/s (16.4 ± 0.3 ft/s) according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section: (1) Maximum lateral thorax displacement (compression) relative to the spine, measured with the IR–TRACC (drawing SA572–S37) and processed as set out in the PADI (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210), shall have a value between 23 mm (0.91 in) and 28 mm (1.10 in). The peak force occurring after 5 ms, measured by the impact probe as defined in § 572.219 and calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall have a value between 1.38 kN (310 lbf) and 1.69 kN (380 lbf). (2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor mass and its measured deceleration. (3) Time zero is defined as the time of contact between the impact probe and the arm. All channels should be at a zero level at this point. (c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the thorax with arm assembly is as follows: (1) The dummy is clothed in the Q3s suit (drawing 020–8001) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). No additional clothing or shoes are placed on the dummy. (2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 ßC (69 and 72 ßF) and a relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test. (3) The test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. A left thorax test set-up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in Figure W7. A right thorax set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W7. Seat the dummy on the qualification bench described in Figure V3 of 49 CFR 572.194, the seat pan and seat back surfaces of which are covered PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 with thin sheets of PTFE (Teflon) (nominal stock thickness: 2 to 3 mm (3/ 32- to 1/8-inch)) along the impact side of the bench. (4) Position the dummy on the bench as shown in Figure W7, with the ribs making contact with the seat back oriented 24.6 degrees relative to vertical, the legs extended forward along the seat pan oriented 21.6 degrees relative to horizontal with the knees spaced 40 mm (1.57 in) apart. On the non-impact side of the dummy, the long axis of the upper arm is positioned parallel to the seat back (± 2 degrees). On the impact side, the upper arm is positioned such that the target point intersects its long axis as described in (5) below. The long axis of the upper arm is defined by section line A–A in drawing 020–9750 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). Both of the lower arms are set perpendicular to the upper arms. (5) The target point of the impact is the point of intersection on the lateral aspect of the upper arm and a line projecting from the thorax of the dummy. The projecting line is horizontal, runs parallel to the coronal plane of the dummy, and passes through the midpoint of a line connecting the centers of the bolt heads of the two IR– TRACC bolts (part #5000646). The projected line should intersect the upper arm within 2 mm (0.80 in) of its long axis. (6) Impact the arm with the test probe so that at the moment of contact the probe’s longitudinal centerline should be horizontal (± 1 degrees), and the centerline of the probe should be within 2 mm (0.80 in) of the target point. (7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement. (8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make contact with the dummy during the test. § 572.216 Thorax without arm assembly and test procedure. (a) The thorax assembly for this test consists of the torso assembly (drawing 020–4500) with IR–TRACC (drawing SA572–S37) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) installed. (b) When the thorax of a completely assembled dummy (drawing 020–0100) with the arm (drawing 020–9700 or 020–9800) on the impacted side removed is impacted laterally by a test probe conforming to § 572.219 at 3.3 ± 0.1 m/s (10.8 ± 0.3 ft/s) according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section: (1) Maximum lateral thorax displacement (compression) relative to E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules the spine, measured with the IR–TRACC (drawing SA572–S37) and processed as set out in the PADI (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210), shall have a value between 24 mm (0.94 in) and 31 mm (1.22 in). The peak force, measured by the impact probe as defined in § 572.219 and calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall have a value between 620 N (139 lbf) and 770 N (173 lbf). (2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor mass and its measured deceleration. (c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the thorax without arm assembly is as follows: (1) The dummy is clothed in the Q3s suit (drawing 020–8001) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). No additional clothing or shoes are placed on the dummy. (2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 °C (69 and 72 °F) and a relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test. (3) The test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. A left thorax test set-up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in Figure W8. A right thorax set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W8. Seat the dummy on the qualification bench described in Figure V3 of 49 CFR 572.194, the seat pan and seat back surfaces of which are covered with thin sheets of PTFE (Teflon) (nominal stock thickness: 2 to 3 mm (3⁄32- to 1⁄8-inch)) along the impact side of the bench. (4) Position the dummy on the bench as shown in Figure W8, with the ribs making contact with the seat back oriented 24.6 degrees relative to vertical, the legs extended forward along the seat pan oriented 21.6 degrees relative to horizontal with the knees spaced 40 mm (1.57 in) apart, and the arm on the nonimpacted side positioned so that the upper arm is parallel (± 2 degrees) to the seat back and the lower arm perpendicular to the upper arm. (5) The target point of the impact is the midpoint of a line between the centers of the bolt heads of the two IR– TRACC bolts (part #5000646). (6) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that at the moment of contact the probe’s longitudinal centerline should be horizontal (± 1 degrees), and the centerline of the probe should be within 2 mm (0.08 in) of the target point. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 (7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement. (8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make contact with the dummy during the test. § 572.217 Lumbar spine assembly and test procedure. (a) The lumbar spine and headform assembly (refer to § 572.210(b)(2)(iv) and § 572.210(a)(2)(vii)) for the purposes of the fore-aft lumbar flexion and lateral lumbar flexion qualification tests, as shown in Figures W9 and W10, consists of the headform (drawing 020–9050, sheet 2) with angular rate sensor installed (drawing SA572–S58), sixchannel neck/lumbar load cell (drawing SA572–S8), lumbar spine assembly (drawing 020–6000), lumbar interface plate (drawing 020–9062) and pendulum interface plate (drawing 020– 9051) with angular rate sensor installed (drawing SA572–S58) (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (b) When the lumbar spine and headform assembly is tested according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, it shall have the following characteristics: (1) Fore-aft lumbar flexion qualification test. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure W9, shall rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal centerline between 48 degrees and 57 degrees, which shall occur between 52 and 59 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by the neck/lumbar transducer (drawing SA572–S8) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) shall have a value between 78 N-m (57.5 ft-lbf) and 94 N-m (69.3 ft-lbf) occurring between 46 and 57 ms from time zero. (ii) The decaying headform rotation vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact relative to the pendulum centerline between 50 to 56 ms after the time the peak rotation value is reached. (iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when the longitudinal centerline of the lumbar spine and pendulum are parallel. (iv) The headform rotation shall be calculated by the following formula with the integration beginning at time zero: Headform rotation (deg) = ∫ [(Headform Angular Rate)y ¥ (Pendulum Angular Rate)y] dt (v) (Headform Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the headform (drawing PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 69973 020–9050, sheet 2), and (Pendulum Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the pendulum interface plate (drawing 020– 9051) (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (2) Lateral lumbar flexion qualification test. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure W10, shall rotate in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal centerline between 47 degrees and 59 degrees, which shall occur between 50 and 59 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by the neck/lumbar transducer (drawing SA572–S8) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) shall have a value between 78 N-m (57.5 ft-lbf) and 97 N-m (71.5 ft-lbf) occurring between 46 and 57 ms from time zero. (ii) The decaying headform rotation vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact relative to the pendulum centerline between 47 to 59 ms after the time the peak rotation value is reached. (iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when the longitudinal centerline of the lumbar spine and pendulum are parallel. (iv) The headform rotation shall be calculated by the following formula with the integration beginning at time zero: Headform rotation (deg) = ∫ [(Headform Angular Rate)y¥(Pendulum Angular Rate)y] dt (v) (Headform Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the headform (drawing 020–9050, sheet 2), and (Pendulum Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the pendulum interface plate (drawing 020– 9051) (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the lumbar spine assembly is as follows: (1) Soak the lumbar spine assembly in a controlled environment at any temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 °C (69 and 72 °F) and a relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test. (2)(i) For the fore-aft lumbar flexion test, mount the lumbar spine and headform assembly, defined in subsection (a) of this section, on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that the midsagittal plane of the headform is vertical and coincides with the plane of motion of the pendulum, and with the lumbar spine placement such that the front side of the lumbar spine is closest to the honeycomb material. E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69974 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules (ii) For the lateral lumbar flexion test, the test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. A right flexion test set-up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing a full scale right side impact is depicted in Figure W10. A left flexion test set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W10. Mount the lumbar spine and headform assembly, defined in subsection (a)(1) of this section, on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that the midsagittal plane of the headform is vertical and coincides with the plane of motion of the pendulum, and with the lumbar spine placement such that the right (or left) side of the lumbar spine is closest to the honeycomb material. (3)(i) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely from a height to achieve an impact velocity of 4.4 ± 0.1 m/s (14.4 ± 0.3 ft/s), measured by an accelerometer mounted on the pendulum as shown in Figure 22 of this Part 572 at time zero. (ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an acceleration vs. time pulse that meets the velocity change as specified in Table C of this section. Integrate the pendulum accelerometer data channel to obtain the velocity vs. time curve beginning at time zero. TABLE C TO § 572.217 Fore-aft flexion Lateral flexion Time (ms) m/s 10 ..................................................................................................................................... 20 ..................................................................................................................................... 30 ..................................................................................................................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 572.218 Pelvis assembly and test procedure. (a) The pelvis assembly (drawing 020– 7500) for this test includes a uniaxial pubic load cell (drawing SA572–S7) installed on the non-impact side of the pelvis (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (b) When the center of the pelvis of a completely assembled dummy (drawing 020–0100) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) is impacted laterally by a test probe conforming to § 572.219 at 4.0 ± 0.1 m/s (13.1 ± 0.3 ft/s) according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section: (1) Maximum pubic load, measured with the uniaxial pubic load cell (drawing SA572–S7) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210), shall have a value between 700 N (157 lbf) and 870 N (196 lbf). The peak force, measured by the impact probe as defined in § 572.219 and calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall have a value between 1.57 kN (353 lbf) and 1.81 kN (407 lbf). (2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor mass and its measured deceleration. (c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the pelvis assembly is as follows: (1) The dummy is clothed in the Q3s suit (drawing 020–8001) (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). No additional clothing or shoes are placed on the dummy. (2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 °C (69 and 72 °F) and a relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test. (3) The pelvis test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 1.3–1.7 2.7–3.7 4.1–4.9 which the dummy is being qualified. A left pelvis test set-up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in Figure W11. A right pelvis test set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W11. Seat the dummy on the qualification bench described in Figure V3 of 49 CFR 572.194, the seat pan and seat back surfaces of which are covered with thin sheets of PTFE (Teflon) (nominal stock thickness: 2 to 3 mm (3⁄32- to 1⁄8-inch)) along the impact side of the bench. (4) Position the dummy on the bench as shown in Figure W11, with the ribs making contact with the seat back oriented 24.6 degrees relative to vertical, the legs extended forward along the seat pan oriented 21.6 degrees relative to horizontal with the knees spaced 40 mm (1.57 in) apart. The arms should be positioned so that the arm on the nonimpacted side is parallel to the seat back with the lower arm perpendicular to the upper arm, and the arm on the impacted side is positioned upwards away from the pelvis. (5) Establish the impact point at the center of the pelvis so that the impact point of the longitudinal centerline of the probe is located 185 mm (7.28 in) from the center of the knee pivot screw (part #020–9008) and centered vertically on the femur. (6) Impact the pelvis with the test probe so that at the moment of contact the probe’s longitudinal centerline should be horizontal (± 1 degrees), and the centerline of the probe should be within 2 mm (0.08 in) of the center of the pelvis. (7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ft/s 4.3–5.6 8.9–12.1 13.5–16.1 m/s 1.3–1.7 2.7–3.7 4.0–4.8 ft/s 4.3–5.6 8.9–12.1 13.1–15.7 (8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make contact with the dummy during the test. § 572.219 Test conditions and instrumentation. (a) The following test equipment and instrumentation is needed for qualification as set forth in this subpart: (1) The test probe for shoulder, thorax, and pelvis impacts is of rigid metallic construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal axis. It has a mass of 3.81 ± 0.02 kg (8.40 ± 0.04 lb) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 560 kg-cm2 (0.407 lbf-in-sec2) in yaw and pitch about the CG. One-third (1⁄3) of the weight of the suspension cables and their attachments to the impact probe is included in the calculation of mass, and such components may not exceed five percent of the total weight of the test probe. The impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and concentric with the longitudinal axis, is at least 25.4 mm (1.0 in) long, and has a flat, continuous, and non-deformable 70.0 ± 0.25 mm (2.76 ± 0.01 in) diameter face with an edge radius between 6.4– 12.7 mm (0.25 to 0.5 in). The probe’s end opposite to the impact face has provisions for mounting of an accelerometer with its sensitive axis collinear with the longitudinal axis of the probe. No concentric portions of the impact probe may exceed the diameter of the impact face. The impact probe shall have a free air resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz, which may be determined using the procedure listed in the PADI. (2) Head accelerometers have dimensions, response characteristics, E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA572–S4 and are mounted in the head as shown in drawing 020– 0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (3) The upper neck force and moment transducer has the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in drawing SA572– S8 and is mounted in the head-neck assembly as shown in drawing 020– 0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (4) The angular rate sensors for the fore-aft neck flexion and lateral neck flexion qualification tests have the dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572–S58 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) and are mounted in the headform and on the pendulum as shown in Figures W3, W4 of this subpart. (5) The string pot shoulder deflection transducers have the dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572–S38 or SA572–S39 and are mounted to the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020–0100, sheet 2 of 5 (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (6) The IR–TRACC thorax deflection transducers have the dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572–S37 and are mounted to the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020–0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (7) The lumbar spine force and moment transducer has the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in drawing SA572–S8 and is mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020– 0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (8) The angular rate sensors for the fore-aft lumbar flexion and lateral lumbar flexion qualification tests have the dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572–S58 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) and are mounted in the headform and on the pendulum as shown in Figures W9, W10 of this subpart. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 (9) The pubic force transducers have the dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572–S7 and are mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020– 0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (b) The following instrumentation may be required for installation in the dummy for compliance testing. If so, it is installed during qualification procedures as described in this subpart: (1) The optional angular rate sensors for the head have the dimensions and response characteristics specified in any of drawings SA572–S55, SA572–S56, SA572–S57 or SA572–S58 and are mounted in the head as shown in drawing 020–0100, sheet 2 of 5 (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (2) The upper spine accelerometers have the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA572– S4 and are mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020– 0100, sheet 2 of 5 (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (3) The pelvis accelerometers have the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA572–S4 and are mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020–0100, sheet 2 of 5 (all incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (4) The T1 accelerometer has the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive mass location specified in drawing SA572–S4 and is mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020–0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (5) The lower neck force and moment transducer has the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in drawing SA572– S8 and is mounted to the neck assembly as shown in drawing 020–0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (6) The tilt sensor has the dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572–S44 and is mounted to the torso assembly as shown in drawing PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 69975 020–0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (c) The outputs of transducers installed in the dummy and in the test equipment specified by this part are to be recorded in individual data channels that conform to SAE Recommended Practice J211 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210) except as noted, with channel frequency classes as follows: (1) Pendulum acceleration, CFC 180, (2) Pendulum angular rate, CFC 60, (3) Neck twist fixture rotation, CFC 60, (4) Test probe acceleration, CFC 180, (5) Head accelerations, CFC 1000, (6) Headform angular rate, CFC 60, (7) Neck moments, upper and lower, CFC 600, (7) Shoulder deflection, CFC 180, (8) Thorax deflection, CFC 180, (9) Upper spine accelerations, CFC 180, (10) T1 acceleration, CFC 180, (11) Pubic force, CFC 180, (12) Pelvis accelerations, CFC 1000. (d) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity are to conform to SAE Information Report J1733 (incorporated by reference, see § 572.210). (e) The mountings for sensing devices have no resonant frequency less than 3 times the frequency range of the applicable channel class. (f) Limb joints are set at one G, barely restraining the weight of the limb when it is extended horizontally. The force needed to move a limb segment is not to exceed 2G throughout the range of limb motion. (g) Performance tests of the same component, segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummy are separated in time by not less than 30 minutes unless otherwise noted. (h) Surfaces of dummy components may not be painted except as specified in this subpart or in drawings subtended by this subpart. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Appendix—Figures to Subpart W of Part 572 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 69976 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules Figure WI FRONTAL HEAD DROP TEST SET-UP SPECIFICATIONS QUlCKRELEASE Z-AXIS OF TIlE HEAD (PARALLEL TO SKULL CAP PLANE) HEAD SUSPENSION CABLES HEAD COMPLETE (020-1200) WITH HEAD ACCELEROMETER ASS'Y. (020-1013A) 376±lmm ~--------------~--~ s=~rnj MEDIAL-LATERAl AXIS MUST BE HORIZONTAL WITH1N 1° 50.8 x 610mm x 610mm (2 x 24 x 24 in) IMPACT SURFACE FINISH 203 to 2032 ~mm (8 to 80 RMS ~in) HALF LOAD CELL BLANK (PART #020-1050) 376±lmm VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 ~I------------------- Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 EP21NO13.002</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 L Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69977 FigureW2 LATERAL HEAD DROP TEST SET-UP SPECIFICATIONS HEAD SUSPENSION CABLES QUICK RELEASE HALF LOAD CELL HEAD COMPLETE (020-1200) BLANK (PART #020-1050) WITH HEAD ACCELEROMETER ASS'Y. HEAD BASE PLANE (PARALLEL (020-1013A) TO THE HALF LOAD CELL BLANK) l 200±1m.m L_-----"___ STEEL PLATE 50.8 x 61Om.m x 610mm (2x24x24in) IMPACT SURFACE FINISH 203 to 2032 p.mmImm VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 EP21NO13.003</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 (8 to 80 RMS ~in) 69978 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules ANGULAR RATE SENSOR (PART #SA:5I2-SS8) PENDULUM INTERFACE PLATE (PART 0020-90:51) NECK ASSEMBLY (PART ""~,V-,,"""= NOTICE PLACEMENT DIRECTION (BOLTED iN REAR SET OF MOUNTING HOLES) NECKtTORSO INTERFACE PLII"TE NECK/LUMBAR #020-90:56) LOADCEtL (PART #SA:572-S8) ANGULAR RATE PE,RPENDICULAR TO CENTER LINE OF PENDlJLU~'( SENSOR #SA512-S:58) HEADFORM ANGULAR RATE (PART #020-90:50) SENSOR MOUNT FigureW4 NECK LATERAL FLEXION TEST SPECIFICATIONS DIRECTION OF ... MOTION _ - - - - - . PART 512 SUBPART E PENDULUM (FIGURE #22) ANGULAR RATE SENSOR (PART #SA571-s5S) ...."--_ _--'1 PENDULUM INTERFACE PLATE (PART #O20·9{}51) NECKASSRMBLY (PART 11020-24(0) NOTICE NECK PLACEMENT DlRECTION (BOLTED IN TIm FROm SET OF MOUNTING HOLES) NECKITORSO INTERFACE PLATE (PART#02O-90S6) NBCKILUMBAR LOAD CELL (PAIlT #SA5n·SS) ANGULAR RATE SENSOR (pART #SA5n-ssS) DPLANE --PERPENDICULAR TO CENTER LINE OF PENDULUM VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 ANGULAR RATE SENSOR MOUNT PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 EP21NO13.004</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 HEADFORM (PART #O20-9{}50) Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69979 PART 572 SUBPART E I}ENDULUM (FIGURE NECK ASSEMBLY (PART #020-24(0) ROT/tRY POTENTIOMETER {PART #SA572-..~51: TWIST .FIXTUR.E BNDPlATE (PART IIDL210-21O) NECK TltVI:";T FiXTURE (PART #DI,21O-1(0) NECKlL'UMfti\R LOAD CELL (P.A1U • NECK ADAPTER l'l~ATE (PART IIDUI0-220) D D W6 SHOULDERTMPACT If..fPACT PROBE \-lEIGHT = 3J';5 0.02 Kg INSTRUMENTATION OF THE CABLE ""'EIGHT ARMALlGNED WITH THORAX CENTER AXIS OF PROBE IS IN-tiNE WITH OF SHOULDER .IOlNT 40 mm BETIVEEN KNEES V,,1TI:1 PARALLEL -__i _. _ -- QUALIFICATION BENCH REF, FIG. V3 CFR 49 572.194 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 EP21NO13.005</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 VlE\V"A" 69980 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules IMPACT liROBE SUPPORT CABLES IMPACT PROB.!': WEIGHT = 3,85 ± Kg INCLUDING ALL INSTRUMENTATION AND OF THE CA.BLE \VEIGHT ALIGNED WITH THORA"",\: VIE\\,' "A" CENTER AXIS DF PROBE is CE'I\l'TERED BETWEEN KNEES "VITH LEGS ",'~j"',M,J"'~,I'L, 'THE IR..:rRACC ATIACIL"vfENT BOLTS ON RrBCAGE 4() nun --~ 24,6" VIEW "A" QUALifiCATION BENCH REF, FIG, V3 CFR 49 572.194 LATERAL THORAX IMPACT - WITHOUT ARM Hv'I.PACT PROBE SUPPORt' CABU~:S IMPACT PROBE WEIGHT = 3.85 ± Kg INCLUDING ALL INSTRUMENTATION c\ND OF THE CABtE WEIGHT VIEW "A" 40 BET\VEEN KNEES _ _ ~ CENTER AXIS OF PROBE lS CENTERED BETWEEN THE IR-TRACC ATIACHMENT ROLTSON THE RIBCAGE WITH LE:GS PARAU.. EL VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 QUALIFICATION BENCH REF. FIG, '1/3 CFR49 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 EP21NO13.006</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 VIEW "A" Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69981 PARI 572 SllBPART E PfNDUUJM FI:INDULUM PLATE ANGULAR RATE SENSOR (PART #020-9(51) LIJMBAR SPINE ASS.EII,mty (pART ""'<'J-"'''''''1 - NECKlLlJMBAR (PART #SA572-S:58) LOAD CELL NOTICE (FART PLACEME.NT DIRECTION SET (BOLTED THE REAR MOUNTING HOLES) PLANE --"-PERPBNDlCULAR ANGULAR RATE SENSOR TO CENTER LINE Of PENDULUM #SAS12-SS8) HEADFORM ANGULAR IV\'TE (PART #020-9(50) SENSOR MOLINT FigureWlO LUMBAR LATERAL FLEXION TEST SPECIFICATIONS DUCTION OF MOTION ... NECK\LUMBAR LOADCBLL (PART #SASn.sS) LUMBAR SPINE ASSEMBLY (pART #020-6000) NOTICE LUMBAR ATTACHMENT TO HBADFORM (BOLTED IN TIm FRONT SET OF MOUNTING HOLES) PENDULUMlNTBRFACE PLATE (pART #020-9(51) DPLANE PERPENDICULAR TOCBNTBRLINE OFPBNDULUM VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 HBADFORM (PART #020-9050) Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 EP21NO13.007</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 ANGULAR RATE SENSOR (pART ffSA572.s5S) 69982 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules Issued on: November 8, 2013. Christopher J. Bonanti, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2013–27438 Filed 11–20–13; 8:45 am] VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Nov 20, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\21NOP2.SGM 21NOP2 EP21NO13.008</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69943-69982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27438]

