Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70947

1The dummy proposed today represents the 

lower end of the 5th percentile female population 

range by mass distribution. However, the erect 

seated height is nearly at the mid point of that 

population range.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18865] 

RIN 2127–AJ16

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID–

IIsFRG Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 

(SID–IIs With Floating Rib Guide 

Modifications); 5th Percentile Adult 

Female

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes 

specifications and qualification 

requirements for a 5th percentile adult 

female test dummy for use in vehicle 

side impact tests. NHTSA has published 

an NPRM to amend Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, ‘‘Side 

Impact Protection,’’ to add a dynamic 

pole test to the standard. Under that 

proposal, all passenger vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less would 

have to protect front seat occupants 

against head, thoracic, abdominal and 

pelvic injuries in a vehicle-to-pole test 

simulating a vehicle’s side impact crash 

into narrow fixed objects like telephone 

poles and trees. Two newly developed 

anthropomorphic test dummies would 

be used in the pole test: One 

representing a 5th percentile adult 

female, and one representing a 50th 

percentile adult male. Today’s 

document proposes the specifications 

and qualification requirements for the 

5th percentile female dummy. The 5th 

percentile adult female crash test 

dummy allows regulators and 

researchers to assess the actual 

performance of vehicles in protecting 

small-stature occupants in side impacts.

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

Docket Management receives them not 

later than March 8, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the DOT DMS Docket 

Number) by any of the following 

methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the 

plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 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 http://dms.dot.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act discussion under the 

Public Participation heading. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Stan 

Backaitis, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 

(202) 366–4912). For legal issues, you 

may call Deirdre R. Fujita, NHTSA 

Office of Chief Counsel ((202) 366–

2992). You may send mail to these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., 

SW., Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction

II. Background 

a. Need for the Dummy 

b. Development of the FRG 

III. Description 

IV. Biofidelity 

V. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

a. Component Tests 

b. Sled Tests 

1. 6.7 m/s Flat Wall Test Results. 

2. 6.0 m/s Flat Wall Test Results. 

3. Abdominal Offset Tests 

VI. Pelvis Plug 

VII. Durability 

VIII. Reversibility for Right and Left Use 

IX. Directional Impact Sensitivity 

X. Proposed Calibration Tests 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Public Participation

I. Introduction 

This document relates to an NPRM 

previously issued by NHTSA (69 FR 

27990, May 17, 2004; Docket 2004–

17694) that proposed to add a vehicleto-pole test to Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, 

‘‘Side Impact Protection’’ (49 CFR 

571.214). The pole test simulates a 

vehicle’s side impact crash into narrow 

fixed objects like telephone poles and 

trees. If adopted as a final rule, the 

proposed pole test could result in the 

installation of dynamically deploying 

side impact air bag systems and other 

measures to protect front seat occupants 

against head, thoracic, abdominal and 

pelvic injuries in side crashes. 

In the proposed pole test, an 

anthropomorphic test dummy 

representing a 5th percentile adult 

female is in the front outboard seat on 

the struck side of the vehicle. Vehicles 

would have to be certified as complying 

with an established head injury 

criterion and with thoracic and pelvic 

injury criteria developed for the new 

dummy. The agency has also proposed 

to use this dummy in FMVSS No. 214’s 

existing moving deformable barrier 

(MDB) test, which simulates a moving 

vehicle-to-vehicle ‘‘T-bone’’ type 

intersection crash. Today’s NPRM 

proposes the specifications and 

calibration requirements for the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy that 

NHTSA seeks to use in these FMVSS 

No. 214 crash tests.1

The development of a small, secondgeneration side impact dummy was 

undertaken in 1993 by the Occupant 

Safety Research Partnership (OSRP), a 

consortium of the U.S. Council for 

Automotive Research (USCAR), and 

dummy manufacturer First Technology 

Safety Systems (FTSS). (USCAR was 

formed in 1992 by DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford and General Motors, as a research 

and development organization.) The 

OSRP determined that there was a need 

for a test dummy that would be better 

suited to help evaluate the performance 

of advanced side impact 

countermeasures, notably air bags, for 

occupants that are smaller than the 50th 

percentile size male. The new dummy 

was named SID–IIs, indicating ‘‘SID’’ as 

side impact dummy, ‘‘II’’ as second 

generation, and ‘‘s’’ as small. The SID–

IIs dummy was extensively tested in the 

late 1990s and early 2000 in vehicle 

crashes by Transport Canada, and to a 

limited extent by U.S. automobile 

70948 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

2NHTSA has placed in docket 17694 a technical 

report entitled, ‘‘Development of the SID–IIsFRG,’’

Rhule and Hagedorn, November 2003, which 

describes the need for and extent and purpose of 

the FRG modifications.

3The technical report ‘‘Development of the SID–

IIs FRG,’’ supra, describes the history and 

evaluation of the design changes made to the SID–

IIs dummy between the fall of 2000 and the spring 

of 2003.

manufacturers and suppliers, and the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

(IIHS). 

The dummy specified in today’s 

document is a modified version of the 

original SID–IIs dummy. NHTSA’s 

laboratory evaluation of the biofidelity 

of the SID–IIs revealed chest 

displacement transducer mechanical 

failures and some ribcage and shoulder 

structural problems. Post test evidence 

showed that the ribs of the unmodified 

SID–IIs did not remain constrained by 

the rib guides, which allowed their 

vertical motion during some impactor 

and sled tests, which in turn raised 

concerns regarding the structural 

integrity of the ribs and the deflection 

potentiometers, as well as the accuracy 

of the deflection measurements. The 

agency’s Vehicle Research and Test 

Center (VRTC) modified the dummy’s 

thorax in 2001 to incorporate floating 

rib guides to better stabilize the 

kinematics of the dummy’s ribs, and 

revised the shoulder and its rib guide 

design to prevent distorting vertical rib 

motion. The modified dummy proposed 

today is hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘SID-IIsFRG,’’ the ‘‘FRG’’ indicating the 

floating rib guide and other 

modifications to the dummy.2

The SID–IIsFRG has a mass of 44.5 kg 

(98 pounds) and a seated height of 790 

mm (31.1 inches). The dummy is 

capable of measuring accelerations, 

deflections and/or forces in the head, 

thorax, shoulder, abdomen and pelvis 

body regions. The dummy is described 

in detail in a NHTSA technical report 

entitled, ‘‘Summary of the NHTSA 

Evaluation of the SID–IIsFRG Side 

Impact Crash Test Dummy Including 

Assessment of Durability, Biofidelity, 

Repeatability, Reproducibility and 

Directional Sensitivity’’ (November 

2004), and in the PADI document 

(October 2004), which have been placed 

in the docket for today’s NPRM. (A 

number of technical reports providing 

further test details on the dummy, such 

as its repeatability and reproducibility, 

have also been placed in docket 17694, 

supra.)

II. Background 

a. Need for the Dummy 

Data from the 1990–2001 National 

Automotive Sampling System (NASS) 

Crashworthiness Data System (CDC) 

indicate a need for a dummy that has 

the capability of predicting the risk of 

injury to a segment of small-statured 

vehicle occupants in side crashes. Table 

1 shows the injury distribution of the 

estimated target population less than 65 

inches (in) in stature in all types of side 

impact crashes between 12 and 25 mph 

delta V.

TABLE 1.—U.S. MOTOR VEHICLE SMALL STATURE ADULT OCCUPANT POPULATION INJURY SEVERITY DISTRIBUTION IN

SIDE CRASHES

[For delta-V of 12–25 mph] 

Body region MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatality Total 

Head and Face ...................................................... 6706 1864 99 142 163 527 9049 

Thorax .................................................................... 4377 295 1213 671 11 446 7094 

Abdomen ................................................................ 264 86 20 112 27 96 670 

Pelvis ...................................................................... 0 0 123 0 0 6 136 

The 1990–2001 NASS/CDS data also 

indicate that there are differences in the 

body region distribution of serious 

injuries between small and medium 

stature occupants in these side 

collisions. The data suggests that small 

stature occupants have a higher 

proportion of head, abdominal and 

pelvic injuries than medium stature 

occupants, and a lower proportion of 

chest injuries (Samaha et al., ‘‘NHTSA 

Side Impact Research: Motivation for 

Upgraded Test Procedures,’’ 18th ESV 

Conference Proceedings). The agency 

believes that, in addition to a 50th 

percentile adult male dummy, use of a 

small-statured dummy in side impact 

testing would better represent the 

population at-risk in side impacts and 

substantially enhance protection for 

small adult occupants. 

b. Development of the FRG 

NHTSA began an extensive evaluation 

of the SID–IIs in 2000. The biofidelity of 

the dummy was assessed in component 

and sled testing that examined the 

ability of the dummy to load a vehicle 

as a cadaver does, and to replicate 

cadaver responses that best predict 

injury potential. Our finding from the 

sled tests was that a 8.9 m/s test was too 

severe to assess the durability and other 

characteristics of the dummy. Some of 

the 8.9 m/s tests resulted in damaged 

ribs, bent potentiometer shafts and 

crushed potentiometer housings. 