[[Page 69943]]

Vol. 78

Thursday,

No. 225

November 21, 2013

Part II

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

49 CFR Part 572

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Q3s 3-Year-Old Child Side Impact Test
Dummy, Incorporation by Reference; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 69944]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0118]
RIN 2127-AL04

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Q3s 3-Year-Old Child Side Impact
Test Dummy, Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend our regulations to add
specifications and qualification requirements for an anthropomorphic
test device (ATD) representing a 3-year-old child, called the ``Q3s''
side impact test dummy. The agency plans to use the Q3s to test child
restraint systems to new side impact performance requirements which
NHTSA will propose to adopt into the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard for child restraint systems by way of a separate NPRM.
Adopting side impact protection requirements is consistent with a
statutory provision set forth in the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act'' (July 6, 2012), that the agency issue a final rule
to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems
during side impacts.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than January 21, 2014.
Proposed effective date: The CFR would be amended on the date 60 days
after date of publication of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Peter Martin,
NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202-366-5668) (fax
202-493-2990). For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief
Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992) (fax 202-366-3820). Mailing address:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
a. Evolution of the Dummy
b. Developments
c. Build Level D
III. Description
a. General Construction
b. Instrumentation
IV. Biofidelity
a. Anthropometry
b. Biofidelity Assessment Under Dynamic Loading
V. Repeatability and Reproducibility
a. R&R in Sled Tests
b. R&R in Component Qualification Tests
VI. Qualification Tests
a. Overview of Proposed Corridors
b. Rationale for the Tests
c. New and Modified Part 572 Tests and Equipment
d. Proposed Test Specifications and Performance Requirements
VII. Durability
a. High-Energy Component Tests
b. Q3s Servicing and Maintenance
VIII. Drawings and Patents
IX. Consideration of Alternatives
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
XI. Public Participation

I. Introduction

This document proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 572 to add
specifications and qualification requirements for a test dummy
representing a 3-year-old child, called the ``Q3s'' side impact test
dummy. The Q3s is a modified version of a European side impact dummy.
In accordance with the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act'' (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141), NHTSA will be issuing a proposal,
which we expect to publish shortly, to amend Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems'' (49 CFR
571.213), to adopt side impact protection requirements for child
restraints.\1\ The agency is considering a proposal that incorporates
the Q3s in the side impact compliance test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Subtitle E of MAP-21, entitled ``Child Safety Standards,''
includes Sec. 31501(a) which states that, not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall issue a
final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213
to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint
systems during side impact crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This document proposes to incorporate specifications and
qualification requirements for the Q3s into 49 CFR Part 572,
``Anthropomorphic test devices.'' The Q3s would be specified in a new
subpart W. This NPRM proposes incorporating by reference a parts list,
a set of design drawings, and a ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly
and Inspection (PADI)'' document, to ensure that all Q3s dummies are
the same in their design and construction.\2\ Subpart W of 49 CFR Part
572 would specify performance tests that serve to assure that the Q3s
responses are within the established qualification corridors and
further assure the uniformity of dummy assembly, structural integrity,
consistency of response, and adequacy of instrumentation. These
specifications ensure the repeatability and reproducibility of the
dummy's impact response in child restraint compliance tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Drawings and the PADI for the Q3s are available for
examination in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency plans to propose adding a side impact test to FMVSS No.
213, one in which child restraint systems (CRSs) sold for children
weighing up to 18 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)) must protect the
child occupant in a dynamic sled test simulating a vehicle-to-vehicle
side impact.\3\ We are considering using

[[Page 69945]]

the Q3s to test child restraints recommended for children in a weight
range that includes 10 kg to 18 kg (22 to 40 lb). Among other things,
we are considering a proposal that would require those child restraints
to limit the risk of head and chest injury to children in a side
impact. We are considering using the Q3s to measure the risk of head
injury by way of a head injury criterion (HIC) (computed within a
specified timeframe, e.g., 15 millisecond (ms) (HIC15)), and the risk
of chest injury using thorax deflection as a criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ A discussion of NHTSA's research evaluating and developing
the side impact test procedure can be found in Sullivan et al.,
``NHTSA's Evaluation of a Potential Child Side Impact Test
Procedures,'' 22nd International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 2011-0227 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA seeks to adopt side impact protection requirements in FMVSS
No. 213 that would be evaluated in a dynamic test simulating an actual
vehicle crash. Our goal has been to use an anthropomorphic test device
(ATD) that has a sound biofidelic response under lateral loading, with
internal instrumentation sufficient to record injurious body loads. We
seek to adopt an ATD that is suitable for use in regulatory tests with
demonstrated repeatability, reproducibility, and durability. Within a
test laboratory, the ATD would be practical to handle and maintain. The
dummy would be available at a reasonable cost.
The Q3s test dummy appears to have all of the above attributes. As
discussed in this NPRM, NHTSA is satisfied with the overall biofidelity
of the Q3s and we have found that it exhibits repeatable and
reproducible performance in CRS side impact sled testing and in
component-level qualification testing. The Q3s demonstrates sufficient
durability in high-energy qualification tests and in CRS side impact
sled testing. The agency has tentatively concluded that the dummy is a
reliable test device that will provide valuable data in assessing the
potential for injury in side impacts and is suitable for incorporation
into Part 572.

II. Background

a. Evolution of the Dummy

The Q3s evolved from predecessor P-series test dummies developed by
the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). The
P-series first was introduced into European CRS standards in 1981 with
the adoption of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
Regulation No. 44, ``Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of
Restraining Devices for Child Occupants of Power-Driven Vehicles (Child
Restraint Systems).'' Initially, the P-series of dummies served only as
CRS loading devices to assure CRS integrity in a frontal dynamic sled
test.
In 1993, the European Commission formed a child dummy working group
to develop a successor series of dummies called the Q-series. It was
envisioned that the Q-series dummies would be used in frontal and side
impact tests, and would be more anthropometrically correct than the P-
series, and instrumented to enable injury assessment for the head,
neck, and chest. The conceptual dummy design was led by TNO, while
working group members as a whole established the anthropometry,
biofidelity, and measurement requirements for the new Q-series. In late
1997, the specifications for the first dummy of the Q-series, the
three-year-old version known as the ``Q3,'' were reported by TNO.
In 1999, a dummy manufacturer then named First Technology Safety
Systems (FTSS) \4\ acquired the dummy development and manufacturing
business of TNO. At that time, testing indicated that the Q3 dummy's
performance was suboptimal in frontal testing and even more so in
lateral.\5\ Around 2001, FTSS initiated the design cycle for the Q3s,
which was an improved side impact version of the Q3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ In 2010, FTSS was merged into a new company, Humanetics
Innovative Solutions (Humanetics). In this preamble, when we discuss
work done by the company prior to 2010, we use the name FTSS. When
we refer to the company's activities after 2010, we will refer to
the name ``Humanetics.''
\5\ The Q3 was assessed in: Berliner et al. (2000), Comparative
evaluation of the Q3 and Hybrid III 3-Year-Old dummies in
biofidelity and static out-of-position airbag tests, Stapp Car Crash
Journal, V44: 25-50. Since the Q3 had yet to show it was suitable
for side impact testing, NHTSA chose to use the HIII-3C in child
restraint side impact testing the agency conducted following on the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation
Act of 2000 (TREAD Act). The testing led up to an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) which NHTSA published on May 2, 2002, 67
FR 21836.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In early 2002, NHTSA tested a prototype version of the Q3s.\6\
NHTSA evaluated this Q3s unit using qualification-style pendulum and
impactor tests to assess functionality, durability, and biofidelity. We
determined that the thorax of the prototype appeared biofidelic and
repeatable, but the shoulder and pelvis were much too stiff. Moreover,
the neck was a single-piece rubber column (i.e., it was not segmented
by aluminum discs as is typical in other dummy necks), and we found its
biofidelity to be marginal in frontal and lateral flexion. In our
tests, we observed that the rubber neck material tended to bunch
together at maximum flexion, which appeared to improperly restrict the
neck bending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The unit was a modified Q3 that NHTSA had owned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other organizations acquiring prototype Q3s units included
Transport Canada and Takata Holdings (Takata). Transport Canada
explored the biofidelity of the Q3s through impacts delivered by
pendulums and impactor testing. Takata exercised the dummy by
performing several sets of sled tests with the ATD seated within a
CRS.\7\ Both Transport Canada and Takata found problems with their Q3s
units similar to those found by NHTSA. These problems were conveyed to
FTSS through public critiques, and through committee meetings of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and SAE
International (SAE).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Takata was developing a ``sled-on-sled'' test methodology.
Takata was also involved with the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and UNECE Reg. No. 44 committees on CRS sled
test development, and for this purpose Takata also tested the P3,
Q3, and the HIII-3C on its sled system.
\8\ ISO is a worldwide standards-setting organization. The Q3s
dummy was discussed in the meetings of ISO Technical Committee TC
22, Road vehicles, Subcommittee SC 12, Passive safety crash
protection systems. SAE is also a worldwide standards-setting
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, SAE developed new biofidelity response targets for
child-sized side impact ATDs, including a three-year-old child dummy,
to support work on side impact protection for children.\9\ The new
child targets were determined by scaling adult biofidelity targets
previously established by ISO.\10\ These targets became a new set of
criteria for FTSS to incorporate into the dummy design, in addition to
solving the functionality and durability problems noted by NHTSA and
the other organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The work of SAE to establish biofidelity targets for child
ATDs was overseen by the Biomechanics and Simulation Standards
Committee. The targets and methodologies are published in Irwin AL,
Mertz HJ, Elhagediab AM, Moss S (2002), Guidelines for Assessing
Biofidelity of Side Impact Dummies of Various Sizes and Ages. Stapp
Car Crash Journal V46: 297-319.
\10\ ISO/TR 9790:1999 Road vehicles--Anthropomorphic side impact
dummy--Lateral impact response requirements to assess the
biofidelity of the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FTSS continued to work on the Q3s and in April 2006, released the
Q3s Build Level A, its first production version of a new, Q3s-specific
design. Within a year, several additional upgrades were incorporated
into the design and by July 2007 Build Level C was released.

b. Developments

In 2007, the Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP),\11\
together with

[[Page 69946]]

Transport Canada (TC), tested Q3s Build Level C units to evaluate the
biofidelity and durability of the dummy, as did NHTSA. Extensive
testing was conducted to evaluate the biofidelity of the head, neck,
shoulder, thorax, and pelvis against the new SAE side impact response
corridors. In addition, the dummy was evaluated against targets for the
response of the neck in flexion and the response of the shoulder under
lateral loading.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ OSRP is an organization of the ``United States Council for
Automotive Research (USCAR),'' which is a collaborative technology
organization of Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company and General
Motors Company.
\12\ The fore-aft neck targets had previously served as design
targets for the Q-series (Irwin, AL and Mertz, HJ (1997),
``Biomechanical Basis for the CRABI and Hybrid III Child Dummies,''
Stapp Car Crash Journal V41: 1-12, SAE International, Warrendale,
PA), while the shoulder targets were newly developed (Bolte, JH et
al., (2003), ``Shoulder impact response and injury due to lateral
and oblique loading,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, V47, SAE
International, Warrendale, PA). NHTSA's test results were reported
in: Rhule, R (2008), Side impact child dummy development, 2008 SAE
Government/Industry Meeting, Washington DC, May 2008. Download at:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Public+Meetings/SAE+2008+Government+Industry+Meeting (last accessed March 25, 2013).
OSRP results were reported in ISO committee meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of the OSRP/TC and NHTSA evaluations of Build Level C
units, three key deficiencies emerged: (1) The neck did not provide
biofidelic responses in the lateral bending mode; (2) the upper femur
ball could dislodge from the hip socket during sled tests; and (3) the
thorax exhibited cracks near the spine box following typical lateral
impacts.

c. Build Level D

Over the next several years, FTSS (hereinafter ``Humanetics'')
improved the performance of the Q3s as a result of the findings of
OSRP/TC and NHTSA.
Neck and Femur and Hip Redesigns
Although Humanetics had incorporated a redesign of the neck into
Build Level C, the OSRP/TC and NHTSA tests indicated that the neck was
in need of further work. Previously, NHTSA had designed a head and neck
retrofit for side impact applications for the Hybrid III 3-year-old
child dummy (HIII-3C). Tests of this redesigned neck showed that it
provided a more biofidelic response in lateral flexion, and better
limited the amount of axial twist than the neck of the Q3s Build Level
C.\13\ The NHTSA-developed neck specifications \14\ were applied by
Humanetics to the Q3s, and the new neck was incorporated into the Q3s
in 2009, with subsequent revisions by NHTSA to the neck center cable in
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Test results were reported in: Wang, ZJ (2009), Q3s
improvement and Q6s development, 2009 SAE Government/Industry
Meeting, Washington DC, Feb. 2009. Download at: https://www.sae.org/events/gim/presentations/2009/jerrywang.pdf (last accessed March 25,
2013).
\14\ NHTSA's retrofit package included highly detailed
specifications, including engineering drawings for fabrication of
the neck component and response specifications for its dynamic
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also contributed to the redesign of the femur and hip and
several other minor parts of the dummy. The revisions were undertaken
to resolve the problem of the upper femur ball becoming dislodged from
the pelvis hip cup. This was accomplished by replacing the femur ball
and plastic hip cup with hardened aluminum components. The new pelvis
design was incorporated into the Q3s in 2009.
Thorax Material Selection
The thorax of the Q3s is a one-piece plastic casting. The cracks
near the spine box have been addressed by a change to a new castable
polyurethane resin material known by its trade name, Adiprene.
To assess the durability of the Q3s, NHTSA had established thorax
durability criteria consisting of 100 lateral impacts conducted using
the qualification test parameters (3.8 kg (8.4 lb) impactor at 3.3
meters per second (m/s)) and ten additional high-severity impacts at
4.2 m/s. In 2011, Humanetics incorporated Adiprene into the production
level Q3s. Test dummies with the new thorax material were able to meet
the agency's thorax durability criteria.
Built Level D Retrofit
The above revisions have been incorporated in a production version
of the Q3s dummy that is commercially available from Humanetics.
Humanetics' latest version of the Q3s, Build Level D, was released in
December 2010 and updated in 2011 with the Adiprene thorax, and again
in 2012 with a revision to the neck center cable. The latest revisions
have been retrofitted to the four Q3s units owned by NHTSA. In the
agency's subsequent tests--including CRS sled testing and
qualification-style impact testing--the revised neck was demonstrated
to meet NHTSA's performance criteria, and the revised pelvis and thorax
have shown no signs of failure and no degradation of performance.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ NHTSA has prepared and docketed a technical report,
``Evaluation of the Q3s Three Year Old Child Side Impact Dummy:
Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Durability (2012),'' which
includes a section that demonstrates the durability of the Q3s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description

The Q3s weighs 14.5 kg (32.0 lb). The 539 millimeter (mm) seated
height of the dummy is representative of a 50th percentile 3-year-old
child. The cost of an uninstrumented Q3s unit is about $48,750. The
cost of a minimum set of instruments needed for qualification and
compliance testing adds approximately $18,200, for a total cost of
about $66,950.

a. General Construction

With the exception of fasteners, instrument mounting plates, and
stiffeners for the femurs, the Q3s is almost completely devoid of
steel. The Q3s has about half the number of parts as the HIII-3C, which
eases its assembly and disassembly compared to the Hybrid III child
dummies. The main parts of the dummy are described below.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The Q3s leg femur bone is constructed of polyurethane
molded around a steel rod that reinforces the bone. The lower leg
bone is made of polyurethane. Both the upper and lower leg bones are
surrounded by moldings that simulate flesh. The feet have no bone
structure or articulation. The Q3s's arms are a combination of
plastics and metal. The elbow joint can be adjusted and set in a
selected position. Vinyl/foam coverings surround the bones and hands
are part of the lower arm covering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Head
The Q3s head is a fiberglass mold and consists of the skull and a
removable rear skull cap. Both parts are covered with a softer plastic
material that simulates flesh and provides a biofidelic response to
impact. The Q3s has a featureless face. The flesh is bonded directly to
the skull and skull cap to ensure a proper fit and cannot be separated.
The head cavity is large enough to allow use of several instruments,
including linear accelerometers and angular velocity sensors.
Thorax
The thorax of the Q3s consists of a one-piece solid ribcage molded
of polyurethane with a thin layer of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ``skin''
bonded to the outer aspect. The ribcage is bolted to an aluminum spine.
The molded part is contoured to take the shape of a human. The variable
thickness of the part is purposefully designed so that, together with a
properly selected polyurethane density, the thorax provides a
biofidelic response to impact loading. An internally mounted IR-TRACC
\17\ measures the deflection of the

[[Page 69947]]

lateral aspect of the ribcage relative to the spine. A neoprene suit
fits over the torso, similar to a wetsuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The Infra Red Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest
Compression (IR-TRACC) was developed by General Motors, and first
presented in: Rouhana SW., Elhagediab AM, Chapp JJ (1998), ``A high-
speed sensor for measuring chest deflection in crash test dummies,''
Proceedings of the 16th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, May 31-June
4, 1998, Paper Number 98-S9-O-15, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neck
The Q3s neck is a segmented design that consists of a column of
three natural rubber segments bonded to four aluminum disks. A six-axis
upper neck load cell is mounted at the neck/head interface. The rubber
segments have an oval-like shape with circumferential V-shaped grooves.
A safety cable made from wire rope runs through the center of the neck
and provides axial resistance.
Shoulder
The Q3s shoulder design is molded from natural rubber into a
hollowed, rectangular structure that allows controlled buckling when
the shoulder is struck on the lateral aspect. The shoulder joint itself
consists of a ball and socket in order to simulate the humerus-scapula
joint. The upper arm has urethane flesh covering the entire outer
surface of the arm which helps reduce the inertial peak from a pendulum
impact. A string potentiometer is built into the shoulder assembly to
measure the lateral deflection of the shoulder socket joint relative to
the spine.
Spine
A short interface block connects the lower neck to the upper
thoracic spine. The thoracic spine itself is a rectangular column
machined from aluminum and about 140 mm long. It interfaces with a
rubber cylindrical prism in the upper lumbar region. A short block
connects the rubber lumbar column to the pelvis assembly.
Abdomen
The abdomen is similar to other ATDs in that it consists of a
molded, foam-filled shell with a PVC outer skin. This shell is
uninstrumented and fits between the ribcage and the pelvis.
Pelvis
The pelvis has two parts: A pelvic bone casting made of a zinc
alloy encased snuggly within a molded polyurethane flesh. The pelvis
casting is configured to accept an accelerometer array and a pubic
subassembly accommodating a pubic load cell. The hip cups and femur
heads are hardened aluminum.
Reversibility
The Q3s design incorporates reversibility features to accommodate
the dummy's use for both left and right side impacts. In NHTSA's
proposed upgrade to FMVSS No. 213, the Q3s could be used to test
forward-facing and rear-facing CRSs. The sled system proposed for use
by NHTSA would position the dummy for a left side impact when testing
forward-facing CRSs, and for a right side impact when testing rear-
facing CRSs. The PADI manual describes the steps to convert the
instrumentation from a left to a right side impact.

b. Instrumentation

Table 1 contains a list of instrumentation needed to qualify the
Q3s, i.e., the instrumentation needed for the dummy to meet the
qualification requirements included in the proposed subpart W. Note
that the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test that NHTSA is considering
focuses on measuring head acceleration, using the three uni-axial
accelerometers at the head center of gravity (C.G.), and chest
deflection, using the IR-TRACC in the thorax. Nonetheless, the other
instrumentation listed in the table would be needed for the
qualification test to assess the performance of significant parts of
the dummy and to ensure the soundness of the dummy as a whole. The Q3s
accepts additional instrumentation other than that listed below, such
as angular rate sensors in the dummy's head.

Table 1--Required Instrumentation To Qualify the Q3s Dummy Under Part 572
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Measurement Instrument
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q3s head C.G......................... Acceleration............ Accelerometer (3 req.).
Q3s upper neck....................... Forces and moments...... Load cell.
Q3s thorax........................... Deflection.............. IR-TRACC.
Q3s shoulder......................... Deflection.............. String potentiometer.
Q3s lumbar spine..................... Forces and moments...... Load cell.
Q3s pubic symphysis.................. Force................... Load cell.
Qualification test equipment......... Neck, lumbar rotation... Angular rate sensor (2 req.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Biofidelity

a. Anthropometry

The anthropometry and dummy segment mass properties of the Q3s were
defined in the early design stage of the original Q3 based on TNO's
data in its Child Anthropometric Database (CANDAT).\18\ For the most
part, the same anthropometry and mass distributions have been retained
all the way through to the Build Level D production version of the Q3s.
The Q3s represents a 50th percentile three-year-old child, based on the
data derived from CANDAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ According to TNO publications (Beusenberg et al., 1993; Van
Ratingen, et al., 1997), CANDAT is built upon various anthropometry
surveys conducted in the United States, the Netherlands, Germany,
and Japan from 1970-1993 of external dimensions and overall mass of
children from birth up to 18 years old. Each survey source examined
a different age group, and each had its own set of unique collection
parameters. To handle gaps and inconsistencies within the source
data, TNO applied regression routines and interpolation techniques
to derive the anthropometry of a particular body segment size as a
function of age or total body mass. Regression was based on the
assumption that growth is a smooth and continuous process. The
anthropometry surveys identified by TNO as the basis of CANDAT were
performed by organizations other than TNO. CANDAT is the property of
TNO and Humanetics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biofidelity targets for a particular dummy are a function of its
anthropometry and mass. Our assessment of the Q3s made use of
biofidelity targets derived by SAE. These response targets were derived
specifically for side impact dummies that have the same characteristic
dimensions and masses as the Hybrid III family of dummies. Unlike the
TNO studies used for the Q3s, the anthropometric basis of the Hybrid
III three-year-old child dummy was derived by SAE using survey data of
children in the United States only (Irwin and Mertz, 1997).\19\ SAE
also used slightly different assumptions to specify the body segment
mass properties. Nonetheless, the SAE specifications for the
anthropometry and mass of a three-year-old are very similar to those
based on CANDAT. The Q3s generally matches up with SAE specifications
as well as it does with CANDAT specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Irwin and Mertz (1997). Biomechanical Basis for the CRABI
and Hybrid III Child Dummies. Stapp Car Crash Journal V41: 1-12, SAE
International, Warrendale, PA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69948]]

There are small differences in body segment mass properties between
the two ATDs due to differences in the manner in which TNO and SAE
apportioned the segments. For instance, the TNO torso does not include
parts of the thighs, whereas the SAE target does (the HIII-3C's thighs
are included in a sitting form pelvis consistent with other Hybrid III
dummies, which are built with a one-piece vinyl covering that fits
around the pelvis and extends mid-thigh). Since the Q3s is not
constructed in this way, its torso mass is lower than the SAE target
because it includes only the torso, not part of the thighs. Conversely,
the Q3s thigh mass is higher than the SAE target, since it includes
more of the thigh segment.
The total body mass of the Q3s matches that of the HIII-3C, and is
very close to the most recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) growth
charts.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ CDC growth charts for year 2000 are reported by Kuczmarski
RJ, et al. (2002), 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States:
Methods and development. National Center for Health Statistics.Vital
Health Stat 11(246), 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2, below, provides the anthropometry and mass of various body
segments for the Q3s along with the reference specifications of both
CANDAT (TNO) and SAE. For reference, CDC data for height and total mass
are footnoted in the table. (Note that, unlike the erect posture of CDC
subjects, the reference posture of the Q3s is reclined and the pelvis
angle reflects a child's seating position in a CRS. Also, the neck of
the Q3s is angled such that the head is leveled when the dummy is
seated. Thus, the Q3s height measurement is an approximation only
because the dummy cannot be positioned in the same fully erect posture
taken by children when their height is measured.)
The TNO and SAE specifications for anthropometry appear essentially
the same. The anthropometry of the Q3s is also close to these
specifications, with the exception of the chest depth and the waist
circumference (both larger in the Q3s). As compared to a human, the Q3s
torso is more rounded in order to provide greater internal space for
the installation of the IR-TRACC. When struck laterally, the rounded
torso also helps to give the dummy a biofidelic response in terms of
the force needed to achieve proper chest deflection. For the waist, the
difference reflects the seated reference posture of the Q3s as compared
to the standing posture of children represented in CANDAT.
When comparing mass, Table 2 shows that the Q3s head is close to
the TNO target, but it is light in comparison to the SAE target. For
the neck, the Q3s also is aligned with the TNO target, but is light in
comparison to the SAE. As discussed in the section below, these
differences in anthropometry specifications are not significant in
terms of the biofidelity of the Q3s under impact loading.
The other body segment masses shown in Table 2 (in italics) do not
reflect a one-to-one comparison because of differences in apportioning.
We note also that the mass of the upper extremities is lighter than the
SAE value to compensate for the cumulative excess mass of the other
dummy segments, to enable the total mass of the Q3s to be on target.

Table 2--Q3s Anthropometry and Mass Compared to TNO and SAE Targets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Difference,
ANTHROPOMETRY (mm) TNO SAE Q3s Q3s vs. SAE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standing height*................................ 954 953 986 +3
Sitting height.................................. 551 546 556 +2
Shoulder height, sitting........................ 340 334 340 +2
Shoulder breadth (max).......................... 246 246 247 0
Hip breadth (seated)............................ 194 193 202 +5
Head depth...................................... 177 177 180 +2
Head breadth.................................... 134 135 138 +2
Head circumference.............................. 500 498 502 +1
Chest breadth................................... 161 173 174 +1
Chest depth..................................... 122 122 151 +24
Chest circumference, axilla..................... 508 505 523 +4
Waist circumference............................. 475 480 521 +9
Thigh height, sitting........................... 78 84 86 +2
Buttock-knee length............................. 293 284 305 +7
Shoulder-elbow distance......................... 190 193 186 -4
Elbow to tip of finger.......................... 250 254 240 -6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MASS (kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total mass**.................................... 14.5 14.5 14.26 -2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head............................................ 2.90 3.05 2.81 -8
Neck............................................ 0.30 0.40 0.31 -23
Torso assembly.................................. 6.20 6.61 5.78 -13
Upper extremities............................... 3.50 1.82 1.41 -22
Lower extremities............................... 1.50 2.63 3.55 +35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Comparable reference: CDC 2000, 50th percentile three-year-old, standing fully erect:
boys: height=950 mm; total mass=14.3 kg
girls: height=940 mm; total mass=13.8 kg
**Total mass of Q3s includes its body suit, 0.40 kg.

[[Page 69949]]

b. Biofidelity Assessment Under Dynamic Loading

Our assessment of the Q3s is based primarily on biofidelity targets
established by SAE \21\ for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, and
pelvis of a three-year-old. (A biofidelity target is the desired
performance that a dummy should attain to be considered replicating the
biomechanical response of a human.) In addition, we assessed the Q3s
against additional shoulder targets based on tests carried out at Ohio
State University (Bolte, 2003),\22\ and against abdominal targets
formulated by TNO.\23\ For the most part, the biofidelity targets are
based on pendulum impacts to body segments using cylindrical test
probes suspended by wire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ NHTSA has evaluated the SAE targets and is satisfied with
the technical bases underlying them. The SAE targets were derived
systematically using a defined process. The scaling theories as well
as the underlying anthropometric and biomechanical test data have
all been vetted and released to the public domain. SAE methods have
been used by NHTSA to assess the biofidelity of the majority of Part
572 ATDs and we find them to be sound, data-driven, and well-founded
scientifically.
\22\ The test procedure and biofidelity targets are described
in: Bolte JH, Hines NH, Herriot RG, Donnelly BR, McFadden JD (2003).
Shoulder impact response and injury due to lateral and oblique
loading, Stapp Car Crash Journal, V47, SAE International,
Warrendale, PA.
\23\ We have used this TNO biofidelity target because there is
none for the Q3s abdomen developed by the SAE. We have not used the
TNO biofidelity targets for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, and
pelvis because they are derived from assumptions and underlying data
within CANDAT, some of which have not been made fully accessible to
the public. Thus, due to the transparency and reliability of the SAE
targets and because the TNO targets cannot be fully judged to the
same degree that SAE targets can be, we have decided to use
primarily the SAE targets in assessing the biofidelity of the Q3s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scaling of Adult Human Response Data
Biofidelity targets are based on observed human responses to impact
loading. Generally, to assess a dummy's biofidelity, the human's
response characteristics must be known. To assess adult dummies, adult
post mortem human subjects (PMHS) are exposed to controlled forces,
loads, and impacts and their responses are measured. However,
biomechanical response data on children under impact loading is
nonexistent or very limited, so other means must be used to estimate
the human child's response characteristics.
Scaling adult PMHS data to the child's size using mass,
anthropometry, and stiffness ratios represents the best available
method of estimating the human child's response characteristics (see
Irwin and Mertz, 1997 and Irwin, 2002, for details on the scaling
theory and assumptions applied by SAE). Thus, scaling techniques were
used to derive a set of biomechanical targets for the Q3s whereby adult
PMHS data were scaled to a three-year-old child. The targets were
determined by scaling the biomechanical responses observed for various
body segments of the midsize adult male down to a three-year-old.
Given the lack of pediatric biomechanical data and the many
assumptions made in the scaling process, there is greater uncertainty
associated with child biofidelity targets compared to the adult targets
from which they were derived. Therefore, NHTSA does not consider the
biofidelity targets applied herein to be strict prerequisites to accept
the dummy. Although biofidelity targets are central to evaluating the
dummy, we have had to carefully analyze the findings to assess the
biofidelity of the child ATD, judging, among other factors, the extent
to which the child ATD met or missed the scaled target, and whether
this would affect the usefulness of the ATD in its intended
application.
Q3s Biofidelity Assessment
The agency has prepared a supporting document, ``Biofidelity
Assessment of the Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Side Impact Dummy (July
2012),'' which provides a detailed discussion of the agency's
biofidelity assessment, which is summarized below. A copy of the report
has been placed in the docket for this NPRM. The report discusses the
performance of the Q3s relative to the biofidelity targets.
A body part-by-body part synopsis of the biofidelity performance of
the Q3s under dynamic loading is given below. For pendulum impacts,
biofidelity is generally assessed as ``external'' or ``internal.''
External biofidelity is related to the force generated on the face of a
pendulum impact probe upon striking a subject. In other words, probe
forces generated by dummies are compared against probe forces generated
by PMHS. Internal biofidelity is related to a measurement on or within
the subject itself, such as shoulder deflection or spine acceleration,
for which corresponding measurements are made on both the PMHS and the
dummy.
Head
Given that the use of the Q3s in the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test
under consideration would be to measure risk of head injury (using a
linear acceleration-based head injury criterion, HIC), we consider head
biofidelity to be highly important for the ATD. For the Q3s, we
assessed head biofidelity in both frontal (Irwin and Mertz, 1997) and
lateral (Irwin, 2002) orientations using Part 572-style head drop
procedures. The responses of the Q3s head are well within the SAE
corridors for both frontal and lateral drops, i.e., the responses
wholly met the biofidelity target for the head.
Neck
The behavior of the neck in lateral flexion affects the overall
motion of the head. We tested the Q3s neck to lateral flexion according
to the SAE protocol (Irwin, et al., 2002), which uses a standard Part
572 neck pendulum to observe the moment-angle relationship. The Q3s
neck response is entirely within the SAE corridors, completely meeting
the biofidelity target.
We also assessed the biofidelity of the Q3s neck in frontal flexion
(Irwin and Mertz, 1997). In the frontal flexion assessment, we found
that the Q3s neck data generally follows the shape of the corridor of
the biofidelity target, although the curve is not completely contained
within the corridor. Given that neck flexion occurs mainly in the
lateral direction under the intended use of the dummy, a slight
nonconformity in frontal flexion is not disconcerting. On balance, we
find the biofidelity of the Q3s neck to be satisfactory for use in our
CRS side impact safety standard under consideration.
Shoulder
Although there is no shoulder IARV being contemplated for the Q3s,
the shoulder does interact with the CRS during the test procedure under
consideration for FMVSS No. 213. In view of this, NHTSA evaluated the
biofidelity of the Q3s shoulder in component testing under the loading
of a pendulum.
The unpadded test involved the SAE protocol (Irwin, 2002), which
uses a rigid pendulum in a pure lateral direction. Response criteria
included corridors for lateral shoulder displacement and for probe
force. The Q3s shoulder showed high stiffness with respect to lateral
shoulder displacement and probe force under this test protocol.
Next we reexamined shoulder biofidelity under conditions that
correspond more closely to the intended use of the Q3s in the FMVSS No.
213 test procedure being contemplated: Those of the Ohio State protocol
(Bolte et al., 2003), which uses the same impactor mass and speed as
the SAE test but with foam padding attached to the impactor face. The
latter condition was considered because the FMVSS No. 213 impact being
contemplated exposes the Q3s to the padded side structure

[[Page 69950]]

(``wing'') of the child restraint in the test.
Under the Ohio State protocol, test results also indicate that the
shoulder of the Q3s is stiff when assessed for biofidelity as measured
by its internal deflection. However, the force response of the padded
probe (external biofidelity) nearly matches the target. As such, the
Q3s shoulder appears to be biofidelic in the manner in which it would
exert force on the child restraint system. This loading of the child
restraint, which would affect the overall motion of the dummy's upper
torso and head (through which the FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria under
consideration would be measured), appears representative of an actual
human.
Thorax
The biofidelity of the thorax under lateral loading is an important
performance target for the Q3s since the agency is considering a
proposal to adopt thorax deflection as an injury assessment reference
value (IARV) in the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test. Thorax biofidelity
is assessed via high (6.0 m/s) and low (4.3 m/s) speed pendulum impacts
prescribed by SAE. Pendulum force corridors are used to assess the
external biofidelity of the dummy, and upper torso (T1) acceleration is
used to assess internal biofidelity. (SAE did not develop a biofidelity
target based on thorax deflection because PMHS in the underlying tests
were not instrumented as such.)
Test results indicate that the pendulum forces generated by the Q3s
are within the corridors for both high and low speed tests. The
magnitude of the internal T1 acceleration is also on target, though it
is slightly out of phase with the biofidelity corridor (i.e., the peak
magnitude is within the limit afforded by the corridor, but it occurs
about 10 ms too early). We believe this phase difference, which is
related to the mechanics of human thoracic tissues vs. the Q3s polymer
thorax, is an acceptable compromise in producing a dummy that is
affordable, durable, and otherwise practicable for use as a regulatory
tool.
Abdomen
We assessed the biofidelity of the abdomen in an oblique pendulum
impact using probe force targets established by TNO. This assessment
was carried out with the probe striking the antero-lateral aspect of
the dummy rather than the full lateral aspect because neither TNO nor
SAE had established biofidelity targets for the latter. Furthermore,
abdominal biofidelity is important mostly in frontal impacts in
relation to lap belt loading. Since the Q3s would primarily be used in
side impacts to test CRSs having an internal harness, abdominal loads
are not expected to be excessive. Nonetheless, the loading to the
abdomen in the FMVSS No. 213 testing under consideration may have some
frontal component, with the resultant loading being oblique. Therefore,
the biofidelity assessment was performed with an oblique impact. The
Q3s performed very favorably when examined against the TNO established
targets.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The TNO targets are based on a scaling of adult PMHS data
in which subjects were struck in the abdomen by a pendulum aligned
30 degrees from lateral (i.e., an oblique impact). The PMHS data is
from a test series where subjects initially underwent thoracic
impacts and then were re-used for abdominal impacts. The thoracic
impact data were used to establish thorax corridors in the ISO 9790
Technical Report, the underlying source document upon which the SAE
three-year-old targets have been derived. The repeat abdominal
tests, however, were not used by ISO and thus no SAE targets are
provided for abdominal biofidelity subjected to pendulum impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, noting that an assumption was made by TNO that the child
abdomen is stiffer than the adult, NHTSA re-formulated the corridor by
assuming that abdomen stiffness is a function of the elastic modulus of
soft tissue, and that child and adult moduli are the same. (This
assumption was also employed in developing the SAE corridors for other
body regions.) When compared against the re-formulated corridor, the
Q3s performs a little less favorably, but still follows along the upper
bound of the corridor. Details of this comparison are provided in our
supporting document, ``Biofidelity Assessment of the Q3s Three-Year-Old
Child Side Impact Dummy,'' supra at p. 17.
Pelvis
The external biofidelity of the pelvis was assessed using an SAE
pendulum impact protocol (lateral impact of 2.27 kg rigid impact probe
at 4.5 m/s) and pendulum force limits. The test results indicate that
the Q3s pelvis appears stiff relative to a child. The dummy had been
redesigned with hardened aluminum hips replacing plastic ones to
improve its durability, and this change may have resulted in a greater
force response. Nonetheless, in our repeatability and reproducibility
testing with Cozy Cline CRSs (discussed later), the wide scatter in
pelvis response did not seem to have any effect on HIC15 and chest
deflection. Further, the tradeoff in biofidelity for improved
durability may be necessary for use of the dummy in a regulatory
environment.
Summary
Our biofidelity assessment of the Q3s is based on head drops and
pendulum tests, which have demonstrated the biofidelity of the test
dummy. Our test results indicate that the biofidelity of the Q3s is
most satisfactory for the head, thorax, and neck. It is in these three
body segments where proper biofidelity is most critical for the
intended use of the dummy in the FMVSS No. 213 test procedure under
consideration.
Relative to humans, the dummy appears to be stiff in the shoulder
and pelvis. For a CRS under test, the shoulder and pelvis could
conceivably act as load paths such that the thorax deflection in the
Q3s may be unrealistically low relative to a human. However, it may not
be feasible to engineer a biofidelic design into the shoulder and
pelvis at this time without sacrificing some other critical performance
features, such as durability. While a child test dummy with a more
biofidelic shoulder and pelvis may be developed in the future, the
agency tentatively concludes that the Q3s is a suitable and valuable
test device for use in child restraint side impact testing at this
time. On balance, the agency is satisfied with the overall biofidelity
of the Q3s.

V. Repeatability and Reproducibility

A test dummy's repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) is
demonstrated in sled tests and component tests. Sled tests establish
the consistency of the dummy's kinematics, its impact response as an
assembly, and the integrity of the dummy's structure and
instrumentation under controlled and representative crash environment
test conditions. In component tests, the impact input as well as the
test equipment is carefully controlled to minimize external effects on
the dummy's responses. NHTSA has assessed the repeatability and
reproducibility of the Q3s in CRS side impact sled tests and in
component tests.
Repeatability is defined as the similarity of responses from a
single dummy when subjected to multiple repeats of a given test
condition. Reproducibility is defined as the similarity of test
responses from multiple dummies when subjected to multiple repeats of a
given test condition. A quantitative assessment of R&R is achieved
using a statistical analysis of variance. The percent coefficient of
variation (%CV) is a measure of variability expressed as a percentage
of the mean. The %CV is calculated as follows:

[[Page 69951]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.000

Where [sigma] = standard deviation of responses \25\

\25\ Standard deviations are based on a sample and calculated
using the ``n-1'' method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X = mean of responses
We have used a %CV scale shown in Table 3 to assess the quality of
repeatability and reproducibility of the Q3s. This approach was first
introduced by NHTSA as a means of evaluating dummy repeatability when
the original subpart B Hybrid II 50th percentile male ATD was proposed
(40 FR 33466, August 8, 1975). Since then, the agency has used this
approach for other 49 CFR Part 572 rulemakings, including those to
adopt side impact dummies such as the ES-2re midsize adult male side
impact dummy (subpart U, 71 FR 75304, December 14, 2006) and the SID-
IIs 5th percentile adult female side impact dummy (subpart V, 71 FR
75342, December 14, 2006).