NHTSA’s examination of the causes of 

the damage to the SID–IIs revealed the 

rib guides for the shoulder, thorax and 

abdomen ribs did not sufficiently 

prevent vertical movement of the ribs 

(‘‘rib jump’’), and that the dummy’s rib 

stops allowed excessive deflection of 

the ribs. The observed damage raised 

concerns regarding the structural 

integrity of the ribs and the deflection 

measuring potentiometers, as well as the 

accuracy of the dummy’s deflection 

measurements, particularly for a 

dummy that could possibly be used for 

regulatory purposes. 

After extensive evaluation of these 

failures, the agency began incremental 

modifications of the dummy to improve 

the dummy’s durability.3 Because 

vertical movement of the ribs was 

deemed to be one of the causes for the 

damage to the thorax and abdomen 

regions of the dummy, VRTC developed 

the ‘‘floating rib guide’’ system, which 

prevents the compressed ribs from 

leaving the outside perimeter of the rib 

guides. The new guides ‘‘float’’ with the 

ribs as they expand in the anteriorposterior direction during the 

compression process, and thereby 

prevent rib jump. The FRG design 

includes deeper rib guides than on the 

unmodified SID–IIs dummy in both the 

thorax and abdomen regions. During 

deflection, the ribs contact carbon fiber 

cover plates affixed to the rib guides in 

the front and rear of the dummy. Guide 

pins and springs allow the rib guides to 

expand outwards, thus maintaining the 

ribs within the outside perimeter of the 

rib guides during the deflection event.

In addition, the shoulder rib guide of 

the dummy was reshaped and deepened 

beyond the front edge of the shoulder 

rib to keep the shoulder rib from moving 

vertically during its compression. The 

damping material of the shoulder rib 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70949

4The FRG design also incorporated other 

changes, such as the use of a cable tie to attach the 

dummy’s thorax and abdomen pads to the ribs, and 

the removal of 1⁄4 inch from the top of the abdomen 

pad to avoid interference with the thorax pad.

5 In the agency’s New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP), the FMVSS No. 214 moving deformable 

barrier impacts the vehicle at 38.5 miles per hour.

6T1—sensor location on the dummy’s thoracic 

spine equivalent to the first cervical on the human 

thoracic spine. T12—sensor location on the 

dummy’s thoracic spine equivalent to the 12th 

cervical on the human thoracic spine.

assembly was made thinner and 

spanned the entire width of the steel 

band. The FRG design used vinyl-coated 

aluminum rib stops to reduce excessive 

rib deflection, as excessive deflection 

was also one of the causes of bent 

potentiometer shafts and crushed 

potentiometer housings. To further 

protect the instrumentation, the new rib 

stops were located to reduce the 

maximum lateral rib deflection from 69 

mm to 60 mm.4

NHTSA conducted sled tests and air 

bag out-of-position tests comparing the 

durability of the FRG dummy to an 

unmodified SID–IIs dummy. The tests 

showed that the SID–IIsFRG design 

prevented rib jump and potentiometer 

damage that were evident in the 

unmodified dummy. These results are 

discussed in section VII of this 

preamble.

NHTSA also conducted tests to 

compare the measurement capabilities 

and response levels of the SID–IIsFRG to 

the SID–IIs dummy (‘‘Summary of the 

NHTSA Evaluation of the SID–IIsFRG 

Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 

Including Assessment of Durability, 

Biofidelity, Repeatability, 

Reproducibility and Directional 

Sensitivity’’ (November 2004), supra.) 

The SID–IIsFRG displayed comparable 

measurements in all conditions except 

for high-speed flat wall sled tests and 

high-speed purely lateral probe impacts 

to the upper torso of the dummy. During 

these tests, the SID–IIsFRG dummy 

exhibited smaller rib deflections (10 

percent smaller), but larger thorax load 

wall forces (17 percent) and T1 

accelerations (20 percent larger) than 

the SID–IIs. Similar trends of reduced 

chest deflections between SID–IIs FRG 

and SID–IIs were reported by Transport 

Canada in a set of paired side impact 

crash tests of two identical Camry 

vehicles in limited vehicle crash tests 

(‘‘SID–IIs Response in Side Impact 

Testing,’’ Tylko and Dalmotas, SAE 

Paper No. 2004–01–0350). 

NHTSA also conducted two pairs of 

repeat crash tests comparing the SID–

IIsFRG and the SID–IIs (‘‘Development 

of the SID–IIsFRG,’’ supra). The two 

tests included repeat oblique pole 

impacts with a dummy in the driver seat 

of a 2002 Ford Explorer. One of the tests 

was with the SID–IIsFRG (test number 

v4563), and the other was with the SID–

IIs (test number v4601). NHTSA also 

conducted a pair of repeat tests using 

the Side New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) protocol 5 with a 2001 Ford 

Focus, the first with a SID–IIsFRG in the 

driver’s seat and an unmodified SID–IIs 

in the rear left passenger seat (test 

number v4576), and the second with an 

unmodified SID–IIs in the driver’s seat 

and a SID–IIsFRG in the rear left 

passenger seat (test number v4562).

In this limited set of repeat crash tests 

by the agency, the results indicated that 

maximum thorax and abdomen 

deflections for the SID–IIsFRG, for the 

most part, were less than those of the 

SID–IIs. The limited crash test results 

appear to be consistent in trend with 

impactor and sled test results. 

III. Description 

A technical report and other materials 

describing the SID–IIsFRG in detail have 

been placed in the docket for today’s 

NPRM (Docket No. 18865) and in 

Docket No. 17694. The specifications for 

the proposed SID–IIsFRG consist of: (a) 

A drawing package containing all of the 

technical details of the dummy; (b) a 

parts list; and (c) a manual containing 

procedures for assembly, disassembly, 

and inspection (PADI) of dummy 

components. These materials have been 

placed in Docket No. 18865. These 

drawings and specifications ensure that 

the dummies are uniform in design and 

construction. The certification tests 

proposed in this NPRM would assure 

that the dummy responses are within 

the established qualification corridors 

and further validate the uniformity of 

dummy assembly, structural integrity, 

and adequacy of instrumentation. As a 

result, the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the dummy’s 

performance in dynamic testing would 

be ensured. 

Drawings and specifications for the 

SID–IIsFRG are available for 

examination in the NHTSA docket 

section. Copies of those materials and 

the user manual may also be obtained 

from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New 

RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20879, tel. (301) 670–

0090. 

Anthropometry and mass of the SID–

IIsFRG are based on the Hybrid III 5th 

percentile frontal female dummy and 

also generally match the size and weight 

of a 12- to 13-year-old child. The head 

and neck designs are based on the 

Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. 

The legs are Hybrid III 5th percentile 

female design available also with femur 

load cell instrumentation. 

At the same time, the dummy’s torso 

construction is distinctly different from 

other Hybrid III series of dummies as 

the SID–IIsFRG design is particularly 

oriented for assessing the potential for 

side impact injury. The dummy’s upper 

torso is made up of a rigid metallic 

spine to which six steel bands lined 

with bonded polymer damping material 

are attached to simulate the impact 

performance of the human shoulder (1 

rib), thorax (3 ribs) and abdomen (2 

ribs). Linear potentiometers are attached 

from the ribs to the spine for 

compression measurements. Provisions 

are available for mounting tri-axial 

accelerometer packs to the spine at T1

and T12 and at each rib.6 Replaceable 

foam pads are secured directly to the 

ribs and a neoprene jacket covers the 

complete chest assembly. The upper 

torso accommodates the attachment of 

the neck at the upper end and the 

lumbar spine at the lower end.

A stub arm on the impacted side is 

attached to the lateral aspect of the 

shoulder through a three-axis load cell. 

Tri-axial accelerometer packs can also 

be installed at the shoulder and at the 

upper and lower parts of the stub arm 

for side airbag inflation injury 

assessment. 

The dummy’s pelvis is a machined 

assembly with detachable hard urethane 

iliac wings at each side and covered by 

vinyl flesh. The pelvis design is shaped 

in a seated human-like posture and 

allows the attachment of the lumbar 

spine at its top and the legs at the left 

and right sides. The pelvis can be 

impacted from either side without any 

change in hardware. Replaceable foam 

crush plugs at the hip joint are used to 

control the lateral pelvis response. The 

pelvis design allows the measurement of 

impact loads at the acetabulum and iliac 

wing as well as accelerations at the 

pelvis center of gravity (c.g.). 

The external dimension and assembly 

weight of the SID–IIsFRG are shown in 

Table 3 below. Additional dimensional 

information may be found in the 

September 2004 Technical Drawings 

and Specification package in Docket No. 