Table 3--%CV Score Categorization for Repeatability and Reproducibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproducibility %
Repeatability % CV Score CV Score Assessment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
%CV <= 5...................... %CV <= 6......... EXCELLENT.
5 < %CV <= 8.................. 6 < %CV <= 11.... GOOD.
8 < %CV <= 10................. 11 < %CV <= 15... MARGINAL.
%CV > 10...................... %CV > 15......... POOR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For repeatability and reproducibility assessments, acceptable
limits are ``MARGINAL'' and above. For repeatability, the MARGINAL
limit is set at a %CV value of 10 percent. For MARGINAL
reproducibility, a slightly greater %CV of 15 percent is used since
multiple dummies produce a wider dispersion of response measurement
than in testing a single dummy for repeatability. These limits were
most recently used in adopting the HIII-10C 10-year-old child dummy
into 49 CFR Part 572 (subpart T, 77 FR 11651, February 27, 2012). All
R&R values in the ``POOR'' category were investigated to assess the
cause of the high variance. If needed, corrective measures were made to
the dummy.

a. R&R in Sled Tests

In the sled tests, a CRS was mounted on a generic bench seat which
was allowed to slide into a padded wall, generating lateral impact
loading on the CRS and the Q3s dummy. The deceleration pulse of the
sliding bench seat was controlled by the crush of aluminum honeycomb.
The peak lateral acceleration of the test buck was approximately 25.4 g
and the peak velocity was 31.4 km/h (19.5 mph).\26\ The configuration
and sled pulse generally corresponded to the procedure under
consideration for the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test, except the
loadwall had a uniform surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The acceleration of the test buck is intended to mimic the
impulse experienced by a CRS installed in the rear seat of a small
passenger vehicle subjected to a side impact by a moving deformable
barrier as specified in FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact protection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To assess the R&R of the Q3s in sled tests, two dummies were each
tested five times using the sliding seat sled buck. The simulated wall
padding was replaced after each test. Two sets of seat padding for the
sliding bench were alternated after each test. The locations of
multiple dummy landmarks were measured before each test to minimize
test-to-test variation in the dummy's seated position.
All tests were performed with identical forward-facing Graco Cozy
Cline child restraints, with a new child restraint used for each test.
These child restraints were sold for children weighing 9 to 18 kg (20
to 40 lb). In CRS tests performed in support of NHTSA's proposed
rulemaking to add a side impact test to FMVSS No. 213, the Cozy Cline
child restraint produced Q3s metrics that were generally high relative
to those produced by other CRSs. Thus, we chose to evaluate the R&R of
the Q3s with the Cozy Cline child restraint because the data indicated
that these child restraints more vigorously exercised the dummy's
assessment of the injury criteria of interest compared to other CRSs we
have tested.
The sled test results indicated ``GOOD'' to ``EXCELLENT''
repeatability and reproducibility.\27\ The statistical analysis of
select measurements in all tests for each dummy and both dummies
combined is summarized in Table 4. NHTSA has prepared and docketed a
technical report, ``Evaluation of the Q3s Three Year Old Child Side
Impact Dummy: Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Durability (2012),''
which discusses the test procedures and results in greater detail. The
report also provides references for the location of the test data
including sensor signals and videography.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Qualification tests were performed on each dummy before and
after the sled test series to evaluate the Q3s's durability. The
dummies met all of the preliminary qualification response
requirements, both before and after the sled series.

Table 4--Summary of Sled Test Responses for Select Channels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dummy S/N 006 Dummy S/N 007 Combined Data
Used for: Parameter --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg Std dev % CV Avg Std dev % CV Avg Std dev % CV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS \1\................................ HIC15....................... 700 14.8 2 708 19.4 3 704 16.8 2
P572 \2\ & FMVSS \1\..................... Thorax Y-Disp, mm........... 34 0.8 2 33 2.8 9 34 2.0 6
Part 572 \2\............................. Head Res-Accel, g........... 97 2.1 2 96 2.0 2 96 2.0 2
R&D \3\.................................. Neck Y-force, N............. 744 56.5 8 687 57.3 8 716 61.4 9
Part 572 \2\............................. Neck X-Moment, Nm........... 31 3.8 12 28 2.3 8 29 3.4 12
Part 572 \2\............................. Shoulder Y-Disp, mm......... 24 1.0 4 24 0.8 3 24 0.8 4
R&D \3\.................................. Up spine Res-Accel, g....... 65 3.3 5 65 8.2 13 65 5.9 9
R&D \3\.................................. Lumbar Y-Force, N........... 324 20.7 6 343 38.8 11 333 31.0 9
R&D \3\.................................. Pelvis Res-Accel, g......... 101 15.8 16 106 22.9 22 104 18.7 18

[[Page 69952]]

Part 572 \2\............................. Pubic Y-Force, N............ 388 43.4 11 324 75.5 23 356 67.1 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CRS requirement under consideration for a FMVSS No. 213 side impact test.
\2\ Qualification for proposed Part 572.
\3\ Injury assessment for research and development (R&D) only.

The following discusses the sled test results that relate to
responses of primary importance to the dummy's use in side impact,
i.e., primarily measurements under consideration for use in the FMVSS
No. 213 side impact test, and measurements that would serve as Part 572
qualification targets. Other measurements commonly examined in research
efforts are also discussed below.
Head Acceleration and HIC15
As seen in Table 4, head acceleration and HIC15 both displayed
``EXCELLENT'' repeatability and reproducibility. Since these responses
are being considered as injury criteria for our CRS side impact
requirements, we believe it is very important for these responses to
exhibit a high degree of repeatability. It is notable that the average
HIC15 value was 704. This value exceeds the IARVs under consideration
for our CRS requirements, thus demonstrating that the dummy has very
good R&R up to and beyond the expected pass/fail limit.
Thorax Deflection
Thorax deflection (labeled ``Thorax Y-Disp'' in Table 4), as
measured by the IR-TRACC, also displayed ``EXCELLENT'' reproducibility
when the responses of both dummies were combined. The average
measurement of 34 mm exceeds the IARVs under consideration for our CRS
requirements, which attests to the reliable performance of the dummy at
pass/fail limits.
We note that for dummy serial number 007, the thorax y-displacement
is only ``MARGINAL.'' Closer inspection of the lateral thorax
displacement data indicates that the response for one of the tests was
quite different than that of the previous four tests. Our review of the
pre-test positioning data revealed that in test 5, the dummy's elbow
location relative to other body landmarks was farthest away from the
average location. We believe that the elbow position relative to the
dummy's torso played a critical role in the amount of subsequent
lateral thorax displacement. Because these data show an apparent
sensitivity to elbow positioning, the agency has developed a procedure
to position the elbow at a specific angle relative to the thorax.
Neck Y-Force and X-Moment
Neck Y-force and X-moment responses exhibited ``GOOD'' and
``MARGINAL'' reproducibility, respectively. A closer inspection of the
data indicates that the peak neck force in one of the tests for dummy
serial number 006 was about 40 percent lower than the other four tests,
for reasons that could not be determined by the test technicians. If
test 3 were removed from the dataset, the repeatability of dummy 006
for neck X-moment becomes ``EXCELLENT'' and the overall reproducibility
becomes ``GOOD.''
Shoulder Y-Displacement
The shoulder displacement, as measured by the Q3s's internal string
potentiometer, also displayed ``EXCELLENT'' repeatability in both
dummies as well as in its overall reproducibility when the responses of
both dummies are combined. Although there is no IARV associated with
shoulder displacement, the average measurement of 24 mm is fairly high
in comparison to the values obtained in research tests from other
tested CRSs. Again, this attests to the good performance of the dummy
in conditions beyond those to which the ATD will typically be exposed
in an FMVSS No. 213 compliance test.
Upper Spine Acceleration
The overall reproducibility of both dummies combined was ``GOOD,''
although the upper spine resultant acceleration for dummy 007 displayed
``POOR'' repeatability. However, as with the lateral thorax
displacement responses, the upper spine acceleration for test 5 of
dummy 007 was anomalous as compared to the previous four tests. We
believe that this result is related to the issue of arm position. We
note that if test 5 were removed from the dataset, the ``POOR''
repeatability of dummy 007 for upper spine acceleration becomes
``EXCELLENT'' and the overall reproducibility also becomes
``EXCELLENT.''
Pelvis Resultant-Acceleration, Lumbar Y-Force, and Pubic Y-Force
Poor repeatability was observed in the pelvic and lumbar responses.
Pelvis resultant acceleration response curves revealed a sharp spike in
the data around 90 ms. These spikes obscured the true data peaks, which
occurred around 85 ms, and therefore present a negative effect on the
repeatability analysis. A similar spike, of lesser magnitude, was
evident in the lumbar Y-force responses, also around the 90 ms mark of
the event.
The source of the data spikes were subsequently determined by NHTSA
to emanate from ``knee knock.'' The dummy's knees are hard plastic
components, and they contacted each other precisely at the instant that
the spikes occurred in the pelvis acceleration and lumbar Y-force
channels. This condition has since been mitigated in the final Q3s
design which incorporates a padded covering over the medial aspect of
the knees to dampen the force of impact.
The repeatability of the pubic Y-force measurement was also shown
to be ``POOR.'' This rating is not attributed to the knee knock
condition. Rather, pubic Y-force appears to be a measurement that is
highly sensitive to any variation in the test conditions. Nonetheless,
variations in pubic Y-force do not appear to affect the dummy's head
acceleration and thorax Y-displacement (the IARVs we are exploring for
the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test under consideration), which
exhibited low variability despite the scatter in pubic force.
Supplemental Tests
In consideration of the ``MARGINAL'' performance observed for some
of the responses in the previous sled test series, we ran another
series of Cozy Cline tests with the final version of the Q3s. The final
Q3s incorporated the aforementioned pads on the medial surfaces of the
knees as well as a simplified design of the neck center cable. The
older cable design was

[[Page 69953]]

thought to contribute to the non-uniformity observed in the earlier
sled tests. Additionally, we added a padded door panel and positioned
the arm at 25 degrees to be more consistent with what is under
consideration for the proposed side impact test protocol.
The results for this supplemental test series are shown in Table 5.
As compared to the previous set of tests shown in Table 4, the
supplemental series demonstrate improved repeatability in measurements
of shoulder and thorax deflection, neck loads, and pelvis acceleration.
These improvements are directly related to a new arm positioning
protocol, the revised neck center cable, and the elimination of knee
knock, respectively.
Pubic force repeatability was again rated as ``POOR.'' Since the
revisions to the dummy and test protocol were not aimed at improving
this measure, the ``POOR'' rating was not unexpected.

Table 5--Summary of Supplemental Sled Test Responses for Select Channels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dummy S/N 004
Used for: Parameter ----------------------------------------
Avg Std dev % CV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS \1\................................ HIC15....................... 795 22.2 3
P572 \2\ & FMVSS \1\..................... Thorax Y-Disp, mm........... 17.8 0.7 4
Part 572 \2\............................. Head Res-Accel, g........... 110 3.6 3
R&D \3\.................................. Neck Y-force, N............. 630 42 7
Part 572 \2\............................. Neck X-Moment, Nm........... 28.0 1.9 7
Part 572 \2\............................. Shoulder Y-Disp, mm......... 24.3 0.5 2
R&D \3\.................................. Up spine Res-Accel, g....... 129 6.8 5
R&D \3\.................................. Lumbar Y-Force, N........... 765 69 9
R&D \3\.................................. Pelvis Res-Accel, g......... 97.1 8.5 9
Part 572 \2\............................. Pubic Y-Force, N............ 557 118 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CRS requirement under consideration for a FMVSS No. 213 side impact test.
\2\ Qualification for proposed Part 572.
\3\ Injury assessment for research and development (R&D) only.

b. R&R in Component Qualification Tests

Test dummies specified in 49 CFR Part 572 are subjected to a series
of qualification tests to ensure that their components are functioning
properly. The qualification tests proposed for the Q3s are discussed
further in a later section. We have proposed qualification tests for
the dummy's head, neck, shoulder, thorax, lumbar, and pelvis, assessing
35 response mechanisms for the dummy.
We tested NHTSA's four Q3s units to the proposed qualification
tests, assessing among other matters the performance of the units when
tested to the qualification tests, and the repeatability and
reproducibility of the dummies. The findings are discussed in the
technical report, ``Evaluation of the Q3s Three Year-Old Child Side
Impact Dummy: Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Durability,'' supra.
R&R in the component qualification tests were assessed by testing
the four Q3s dummies, all conforming to the latest available revision
level. Tests were run for both right and left side impacts. Average,
standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were computed for each
required measurement parameter of each qualification procedure. We used
the same guidelines to rate R&R as was used previously in our R&R
evaluation using sled tests (see Table 3, supra).
Head Drop Tests
Head qualification consisted of two test components: Frontal and
lateral head drops. The frontal head drop was conducted from a height
of 376 mm, while the lateral head drop was conducted at 200 mm.
Four Q3s dummy heads were each subjected to six frontal head drops,
five left-side lateral drops, and five right-side lateral drops. The
responses are summarized in Table 6 for frontal drops and in Table 7
with left- and right-side tests combined. Each individual head was
rated as having ``EXCELLENT'' repeatability in both the frontal and
lateral modes. When combining the responses, the reproducibility of all
four heads was also rated as ``EXCELLENT'' in both the frontal and
lateral test modes.

Table 6--Summary of Frontal Head Drop Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resultant
Dummy S/N accel (g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
004............................... avg................... 273.0
stdev................. 3.86
%CV................... 1.41
006............................... avg................... 276.5
stdev................. 2.48
%CV................... 0.90
007............................... avg................... 282.0
stdev................. 4.35
%CV................... 1.54
008............................... avg................... 263.5
stdev................. 5.12
%CV................... 1.94
All............................... avg................... 273.8
stdev................. 7.68
%CV................... 2.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7--Summary of Lateral Head Drop Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resultant
Dummy S/N Orientation L&R accel (g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
004............................... Avg................... 131.3
Stdev................. 3.50
%CV................... 2.67
006............................... Avg................... 124.7
Stdev................. 3.64
%CV................... 2.92
007............................... Avg................... 127.1
Stdev................. 3.92
%CV................... 3.08
008............................... avg................... 123.2
stdev................. 4.08
%CV................... 3.31
All............................... avg................... 126.6
stdev................. 4.78
%CV................... 3.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neck Pendulum Tests
Flexion Tests. The two flexion tests utilized the Part 572 neck
pendulum and a headform designed to mimic the inertial properties of
the head (Part 572, Subpart E, Figure 22). The frontal flexion test was
at a 4.7 m/s impact speed and the lateral test was at a 3.8 m/s speed.
Both tests prescribed a deceleration pulse. For the frontal

[[Page 69954]]

flexion tests, four Q3s dummy necks were subjected to five tests. For
lateral flexion, each of the four necks was subjected to five left-side
tests and five right-side tests.
The responses are summarized in Table 8 (frontal flexion) and Table
9 (lateral flexion). For the frontal flexion and lateral flexion tests,
each individual neck provided ``EXCELLENT'' repeatability for all
criteria considered. Reproducibility was also ``EXCELLENT'' for all
four necks combined.
Neck Torsion. During CRS testing, the Q3s neck may flex with
varying degrees of neck twist. We have therefore developed a procedure
to assure that the neck is repeatable under twist. The new neck torsion
test uses a special test fixture attached to the Part 572 pendulum,
which imparts a pure torsion moment to the isolated neck. The test
specifies a 3.6 m/s impact speed with a defined deceleration pulse.
Each of the four Q3s dummy necks was subjected to five left-side tests
and five right-side tests. The responses are summarized in Table 10
with left- and right-side tests combined. Each individual neck provided
``EXCELLENT'' repeatability for all criteria considered.
Reproducibility was also ``EXCELLENT'' for all four necks combined.

Table 8--Summary of Frontal Flexion Neck Pendulum Test Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max angle Peak Y-moment
Dummy S/N ---------------------------------------------------------------- Head rotation
angle deg time ms moment N-m time ms decay time, ms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004....................................... Avg......................... 77.1 58.5 47.1 54.3 52.2
stdev....................... 0.42 0.62 0.63 1.02 0.10
%CV......................... 0.55 1.06 1.35 1.88 0.20
006....................................... Avg......................... 77.5 59.3 46.0 56.1 52.2
stdev....................... 0.74 0.84 1.10 1.89 0.20
%CV......................... 0.96 1.42 2.40 3.38 0.38
007....................................... Avg......................... 74.3 58.3 46.8 55.7 51.3
stdev....................... 0.79 0.70 0.71 1.47 0.17
%CV......................... 1.07 1.20 1.51 2.64 0.34
008....................................... Avg......................... 74.8 57.9 46.9 54.2 51.2
stdev....................... 0.69 0.65 1.90 1.10 0.23
%CV......................... 0.92 1.12 4.04 2.03 0.45
All....................................... Avg......................... 76.1 58.7 46.4 55.5 51.7
stdev....................... 1.77 1.12 1.50 2.00 0.48
%CV......................... 2.33 1.90 3.23 3.61 0.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 9--Summary of Lateral Flexion Neck Pendulum Test Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max angle Peak X-moment
Dummy S/N Orientation L&R ---------------------------------------------------------------- Head rotation
angle deg time ms moment N-m time ms decay time, ms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004....................................... avg......................... 83.3 68.8 28.4 69.5 66.6
stdev....................... 0.53 0.60 1.48 0.78 0.53
%CV......................... 0.63 0.87 5.23 1.13 0.79
006....................................... avg......................... 85.2 69.9 28.8 70.6 66.8
stdev....................... 0.32 0.64 0.82 0.55 0.68
%CV......................... 0.37 0.91 2.84 0.77 1.01
007....................................... avg......................... 81.0 68.0 27.7 69.4 65.5
stdev....................... 0.44 0.79 0.59 0.90 0.60
%CV......................... 0.55 1.16 2.14 1.29 0.92
008....................................... avg......................... 81.7 67.7 27.9 68.8 65.8
stdev....................... 0.73 0.56 0.71 0.70 0.87
%CV......................... 0.89 0.82 2.53 1.02 1.32
All....................................... avg......................... 82.8 68.6 28.2 69.6 66.2
stdev....................... 1.69 1.08 1.05 0.98 0.86
%CV......................... 2.04 1.57 3.72 1.41 1.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 10--Summary of Torsional Neck Pendulum Test Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max angle Peak Z-moment
Dummy S/N Orientation L&R ---------------------------------------------------------------- Head rotation
angle deg time ms moment N-m time ms decay time, ms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004....................................... avg......................... 84.9 102.3 9.0 96.2 93.8
stdev....................... 0.39 0.51 0.03 0.82 0.64
%CV......................... 0.46 0.50 0.28 0.85 0.68
006....................................... avg......................... 89.7 108.4 8.3 102.1 99.0
stdev....................... 0.53 0.52 0.07 2.03 0.51
%CV......................... 0.59 0.48 0.84 1.99 0.52
007....................................... avg......................... 80.7 98.7 9.2 90.8 89.8
stdev....................... 1.22 0.60 0.31 1.39 1.05
%CV......................... 1.51 0.61 3.35 1.53 1.17

[[Page 69955]]

008....................................... avg......................... 81.3 99.3 9.0 91.9 90.9
stdev....................... 1.50 0.72 0.08 0.78 0.77
%CV......................... 1.85 0.72 0.84 0.85 0.84
All....................................... avg......................... 84.2 102.2 8.9 95.2 93.4
stdev....................... 3.71 3.89 0.37 4.64 3.62
%CV......................... 4.40 3.80 4.21 4.87 3.88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shoulder Impact
This test assures that the shoulder acts uniformly in the way it
deforms under load and distributes the load under a direct lateral
impact, thus helping to assure that whole-body kinematics of the ATD
are consistent.
Shoulder tests consisted of a lateral impact to the shoulder using
a 3.8 kg probe at an impact speed of 3.6 m/s. Each of the four Q3s
dummies was impacted five times on both their left and right shoulders.
The responses are summarized in Table 11 with left- and right-side
tests combined. The shoulder responses for each individual dummy were
rated as having ``EXCELLENT'' repeatability. The reproducibility of
shoulder responses for all four dummies combined was also rated as
``EXCELLENT.''

Table 11--Summary of Shoulder Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoulder
Dummy S/N Orientation L&R displacement Probe force
(mm) (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004........................................... Avg............................. 18.4 1281.5
Stdev........................... 0.47 27.99
%CV............................. 2.57 2.18
006........................................... Avg............................. 19.0 1270.3
Stdev........................... 0.35 12.91
%CV............................. 1.84 1.02
007........................................... Avg............................. 18.8 1295.0
Stdev........................... 0.46 13.55
%CV............................. 2.46 1.05
008........................................... Avg............................. 18.6 1280.1
Stdev........................... 0.83 10.75
%CV............................. 4.48 0.84
All........................................... Avg............................. 18.7 1281.7
Stdev........................... 0.58 19.16
%CV............................. 3.12 1.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thorax Impacts
The thorax qualification tests were conducted two ways: Without arm
interaction (as in the SAE test) and with the arm attached and down
such that the impact probe strikes the upper arm. Both tests utilized a
lateral impact with a 3.8 kg probe.
In the ``thorax without arm'' test, the arm was completely removed
from the dummy. The 3.8 kg test probe was aligned with the thorax
displacement IR-TRACC and impacted the thorax laterally at a speed of
3.3 m/s. Each of the agency's four dummies was impacted five times on
both the left and right sides. Table 12 below provides a summary of the
responses with left- and right-side tests combined.