18865.

70950 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

7Scherer, et al., ‘‘SID IIs Beta+-Prototype Dummy 

Biomechanical Responses,’’ 1998, SAE 983151.

8The ES–2re dummy is a 50th percentile 

European designed adult male side impact crash 

test dummy that the agency has proposed to use in 

the proposed upgrade of FMVSS No. 214 (69 FR 

27990, supra).

9Byrnes, et al., ‘‘ES–2 Dummy Biomechanical 

Responses,’’ 2002, Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, 

#2002–22–0014, p. 353.

TABLE 3.—EXTERNAL DIMENSIONS AND ASSEMBLY WEIGHTS OF THE SID–IIsFRG 

External dimensions Assembly weights 

Dimension (in) (cm) Segment mass (lb) (kg) 

Erect Sitting Height ................................... 31.0 78.7 Head ........................................................ 8.16 3.71 

Chest Circumference w/Jacket ................. 34.5 87.6 Neck ......................................................... 2.00 0.91 

Chest Depth .............................................. 8.0 20.3 Upper Torso ............................................. 26.10 11.86 

Shoulder Width ......................................... 13.6 34.5 Lower Torso ............................................. 26.82 12.19 

H-Point Height .......................................... 3.4 8.6 Stub Arm .................................................. 2.00 0.91 

Buttock Popliteal Length ........................... 16.9 42.9 Upper Legs .............................................. 13.80 6.26 

Buttock to Knee Length ............................ 20.8 52.7 Lower Legs/Feet ...................................... 17.90 8.12 

Knee to Floor Height ................................ 15.8 40.1 Total .................................................. 96.78 43.90

The SID–IIsFRG is instrumented to 

assess injury to the head, neck, 

shoulder, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, stub 

arm and lower extremities. A complete 

list of the instrumentation available for 

this dummy is shown in drawing 180–

0000, sheet 3 of 6. Table 3—External 

Dimensions and Assembly. 

IV. Biofidelity 

Biofidelity is a measure of how well 

a test device duplicates the responses of 

a human in an impact. Two methods are 

currently available for assessing the 

biofidelity of a dummy in side impact 

testing. The first is a procedure of the 

International Organization of 

Standardization (ISO), referred to as the 

ISO TR 9790 methodology (Irwin et al., 

‘‘Guidelines for Assessing the 

Biofidelity of Side Impact Dummies of 

Various Sizes and Ages,’’ 2002 Stapp 

Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, #2002–22–

0016). It determines the biofidelity of a 

dummy by how well the dummy’s body 

segment and/or subsystem impact 

responses replicate cadaver responses in 

defined impact environments. The 

second is the Biofidelity Ranking 

System developed by NHTSA (Rhule H., 

et al., 2002 Stapp Car Crash Journal, 

Vol. 46, p. 477, ‘‘Development of a New 

Biofidelity Ranking System for 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices’’). The 

SID–IIsFRG was evaluated by both 

methods. 

Assessment of the SID-IIsFRG by the ISO 

Biofidelity Classification System 

The biofidelity requirements defined 

in ISO TR 9790 are based on two types 

of head drop tests, three types of lateral 

neck bending tests, four types of 

shoulder impact tests, six types of 

lateral thoracic tests, five abdominal test 

conditions and thirteen lateral pelvis 

impact tests. The measured response 

values are assessed on their fit to the 

established cadaver response corridors. 

A value of 10 is given if the dummy’s 

segment response is completely within 

the boundaries of the cadaver response 

corridor. A value of 5 is given if the 

most important portion of the dummy’s 

segment response lies within one 

corridor width outside of the specified 

performance boundaries and in others, 

such as for unusually complex shapes of 

response curves, by group judgment of 

a group of biomechanical experts on the 

fit of the data. A value of zero is given 

if neither of the above conditions is met. 

The overall dummy’s biofidelity is 

found by weighted average of the scores 

of different body regions. Five 

classifications indicate the degree of 

biofidelity of the overall dummy rating. 

A dummy with a rating above 8.6 is 

classified as excellent, 6.5 to 8.6 as 

good, 4.4 to 6.5 as fair, 2.6 to 4.4 as 

marginal, and below 2.6 as 

unacceptable. 

The ISO methodology was used by 

OSRP members to evaluate the SIDIIsFRG in September 2004 (‘‘Technical 

Summary of OSRP-SIDIIs Upgrade,’’

September 2004). A copy of the 

document is in the docket for this 

NPRM. As shown in Table 4, the SID–

IIsFRG received an ISO Biofidelity 

rating of 5.9, which corresponds to a 

‘‘fair’’ classification. Scherer et al. had 

rated the SID–IIs Beta Prototype dummy 

a rating of 7.0, placing it in the ISO 

classification of ‘‘good.’’7

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF ISO BIOFIDELITY FOR SID–IIS AND SID–

IIsFRG 

Body Segment 

ISO Biofidelity

Classification 

SID–IIs SID–IIsFRG 

Head ............. 7.5 7.5 

Neck .............. 5.2 4.8 

Shoulder ....... 6.2 5.1 

Thorax ........... 7.8 6.5 

Abdomen ...... 8.8 5.7 

Pelvis ............ 5.7 5.3 

Overall .......... 7.0 5.9 

The OSRP-developed ISO ratings for 

the SID–IIs and SID–IIsFRG dummies 

compare favorably with other side 

impact dummies. The overall ES–2re 8

dummy’s biofidelity rating was 

determined to be 4.6, while the SID (49 

CFR Part 572 Subpart M) and EuroSID–

1 dummies received ratings of 2.3 and 

4.4,9 respectively. The SID–HIII 

received an overall rating of 3.8 (63 FR 

41468).

Assessment by the NHTSA Biofidelity 

Ranking System 

The NHTSA method of evaluating the 

biofidelity of a dummy determines the 

biofidelity based on two assessment 

measures: (a) The ability of a dummy to 

load the relevant contact surfaces as a 

cadaver does (termed ‘‘External 

Biofidelity’’); and (b) the ability of a 

dummy to replicate those cadaver 

responses that best predict injury 

potential (‘‘Internal Biofidelity’’). This 

ranking system evaluates the dummy’s 

ability to replicate the cadaver loading 

responses at the whole body level, and 

how that body replicates the loading of 

interfacing external structures. 

Similar to the ISO TR 9790 biofidelity 

rating system, the NHTSA ranking 

system is based on a comparison 

between cadaver and dummy responses 

in head drop tests, thorax and shoulder 

pendulum tests, and whole body sled 

tests including abdominal and pelvic 

offset test conditions. Each test 

condition is assigned a weighting factor, 

based on the number of human subjects 

tested, to form a biomechanical 

response corridor and the relevance of 

the biofidelity test to the intended test 

environment. For each response 

requirement, the cumulative variance of 

the dummy response relative to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70951

10The SID–IIsFRG and the ES–2re ranks were 

calculated primarily on data from sled tests at the 

Medical College of Wisconsin and impactor tests at 

VRTC. The SID–HIII rankings were calculated based 

on data obtained in VRTC tests. 11As noted in the Technical Report for the SID–

IIsFRG, NHTSA also compared the biofidelities of 

the SID–IIs and the SID–IIsFRG by the NHTSA 

method and found that the dummy responses are 

substantially comparable to the mean cadaver 

responses and to each other.

mean cadaver response (DCV), and the 

cumulative variance of the mean 

cadaver response relative to the mean 

plus one standard deviation (CCV) are 

calculated. The ratio of DCV/CCV 

expresses how well the dummy 

response duplicates the mean cadaver 

response. A smaller ratio indicates 

better biofidelity. 

Although this method does not 

establish an ‘‘absolute’’ ranking scale, 

the ranks provide a relative sense of the 

‘‘number of standard deviations’’ the 

dummy’s responses are away from the 

mean human response. If the dummy 

biofidelity ranking is below two, the 

dummy is behaving similar to the 

human cadaver. The evaluation 

methodology provides a comparison of 

both dummy response to cadaver 

response as well as a comparison of two 

or more dummies. 

Comparison Between SID–IIsFRG, ES–

2re and SID–HIII Dummies 

Tables 5 and 6 were constructed to 

provide a comparison of external and 

internal biofidelities between the SID–

IIsFRG, the ES–2re and the SID-HIII 

(Part 572 Subpart M) 50th percentile 

male side impact dummies.10

The data in Table 5 indicate that the 

SIDIIsFRG dummy has comparable 

Overall External Biofidelity with the 

ES–2re dummy and has better 

biofidelity than the SID–HIII dummy. At 

the body segment level, the SID–IIsFRG 

produces better External Biofidelity 

ranks than the ES–2re in the Head/Neck, 

Thorax and Abdomen and worse ranks 

than the ES–2re in the Shoulder and 

Pelvis. The SID–IIsFRG produces better 

External Biofidelity ranks than the SID–

HIII in all body regions except the Head/

Neck.

TABLE 5.—EXTERNAL BIOFIDELITY RANKS

External biofidelity SID–IIs FRG ES–2re SID–HIII 

Overall Rank ................................................................................................................................ 2.5 2.6 3.8 

Head/Neck Rank .......................................................................................................................... 1.8 3.7 1.0 

Shoulder Rank ............................................................................................................................. 2.6 1.4 5.1 

Thorax Rank ................................................................................................................................ 2.8 2.9 6.1 

Abdomen Rank ............................................................................................................................ 2.4 2.6 3.0 

Pelvis Rank .................................................................................................................................. 3.0 2.7 3.8 

Table 6 provides a comparison of the 

Internal Biofidelity ranks of the three 

dummies. The data indicate that the 

SID–IIsFRG Overall Biofidelity rank is 

better than those of the two 50th 

percentile male dummies, both with and 

without the abdomen being included in 

the biofidelity ranking calculations. All 

body region Internal Biofidelity ranks of 

the SID–IIsFRG are better than, or 

comparable to, those of the ES–2re and 

SID–HIII.

TABLE 6.—INTERNAL BIOFIDELITY RANKS

Internal biofidelity SID–IIs (FRG) ES–2re SID–HIII 

Overall Rank with abdomen ........................................................................................................ 1.5 n/a n/a 

Overall Rank without abdomen ................................................................................................... 1.3 1.6 1.9 

Head Rank ................................................................................................................................... 0.4 1.0 1.1 

Thorax Rank ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.8 1 1.9 2 2.2 

Abdomen Rank ............................................................................................................................ 2.0 n/a n/a 

Pelvis Rank .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.6 3 2.0 3 2.5 

n/a—Not applicable. 1 Rib defl & T–12 lat accel. 2TTI. 

3Pelvis lateral acceleration. 

Based on the Overall External and 

Internal Biofidelity ranks, the SID–

IIsFRG and the ES–2re dummies were 

found to be nearly equivalent and are 

lower than the SID–HIII dummy.11

Based on the information from the 

biofidelity assessment, the agency 

tentatively concludes that the SID–

IIsFRG is well suited for assessing the 

risk of injury to the small size occupant 

segment. 

V. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

A dummy’s repeatability and 

reproducibility analysis is typically 

based on component tests and a series 

of sled tests. In the tests, the impact 

input is carefully controlled to 

minimize the variability of external 

effects on the dummy’s response. 

Component tests are better controlled, 

and thus produce more reliable 

estimates of the dummy’s repeatability 

and reproducibility than is possible in 

sled and vehicle tests. Component tests 

are also needed to certify the dummy’s 

performance relative to the established 

response corridors for each major body 

segment. That is, if the dummy’s 

component is or becomes deficient, the 

certification test will identify to the user 

that the component will not respond 

properly in impact tests, and that a 

replacement of parts should precede 

further testing. Sled tests, on the other 

hand, offer a method of efficiently 

evaluating the dummy as a complete 

system in an environment much like a 

vehicle test. Sled tests are needed to 

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. 

Two SID–IIsFRG dummies were 

tested and exposed to both component 

70952 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

12 ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5.

13Because the shoulder rib almost always reached 

maximum stroke and contacted the rib stops in this 

6.7 m/s test, the agency did not assess the 

repeatability or reproducibility of the upper spine 

(T1) acceleration measurements or the shoulder rib 

deflection in this test.

and sled test conditions multiple times 

to determine the dummy’s ability to 

respond consistently. The evaluation of 

the SID–IIsFRG during these tests is 

described in the following technical 

reports: ‘‘Repeatability and 

Reproducibility Analysis of the SID–

IIsFRG Dummy in the Sled Test 

Environment,’’ February 2004; and 

‘‘Repeatability and Reproducibility 

Analysis of the SID–IIsFRG Dummy in 

the Certification Test Environment,’’

March 2004 (see NHTSA Docket No. 

17694) and ‘‘Summary of the NHTSA 

Evaluation of the SID–IIsFRG Side 

Impact Crash Test Dummy Including 

Assessment of Durability, Biofidelity, 

Repeatability, Reproducibility and 

Directional Sensitivity’’ (Docket No. 

18865). The following discussion 

summarizes the finding of these reports. 

a. Component Tests 

Component tests were conducted on 

head, neck, shoulder, thorax with arm, 

thorax without arm, abdomen, and 

pelvis body regions. The tests are 

described in Section X of this preamble, 

‘‘Proposed certification tests.’’ The 

repeatability assessment was made 

using Coefficient of Variation (CV) in 

percentage as a measure. A CV value of 

less than 5 percent is considered 

excellent, 5–8 percent good, 8–10 

percent acceptable, and above 10 

percent unacceptable.12 The 

reproducibility was established by 

comparing the percent CV of two 

different dummies’ combined responses.

The results of the component 

repeatability tests indicate ‘‘excellent’’

repeatability for the SID–IIsFRG dummy 

for all components except for the thorax 

with arm, which has a ‘‘good’’ rating. 

The results of the component tests 

generally indicated ‘‘excellent’’ to 

‘‘good’’ reproducibility for the dummy 

for all components. The pelvis lateral 

acceleration was the only elevated 

reproducibility response at a CV of 9.1 

(‘‘acceptable’’). The agency believes that 

some of this elevated variability was 

due to inconsistent force-deflection 

characteristics of the pelvis plug. As 

described in Section VI of this 

preamble, we believe that the variability 

of the pelvis lateral acceleration can be 

improved by incorporating forcedeflection limits for the pelvis plug into 

the specifications for the test dummy. 

Today’s NPRM proposes such 

performance requirements in Section VI 

of this preamble. 

b. Sled Tests 

The sled tests were conducted on a 

Hyge-type sled system, on which a 

bench seat and impact load wall were 

mounted. During the test, the SID–

IIsFRG slid down the bench seat and 

impacted the rigid load wall. The first 

set of tests was conducted with a flat 

load wall at 6.7 meters/second (m/s). 

The selected impact speed reflected one 

of the impact environments in agencysponsored PMHS (post-mortem human 

subject) tests that provided a partial 

basis for the development of 

biomechanical performance corridors. 

However, in this test series, the 

shoulder rib was found to have 

bottomed out against the rib stops. 

In order to produce a more suitable 

test condition in the range of intensity 

that would be expected in a crash test, 

the sled speed was reduced and a 

second series of three tests was 

conducted (with a flat wall) at 6.0 m/s. 

The dummy’s arm was positioned down 

in these flat wall tests. The third series 

of tests was also conducted at 6.0 m/s 

with a 101 mm abdomen offset block on 

the load wall (‘‘abdominal offset tests’’), 

and with the dummy’s arm in the up 

orientation. The 101 mm offset block 

was oriented such that it would impact 

the abdomen only, above the pelvis and 

below the lower thoracic rib. The 

objective of the abdomen offset tests was 

to provide a test environment with 

severe loading of the abdominal region.

1. 6.7 m/s Flat Wall Test Results 

Generally the responses in the 6.7

m/s flat wall sled tests displayed either 

excellent or good repeatability in all 

measurements, except for concerns that 

the SID–IIsFRG dummy’s shoulder rib 

was at or very close to reaching the 

maximum available displacement.13

The SID–IIsFRG dummies also generally 

demonstrated excellent or good 

reproducibility for measurements 

proposed for incorporation into FMVSS 

No. 214 (69 FR 27990, supra).

2. 6.0 m/s Flat Wall Test Results 

The dummies exhibited overall 

excellent or good repeatability in all 

injury indicating measurements in this 

test series. However, the resultant pelvis 

acceleration of dummy serial number 

(S/N) #56 had a marginally 

unacceptable CV of = 10.9%. NHTSA 

notes that the CV for resultant pelvis 

acceleration was calculated using the 

highest peak value within the data trace, 

which could be either the first or the 

second peak. NHTSA believes that the 

magnitude of the peak, and whether it 

was the first or the second peak during 

the impact, was determined by the 

stiffness characteristic of the pelvis 

plugs used in the tests. An excessively 

stiff plug would be the cause for high 

first peaks usually occurring within the 

first 5 ms in certification tests, while a 

softer plug would favor the 

predominance of a higher second peak, 

occurring in the latter part of the impact 

event, that is later than 5 ms from time 

of impact. The agency believes that the 

performance requirements specified in 

today’s document for the pelvis plug 

will prevent use of excessively stiff 

plugs, and that softer plugs will result 

in a more consistent pelvis response 

measurement. 

3. Abdominal Offset Tests 

The dummies demonstrated excellent 

or good repeatability and 

reproducibility in all of the abdominal 

offset test measurements, except that the 

CV of the peak resultant pelvis 

acceleration for one of the dummies was 

10.5%. NHTSA believes that the 

elevated CV was due to the variability 

of the pelvis plug response. 