Table 12--Summary of Thorax Without Arm Qualification Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorax
Dummy S/N Orientation L&R displacement Probe force
(mm) (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004........................................... avg............................. 27.3 705.2
stdev........................... 0.45 15.52
%CV............................. 1.66 2.20
006........................................... avg............................. 28.6 665.1
stdev........................... 0.77 27.83
%CV............................. 2.69 4.18
007........................................... avg............................. 28.1 692.1
stdev........................... 0.19 22.92
%CV............................. 0.67 3.31
008........................................... avg............................. 26.3 710.9
stdev........................... 0.19 19.51
%CV............................. 0.70 2.74
All........................................... avg............................. 27.6 693.3

[[Page 69956]]

stdev........................... 1.00 27.63
%CV............................. 3.63 3.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the ``arm attached'' test, the upper arm was positioned
vertically and aligned with the dummy's thorax. The lower arm was
positioned to make a 90 degree angle with the upper arm. The impact
speed of the probe was 5.0 m/s.
Each of the four test dummies was impacted five times on both the
left and right sides. Table 13 provides a summary of the test results
with left- and right-side tests combined.

Table 13--Summary of Thorax With Arm Attached Qualification Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorax Peak probe
Dummy S/N Orientation L&R displacement force after 5
(mm) ms (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004........................................... avg............................. 26.0 1527.5
stdev........................... 0.63 28.58
%CV............................. 2.41 1.87
006........................................... avg............................. 26.3 1567.1
stdev........................... 0.55 46.47
%CV............................. 2.09 2.97
007........................................... avg............................. 25.9 1512.7
stdev........................... 0.37 60.32
%CV............................. 1.44 3.99
008........................................... avg............................. 25.2 1542.3
stdev........................... 0.48 45.96
%CV............................. 1.92 2.98
All........................................... avg............................. 25.9 1537.4
stdev........................... 0.64 49.28
%CV............................. 2.46 3.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For thorax impacts both with and without the arm, each dummy was
rated as having ``EXCELLENT'' repeatability. Furthermore, the responses
of all four dummies combined produced a rating of ``EXCELLENT''
reproducibility.
Note that the peak probe force was taken after 5 ms to separate the
probe's initial inertial response during arm contact from the probe's
response due to its interaction with the thorax. The typical probe
force response curve exhibited dual peaks of nearly equal magnitude,
with the first peak occurring upon initial impact of the probe with the
arm and the second peak occurring as the arm loaded the thorax (see
Figure 1 below). Analysis of the response curves indicated that the
first peak typically occurred before 5 ms, and the second peak occurred
after 5 ms. Because the second peak is more closely related to the
resistive force of the thorax, we concluded that the first peak was not
determinative.

[[Page 69957]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.001

Lumbar Pendulum Tests
Lumbar testing consisted of two types of pendulum tests: A frontal
test and a lateral test. For both tests, the lumbar spine element
containing the flexible column was removed from the dummy similar to
the neck qualification tests. Lumbar tests were conducted using the
same Part 572 neck pendulum and the headform device utilized in the
neck qualification tests. Frontal and lateral tests were conducted at
an impact speed of 4.4 m/s.
Five frontal tests were carried out on lumbar elements from each of
the four test dummies. For the lateral tests, five were conducted on
the left side and five on the right side. The results are summarized in
Table 14 (frontal) and Table 15 (lateral) with left- and right-side
tests combined. The repeatability of each lumbar element was rated as
either ``EXCELLENT'' or ``GOOD'' for all test measurements. The
reproducibility of responses of all four lumbar elements combined was
``EXCELLENT'' for all measurements.

Table 14--Summary of Frontal Lumbar Pendulum Test Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max angle Peak Y-moment
Dummy S/N ---------------------------------------------------------------- Head rotation
angle deg time ms moment N-m time ms decay time, ms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004....................................... avg......................... 52.8 55.1 84.2 51.2 53.8
stdev....................... 1.05 0.89 1.46 3.75 0.34
%CV......................... 1.99 1.61 1.74 7.31 0.63
006....................................... avg......................... 52.5 54.8 87.1 51.4 52.7
stdev....................... 1.79 0.81 0.85 2.81 0.61
%CV......................... 3.40 1.48 0.97 5.48 1.15
007....................................... avg......................... 53.4 56.1 84.2 51.4 53.9
stdev....................... 1.41 0.89 1.38 3.02 0.68
%CV......................... 2.65 1.58 1.64 5.88 1.26
008....................................... avg......................... 51.4 54.4 88.5 50.8 52.3
stdev....................... 1.13 0.71 2.21 2.06 0.27
%CV......................... 2.19 1.31 2.49 4.06 0.52
All....................................... avg......................... 52.5 55.1 86.0 51.2 53.2
stdev....................... 1.47 0.99 2.39 2.74 0.85
%CV......................... 2.79 1.79 2.78 5.35 1.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69958]]

Table 15--Summary of Lateral Lumbar Pendulum Test Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max angle Peak X-moment
Dummy S/N Orientation L&R ---------------------------------------------------------------- Head rotation
angle deg time ms moment N-m time ms decay time, ms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004....................................... avg......................... 52.7 54.3 86.2 50.2 53.4
stdev....................... 1.58 1.47 2.23 3.75 0.88
%CV......................... 3.01 2.71 2.59 7.47 1.66
006....................................... avg......................... 53.5 54.6 89.2 51.1 52.8
stdev....................... 2.05 1.30 3.01 2.38 0.83
%CV......................... 3.82 2.38 3.38 4.67 1.56
007....................................... avg......................... 51.7 54.5 88.4 52.7 54.8
stdev....................... 1.75 1.13 2.57 2.74 2.17
%CV......................... 3.39 2.07 2.91 5.20 3.96
008....................................... avg......................... 54.2 55.6 86.7 51.2 51.6
stdev....................... 1.51 1.04 3.26 2.29 2.07
%CV......................... 2.79 1.88 3.76 4.47 4.01
All....................................... avg......................... 53.0 54.7 87.6 51.3 53.1
stdev....................... 1.93 1.29 2.96 2.89 1.94
%CV......................... 3.63 2.36 3.38 5.63 3.66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pelvis Impact
A lateral impact with the 3.8 kg probe at 4.0 m/s was used to test
the pelvis. Repeat tests were conducted according to the test
procedures described in the technical report, ``Qualification
Procedures for the Q3s Child Side Impact Crash Test Dummy,'' supra. For
each dummy in the evaluation, NHTSA conducted five impacts to both the
left and right side of the pelvis. A summary of the test results can be
found in Table 16 with left- and right-side tests combined.
The repeatability of each individual dummy's response was rated as
``EXCELLENT'' except for the peak pubic force response of dummy serial
number 006, which was rated as ``GOOD.'' For this particular dummy, the
pubic force was about 75 N higher for right side impacts than left side
impacts. For the other three dummies, the difference was only 50-60 N.
Despite the differences, repeatability--when assessed by combining
right and left impacts--only fell out of the ``EXCELLENT'' category for
dummy serial number 006. When left and right impacts for all dummies
were combined, reproducibility was rated as ``EXCELLENT'' for both the
peak pubic force and the peak probe force.

Table 16--Summary of Pelvis Qualification Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pubic force Probe force
Dummy S/N Orientation L&R (N) (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
004........................................... avg............................. 745.3 1651.0
stdev........................... 31.33 22.78
%CV............................. 4.20 1.38
006........................................... avg............................. 782.3 1698.9
stdev........................... 41.07 20.68
%CV............................. 5.25 1.22
007........................................... avg............................. 801.0 1679.1
stdev........................... 29.31 25.59
%CV............................. 3.66 1.52
008........................................... avg............................. 822.3 1738.1
stdev........................... 27.02 20.69
%CV............................. 3.29 1.19
All........................................... avg............................. 787.7 1691.8
stdev........................... 42.48 38.71
%CV............................. 5.39 2.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Qualification Tests

This NPRM proposes a set of qualification tests for the Q3s. In
general, Part 572 qualification tests assess the components that play a
key role in the dummy's performance in the intended regulatory
application. The tests qualify the dummy as an objective and suitable
test device for the assessment of occupant safety in compliance tests
specified in Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for other
testing purposes. Performance within these corridors assures that the
dummy is capable of responding properly in a compliance or research
test, while performance outside of these corridors indicates the need
for adjustment, repair or replacement.

a. Overview of Proposed Corridors

Proposed qualification requirements for the Q3s are shown in Table
16. NHTSA has published a technical document, ``Qualification
Procedures for the Q3s Child Side Impact Crash Test Dummy (NHTSA,
2013),'' describing the equipment, test set-ups and procedures. A copy
of the report has been placed in the docket.

[[Page 69959]]

Table 17--Proposed Q3s Qualification Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Measurement Units Corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head--Frontal........................ Resultant acceleration. G 250-297
Head--Lateral........................ Resultant acceleration. G 113-140
Neck--Flexion........................ Maximum rotation....... deg 70-82
Time of max rotation... msec 55-63
Peak moment (My)....... N-m 41-51
Time of peak My........ msec 49-62
Decay time to 0 from msec 50-54
peak angle.
Neck--Lateral........................ Maximum rotation....... deg 77-88
Time of max rotation... msec 65-72
Peak moment (Mx)....... N-m 25-32
Time of peak Mx........ msec 66-73
Decay time to 0 from msec 63-69
peak angle.
Neck--Torsion........................ Maximum rotation....... deg 75-93
Time of max rotation... msec 91-113
Peak moment (Mz)....... N-m 8-10
Time of peak Mz........ msec 85-105
Decay time to 0 from msec 84-103
peak angle.
Shoulder............................. Lateral displacement... mm 16-21
Peak probe force....... kN 1.24-1.35
Thorax with Arm...................... Lateral displacement... mm 23-28
Peak probe force....... kN 1.38-1.69
Thorax without Arm................... Lateral displacement... mm 24-31
Peak probe force....... N 620-770
Lumbar--Flexion...................... Maximum rotation....... deg 48-57
Time of max rotation... msec 52-59
Peak moment (My)....... N-m 78-94
Time of peak My........ msec 46-57
Decay time to 0 from msec 50-56
peak angle.
Lumbar--Lateral...................... Maximum rotation....... deg 47-59
Time of max rotation... msec 50-59
Peak moment (Mx)....... N-m 78-97
Time of peak Mx........ msec 46-57
Decay time to 0 from msec 47-59
peak angle.
Pelvis............................... Peak pubic load........ N 700-870
Peak probe force....... kN 1.57-1.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bounds we have proposed for the qualification targets (the
corridors) are wide enough to account for normal variations in dummy
and laboratory differences, and narrow enough to assure consistent and
repeatable measurements in compliance testing. Our proposed bounds are
based on tests conducted at a single laboratory, NHTSA's Vehicle
Research and Test Center (VRTC). The data were collected using four Q3s
units. For each measurement, performance targets were derived using
either 3 standard deviations from the mean or 10 percent
from the mean, whichever is narrower. Upper and lower bounds were
rounded to the next whole number away from the mean using three
significant digits.
We recognize that from a probabilistic standpoint, three standard
deviations is an unusually wide bound. A bound of 10 percent around a
target is typical of most Part 572 ATD qualifications. Our reason for
initially setting the bounds to be wide for this NPRM stem from a
current lack of test data for the Q3s.\28\ Given that all Q3s
qualification data were collected from a single laboratory (VRTC), we
could not factor into account unknown variability associated with
different labs, operators, dummies, and other allowable variances such
as temperature and humidity that may not be present in our dataset. We
will continue to collect qualification data, and we will examine all
qualification data provided to us by commenters. We anticipate that
when new qualification data are combined with our current set of data,
in a final rule our bounds will be narrowed as reasonably possible and
may be no greater than two standard deviations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ For other Part 572 ATDs, we set qualification bounds by
examining data from multiple test labs, several dummies, and dummies
built by different dummy manufacturers. For example, the
qualification bounds for the HIII-10C (the most recent test dummy to
be incorporated into part 572) were derived from tests on about 30
different dummies, with data supplied from about 10 different
laboratories. On average, the bound widths for the HIII-10C are
about 10% of the mean, with a low of 7.4% and a high of 16.3%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Rationale for the Tests

The technical document cited earlier in this preamble, ``Evaluation
of the Q3s Three Year-Old Child Side Impact Dummy, Repeatability,
Reproducibility, and Durability,'' discusses how the agency's four Q3s
units conform to the qualification requirements. This report also
discusses our rationale for the tests and proposed response
requirements needed to qualify the Q3s. For each test, the impact
energy level and the selection of the targeted measurements were chosen
by balancing multiple criteria, as described below.
Dummy Functionality
For each test, certain dummy sensors and signal characteristics
(such as the magnitude and timing) have been specified as qualification
targets. By monitoring these sensors, the qualification tests assure
that the dummy is functioning properly. Loose or damaged dummy hardware
is often manifested in a signal that does not conform to the
qualification requirements, thus alerting test technicians that dummy
maintenance may be needed. Conformity also assures that the sensors
themselves are working properly.
Test protocols are also designed to properly demonstrate dummy
functionality by mirroring dummy loading patterns seen in CRS sled
tests

[[Page 69960]]

conducted in support of the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test under
consideration. For example, we have observed the Q3s undergoing
asymmetric motion as the dummy simultaneously moves forward and
laterally. In doing so, the motion of the dummy is such that it may
twist itself around the edge of the CRS so that the head may strike the
door panel near its forehead. The degree to which the dummy wraps
around the seat can vary widely depending upon the design of the CRS.
Thus, we have included separate frontal and lateral qualification
requirements for the head.
We have also included separate requirements for the neck and lumbar
spine elements of the dummy, which are flexible rubber components that
experience both frontal and lateral flexion during a CRS test.
Additionally, a torsion test is prescribed for the neck since the
neck also twists along its long axis to some degree.
For the shoulder, thorax, and pelvis, we believe that only pure
lateral qualification requirements are needed, since almost all loads
pass through their lateral aspects even in cases where the dummy twists
within the CRS during testing.
Assure Biofidelity
Many of the qualification test protocols are very similar to the
dynamic tests used to assess biofidelity. This helps to assure that a
qualified dummy is also a biofidelic dummy.
Sufficient Energy
The impact speeds and probe masses have been selected to
demonstrate that the various body segments of the Q3s are working
properly at energy levels at or near those associated with injury
thresholds. These include pass/fail thresholds that we are considering
for the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test. For measurements not associated
with IARVs, such as the neck torsion requirement, the energy levels are
chosen to be consistent with high-end responses observed in CRS
testing. In general, the energy level is chosen to exercise the dummy
but without causing damage.
Proven Soundness of Part 572
To the extent possible, we have based the proposed test protocols
and devices on qualification tests set forth for other test dummies in
Part 572. The qualification tests have been proven reliable and sound
in qualifying NHTSA's other test dummies. Moreover, using the same
basic tests minimizes the amount of new qualification equipment needed
by test laboratories that may already have such equipment in place for
qualifying other ATDs.

c. New and Modified Part 572 Tests and Equipment

This NPRM proposes only one new test not found elsewhere in Part
572, a method to assure the functionality of the Q3s neck under
torsion. This is a fairly simple procedure added to assure that the
neck is repeatable under twist. The test involves the use of a special
test fixture attached to the Part 572 pendulum which imparts a pure
torsion moment to the isolated neck.
Additionally, a few minor changes to established Part 572 protocol
and equipment have been introduced to improve the ease and consistency
of the qualification tests. The pendulum probe used to qualify the Q3s
is specified to be 3.81 kg, which is about twice as large as the 1.70
kg probe used for the HIII-3C, Subpart P qualifications (Hybrid III 3-
year-old child test dummy used for frontal testing). This probe was
chosen to enable the same probe to be used for all Q3s qualification
tests that use a probe. The heavier probe allows a range of reasonable
test speeds to be used to attain the desired response level. Tests
speeds range from 3.6 m/s (shoulder impact) up to 5.0 m/s (thorax with
arm). In contrast, the test speed for the thorax test of the HIII-3C
with the lighter probe is 6.0 m/s.
We have also proposed a new test instrument for the flexion tests
of the neck and the lumbar spine. These tests measure relative rotation
by means of two angular rate sensors (ARSs). The ARSs that we specify
represent a relatively new technology. For similar tests with all other
Part 572 dummies, relative rotation is measured using a system of
rotary potentiometers and a linking rod. Because the potentiometer
system is mounted off-axis, it creates an asymmetry that can create
problems with a small dummy like the Q3s. We are concerned that the
added mass and inertia of a potentiometer system can introduce twisting
of the head simulator, which may affect the accuracy of the
measurements.
ARS units, on the other hand, are lightweight and compact. They do
not require a connecting rod and they can be mounted very near to the
headform's axis of symmetry so that their propensity to twist during a
test due to the added mass is greatly reduced. Furthermore, throughout
our testing of the Q3s the angular rate sensors have been observed to
produce very accurate measures of rotation. We tentatively conclude
that use of the ARS units in this application would be an improvement
over potentiometers.

d. Proposed Test Specifications and Performance Requirements

NHTSA proposes the following performance specifications for the
head in drop tests, and for the neck, shoulder, thorax, lumbar spine,
and pelvis in pendulum tests. Performance requirements in the lateral
direction must be met by carrying out the tests in the direction
opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for
which the dummy is being qualified. For example, if the dummy is to be
used in an impact to the left side of a CRS, qualification tests on the
left aspect of the dummy's head, neck, shoulder, thorax, lumber spine,
and pelvis are carried out. The fore-aft performance requirements for
the head, neck, and lumbar spine must be met for all impact tests. That
is, in addition to the lateral tests, the fore-aft tests are conducted
on the ATD regardless of which side of the CRS is tested.
Head Drop Tests
The correct kinematic response of the head-neck system is of
substantial importance to quantify the protection offered by CRSs in
terms of head motion and acceleration during an impact. This test
serves to assure the uniformity of the impact response. Head
qualification consists of two test components: Frontal and lateral head
drops. The frontal head drop is conducted from a height of 376 mm,
while the lateral head drop is conducted at 200 mm.
The head must respond with peak resultant acceleration between: 250
g and 297 g when dropped from 376 mm height such that the forehead
lands onto a flat rigid surface; and between 113 g and 140 g when
dropped from a 200 mm height such that the side of the head lands onto
a flat rigid surface.
Neck Pendulum Test
We believe that a repeatable kinematic response of the head-neck
system is important to quantify the protection offered by CRSs in terms
of limiting head excursion and head acceleration in both a head impact
and a non-impact situation. Under the CRS test protocol under
consideration by the agency, the primary kinematic motion of the head
is in the lateral direction, but the head also twists and turns in
other directions to a lesser extent. Given the importance of head
motion, we believe a full set of neck qualification requirements is
warranted to assure uniformity. Therefore, our proposed neck
qualification consists of three test components: Frontal flexion,
lateral