Based on the testing of the SID–

IIsFRG dummy, the agency tentatively 

concludes that the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the SID–IIsFRG’s 

responses establishes the suitability for 

use in the agency’s side impact test 

programs. 

VI. Pelvis Plug 

The stiffness limits of the pelvis plug 

proposed in this NPRM affect mostly the 

peak pelvic acceleration, peak 

acetabulum force, and peak iliac force 

levels of the dummy, as well as the 

maximum force measured by the 

impacting pendulum. In the pelvis 

certification test of the dummy, the 

pendulum impact probe is centered on 

the pelvis plug that is mounted within 

the pelvis flesh cavity in front of and in 

line with the acetabulum load cell’s 

longitudinal axis either at the right or 

left H-points of the dummy (depending 

on the side of the dummy to be 

impacted). The original recommended 

practice was to require that the pelvis 

plug be discarded after each impact. 

In agency testing, NHTSA observed 

that some of the data traces of the 

dummy’s pelvis acceleration showed an 

inconsistent first peak in the data trace 

that was generated by the probe’s 

impact. (‘‘Summary of the NHTSA 

Evaluation of the SID–IIsFRG Side 

Impact Crash Test Dummy Including 

Assessment of Durability, Biofidelity, 

Repeatability, Reproducibility and 

Directional Sensitivity’’ (November 

2004), supra.) Agency evaluation 

showed that the inconsistency of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70953

14The proposed values may slightly change for 

purposes of a final rule as new data on plug 

deformation characteristics become available.

15The procedure and proposed forcedisplacement requirements are specified on this 

drawing for the pelvis plug, which is part of the 

drawing package for the SID–IIsFRG dummy.

16See ‘‘Development of the SID–IIs FRG,’’ supra.

17Maltese et al., ‘‘Response Corridors of Human 

Surrogates in Lateral Impacts,’’ Technical Paper 

2002–22–0017, Proceedings, 46th Stapp Car Crash 

Conference.

18 ISO/TC 22/SC 12/WG 5, document 645.

19Among other findings, NHTSA determined that 

the SID–IIs dummy, experiencing thoracic rib 

deflections of 41 mm, would predict a 25% 

probability of AIS 4+thorax injury, and at 56 mm 

of rib deflection, a 50% probability of AIS 4+ 

injury. Further, an abdominal deflection of 59 mm 

produces a 25 % of risk of AIS4+, and at 67 mm, 

a 50% probability of AIS 4+ abdominal injury. 

‘‘Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies’’ (NHTSA 

docket 17694–12).

20The durability tests were conducted at 6.7 m/

s, whereas the tests assessing the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the dummy were conducted at 

6.0 m/s. The 6.0 m/s test speed was appropriate for 

assessing the dummy’s repeatability and 

reproducibility because tests at that velocity 

produce dummy responses that are seen in crash 

tests, and approach the limits of the injury criteria 

associated with the dummy at a 25% of AIS 4+ 

injury. Durability tests are conducted at a higher 

velocity to ‘‘overload’’ the dummy, to subject it to 

conditions that could give rise to possible durability 

problems in automotive crash test environments.

first peak acceleration response was 

caused by variability of the crush 

characteristics of the pelvis plugs (i.e., 

variability of the resistance force during 

compression) rather than by other 

characteristics of the dummy. The plug 

as originally specified for the SID–IIs 

provided practically no control over its 

stiffness characteristics. 

Agency evaluation indicated that 

control of the crush characteristics of 

the pelvis plug would significantly 

improve the consistency of all of the 

dummy’s pelvis responses as well as the 

force values measured by the impact 

probe. Based on an evaluation of plugs 

with a variety of force deflection 

characteristics, NHTSA has developed a 

force-displacement corridor for the 

pelvis plug that assures less variability 

of the pelvis acceleration response. As 

a result, a test procedure was developed 

for measuring the force-displacement 

characteristics of the plugs. The 

proposed procedure evaluates a plug by 

quasi-statically compressing it to a 

deflection range between 22 and 25 mm 

and a corresponding resistance force 

between 1920 and 2160 Newtons (N) at 

minimum compression and 2000 to 

2240 N at maximum compression.14

(See Drawing—Plug Pelvis #180–

4450.) 15 Only plugs that meet the 

specified force levels at prescribed 

compression would be certified for use 

in a side impact test using the dummy.

A plug is certified after passing the 

compression test. The agency 

anticipates that users may either 

purchase the plugs commercially or 

certify the plugs themselves. For pelvis 

calibration, the certified plug is inserted 

into the pelvis cavity of the dummy and 

the dummy’s pelvis is calibrated 

according to the proposed Part 572 test 

procedure. It should be noted that the 

pelvis plugs can only be used once per 

either vehicle crash test or pelvis 

certification application. After the 

dummy’s pelvis is calibrated, the plug 

must be discarded. A new certified plug 

is inserted into the pelvis cavity of the 

dummy for every crash test 

incorporating the SID–IIsFRG. Carefully 

controlled and certified crush 

characteristics of the plugs will assure 

that their use will produce consistent 

and reliable pelvis response in the 

impact environment. 

VII. Durability 

NHTSA examined the durability of 

the SID–IIs dummy in the context of the 

potential use of the dummy for 

regulatory purposes. In testing under 

FMVSS compliance and NHTSA’s 

consumer information programs, test 

dummies are exposed to a wide range of 

side crash conditions. They may be 

tested with vehicles with highly 

advanced crashworthiness technologies 

and with vehicles that lack adequate 

structure and/or features that effectively 

mitigate the crash forces. A crash test 

dummy has to have sufficient durability 

to maintain its structural integrity and 

measurement ability throughout this 

range of potential test conditions.

Background 

The agency’s assessment of the SID–

IIs began with an evaluation of the 

dynamic performance of the dummy in 

sled tests conducted at 8.9 m/s and 6.7 

m/s with various impact surfaces.16

These test velocities were chosen to 

replicate agency-sponsored PMHS 

impacts in sled tests involving 8.9 m/s 

and 6.7 m/s changes in velocity.17 Those 

NHTSA PMHS tests had approximated 

some of the biomechanical tests 

performed in the 1980s and 1990s by 

Wayne State University, University of 

Michigan Transportation Research 

Institute and others that were used to 

develop the ISO 9790 impact response 

corridors for assessing the biofidelity of 

test dummies.18 The biomechanical data 

from the PMHS tests enabled NHTSA to 

develop the injury criteria that would 

predict the risk of injury in side impact 

crashes.19

One finding of the sled tests was that 

the 8.9 m/s test was too severe to assess 

the durability and other characteristics 

of the dummy. Impact tests of the SID–

IIs dummy into a 4-inch padded 103 kPa 

flat wall at 8.9 m/s indicated abdominal 

rib deflections as high as 62 mm. 

Impacts into a 3-inch 400 kPa padded 

flat wall at 8.9 m/s produced abdominal 

rib deflections bordering 70 mm, 

including an indication of flat topping. 

(Flat topping is an indication that the 

dummy’s rib deflection mechanism is 

either binding or reaching the end of the 

available stroke, and consequently, the 

dummy’s abdomen is not responding 

correctly to the load from the intruding 

side structure. When flat topping 

occurs, the potentiometer ceases to 

produce useful deflection 

measurements, and in some instances 

experiences physical damage.) Some of 

these abdominal deflections were in 

excess of predicting a probability of a 

50% risk of AIS 4+ abdominal injury. 

On the other hand, NHTSA found that 

the 6.7 m/s sled test was more 

appropriate for evaluating the durability 

of the dummy. Sled impacts into a 

padded wall at 6.7 m/s yielded 

maximum abdominal rib deflections of 

approximately 45 mm with 103 kPa 

padding and 61 mm with 400 kPa 

padding. Inasmuch as the 61 mm 

abdominal rib deflection was just above 

the 25% probability of AIS 4+ injury 

level and the deflection data trace 

contained no indication of flat topping 

or other signal irregularities, the 6.7 m/

s impact speed was selected as an 

impact intensity that the dummy must 

withstand without structural damage 

and instrumentation failures.20 The 

SID–IIs did not show durability 

problems in the 6.7 m/s sled tests into 

a padded wall.

Follow On Tests 

Follow on tests, however, indicated a 

possible durability problem with the 

SID–IIs in 6.7 m/s sled tests using a 

rigid wall with a 101 mm abdominal 

offset. The agency conducted the tests to 

replicate biomechanical sled test impact 

configurations previously reported by 

Maltese et al. (‘‘Response Corridors of 

Human Surrogates in Lateral Impacts,’’

supra). These abdominal offset tests 

significantly damaged the dummy. 

Damage in some of the tests included 

deformed abdominal ribs, bent 

abdominal potentiometer shafts, and/or 

gouged damping material. Further 

analysis of the sled tests and pendulum 

tests with the SID–IIs suggested that 

either vertical motion of the ribs and/or 

excessive rib compression caused the 

damage to the ribs and the 

potentiometers. 

70954 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

21There are other views as to the need for the 

improvements to the SID–IIs. Comments to the May 

17, 2004, NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 can be viewed 

in NHTSA Docket 17694.

These failures prompted NHTSA’s 

Vehicle Research and Test Center to 

search for ways to improve the 

abdominal rib response through a 

redesign of the existing SID–IIs rib 

guides, including subsequent 

introduction of floating rib guides. The 

agency wanted to make certain that the 

SID–IIs dummy was sufficiently robust 

and durable in all foreseeable impact 

environments. Modifications of the SID–

IIs dummy leading to the SID–IIsFRG 

design are discussed in Section IIb of 

this preamble. The FRG design 

modifications have prevented damage to 

the dummy even under very severe 

loading conditions. Three test series are 

summarized below.

In the first series, NHTSA conducted 

two sets of seven 6.7 m/s sled tests to 

evaluate the durability of the SID–

IIsFRG. They included rigid wall thorax 

and rigid 101 mm abdomen offset 

impact configurations. In contrast to 

previous testing of an unmodified SID–

IIs dummy to these test configurations, 

the SID–IIsFRG experienced no damage 

either to the potentiometers or any of 

the thoracic and abdominal ribs. There 

were no losses of or discontinuities in 

the potentiometer data signals. 

(‘‘Development of the SID–IIs FRG,’’

Section 7.3, supra. Other durability tests 

are also discussed in this report.) 

In another series evaluating the FRG 

design, the agency tested the durability 

of the FRG revised shoulder rib 

(containing a wider rib damping 

material area) and redesigned shoulder 

rib guide. An out-of-position side air bag 

test in the passenger side of a 2000 

BMW 528i was selected because that 

test had resulted in damage to both the 

shoulder rib and shoulder potentiometer 

of an unmodified SID–IIs. In the tests, 

the dummy was positioned directly 

against the side air bag, as outlined by 

the Technical Working Group (Lund, A., 

Chairman of the Side Air Bag Out-ofPosition Injury Technical Working 

Group, ‘‘Recommended Procedures for 

Evaluating Occupant Injury Risk from 

Deploying Side Airbags,’’ August 2000). 

The test conditions allowed the side air 

bag to contact the thoracic and 

abdominal ribs with an upward 

component. In these tests, the SID–

IIsFRG had none of the damage to the 

shoulder rib and shoulder potentiometer 

that was observed in the unmodified 

SID–IIs. The shoulder rib guide design 

prevented the rib from jumping out of 

the rib guide, thus eliminating 

permanent rib distortion and damaging 

the potentiometer. ‘‘Development of the 

SID–IIs FRG,’’ Section 7.4. 

In a third series of durability 

pendulum tests, rigidly fixed thoraxes of 

the unmodified SID–IIs and the SID–

IIsFRG, with their jackets off, were 

tested in a perpendicular, 15 degree 

upward impact configuration at a 

velocity of 2.84 m/s (6.4 miles per hour). 

When subjected to a localized 

pendulum impact centered on #2 

thoracic rib, the potentiometer shafts of 

the unmodified SID–IIs bent, and 

potentiometer bushings pulled out of 

the potentiometer bearing assemblies. 

Id., Section 7.9. In contrast, the SID–

IIsFRG potentiometer measured rib 

deflections while sustaining no 

structural damage. 

In sum, the FRG design has 

significantly improved the durability of 

the SID–IIs dummy and made it useful 

for the assessment of risk injury in the 

most severe automotive impact 

environments.21

VIII. Reversibility for Right and Left 

Use 

The SID–IIsFRG is designed to have 

equivalent performance when impacted 

from either the left or right side. 

However, most agency tests have been 

left side impacts. To convert the 

dummy’s impact side from left to right 

side and vice versa, the entire dummy’s 

thorax, abdomen, and shoulder 

structure, upon disengagement of the 

neck and of the lumbar spine at the 

lower torso interfaces, is rotated as a 

unit around the vertical axis with 

respect to the neck and the lumbar spine 

without any further modifications. 

Limited agency testing of the dummy 

converted from left to right side impact 

indicated complete compliance to the 

calibration corridors, except for the 

head response being below the lower 

calibration limit by 1g. The agency does 

not believe this to be a problem, since 

the head used in this test was a single 

test of a dummy build with 

consideration for only left side impact. 

Once the calibration specifications are 

proposed for right and left side impacts, 

the vehicle manufacturers should have 

no problem manufacturing the heads 

complying to the calibration 

specifications for both right and left side 

impacts. 

The method for reversing the dummy 

for use in either left-or right-side 

impacts is discussed in the PADI 

document for the SID–IIsFRG dummy. 

IX. Directional Impact Sensitivity 

Limited NHTSA tests indicate that the 

SID–IIsFRG dummy’s thoracic and 

abdominal rib deflection and upper 

spine (T01) and lower spine (T12) 

acceleration measurements exhibit a 

degree of directional sensitivity 

depending on pendulum impact angle 

and velocity. The agency conducted 

pendulum oblique impact tests at 4.3 m/

s on the dummy’s shoulder, thorax, and 

abdomen. Tests were conducted on the 

SID–IIsFRG at 4.3 m/s with the 

dummy’s midsagittal plane oriented 

perpendicular to the trajectory of the 

impact probe, and at an oblique frontal 

angle of +30 degrees, +15 degrees and at 

¥15 degrees posterior to the lateral 

plane of the dummy. The dummy in 

those tests measured reduced shoulder, 

thoracic and abdominal rib deflections 

in the +30 and +15 degrees oblique 

impacts when compared to pure lateral 

impacts. The thoracic reduction ratios 

were 0.78 and 0.79 for oblique angles of 

+15 and ¥15 degrees. Similar reduction 

ratios in deflection are experienced in 

abdominal and shoulder impacts tests in 

+30 degree impacts, but the ratios 

reduce as the angle decreases to +15 

degrees. The SID–IIsFRG dummy’s peak 

Y (lateral) acceleration of the upper 

spine and lower spines in 4.3 m/s 

oblique impacts show lower levels of 

directional sensitivity as compared to 

the deflection measurements, except for 

the elevated ratios of the upper spine in 

abdominal impact at +15 degrees (1.27) 

and higher ratios of lower spine (3.22) 

and upper spine (2.20) accelerations in 

+30 degree impacts. 

To NHTSA’s knowledge, 

biomechanical data on whether and the 

degree to which human cadavers 

experience directional sensitivity in 

oblique impacts do not exist. It is 

unknown how the dummy’s directional 

sensitivity relates to the human 

experience. 

While the pendulum tests show that 

directional sensitivity of the dummy’s 

ribcage exists, the directional sensitivity 

of the SID–IIsFRG in +15 and ¥15 

degree impacts appears comparable to 

those of other side impact dummies. 

Further, the loading of the dummy in 

the pendulum tests is unlike the loading 

experienced in a vehicle crash test. The 

pendulum has a small and rigid impact 

face and a relatively small mass that is 

intended to load a specific localized 

region of the dummy. In contrast, in a 

vehicle crash test, an intruding vehicle 

structure loads the dummy in multiple 

areas during a collision. The intruding 

area is usually fairly large, is typically 

energy absorbing, and changes its 

configuration and force of impact 

direction during the crash. The agency 

is not aware of vehicle crash test data 

that provides evidence of consistent 

increases or decreases in the dummy 

responses due to oblique loading. 

Accordingly, while the pendulum tests 

indicate that the dummy has some 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70955

sensitivity to impact direction, this 

finding has not been established as 

being relevant to loading conditions in 

vehicle tests.

X. Proposed Calibration Tests 

The proposed calibration procedures 

in general follow the test conditions and 

specifications contained in FTSS’s 

document, ‘‘SID–IIs Small Side Impact 

Crash Test Dummy User’s Manual,’’

February 2002. NHTSA used this 

document as a basis because of FTSS 

involvement with OSRP in the design 

and development of the dummy. 

Head Drop Test Specifications 

The head is dropped from 200 mm 

onto a flat, rigid steel plate such that the 

midsagittal plane of the head makes a 35 

degree angle with respect to the impact 

surface while the head’s anteriorposterior axis remains horizontal. When 

the dummy head is dropped in 

accordance with the above test 

conditions, the resultant acceleration of 

the center of gravity of the head must be 

between 125 and 145 g’s. This proposed 

corridor is narrower than that specified 

by FTSS for this dummy (115–145 g’s). 

The NHTSA data base, consisting of two 

heads dropped in a series five impacts 

each, indicated that the SID–IIsFRG 

head is capable of meeting the narrower 

limits. 