[[Page 69961]]

flexion, and torsion neck pendulum tests.
The neck would have to allow the headform to articulate in pendulum
tests at:
4.7 m/s in frontal flexion, at between 70 degrees and 82
degrees occurring between 55 ms and 63 ms from time zero and decaying
back to the zero angle between 50 ms and 54 ms after the peak rotation;
the value of the maximum moment must be between 41 N-m and 51 N-m
occurring between 49 ms and 62 ms from time zero,
3.8 m/s in lateral flexion, at between 77 degrees and 88
degrees occurring between 65 ms and 72 ms from time zero and decaying
back to the zero angle between 63 ms and 69 ms after the peak rotation;
the value of the maximum moment must be between 25 N-m and 32 N-m
occurring between 66 ms and 73 ms from time zero, and
3.6 m/s in torsion, at between 75 degrees and 93 degrees
occurring between 91 ms and 113 ms from time zero and decaying back to
the zero angle between 84 ms and 103 ms after the peak rotation; the
value of the maximum moment must be between 8 N-m and 10 N-m occurring
between 84 ms and 103 ms from time zero.
Shoulder Impact Test
Though injury assessment is not generally associated with the
shoulder, the way the shoulder absorbs energy can affect the overall
kinematics of the dummy. This test assures that the shoulder acts
uniformly in the way it distributes the load under a direct lateral
impact.
The shoulder exposed to a pendulum impact at 3.6 m/s is to exhibit
a peak shoulder deflection between 16 mm and 21 mm, and a peak
resistance force between 1,240 N and 1,350 N.
Thorax Impact Tests
The thorax qualification tests are very similar to the SAE test
used to assess lateral thorax biofidelity. For qualification, however,
the test is conducted two ways: Without arm interaction (as in the SAE
test) and with the arm attached such that the impact probe strikes the
upper arm. Both tests utilize a lateral impact with a 3.8 kg probe.
The thorax ``without arm'' test assures uniformity of the thorax
structure, including its mount to the spine, and its response to a
direct impact in terms of rib deflection. The arm is completely removed
from the dummy. The 3.8 kg test probe is aligned with the thorax
displacement IR-TRACC and impacts the thorax laterally at a speed of
3.3 m/s.
For the ``arm attached'' test, the upper arm is positioned
vertically and aligned with the dummy's thorax. The lower arm is
positioned to make a 90 degree angle with the upper arm. The loading of
the ribcage goes through the arm. The impact speed of the probe is 5.0
m/s. This test assures uniformity of the arm in the way it absorbs
energy and interacts with the thorax under a direct lateral impact.
The thorax exposed to a pendulum impact:
At 3.3 m/s, without arm, is to exhibit a peak thorax
deflection between 24 mm and 31 mm, and a peak resistance force between
620 N and 770 N; and,
at 5.0 m/s, with arm attached, is to exhibit a peak thorax
deflection between 23 mm and 28 mm, and a peak resistance force between
1,380 N and 1,690 N occurring after 5 ms from time zero.
As explained previously, the peak probe force is taken after 5 ms
to separate the probe's initial inertial response during arm contact
from its response due to its interaction with the thorax. The net
effect of recording the peak probe force after 5 ms is the elimination
of the first peak.
Lumbar Tests
The rubber lumbar column bends to some extent during a CRS side
impact test. This bending might affect the overall kinematics of the
dummy, including the excursion of the head. It could also affect
lateral loads and the deflection of the thorax. We believe that this
rubber element can be a source of variability, so we have included a
qualification test to assure the uniformity and integrity of this
component.
Lumbar testing would consist of two types of pendulum tests: A
frontal test and a lateral test. For both tests, the lumbar spine
element containing the flexible column is removed from the dummy,
similar to the neck qualification tests. Lumbar tests are conducted
using the same Part 572 neck pendulum and headform device utilized in
the neck qualification tests. In the case of lumbar qualification, the
headform is not intended to represent the inertial properties of any
particular body region, but merely provides an apparatus that helps to
ensure a repeatable test condition. The frontal and lateral pendulum
tests are conducted at the same impact speed of 4.4 m/s and specify the
same pendulum impulse.
We propose that the lumbar spine must allow the headform to
articulate:
In frontal flexion, at not less than between 48 degrees
and 57 degrees occurring between 52 ms and 59 ms from time zero and
decaying back to zero angle between 50 ms and 56 ms after the peak
rotation; the value of the maximum moment must be between 78 N-m and 94
N-m occurring between 46 ms and 57 ms from time zero; and,
in lateral flexion, at not less than between 47 degrees
and 59 degrees occurring between 50 ms and 59 ms from time zero and
decaying back to zero angle between 47 ms and 59 ms after the peak
rotation; the value of the maximum moment must be between 78 N-m and 97
N-m occurring between 46 ms and 57 ms from time zero.
Pelvis Impact
A lateral impact with the 3.8 kg probe at 4.0 m/s is used to test
the pelvis. This test protocol is very similar to the SAE biofidelity
test. The pelvis exposed to a pendulum impact at 4.0 m/s is to exhibit
a peak pubic load between 700 N and 870 N, and a peak force measured by
the pendulum between 1570 N and 1810 N.
Other
We have not included a qualification test aimed specifically at the
Q3s abdomen. We tentatively believe that any non-uniformity in
stiffness due to the absence of a qualification requirement for the
abdomen would have an insignificant effect on the overall kinematics of
the dummy in a side impact test. Also, the abdomen of the Q3s is
uninstrumented and is thus not generally used to assess injury
potential in a side impact.
Nevertheless, comments are requested on the need for a
qualification test for the abdomen. The abdomen is made of a high
density, compressible foam material, whose compressive characteristics
can vary from one abdomen to another and whose properties can change
with aging and other factors. We request comments on an abdominal test
protocol similar to that which we used to assess the biofidelity of the
Q3s abdomen.

VII. Durability

No durability problems arose with the Q3s dummies in any of the
sled tests or component tests.

a. High-Energy Component Tests

We also conducted high-energy component tests to assess durability
and no durability problems arose in those. In these tests, we raised
the kinetic energy of the impact to levels that exposed the dummy to
loading conditions slightly greater than those that might be

[[Page 69962]]

expected in the dummy's regulatory application. High-energy tests were
conducted for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax (with and without arm),
lumbar, and pelvis. As discussed below, we found no damage to the
dummy's structural components or instrumentation.
High-Energy Head Drop Tests
We performed frontal and lateral head drop tests using the
qualification test setup procedures, except the drop heights were
increased to achieve kinetic energy increases of 10 percent, 20
percent, and 30 percent, as compared to the standard qualification
test.
Frontal head drop responses are summarized in Table 18. The peak
resultant head acceleration at 30 percent increased energy was 318.5 g.
This impact resulted in a HIC15 value of 1732.5, which is well above
the proposed injury criterion limit of 700 and demonstrates the
severity of the test. Post-test inspection of the head revealed no
structural damage to the synthetic skull material or to the vinyl skin.
Lateral head drop responses are summarized in Table 19. For the
most severe condition, the peak resultant head acceleration was 146.6
g. No structural damage of the head was observed in the post-test
inspection of the head assembly.

Table 18--High-Energy Frontal Head Drop Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
increase Drop height Peak
Test No. (nominal) (mm) resultant
(percent) accel (g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ 0 376 265.5
1............................................................... 10 414 284.6
2............................................................... 20 451 304.4
3............................................................... 30 489 318.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 19--High-Energy Lateral Head Drop Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
increase Drop height Peak
Test No. (nominal) (mm) resultant
(percent) accel (g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ 0 200 121.5
1............................................................... 10 220 127.3
2............................................................... 20 240 141.6
3............................................................... 30 260 146.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High-Energy Neck Pendulum Tests
We conducted frontal, lateral, and torsional neck pendulum tests at
the increased impact speeds. Tests were conducted according to the
qualification procedures, except for the increase in impact speeds.
Frontal Flexion Tests. The results of the high-energy frontal neck
flexion tests are summarized in Table 20. Three repeat tests were run
at 5.5 m/s. This speed represents a 34 percent increase in energy over
the qualification speed. We chose this condition because it is
consistent with the test protocol used to qualify the HIII-3C (a
frontal impact dummy). We found no signs of damage or unusual wear to
the Q3s neck or neck cable at the elevated speed. The response curves
were smooth, indicating that no unusual contact occurred during the
tests. The tests also demonstrate that the Q3s neck would be repeatable
if the dummy were used in a frontal impact mode.
Lateral Flexion Tests. The results of the high-energy lateral neck
flexion tests are summarized in Table 21. Incremental tests were run at
impact speeds needed to achieve increases in kinetic energy of 10
percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent. In all cases, the response signals
were smooth with no indication of damage.
Torsion Tests. The high-energy neck torsion tests were also run at
impact speeds needed to achieve energy increases of 10 percent, 20
percent, and 30 percent. The responses are summarized in Table 22. In
all cases, the response signals were smooth with no indication of
damage.

Table 20--Frontal Flexion Neck Pendulum Test Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Max angle Peak Y-moment
increase Impact speed, ---------------------------------------------------------------- Head rotation
Test No. (nominal) m/s decay time,
(percent) angle deg time ms moment N-m time ms m/s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 0 4.7 74.0 58.2 44.9 54.1 51.5
1....................................... 34 5.5 78.8 55.9 62.3 53.0 48.0
2....................................... 34 5.5 80.1 55.4 66.0 52.7 47.7
3....................................... 34 5.5 79.4 57.0 63.2 53.2 47.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69963]]

Table 21--Lateral Flexion Neck Pendulum Test Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Max angle Peak Y-moment
increase Impact speed, ---------------------------------------------------------------- Head rotation
Test No. (nominal) m/s decay time,
(percent) angle deg time ms moment N-m time ms m/s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baseline................................ 0 3.8 80.9 68.7 26.9 70.2 64.8
1....................................... 10 4.0 82.3 68.9 27.1 70.1 65.5
2....................................... 20 4.2 85.1 67.2 31.9 66.8 63.2
3....................................... 30 4.3 86.8 66.8 34.3 66.3 62.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 22--Neck Torsion Pendulum Test Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Max angle Peak Z-Moment Head
Energy speed ---------------------------------------------------- rotation
Test No. increase ------------- angle time moment time decay time
(nominal) ----------------------------------------------------------------
(percent) m/s Deg Ms N-m ms ms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baseline..................................................... 0 3.6 80.9 99.5 9.35 92.1 88.7
1............................................................ 10 3.8 83.3 102.9 9.35 95.5 91.7
2............................................................ 20 3.9 83.8 101.5 9.40 95.0 91.2
3............................................................ 30 4.1 87.4 103.1 9.73 96.9 91.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High-Energy Shoulder Impact Tests
The agency conducted shoulder impacts according to the
qualification test setup procedures, except the impact speeds were
increased to achieve increases in kinetic energy of approximately 10
percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent as compared to the qualification
test. Table 23 provides a summary of the responses for the high-energy
shoulder impact tests. At the 30 percent increased energy level, the
peak lateral shoulder deflection was 20.4 mm and the response curve was
smooth, indicating that the shoulder string pot did not reach its
maximum allowable stroke. The peak probe force was 1450 N. Post-test
inspections revealed no structural damage to the dummy or
instrumentation.

Table 23--High-Energy Shoulder Impact Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy increase Shoulder
Test No. (nominal) Impact speed (m/ displacement Probe force (N)
(percent) s) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baseline................................ 0.0 3.6 17.6 1269
1....................................... 10 3.8 19.7 1348
2....................................... 20 4.0 20.1 1443
3....................................... 30 4.1 20.4 1450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High-Energy Thorax Impact Tests
We conducted high-energy thorax impact tests with and without the
arm. We followed the set-up procedures used in the qualification tests,
except we increased the probe impact speeds to supply a corresponding
increase in the kinetic energy.
For the ``with arm'' tests, we conducted one impact at 20 percent
increased kinetic energy and two at a 30 percent increase. Table 24
summarizes the responses for the high-energy thorax with arm impacts.
The highest lateral thorax displacement was 28.7 mm and the response
curve was smooth. Post-test inspections demonstrated that no damage
occurred to any portion of the dummy's torso.
For the thorax ``without arm'' test condition (Table 25), because
thorax durability was a concern with earlier versions of the Q3s, we
conducted tests at higher severity levels to provide a rigorous
assessment of the durability of the thorax. For the thorax ``without
arm'' test condition, we conducted an impact at 50 percent increased
kinetic energy and another impact at a 70 percent increase. No
structural damage was observed during post-test inspections of the
dummy's thorax and IR-TRACC displacement transducer.
In addition, for the thorax ``without arm'' test condition, we
conducted tests at increased severity levels to assess further the
durability of the IR-TRACC device. The maximum allowable lateral thorax
displacement before damage occurs to the IR-TRACC displacement
measurement device is approximately 40 mm. Considering this physical
limitation, we increased the probe impact speed until the lateral
displacement approached 38 mm. We found that the impact speed
corresponding to roughly 38 mm of displacement was 4.4 m/s
(approximately an 80 percent increase in kinetic energy). Accordingly,
we conducted two additional impact tests at that speed. For the three
tests conducted at 80 percent increased kinetic energy, the lateral
thorax displacement ranged from 37.1-37.9 mm and the response curves
were smooth, indicating that the transducer did not exceed its maximum
allowable stroke. No structural damage was observed during post-test
inspections of the dummy's thorax and IR-TRACC displacement transducer.

[[Page 69964]]

Table 24--High-Energy Thorax With Arm Impact Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy increase Thorax
Test No. (nominal) Impact speed (m/ displacement Probe force (N)
(percent) s) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baseline................................ 0 5.0 25.0 1526
1....................................... 20 5.5 27.0 1663
2....................................... 30 5.7 28.3 1625
3....................................... ................ ................ 28.7 1652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 25--High-Energy Thorax Without Arm Impact Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy increase Thorax
Test No. (nominal) Impact speed (m/ displacement Probe force (N)
(percent) s) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baseline................................ 0 3.3 26.0 732
1....................................... 50 4.0 32.8 784
2....................................... 70 4.3 36.2 772
3....................................... 80 4.4 37.9 799
4....................................... ................ ................ 37.3 814
5....................................... ................ ................ 37.1 815
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High-Energy Lumbar Pendulum Tests
We conducted high-energy frontal and lateral lumbar pendulum tests
according to the qualification test set-up procedures, except the
impact speeds were increased. For frontal pendulum tests, the impact
energy was increased up to approximately 30 percent greater than the
qualification test, while lateral tests were increased up to
approximately 40 percent greater than the qualification test.
The frontal test results are summarized in Table 26 and the lateral
results are summarized in Table 27. The lumbar moment and rotation
responses did not indicate any unusual issues with the lumbar spine
element or load cell in either of the test conditions. No damage or
delamination was observed in post-test inspections of the lumbar
components.

Table 26--High-Energy Frontal Lumbar Pendulum Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Max angle Peak Y-moment
increase Impact ------------------------------------- Head rotation
Test No. (nominal) speed, m/s Angle Moment N- decay time, ms
(percent) deg Time ms m Time ms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................... 0 4.4 53.3 56.6 85.7 53.9 54.2
1................................ 20 4.8 57.5 56.8 88.6 51.9 55.0
2................................ 30 5.0 60.3 57.5 95.6 53.5 55.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 27--High-Energy Lateral Lumbar Pendulum Test Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Max angle Peak Y-moment
increase Impact ------------------------------------- Head rotation
Test No. (nominal) speed, m/s Angle Moment N- decay time, ms
(percent) deg Time ms m Time ms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................... 0 4.4 53.9 56.0 83.5 50.3 49.2
1................................ 20 4.8 59.0 57.3 95.7 54.0 54.0
2................................ 30 5.0 60.7 57.4 100.8 54.0 54.0
3................................ 40 5.2 62.9 56.6 107.7 53.3 53.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High-Energy Pelvis Impact Tests
We conducted high-energy pelvis impacts in accordance with the
qualification test set-up procedures, except we increased impact speeds
to achieve increases in kinetic energy of approximately 15 percent, 40
percent, and 55 percent. The responses for the high-energy pelvis
impact tests are summarized in Table 28. At the highest energy level,
the lateral pubic load was 1057 N (well beyond the 450 N maximum
observed in the Cozy Cline R&R series) and the probe force was 2357 N.
Analysis of the lateral pubic load response revealed a smooth curve,
indicating no unusual contact internal to the dummy. No damage to the
pelvis region was observed during post-test inspections.

[[Page 69965]]

Table 28--High-Energy Pelvis Impact Test Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
Increase Impact Pubic Probe
Test No. (nominal) speed force force
(percent) (m/s) (N) (N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
baseline....................... 0.0 4.0 796 1712
1.............................. 15 4.3 843 1896
2.............................. 40 4.7 1001 2209
3.............................. 55 5.0 1057 2357
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Q3s Servicing and Maintenance

In our experience with other Part 572 ATDs, deformable parts
typically have the shortest service lives. The two most often replaced
parts are the ribcage and the molded neck. For example, we have found
the typical service life for HIII-10C rib sets and neck assemblies to
be about thirty sled tests. Vinyl flesh materials--particularly the
chest flesh--are also replaced on a recurring basis as they become
aged, abraded, or torn.
NHTSA owns four Q3s units of the final Build Level D version, which
include the updated parts to improve the durability of the thorax,
neck, and pelvis. There have been no durability problems with the ATDs
since they have been upgraded to the latest build level. Given the
record of low maintenance to our own Q3s units, we consider the dummy
to be highly suitable for proposed use in FMVSS No. 213 in terms of its
durability. Our records indicate that we have had relatively few
instances of Q3s part replacements of any sort.

VIII. Drawings and Patents

Throughout the notice and comment period of this Part 572
rulemaking, the Q3s dummy will be available from Humanetics. The Q3s
engineering drawings used to fabricate the dummy are available in the
docket for public review and comment. The Q3s engineering drawings are
a proprietary product owned by Humanetics,\29\ with the exceptions
noted in this section. Thus, during the comment period most drawings
will display the Humanetics name in the title block and will have the
following restrictive note:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ FTSS/Humanetics' development of the Q3s dummy was not
performed directly under a government research and development
contract. NHTSA procured its Q3s units under a standard purchase
order in which the FTSS/Humanetics products were listed within a
catalog with a price schedule. Using this same purchase mechanism,
our units were periodically sent back to FTSS/Humanetics for
warranty maintenance and upgrades. As we performed subsequent tests
on our Q3s units, we routinely shared our results with FTSS/
Humanetics, and concurrently reported them in public and in SAE and
ISO committee meetings, providing test results, identifying
problems, and suggesting ways to correct problems. FTSS/Humanetics
produced parts based on this information, and periodically provided
new components to NHTSA for evaluation.

This drawing is the sole property of Humanetics Innovative
Solutions, Inc. and is being provided to NHTSA and other related
organizations for evaluation and comment related to NHTSA's
rulemaking process. Except for commenting purposes pursuant to this
process, the drawing shall not be copied or used for any other
purpose without the written consent of Humanetics Innovative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solutions, Inc.

For the final rule, the note will be removed and the dummy drawings
and designs will be free from any restrictions. This includes their use
in fabrication and in building computer simulation models of the dummy.
During this comment period, some drawings will not have the
Humanetics name in the title block and will not have the restrictive
note on them. In these cases, NHTSA contracted with Humanetics to
provide the part or expressly contributed to the design of the part. As
described earlier in this preamble, Humanetics fabricated the Build
Level D neck using detailed specifications provided by NHTSA. These
specifications included detailed engineering drawings and a prototype
of the neck itself. In addition, NHTSA also contributed to the design
of the femur, hip, and several other minor parts of the dummy.
The list of drawings related to those agency's efforts is shown in
Table 29. On these drawings, the NHTSA name appears in the title block
and the restrictive note does not appear. These drawings are available
to the public for use during this NPRM stage without restriction.
NHTSA is aware that Humanetics has filed a patent application with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office covering certain parts of
the Q3s dummy. Prior to the publication of any final rule, NHTSA plans
to meet with Humanetics and come to some agreement that ensures the
continued availability of the Q3s dummy to the general public at a
reasonable price. Notwithstanding the intellectual property issues
identified in this section, NHTSA emphasizes that readers should take
this opportunity to review the information provided in this NPRM and
provide responses on the substantive aspects of the proposal.