Neck Pendulum Test 

The proposed test procedure involves 

attaching the dummy’s neck-headform 

assembly to a pendulum fixture. The 

pendulum is raised to a height from 

which it falls to achieve a velocity of 

5.57 ± 0.06 m/s at the instant the 

pendulum hits the hexcell deceleration 

block. Based on tests of two neckheadform assemblies, the agency 

determined that the neck would limit 

the headform lateral flexion-rotation 

between 74 and 79 degrees, and the 

resistance moment about the occipital 

condyle from ¥40 to ¥45 N–m 

compared to 72–82 degrees and 

maximum moment of ¥36 to ¥43 N–

m suggested in the FTSS user manual. 

Thorax 

The dummy’s thoracic response is 

ascertained by testing the thorax with 

the arm and the thorax without the arm. 

In the tests, the dummy is seated on a 

specified bench seat. The thorax with 

arm test calls for the dummy’s arm 

being oriented downward to the lowest 

detent. A pendulum impactor is guided 

so as to strike the dummy’s arm at 6.7 

m/s at the midpoint level of the second 

rib. The dummy’s shoulder rib as well 

as its upper, middle and lower thorax 

ribs would have to meet deflection 

limits of 28–34 mm, 23–28 mm, 28–33 

mm; and 31–36 mm, respectively. In 

addition, the peak accelerations would 

have to be 40 to 46 g’s at the upper spine 

(T1) and 37 to 41 g’s at the lower spine 

(T12). FTSS suggests in its SID–IIs user 

manual deflection limits for the upper 

rib of 24–32 mm, for middle rib 26–42 

mm, and for the lower rib 34–42 mm, 

and for accelerations the limits of 35–50 

g’s for the upper and 22–48 g’s for the 

lower spines. However, while the FTSS 

suggested limits in general are broader 

in range they are not directly 

comparable to the SID–IIsFRG dummy 

performance values, because of 

differences in the thorax and shoulder 

designs between the two dummy types. 

The test of the thorax without the 

dummy’s arm is conducted in the same 

way as the thorax with arm test, except 

that the stub arm is removed and the 

impact by the pendulum is at 4.3 m/s. 

The upper, middle and lower ribs 

would have to meet the deflection limits 

of 33 to 39 mm, 38 to 43 mm, and 33–

39 mm, respectively, as well as limit the 

peak acceleration of the upper (T1) spine 

between 14 and 18 g’s and the lower 

(T12) spine between 8 and 12 g’s. FTSS 

suggested limits for SID–IIs upper rib 

deflection is 30–44 mm, for the middle 

rib 42–58 mm, and for the lower rib 36–

52 mm, and accelerations the limits of 

13–19 g’s for the upper and 8–12g’s for 

the lower spines. As in the thorax test 

with arms, the FTSS suggested limits in 

general are broader in range. However, 

they are not directly comparable to the 

SID–IIsFRG dummy performance values 

because of differences in the thorax and 

shoulder designs between the two 

dummies. 

Abdomen 

The abdomen assembly is part of the 

upper thorax assembly and is 

represented by two ribs and the 

deflection sensors. The abdomen test is 

performed on a seated dummy with the 

dummy’s arm removed. When the 

dummy’s abdomen is impacted by a 

pendulum at 4.3 m/s, the deflection of 

each abdominal rib would have to be 

between 36 and 42 mm, and the peak 

acceleration of the lower spine (T12) 

laterally oriented accelerometer range 

between 11 g’s and 15 g’s. FTSS 

suggested abdominal deflection limits 

are 42–60 mm for the upper and lower 

abdominal ribs and 9.5–12 g’s for the 

lower spine (T12). As in thorax tests, the 

performance limits between the SID–IIS 

and FRG dummies are not directly 

comparable, because of differences in 

their abdomen designs. 

Pelvis 

This test would be performed on a 

fully assembled, seated dummy that has 

a certified pelvis plug meeting the force 

deflection characteristics specified in 

the designated pelvis plug drawing (see 

section VI, supra). The dummy pelvis 

would be impacted laterally by a 

pendulum at a velocity of 6.7 ± 0.1 m/

s. Peak acceleration of the impactor and 

of the pelvis would have to be within 

the limits of 45 to 49 g’s, and 42 and 46 

g’s, respectively. Peak force responses of 

the acetabulum would have to be 

between 3882 and 4270 N and peak iliac 

wing force response between 524 and 

730 N. Comparable limits suggested in 

the FTSS user manual for the SID–IIs 

dummy’s impactor and pelvis 

accelerations are 38–42 g’s and 46–60 

g’s, respectively. As in thorax and 

abdomen tests, the performance limits 

between the SID–IIs and FRG dummies 

are not directly comparable, because of 

differences in the pelvis plug 

specifications. 

Shoulder 

A possible shoulder calibration test is 

described in the FTSS user manual, 

supra. In it, the dummy’s shoulder 

would have to meet deflection and 

acceleration limits. However, the agency 

tentatively believes that a 4.3 m/s 

calibration test for the shoulder is not 

necessary because the evaluation of the 

shoulder appears to be achieved by the 

thorax with arm test. Both tests 

produced nearly identical shoulder 

response values. Comments are 

requested on this issue. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

70956 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This rulemaking action was not 

considered a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

This rulemaking action was also 

determined not to be significant under 

the Department of Transportation’s 

(DOT’s) regulatory policies and 

procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979). This document proposes to 

amend 49 CFR Part 572 by adding 

design and performance specifications 

for a 5th percentile adult female side 

impact dummy that the agency may use 

in compliance tests of Federal side 

impact protection standards and other 

related purposes. If this proposed Part 

572 rule becomes final, it would affect 

only those businesses that choose to 

manufacture or test with the dummy. It 

would not impose any requirements on 

anyone. 

The cost of an uninstrumented SID–

IIsFRG is $49,000. Instrumentation 

would add $40,470 as specified for Part 

572 and compliance purposes. Fully 

instrumenting the dummy (beyond that 

specified in this notice) could add up to 

$135,088, if full instrumentation were 

desired by dummy users. Full 

instrumentation is not required by this 

NPRM. Because the economic impacts 

of this proposal are so minimal, no 

further regulatory evaluation is 

necessary. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a proposed or final rule, it 

must prepare and make available for 

public comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions), 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, 

in part, as a business entity ‘‘which 

operates primarily within the United 

States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

We have considered the effects of this 

rulemaking under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the 

proposed 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. This rulemaking action by 

NHTSA does not require anyone to 

manufacture the dummy or to test 

vehicles with it. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed 

amendment in accordance with the 

principles and criteria set forth in 

Executive Order 13132. The agency has 

determined that this proposal does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant consultation and the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule would not have 

any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30103, whenever a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

State may not adopt or maintain a safety 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance which is not identical to 

the Federal standard, except to the 

extent that the state requirement 

imposes a higher level of performance 

and applies only to vehicles procured 

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 

forth a procedure for judicial review of 

final rules establishing, amending, or 

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties 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 

collection requirements as defined by 

the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The NPRM 

proposes to use SAE standards in the 

specifications for the instrumentation of 

the SID-IIsFRG, which accords with the 

NTTAA. This proposal would adopt 

most of the specifications of the SID-IIs 

which was developed by the private 

sector, except for the FRG 

modifications. As explained in this 

preamble, the agency has tentatively 

determined that the FRG modifications 

are needed to assure the durability of 

the test dummy in crash tests.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, Federal law requires 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70957

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 would not 

meet the definition of a Federal mandate 

because it would not impose 

requirements on anyone. It would 

amend 49 CFR Part 572 by adding 

design and performance specifications 

for a side impact dummy that the 

agency may use in the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards. If this 

proposed rule becomes final, it 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 include them in your 

comments on this NPRM. 

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. 

Public Participation 

How Do I Prepare and Submit 

Comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure 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). 

NHTSA 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. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES.

You may also submit your comments 

to the docket electronically by logging 

onto the Dockets Management System 

Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 

‘‘Help & Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to 

obtain instructions for filing the 

document electronically. 

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments 

Were Received? 

If you wish Docket Management 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, Docket 

Management 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, 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 Docket 

Management 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? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

that Docket Management receives before 

the close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, the 

agency will also consider comments that 

Docket Management receives after that 

date. If Docket Management receives a 

comment too late for the agency to 

consider it in developing a final rule 

(assuming that one is issued), the 

agency will consider that comment as 

an informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How Can I Read the Comments 

Submitted by Other People? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management 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 Internet, take the following steps: 

1. Go to the Docket Management 

System (DMS) Web page of the 

Department of Transportation (http://

dms.dot.gov/). 

2. On that page, click on ‘‘search.’’

3. On the next page (http://

dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the fourdigit docket number shown at the 

beginning of this document. Example: If 

the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–

1998–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’

After typing the docket number, click on 

‘‘search.’’