Table 29--List of Q3s Drawings for Which No Restrictive Note Appears
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drawing No. Description Used on
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
020-2400................................. Neck assembly, Q3s.......... 020-2400
020-2401................................. Molded neck, Q3s............ 020-2400
020-2402................................. Neck plate, top Q3s......... 020-2400
020-2403................................. Neck plate, middle, Q3s..... 020-2400
020-2404................................. Neck plate, bottom, Q3s..... 020-2400
020-2405................................. Retaining ring, Q3s neck.... 020-2400
020-2406................................. Square crimp, Q3s neck...... 020-2400
020-2407................................. Bottom crimp, Q3s neck cable 020-2400
020-2408................................. Neck cable assembly, Q3s.... 020-2400
020-2409................................. Retaining nut, Q3s neck..... 020-2400
020-9611................................. Femur, Right................ 020-9616
020-9511................................. Femur, Left................. 020-9516
020-9607................................. Femur reinforcement, Right.. 020-9616

[[Page 69966]]

020-9507................................. Femur reinforcement, Left... 020-9516
020-3537................................. Ball shoulder............... 020-9616, 020-9516
020-9903................................. End stop.................... 020-9616, 020-9516
020-7116................................. Hip joint assembly, Right... 020-7116
020-7113................................. Hip joint assembly, Left.... 020-7113
020-7115................................. Hip cup assembly, Right..... 020-7116, 020-7113
020-7114................................. Hip cup assembly, Left...... 020-7116, 020-7113
020-7117................................. Hip cup, upper.............. 020-7116, 020-7113
020-7118................................. Hip cup, lower.............. 020-7116, 020-7113
020-7103................................. Detent peg.................. 020-7116, 020-7113
020-7104................................. Spring retainer plate....... 020-7116, 020-7113
020-9000................................. Q3s positioning tool........ 020-9000
020-9001................................. Indicator arm............... 020-9000
020-9002................................. Extension bracket........... 020-9000
020-9003................................. Cross beam.................. 020-9000
020-9004................................. Knee spacer................. 020-9000
020-9005................................. Pivot screw................. 020-9000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Consideration of Alternatives

We considered the merits of alternative test dummies for use in the
side impact test under consideration for FMVSS No. 213. The closest
viable alternatives were the modified Hybrid III 3-year-old child test
dummy (HIII-3C) and the Q3.
Consideration of the Modified HIII-3C (``3Cs'')
The HIII-3C was originally developed in 1992. It is used in FMVSS
No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to evaluate air bag
aggressiveness or air bag suppression when a child is close to a
deploying air bag, and in FMVSS No. 213's frontal sled test for the
evaluation of child restraint performance. The HIII-3C was not designed
for lateral impacts. Under lateral loading, the shoulder and torso
exhibit highly stiff behavior and do not fully replicate a child's
kinematics. NHTSA considered using the HIII-3C in the 2002 FMVSS No.
213 ANPRM published in response to the TREAD Act (see footnote 4,
supra), but concluded that the ATD was not acceptable for use in side
impact testing.
After the agency assessed the HIII-3C in side impacts, NHTSA
developed a retrofit package for the dummy to install a new head and
neck with better lateral biofidelity. The retrofitted dummy is referred
to as the ``3Cs.''
NHTSA evaluated the 3Cs and the Q3s concurrently. Based on our
biofidelity evaluations, the 3Cs did not achieve nearly as good a
ranking as the Q3s. The technical report, ``Biofidelity Assessment of
the Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Side Impact Dummy,'' supra, discusses the
performance of the two ATDs. The Q3s outperformed or is equivalent to
the 3Cs in every aspect of biofidelity related to a dummy's response in
a side impact. Given the superior biofidelity of the Q3s, we believe
that it more accurately represents the response expected of a human
child.
In addition, the Q3s has thorax deflection instrumentation, which
the 3Cs does not. We tentatively conclude that the Q3s is a better
dummy than the 3Cs to measure injury assessment values in side impacts
and is a preferable ATD for use in the proposed side impact upgrade to
FMVSS No. 213.
Consideration of the Q3
As discussed in section II of this preamble, the design of the Q3s
was derived from the original Q3 dummy developed by the European
community. The Q3 is intended for use in frontal, side, and rear
impacts.
Around the same time Humanetics was working to bring the Q3s up to
production level, the Q3 underwent a significant design revision.
Starting in 2003, a ``new'' Q3 took shape. Many of the new design
concepts included in the Q3s were also built into the Q3 as Humanetics
worked concurrently on both dummies (e.g., thorax string potentiometers
were replaced by IR-TRACCs in both dummies). Still, as reported by the
European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (Wismans, et al., 2008), the
new Q3 does not respond well in lateral biofidelity tests. Furthermore,
the thorax of the new Q3 has become even less biofidelic than the
original. Therefore, NHTSA does not consider the Q3 preferable to the
Q3s.
Conclusion
The agency tentatively concludes that the improved biofidelity and
additional injury assessment capability of the Q3s compared to the
other commercially available child side impact test dummies supports a
decision to adopt the Q3s into 49 CFR Part 572. The Q3s dummy is a
state-of-the-art device that would allow for a better assessment of the
risk of injury to child occupants than the alternative test dummies.
The availability of Q3s's injury measuring capability also is important
to the design, development and evaluation of the side impact protection
of child restraint systems. The Q3s test dummy is available today, and
has been thoroughly evaluated for suitable reproducibility and
repeatability of results.

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impacts of this regulatory action under
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. This rulemaking action was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. The rulemaking
has also been determined to be non-significant under DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures.
This document would amend 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and
performance specifications for a test dummy representative of a 3-year-
old child that the agency would possibly use in FMVSS No. 213 side
impact compliance tests and possibly for research purposes. This Part
572 proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone.
Businesses are affected only if they choose to manufacture or test with
the dummy. Because the economic impacts of this proposed rule are
minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary.
There are benefits associated with this rulemaking but they cannot
be quantified. The incorporation of the test dummy into 49 CFR Part 572
would

[[Page 69967]]

enable NHTSA to use the ATD in a new dynamic side impact test that we
are considering adopting into FMVSS No. 213. Adoption of side impact
protection requirements in FMVSS No. 213 enhances child passenger
safety and accords with MAP-21. In addition, the availability of this
dummy in a regulated format would be beneficial by providing a
suitable, stabilized, and objective test tool to the safety community
for use in better protecting children in side impacts.
The cost of an uninstrumented Q3s dummy is approximately $48,750.
The minimum set of instrumentation needed for qualification and
compliance type testing includes three uni-axial accelerometers (part
no. SA572-S4), one neck/spine load cell (SA572-S8), one shoulder
potentiometer set (SA572-S38 and S39), one single axis IR-TRACC (SA572-
S37), and one pubic load cell (SA572-S7). The cost of this
instrumentation adds approximately $18,200 for a total cost of about
$66,950.
We have not estimated the costs of the equipment needed to perform
the qualification tests other than the instrumentation needed (two
angular rate sensors, $1,230 apiece; one test probe accelerometer,
$500; one rotary potentiometer, $500.) With the exception of the neck
torsion fixture, the angular rate sensors, and the 3.8 kg test probe,
all fixtures and instruments are common with those used to qualify
other Part 572 dummies.
We recognize that dummy refurbishments and part replacements are an
inherent part of ATD testing. Various parts will likely have to be
refurbished or replaced, but we do not know which parts are likely to
be worked on the most. However, since the dummies are designed to be
reusable, costs of the dummies and of parts can be amortized over a
number of tests.

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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
addition of the test dummy to Part 572 would not impose any
requirements on anyone. NHTSA would use the ATD in agency testing but
would not require anyone to manufacture the dummy or to test motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment with it.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13045 and 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.
NHTSA has examined today's proposed 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 proposed rule would not have federalism
implications because the proposed rule would not have ``substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone. Businesses
will be affected only if they choose to manufacture or test with the
dummy.
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's proposed rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive
effect in two ways. This proposed rule would amend 49 CFR Part 572 and
is not a safety standard.\30\ This Part 572 proposed rule would not
impose any requirements on anyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ With respect to the safety standards, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive
provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under
this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second, the Supreme Court has
recognized the possibility of implied preemption: State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed
by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment
and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict
exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State
requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,
529 U.S. 861 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Justice Reform

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows.
The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O.
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

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 proposed rule would not have any
requirements that are considered to be information

[[Page 69968]]

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. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The following voluntary consensus standards have been used in
developing the Q3s:
SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar 95,
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic
Instrumentation''; and,
SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash
Testing.''

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the
UMRA. This proposed rule does not meet the definition of a Federal
mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49
CFR Part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for a 3-
year-old child side impact test dummy that the agency could use in
FMVSS No. 213 and for research purposes. This proposed rule would
affect only those businesses that choose to manufacture or test with
the dummy. It would not result in costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector.

Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
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 rulemaking easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please send them to
NHTSA.

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.

XI. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure better that
your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the
docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging into https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

If you wish the Docket Management Facility to notify you upon its
receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in
the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments,
the Docket Management Facility will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel's office, NHTSA, at the
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition,
you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to the Docket Management Facility at
the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR
Part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments received
after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to
consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we
will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for a future
rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the comments received by the Docket Management
Facility at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the
Docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the
comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the

[[Page 69969]]

Internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, 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).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Part 572 as follows:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 572 would be amended to read as
follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. 49 CFR Part 572 would be amended by adding a new Subpart W
consisting of 572.210-572.219 to read as follows:
Subpart W--Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
Secs.
572.210 Incorporation by reference.
572.211 General description.
572.212 Head assembly and test procedure.
572.213 Neck assembly and test procedure.
572.214 Shoulder assembly and test procedure.
572.215 Thorax with arm assembly and test procedure.
572.216 Thorax without arm assembly and test procedure.
572.217 Lumbar spine assembly and test procedure.
572.218 Pelvis assembly and test procedure.
572.219 Test conditions and instrumentation.
Appendix--Figures to Subpart W of Part 572

Sec. 572.210 Incorporation by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this
part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, NHTSA must publish notice of change in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at the Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, telephone 202-366-
9826, and is available from the sources listed below. The material is
available in electronic format through Regulations.gov, call 1-877-378-
5457 or go to www.regulations.gov. It is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030 or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
(b) NHTSA Technical Information Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-5965.
(1) A parts/drawing list entitled, ``Parts/Drawings List, Part 572
Subpart W, Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, May 2012,'' IBR
approved for Sec. 572.211.
(2) A drawings and inspection package entitled, ``Parts List and
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart W, Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, May
2012,'' IBR approved for Sec. 572.211, including:
(i) Drawing No. 020-0100, Complete Assembly Q3s, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.212, 572.213, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216,
572.217, 572.218, and 572.219.
(ii) Drawing No. 020-1200, Head Assembly, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.212, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and
572.219.
(iii) Drawing No. 020-2400, Neck Assembly, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.213, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and
572.219.
(iv) Drawing No. 020-9050, Headform, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
572.211, 572.213, 572.217 and 572.219.
(v) Drawing No. DL210-200, Neck Twist Fixture, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.213, and 572.219.
(vi) Drawing No. 020-4500, Torso Assembly, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218 and 572.219.
(vii) Drawing No. 020-6000, Lumbar Spine Assembly, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.217 and 572.219.
(viii) Drawing No. 020-7500, Pelvis Assembly, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219.
(ix) Drawing No. 020-8001, Q3s Suit, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219.
(x) Drawing No. 020-9500, Complete Leg Assembly--left, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218, and 572.219
as part of a complete dummy assembly.
(xi) Drawing No. 020-9600, Complete Leg Assembly--right, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218,
and 572.219 as part of a complete dummy assembly.
(xii) Drawing No. 020-9700, Complete Arm Assembly--left, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218,
and 572.219 as part of a complete dummy assembly.
(xiii) Drawing No. 020-9800, Complete Arm Assembly--right, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 572.211, 572.214, 572.215, 572.216, 572.218,
and 572.219 as part of a complete dummy assembly.
(3) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of the Q3s Child Side Impact Crash
Test Dummy, September 2013,'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 572.211 and
572.219.
(c) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
15096, call 1-877-606-7323.
(1) SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar 95, ``Instrumentation
for Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation,'' IBR approved
for Sec. 572.219;
(2) SAE Information Report J1733 of 1994-12, ``Sign Convention for
Vehicle Crash Testing,'' IBR approved for Sec. 572.219.

Sec. 572.211 General description.

(a) The Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy is defined by drawings
and specifications containing the following materials:
(1) The parts enlisted in ``Parts List and Drawings, Part 572
Subpart W, Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, September 2013''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(2) The engineering drawings and specifications contained in
``Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart W, Q3s Three-Year-Old Child
Test Dummy, September 2013,'' which includes the engineering drawings
and specifications described in Drawing 020-0000, the titles of which
are listed in Table A, and,
(3) A manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and
Inspection (PADI) of the Q3s Child Side Impact Crash Test Dummy,
September 2013.''

Table A to Sec. 572.211
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component assembly Drawing number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Head Assembly...................... 020-1200
(ii) Neck Assembly..................... 020-2400
(iii) Torso Assembly................... 020-4500
(iv) Lumbar Spine Assembly............. 020-6000
(v) Pelvis Assembly.................... 020-7500

[[Page 69970]]

(vi) Complete Leg Assembly--left....... 020-9500
(vii) Complete Leg Assembly--right..... 020-9600
(viii) Complete Arm Assembly--left..... 020-9700
(ix) Complete Arm Assembly--right...... 020-9800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy
conforms to this Subpart in every respect before use in any test.

Sec. 572.212 Head assembly and test procedure.

(a) The head assembly for this test consists of the complete head
(drawing 020-1200) with head accelerometer assembly (drawing 020-
1013A), and a half mass simulated upper neck load cell (drawing 020-
1050) (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(b) When the head assembly is tested according to the test
procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, it shall have the following
characteristics:
(1) Frontal head qualification test. When the head assembly is
dropped from a height of 376.0 1.0 mm (14.8
0.04 in) in accordance with subsection (c) of this section, the peak
resultant acceleration at the location of the accelerometers at the
head CG shall have a value between 250 G and 297 G. The resultant
acceleration vs. time history curve shall be unimodal; oscillations
occurring after the main pulse must be less than 10 percent of the peak
resultant acceleration. The lateral acceleration shall not exceed 15 G
(zero to peak).
(2) Lateral head qualification test. When the head assembly is
dropped from a height of 200.0 1.0 mm (7.87
0.04 in) in accordance with subsection (c) of this section, the peak
resultant acceleration at the location of the accelerometers at the
head CG shall have a value between 113 G and 140 G. The resultant
acceleration vs. time history curve shall be unimodal; oscillations
occurring after the main pulse must be less than 10 percent of the peak
resultant acceleration. The X-component acceleration shall not exceed
20 G (zero to peak).
(c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the head assembly is as
follows:
(1) Soak the head assembly in a controlled environment at any
temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 [deg]C (66 and 78 [deg]F) and a
relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior
to a test.
(2) Prior to the test, clean the impact surface of the skin and the
impact plate surface with isopropyl alcohol, trichloroethane, or an
equivalent. The skin of the head and the impact plate surface must be
clean and dry for testing.
(3)(i) For the frontal head test, suspend and orient the head
assembly with the forehead facing the impact surface as shown in Figure
W1. The lowest point on the forehead must be 376.0 1.0 mm
(14.8 0.04 in) from the impact surface. Assure that the
head is horizontal laterally. Adjust the head angle so that the upper
neck load cell simulator is 28 2 degrees forward from the
vertical while assuring that the head remains horizontal laterally.
(ii) For the lateral head test, the head is dropped on the aspect
that opposes the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for
which the dummy is being qualified. A left drop set up that is used to
qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale left side impact is
depicted in Figure W2. A right drop set-up would be the mirror image of
that shown in Figure W2. Suspend and orient the head assembly as shown
in Figure W2. The lowest point on the impact side of the head must be
200.0 1.0 mm (7.87 0.04 in) from the impact
surface. Assure that the head is horizontal in the fore-aft direction.
Adjust the head angle so that the head base plane measured from the
base surface of the upper neck load cell simulator is 35 2
degrees forward from the vertical while assuring that the head remains
horizontal in the fore-aft direction.
(4) Drop the head assembly from the specified height by means that
ensure a smooth, instant release onto a rigidly supported flat
horizontal steel plate which is 50.8 mm (2 in) thick and 610 mm (24 in)
square. The impact surface shall be clean, dry and have a micro finish
of not less than 203.2 x 10^-6 mm (8 micro inches) (RMS) and
not more than 2,032.0 x 10^-6 mm (80 micro inches) (RMS).
(5) Allow at least 2 hours between successive tests on the same
head.

Sec. 572.213 Neck assembly and test procedure.

(a)(1) The neck and headform assembly (refer to Sec.
572.210(b)(2)(iii) and Sec. 572.210(b)(2)(iv)) for the purposes of the
fore-aft neck flexion and lateral neck flexion qualification tests, as
shown in Figures W3 and W4, consists of the headform (drawing 020-9050,
sheet 1) with angular rate sensor installed (drawing SA572-S58), six-
channel neck/lumbar load cell (drawing SA572-S8), neck assembly
(drawing 020-2400), neck/torso interface plate (drawing 020-9056) and
pendulum interface plate (drawing 020-9051) with angular rate sensor
installed (drawing SA572-S58) (all incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210).
(2) The neck assembly (refer to Sec. 572.210(b)(2)(iii) and Sec.
572.210(b)(2)(v)) for the purposes of the neck torsion qualification
test, as shown in Figure W5, consists of the neck twist fixture
(drawing DL210-200) with rotary potentiometer installed (drawing SA572-
S51), neck adaptor plate assembly (drawing DL210-220), neck assembly
(drawing 020-2400), six-channel neck/lumbar load cell (drawing SA572-
S8), and twist fixture end plate (drawing DL210-210) (all incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(b) When the neck and headform assembly as defined in Sec.
572.213(a)(1), or the neck assembly as defined in Sec. 572.213(a)(2),
is tested according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this
section, it shall have the following characteristics:
(1) Fore-aft neck flexion qualification test.
(i) Plane D, referenced in Figure W3, shall rotate in the direction
of pre-impact flight with respect to the pendulum's longitudinal
centerline between 70 degrees and 82 degrees, which shall occur between
55 and 63 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by the neck
transducer (drawing SA572-S8) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210) shall have a value between 41 N-m (30.2 ft-lbf) and 51 N-m
(37.6 ft-lbf) occurring between 49 and 62 ms from time zero.
(ii) The decaying headform rotation vs. time curve shall cross the
zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact
relative to the pendulum centerline between 50 to 54 ms after the time
the peak rotation value is reached.
(iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when
the longitudinal centerline of the neck and pendulum are parallel.
(iv) The headform rotation shall be calculated by the following
formula with the integration beginning at time zero:
Headform rotation (deg) = [int] [(Headform Angular Rate)y-
(Pendulum Angular Rate)y] dt

[[Page 69971]]

(2) Lateral neck flexion qualification test.
(i) Plane D, referenced in Figure W4, shall rotate in the direction
of pre-impact flight with respect to the pendulum's longitudinal
centerline between 77 degrees and 88 degrees, which shall occur between
65 and 72 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by the neck
transducer (drawing SA572-S8) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210) shall have a value between 25 N-m (18.4 ft-lbf) and 32 N-m
(23.6 ft-lbf) occurring between 66 and 73 ms from time zero.
(ii) The decaying headform rotation vs. time curve shall cross the
zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact
relative to the pendulum centerline between 63 to 69 ms after the time
the peak rotation value is reached.
(iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when
the longitudinal centerline of the neck and pendulum are parallel.
(iv) The headform rotation shall be calculated by the following
formula with the integration beginning at time zero:

Headform rotation (deg) = [int] [(Headform Angular Rate)y-
(Pendulum Angular Rate)y] dt

(v) (Headform Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about
the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the headform (drawing 020-9050, sheet
1), and (Pendulum Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about
the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the pendulum interface plate (drawing
020-9051) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(3) Neck torsion qualification test.
(i) The neck twist fixture (drawing DL210-200), referenced in
Figure W5, shall rotate in the direction of pre-impact flight with
respect to the pendulum's longitudinal centerline between 75 degrees
and 93 degrees, as measured by the rotary potentiometer (drawing SA572-
S51), and shall occur between 91 and 113 ms from time zero. The peak
moment, measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572-S8) shall have a
value between 8 N-m (5.9 ft-lbf) and 10 N-m (7.4 ft-lbf) occurring
between 85 and 105 ms from time zero) (all incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 572.210).
(ii) The decaying neck twist fixture rotation vs. time curve shall
cross the zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of
impact relative to the pendulum centerline between 84 to 103 ms after
the time the peak rotation value is reached.
(iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when
the zero pins are installed such that the neck is not in torsion.
(iv) Time zero is defined as the time of initial contact between
the pendulum striker plate and the honeycomb material. All data
channels shall be at the zero level at this time.
(c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the neck assembly is as
follows:
(1) Soak the neck assembly in a controlled environment at any
temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 [deg]C (69 and 72 [deg]F) and a
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours
prior to a test.
(2)(i) For the fore-aft neck flexion test, mount the neck and
headform assembly, defined in subsection (a)(1) of this section, on the
pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that the midsagittal
plane of the headform is vertical and coincides with the plane of
motion of the pendulum, and with the neck placement such that the front
side of the neck is closest to the honeycomb material.
(ii) For the lateral neck flexion test, the test is carried out in
the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full
scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. A right flexion test
set-up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale
right side impact is depicted in Figure W4. A left flexion test set-up
would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W4. Mount the neck and
headform assembly, defined in subsection (a)(1) of this section, on the
pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that the midsagittal
plane of the headform is vertical and coincides with the plane of
motion of the pendulum, and with the neck placement such that the right
(or left) side of the neck is closest to the honeycomb material.
(iii) For the neck torsion test, the test is carried out in the
direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full scale
test for which the dummy is being qualified. A right torsion test set-
up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing full scale right
side impact is depicted in Figure W5. A left flexion test set-up would
be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W5. Mount the neck assembly,
defined in subsection (a)(2) of this section, on the pendulum described
in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572, as shown in Figure W5 of this subpart.
(3)(i) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely from a
height to achieve an impact velocity of 4.7 0.1 m/s (15.6
0.3 ft/s) for fore-aft flexion, 3.8 0.05 m/s
(12.5 0.2 ft/s) for lateral flexion, and 3.6
0.1 m/s (11.8 0.3 ft/s) for torsion, measured by an
accelerometer mounted on the pendulum as shown in Figure 22 of this
Part 572 at time zero.
(ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an
acceleration vs. time pulse that meets the velocity change as specified
in Table B of this section. Integrate the pendulum accelerometer data
channel to obtain the velocity vs. time curve beginning at time zero.

Table B to Sec. 572.213
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fore-aft flexion Lateral flexion Torsion
Time ---------------------------- Time ---------------------------- Time ---------------------------
(ms) m/s ft/s (ms) m/s ft/s (ms) m/s ft/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 1.1-2.1 3.6-6.9 10 1.7-2.2 5.6-7.2 10 0.9-1.3 3.0-4.3
20 2.8-3.8 9.2-12.5 15 2.5-3.0 8.2-9.8 15 1.4-2.0 4.6-6.6
30 4.1-5.1 13.5-16.7 20 3.4-3.9 11.2-12.8 20 2.0-2.6 6.6-8.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 572.214 Shoulder assembly and test procedure.

(a) The shoulder assembly for this test consists of the torso
assembly (drawing 020-4500) with string pot assembly (drawing SA572-S38
or SA572-S39) installed (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(b) When the center of the shoulder of a completely assembled dummy
(drawing 020-0100) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210) is
impacted laterally by a test probe conforming to Sec. 572.219, at 3.6
0.1 m/s (11.8 0.3 ft/s) according to the test
procedure in paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Maximum lateral shoulder displacement (compression) relative to
the spine, measured with the string pot assembly (drawing SA572-S38 or
SA572-S39) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210), must not be
less than 16 mm (0.63 in) and not more than 21 mm (0.83 in). The peak
force, measured by the impact probe as defined in Sec. 572.219

[[Page 69972]]

and calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
shall have a value between 1.24 kN (279 lbf) and 1.35 kN (303 lbf).
(2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor
mass and its measured deceleration.
(c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the shoulder assembly is
as follows:
(1) The dummy is clothed in the Q3s suit (drawing 020-8001)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210). No additional clothing
or shoes are placed on the dummy.
(2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature
between 20.6 and 22.2 [ordm]C (69 and 72 [ordm]F) and a relative
humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
(3) The shoulder test is carried out in the direction opposing the
primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy
is being qualified. A left shoulder test set-up that is used to qualify
the dummy for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in
Figure W6. A right shoulder set-up would be a mirror image of that
shown in Figure W6. Seat the dummy on the qualification bench described
in Figure V3 of 49 CFR 572.194, the seat pan and seat back surfaces of
which are covered with thin sheets of PTFE (Teflon) (nominal stock
thickness: 2 to 3 mm) (3/32- to 1/8-inch) along the impact side of the
bench.
(4) Position the dummy on the bench as shown in Figure W6, with the
ribs making contact with the seat back oriented 24.6 degrees relative
to vertical, the legs extended forward along the seat pan oriented 21.6
degrees relative to horizontal with the knees spaced 40 mm (1.57 in)
apart, and the arms positioned so that the upper arms are parallel to
the seat back ( 2 degrees) and the lower arms are
perpendicular to the upper arms.
(5) The target point of the impact is a point on the shoulder that
is 15 mm above and perpendicular to the midpoint of a line connecting
the centers of the bolt heads of the two lower bolts (part
5000010) that connect the upper arm assembly (020-9750) to the
shoulder ball retaining ring (020-3533).
(6) Impact the shoulder with the test probe so that at the moment
of contact the probe's longitudinal centerline should be horizontal
( 1 degrees), and the centerline of the probe should be
within 2 mm (0.08 in) of the target point.
(7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no
significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement.
(8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other
attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make
contact with the dummy during the test.

Sec. 572.215 Thorax with arm assembly and test procedure.

(a) The thorax assembly for this test consists of the torso
assembly (drawing 020-4500) with IR-TRACC (drawing SA572-S37)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210) installed.
(b) When the thorax of a completely assembled dummy (drawing 020-
0100) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210) is impacted
laterally by a test probe conforming to Sec. 572.219 at 5.0 0.1 m/s (16.4 0.3 ft/s) according to the test
procedure in paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Maximum lateral thorax displacement (compression) relative to
the spine, measured with the IR-TRACC (drawing SA572-S37) and processed
as set out in the PADI (all incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210), shall have a value between 23 mm (0.91 in) and 28 mm (1.10
in). The peak force occurring after 5 ms, measured by the impact probe
as defined in Sec. 572.219 and calculated in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, shall have a value between 1.38 kN (310 lbf)
and 1.69 kN (380 lbf).
(2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor
mass and its measured deceleration.
(3) Time zero is defined as the time of contact between the impact
probe and the arm. All channels should be at a zero level at this
point.
(c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the thorax with arm
assembly is as follows:
(1) The dummy is clothed in the Q3s suit (drawing 020-8001)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210). No additional clothing
or shoes are placed on the dummy.
(2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature
between 20.6 and 22.2 [ordm]C (69 and 72 [ordm]F) and a relative
humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
(3) The test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary
load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being
qualified. A left thorax test set-up that is used to qualify the dummy
for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in Figure W7. A
right thorax set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W7.
Seat the dummy on the qualification bench described in Figure V3 of 49
CFR 572.194, the seat pan and seat back surfaces of which are covered
with thin sheets of PTFE (Teflon) (nominal stock thickness: 2 to 3 mm
(3/32- to 1/8-inch)) along the impact side of the bench.
(4) Position the dummy on the bench as shown in Figure W7, with the
ribs making contact with the seat back oriented 24.6 degrees relative
to vertical, the legs extended forward along the seat pan oriented 21.6
degrees relative to horizontal with the knees spaced 40 mm (1.57 in)
apart. On the non-impact side of the dummy, the long axis of the upper
arm is positioned parallel to the seat back ( 2 degrees).
On the impact side, the upper arm is positioned such that the target
point intersects its long axis as described in (5) below. The long axis
of the upper arm is defined by section line A-A in drawing 020-9750
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210). Both of the lower arms
are set perpendicular to the upper arms.
(5) The target point of the impact is the point of intersection on
the lateral aspect of the upper arm and a line projecting from the
thorax of the dummy. The projecting line is horizontal, runs parallel
to the coronal plane of the dummy, and passes through the midpoint of a
line connecting the centers of the bolt heads of the two IR-TRACC bolts
(part 5000646). The projected line should intersect the upper
arm within 2 mm (0.80 in) of its long axis.
(6) Impact the arm with the test probe so that at the moment of
contact the probe's longitudinal centerline should be horizontal
( 1 degrees), and the centerline of the probe should be
within 2 mm (0.80 in) of the target point.
(7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no
significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement.
(8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other
attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make
contact with the dummy during the test.

Sec. 572.216 Thorax without arm assembly and test procedure.

[[Page 69973]]

the spine, measured with the IR-TRACC (drawing SA572-S37) and processed
as set out in the PADI (all incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210), shall have a value between 24 mm (0.94 in) and 31 mm (1.22
in). The peak force, measured by the impact probe as defined in Sec.
572.219 and calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, shall have a value between 620 N (139 lbf) and 770 N (173
lbf).
(2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor
mass and its measured deceleration.
(c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the thorax without arm
assembly is as follows:
(1) The dummy is clothed in the Q3s suit (drawing 020-8001)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210). No additional clothing
or shoes are placed on the dummy.
(2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature
between 20.6 and 22.2 [deg]C (69 and 72 [deg]F) and a relative humidity
from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
(3) The test is carried out in the direction opposing the primary
load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy is being
qualified. A left thorax test set-up that is used to qualify the dummy
for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in Figure W8. A
right thorax set-up would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W8.
Seat the dummy on the qualification bench described in Figure V3 of 49
CFR 572.194, the seat pan and seat back surfaces of which are covered
with thin sheets of PTFE (Teflon) (nominal stock thickness: 2 to 3 mm
(\3/32\- to \1/8\-inch)) along the impact side of the bench.
(4) Position the dummy on the bench as shown in Figure W8, with the
ribs making contact with the seat back oriented 24.6 degrees relative
to vertical, the legs extended forward along the seat pan oriented 21.6
degrees relative to horizontal with the knees spaced 40 mm (1.57 in)
apart, and the arm on the non-impacted side positioned so that the
upper arm is parallel ( 2 degrees) to the seat back and the
lower arm perpendicular to the upper arm.
(5) The target point of the impact is the midpoint of a line
between the centers of the bolt heads of the two IR-TRACC bolts (part
5000646).
(6) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that at the moment of
contact the probe's longitudinal centerline should be horizontal
( 1 degrees), and the centerline of the probe should be
within 2 mm (0.08 in) of the target point.
(7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no
significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement.
(8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other
attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make
contact with the dummy during the test.

Sec. 572.217 Lumbar spine assembly and test procedure.

(a) The lumbar spine and headform assembly (refer to Sec.
572.210(b)(2)(iv) and Sec. 572.210(a)(2)(vii)) for the purposes of the
fore-aft lumbar flexion and lateral lumbar flexion qualification tests,
as shown in Figures W9 and W10, consists of the headform (drawing 020-
9050, sheet 2) with angular rate sensor installed (drawing SA572-S58),
six-channel neck/lumbar load cell (drawing SA572-S8), lumbar spine
assembly (drawing 020-6000), lumbar interface plate (drawing 020-9062)
and pendulum interface plate (drawing 020-9051) with angular rate
sensor installed (drawing SA572-S58) (all incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 572.210).
(b) When the lumbar spine and headform assembly is tested according
to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, it shall have
the following characteristics:
(1) Fore-aft lumbar flexion qualification test.
(i) Plane D, referenced in Figure W9, shall rotate in the direction
of pre-impact flight with respect to the pendulum's longitudinal
centerline between 48 degrees and 57 degrees, which shall occur between
52 and 59 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by the neck/
lumbar transducer (drawing SA572-S8) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.210) shall have a value between 78 N-m (57.5 ft-lbf) and 94
N-m (69.3 ft-lbf) occurring between 46 and 57 ms from time zero.
(ii) The decaying headform rotation vs. time curve shall cross the
zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact
relative to the pendulum centerline between 50 to 56 ms after the time
the peak rotation value is reached.
(iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when
the longitudinal centerline of the lumbar spine and pendulum are
parallel.
(iv) The headform rotation shall be calculated by the following
formula with the integration beginning at time zero:
Headform rotation (deg) = [int] [(Headform Angular Rate)y -
(Pendulum Angular Rate)y] dt

(v) (Headform Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about
the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the headform (drawing 020-9050, sheet
2), and (Pendulum Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about
the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the pendulum interface plate (drawing
020-9051) (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(2) Lateral lumbar flexion qualification test.
(i) Plane D, referenced in Figure W10, shall rotate in the
direction of pre-impact flight with respect to the pendulum's
longitudinal centerline between 47 degrees and 59 degrees, which shall
occur between 50 and 59 ms from time zero. The peak moment, measured by
the neck/lumbar transducer (drawing SA572-S8) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 572.210) shall have a value between 78 N-m (57.5
ft-lbf) and 97 N-m (71.5 ft-lbf) occurring between 46 and 57 ms from
time zero.
(ii) The decaying headform rotation vs. time curve shall cross the
zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of impact
relative to the pendulum centerline between 47 to 59 ms after the time
the peak rotation value is reached.
(iii) All instrumentation data channels are defined to be zero when
the longitudinal centerline of the lumbar spine and pendulum are
parallel.
(iv) The headform rotation shall be calculated by the following
formula with the integration beginning at time zero:

Headform rotation (deg) = [int] [(Headform Angular Rate)y-
(Pendulum Angular Rate)y] dt

(v) (Headform Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about
the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the headform (drawing 020-9050, sheet
2), and (Pendulum Angular Rate)y is the angular rate about
the y-axis in deg/sec measured on the pendulum interface plate (drawing
020-9051) (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the lumbar spine
assembly is as follows:
(1) Soak the lumbar spine assembly in a controlled environment at
any temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 [deg]C (69 and 72 [deg]F) and a
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours
prior to a test.
(2)(i) For the fore-aft lumbar flexion test, mount the lumbar spine
and headform assembly, defined in subsection (a) of this section, on
the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that the
midsagittal plane of the headform is vertical and coincides with the
plane of motion of the pendulum, and with the lumbar spine placement
such that the front side of the lumbar spine is closest to the
honeycomb material.

[[Page 69974]]

(ii) For the lateral lumbar flexion test, the test is carried out
in the direction opposing the primary load vector of the ensuing full
scale test for which the dummy is being qualified. A right flexion test
set-up that is used to qualify the dummy for an ensuing a full scale
right side impact is depicted in Figure W10. A left flexion test set-up
would be a mirror image of that shown in Figure W10. Mount the lumbar
spine and headform assembly, defined in subsection (a)(1) of this
section, on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR 572 so that
the midsagittal plane of the headform is vertical and coincides with
the plane of motion of the pendulum, and with the lumbar spine
placement such that the right (or left) side of the lumbar spine is
closest to the honeycomb material.
(3)(i) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely from a
height to achieve an impact velocity of 4.4 0.1 m/s (14.4
0.3 ft/s), measured by an accelerometer mounted on the
pendulum as shown in Figure 22 of this Part 572 at time zero.
(ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an
acceleration vs. time pulse that meets the velocity change as specified
in Table C of this section. Integrate the pendulum accelerometer data
channel to obtain the velocity vs. time curve beginning at time zero.

Table C to Sec. 572.217
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fore-aft flexion Lateral flexion
Time (ms) ---------------------------------------------------
m/s ft/s m/s ft/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.......................................................... 1.3-1.7 4.3-5.6 1.3-1.7 4.3-5.6
20.......................................................... 2.7-3.7 8.9-12.1 2.7-3.7 8.9-12.1
30.......................................................... 4.1-4.9 13.5-16.1 4.0-4.8 13.1-15.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 572.218 Pelvis assembly and test procedure.

(a) The pelvis assembly (drawing 020-7500) for this test includes a
uniaxial pubic load cell (drawing SA572-S7) installed on the non-impact
side of the pelvis (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(b) When the center of the pelvis of a completely assembled dummy
(drawing 020-0100) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210) is
impacted laterally by a test probe conforming to Sec. 572.219 at 4.0
0.1 m/s (13.1 0.3 ft/s) according to the test
procedure in paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Maximum pubic load, measured with the uniaxial pubic load cell
(drawing SA572-S7) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210),
shall have a value between 700 N (157 lbf) and 870 N (196 lbf). The
peak force, measured by the impact probe as defined in Sec. 572.219
and calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
shall have a value between 1.57 kN (353 lbf) and 1.81 kN (407 lbf).
(2) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor
mass and its measured deceleration.
(c) Test procedure: The test procedure for the pelvis assembly is
as follows:
(1) The dummy is clothed in the Q3s suit (drawing 020-8001)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210). No additional clothing
or shoes are placed on the dummy.
(2) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature
between 20.6 and 22.2 [deg]C (69 and 72 [deg]F) and a relative humidity
from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
(3) The pelvis test is carried out in the direction opposing the
primary load vector of the ensuing full scale test for which the dummy
is being qualified. A left pelvis test set-up that is used to qualify
the dummy for an ensuing full scale left side impact is depicted in
Figure W11. A right pelvis test set-up would be a mirror image of that
shown in Figure W11. Seat the dummy on the qualification bench
described in Figure V3 of 49 CFR 572.194, the seat pan and seat back
surfaces of which are covered with thin sheets of PTFE (Teflon)
(nominal stock thickness: 2 to 3 mm (\3/32\- to \1/8\-inch)) along the
impact side of the bench.
(4) Position the dummy on the bench as shown in Figure W11, with
the ribs making contact with the seat back oriented 24.6 degrees
relative to vertical, the legs extended forward along the seat pan
oriented 21.6 degrees relative to horizontal with the knees spaced 40
mm (1.57 in) apart. The arms should be positioned so that the arm on
the non-impacted side is parallel to the seat back with the lower arm
perpendicular to the upper arm, and the arm on the impacted side is
positioned upwards away from the pelvis.
(5) Establish the impact point at the center of the pelvis so that
the impact point of the longitudinal centerline of the probe is located
185 mm (7.28 in) from the center of the knee pivot screw (part
020-9008) and centered vertically on the femur.
(6) Impact the pelvis with the test probe so that at the moment of
contact the probe's longitudinal centerline should be horizontal
( 1 degrees), and the centerline of the probe should be
within 2 mm (0.08 in) of the center of the pelvis.
(7) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no
significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement.
(8) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other
attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make
contact with the dummy during the test.

Sec. 572.219 Test conditions and instrumentation.

(a) The following test equipment and instrumentation is needed for
qualification as set forth in this subpart:
(1) The test probe for shoulder, thorax, and pelvis impacts is of
rigid metallic construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about
its longitudinal axis. It has a mass of 3.81 0.02 kg (8.40
0.04 lb) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 560 kg-
cm\2\ (0.407 lbf-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG. One-third
(\1/3\) of the weight of the suspension cables and their attachments to
the impact probe is included in the calculation of mass, and such
components may not exceed five percent of the total weight of the test
probe. The impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and concentric
with the longitudinal axis, is at least 25.4 mm (1.0 in) long, and has
a flat, continuous, and non-deformable 70.0 0.25 mm (2.76
0.01 in) diameter face with an edge radius between 6.4-
12.7 mm (0.25 to 0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to the impact face
has provisions for mounting of an accelerometer with its sensitive axis
collinear with the longitudinal axis of the probe. No concentric
portions of the impact probe may exceed the diameter of the impact
face. The impact probe shall have a free air resonant frequency of not
less than 1000 Hz, which may be determined using the procedure listed
in the PADI.
(2) Head accelerometers have dimensions, response characteristics,

[[Page 69975]]

and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA572-S4 and are
mounted in the head as shown in drawing 020-0100, sheet 2 of 5
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(3) The upper neck force and moment transducer has the dimensions,
response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in
drawing SA572-S8 and is mounted in the head-neck assembly as shown in
drawing 020-0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210).
(4) The angular rate sensors for the fore-aft neck flexion and
lateral neck flexion qualification tests have the dimensions and
response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S58 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 572.210) and are mounted in the headform and on
the pendulum as shown in Figures W3, W4 of this subpart.
(5) The string pot shoulder deflection transducers have the
dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S38
or SA572-S39 and are mounted to the torso assembly as shown in drawing
020-0100, sheet 2 of 5 (all incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210).
(6) The IR-TRACC thorax deflection transducers have the dimensions
and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S37 and are
mounted to the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020-0100, sheet 2 of
5 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(7) The lumbar spine force and moment transducer has the
dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations
specified in drawing SA572-S8 and is mounted in the torso assembly as
shown in drawing 020-0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.210).
(8) The angular rate sensors for the fore-aft lumbar flexion and
lateral lumbar flexion qualification tests have the dimensions and
response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S58 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 572.210) and are mounted in the headform and on
the pendulum as shown in Figures W9, W10 of this subpart.
(9) The pubic force transducers have the dimensions and response
characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S7 and are mounted in the
torso assembly as shown in drawing 020-0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(b) The following instrumentation may be required for installation
in the dummy for compliance testing. If so, it is installed during
qualification procedures as described in this subpart:
(1) The optional angular rate sensors for the head have the
dimensions and response characteristics specified in any of drawings
SA572-S55, SA572-S56, SA572-S57 or SA572-S58 and are mounted in the
head as shown in drawing 020-0100, sheet 2 of 5 (all incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(2) The upper spine accelerometers have the dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing
SA572-S4 and are mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020-
0100, sheet 2 of 5 (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(3) The pelvis accelerometers have the dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing
SA572-S4 and are mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020-
0100, sheet 2 of 5 (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(4) The T1 accelerometer has the dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive mass location specified in drawing
SA572-S4 and is mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 020-
0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210).
(5) The lower neck force and moment transducer has the dimensions,
response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations specified in
drawing SA572-S8 and is mounted to the neck assembly as shown in
drawing 020-0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210).
(6) The tilt sensor has the dimensions and response characteristics
specified in drawing SA572-S44 and is mounted to the torso assembly as
shown in drawing 020-0100, sheet 2 of 5 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 572.210).
(c) The outputs of transducers installed in the dummy and in the
test equipment specified by this part are to be recorded in individual
data channels that conform to SAE Recommended Practice J211
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 572.210) except as noted, with
channel frequency classes as follows:
(1) Pendulum acceleration, CFC 180,
(2) Pendulum angular rate, CFC 60,
(3) Neck twist fixture rotation, CFC 60,
(4) Test probe acceleration, CFC 180,
(5) Head accelerations, CFC 1000,
(6) Headform angular rate, CFC 60,
(7) Neck moments, upper and lower, CFC 600,
(7) Shoulder deflection, CFC 180,
(8) Thorax deflection, CFC 180,
(9) Upper spine accelerations, CFC 180,
(10) T1 acceleration, CFC 180,
(11) Pubic force, CFC 180,
(12) Pelvis accelerations, CFC 1000.
(d) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity are to conform to
SAE Information Report J1733 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
572.210).
(e) The mountings for sensing devices have no resonant frequency
less than 3 times the frequency range of the applicable channel class.
(f) Limb joints are set at one G, barely restraining the weight of
the limb when it is extended horizontally. The force needed to move a
limb segment is not to exceed 2G throughout the range of limb motion.
(g) Performance tests of the same component, segment, assembly, or
fully assembled dummy are separated in time by not less than 30 minutes
unless otherwise noted.
(h) Surfaces of dummy components may not be painted except as
specified in this subpart or in drawings subtended by this subpart.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Appendix--Figures to Subpart W of Part 572

[[Page 69976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.002

[[Page 69977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.003

[[Page 69978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.004

[[Page 69979]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.005

[[Page 69980]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.006

[[Page 69981]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.007

[[Page 69982]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO13.008

Issued on: November 8, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-27438 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.