4. On the next page, which contains 

docket summary information for the 

docket you selected, click on the desired 

comments. You may download the 

comments. Although the comments are 

imaged documents, instead of word 

processing documents, the ‘‘pdf’’

versions of the documents are word 

searchable. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, NHTSA will 

continue to file relevant information in 

the Docket as it becomes available. 

Further, some people may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, the agency 

recommends 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) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by 

reference.

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR 

Part 572 as follows:

70958 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC 

TEST DUMMIES 

1. The authority citation for Part 572 

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50.

2. 49 CFR part 572 would be amended 

by adding a new subpart V consisting of 

§§ 572.190 through 572.198. 

The added subpart would read as 

follows:

Subpart V—SID–IIsFRG Side Impact 

Crash Test Dummy, 5th Percentile 

Adult Female

Sec. 

572.190 Incorporated materials. 

572.191 General description. 

572.192 Head assembly. 

572.193 Neck assembly. 

572.194 Thorax with arm. 

572.195 Thorax without arm. 

572.196 Abdomen. 

572.197 Pelvis. 

572.198 Instrumentation and test 

conditions. 

Appendix—Figures to Subpart V of Part 572

Subpart V—SID–IIsFRG Side Impact 

Crash Test Dummy, 5th Percentile 

Adult Female

§ 572.190 Incorporated materials. 

(a) The following materials are hereby 

incorporated into this subpart by 

reference: 

(1) A drawings and inspection 

package entitled ‘‘Drawings and 

Specifications for the SID–IIsFRG Small 

Female Crash Test Dummy, September 

2004’’, consisting of: 

(i) Drawing No. 180–0000, SID–IIsFRG 

Dummy Assembly, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.191; 

(ii) Drawing No. 180–1000, Head 

Assembly, incorporated by reference in 

§§ 572.191 and 572.192 as part of a 

complete dummy assembly; 

(iii) Drawing No. 180–2000, Neck 

Assembly, incorporated by reference in 

§§ 572.191 and 572.193 as part of a 

complete dummy assembly; 

(iv) Drawing No. 180–3000, Upper 

Torso Assembly, incorporated by 

reference in §§ 572.191, 572.194, 

572.195 and 572.196 as part of a 

complete dummy assembly; 

(v) Drawing No. 180–4000, Lower 

Torso Assembly, incorporated by 

reference in §§ 572.191 and 572.197 as 

part of a complete dummy assembly; 

(vi) Drawing No. 180–5000–1, 

Complete Leg Assembly—left, 

incorporated by reference in §§ 572.191 

and 572.197 as part of a complete 

dummy assembly; 

(vii) Drawing No. 180–5000–2, 

Complete Leg Assembly—right, 

incorporated by reference in §§ 572.191 

and 572.197 as part of a complete 

dummy assembly; 

(viii) Drawing No. 180–6000–1, Arm 

Assembly—left, incorporated by 

reference in §§ 572.191 and 572.194 as 

part of a complete dummy assembly; 

(ix) Drawing No. 180–6000–2, Arm 

Assembly—right, incorporated by 

reference in §§ 572.191 and 572.194 as 

part of a complete dummy assembly; 

(x) the ‘‘Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 

Subpart V, SID-IIs with Floating Rib 

Guides (SID–IIsFRG),’’ September 2004, 

incorporated by reference in § 572.191; 

(2) A procedures manual entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly 

and Inspection (PADI) of the SID–

IIsFRG Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 

October 2004,’’ incorporated by 

reference in § 572.191;

(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, 

Rev. Mar 95 ‘‘Instrumentation for 

Impact Tests—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation’’; 

(4) SAE J1733 of 1994–12 ‘‘Sign 

Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing’’. 

(b) The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the materials 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Copies of SAE Recommended Practice 

J211 and SAE J1733 may be inspected 

at NHTSA’s Technical Reference 

Library, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room 

5109, Washington, DC. Copies of the 

drawing and inspection package and the 

PADI may be inspected in the Docket, 

or 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: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html.

(c) The incorporated materials are 

available as follows: 

(1) The Drawings and Specifications 

for the SID–IIsFRG Small Female Crash 

Test Dummy, September 2004, referred 

to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are 

available in electronic format through 

the DOT docket management system 

and in paper format from LeetMelbrook, Division of New RT, 18810 

Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 

20879, (301) 670–0090. 

(2) The SAE materials referred to in 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 

section are available from the Society of 

Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 

Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 

15096.

§ 572.191 General description. 

(a) The SID–IIsFRG Side Impact Crash 

Test Dummy, small female, is defined 

by drawings and specifications 

containing the following materials: 

(1) Technical drawings and 

specifications package P/N 180–0000, 

dated September 2004, the titles of 

which are listed in Table A;

TABLE A 

Component assembly Drawing

number 

Head Assembly ...................... 180–1000 

Neck Assembly ...................... 180–2000 

Upper Torso Assembly .......... 180–3000 

Lower Torso Assembly .......... 180–4000 

Leg Assembly—left ................ 180–5000–1 

Leg Assembly—right .............. 180–5000–2 

Arm Assembly—left ............... 180–6000–1 

Arm Assembly—right ............. 180–6000–2 

(2) The ‘‘Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 

Subpart V, SID–IIs with Floating Rib 

Guides (SID–IIs FRG, Alpha Version),’’

dated September 2004 and containing 8 

pages, 

(3) A listing of available transducerscrash test sensors for the SID–IIsFRG 

Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 5th 

percentile female, is shown in drawing 

180–0000 sheet 2 of 6, dated September 

2004, 

(4) ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of 

the SID–IIsFRG Side Impact Crash Test 

Dummy, September 2004,’’

(5) Sign convention for signal outputs 

reference document SAE 1733 

Information Report, titled ‘‘Sign 

Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing,’’

dated July 15, 1986. 

(b) Exterior dimensions of the SID–

IIsFRG Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 

are shown in drawing 180–0000 sheet 3 

of 6, dated September 2004. 

(c) Weights and center of gravity 

locations of body segments are shown in 

drawing 180–0000 sheet 4 of 6, dated 

September 2004, 

(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a 

manner such that, except for contacts 

existing under static conditions, there is 

no additional contact between metallic 

elements of adjacent body segments 

throughout the range of motion. 

(e) The structural properties of the 

dummy are such that the dummy 

conforms to this Subpart in every 

respect before use in any test similar to 

those proposed in Standard 214, Side 

Impact Protection (49 CFR 571.214).

§ 572.192 Head assembly. 

(a) The head assembly consists of the 

head (drawing 180–1000), and a set of 

three (3) accelerometers in conformance 

with specifications in 49 CFR 572.198(c) 

and mounted as shown in drawing 180–

0000 sheet 2 of 6. When tested to the 

procedure specified in paragraph (b) of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70959

1Mx(oc) is the moment at occipital condyle and 

Fy is the lateral shear force measured by the load 

cell.

this section, the head assembly shall 

meet performance requirements 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Test procedure. The head shall be 

tested according to the procedure 

specified in 49 CFR 572.112(a). 

(c) Performance criteria. (1) When the 

head assembly is dropped in either the 

right or left lateral incline orientations 

in accordance with procedure in 

572.112(a), the measured peak resultant 

acceleration shall be between 125 g’s 

and 145 g’s; 

(2) The resultant acceleration-time 

curve shall be unimodal to the extent 

that oscillations occurring after the main 

acceleration pulse shall not exceed 15% 

(zero to peak) of the main pulse; 

(3) The longitudinal acceleration 

vector (X direction) shall not exceed 15 

g’s.

§ 572.193 Neck assembly. 

(a) The neck assembly consists of 

parts shown in drawing 180–2000. For 

purposes of this test, the neck assembly 

is mounted within the headform 

assembly (180–9000) as shown in Figure 

V1 of this subpart. When subjected to 

the test procedure specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the neckheadform assembly shall meet the 

performance requirements specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the 

assembly in a test environment as 

specified in 49 CFR 572.198(i); 

(2) Attach the neck-headform 

assembly to the 49 CFR Part 572 

pendulum test fixture in either the left 

or right lateral orientations (Figure 22) 

as shown in Figure V2 of this subpart, 

so that the midsagittal plane of the neckheadform assembly is vertical and 

perpendicular to the plane of motion of 

the pendulum longitudinal centerline; 

(3) Release the pendulum from a 

height sufficient to achieve a velocity of 

5.57 ± 0.06 m/s measured at the center 

of the pendulum accelerometer, as 

shown in 49 CFR Part 572 Figure 15, at 

the instant the pendulum makes contact 

with the decelerating mechanism; 

(4) The neck flexes without the neckheadform assembly making contact with 

any object; 

(5) Time zero is defined as the time 

of initial contact between the pendulum 

mounted striker plate and the pendulum 

deceleration mechanism; 

(6) Allow a period of at least thirty 

(30) minutes between successive tests 

on the same neck assembly. 

(c) Performance Criteria. (1) The 

pendulum deceleration pulse is 

characterized in terms of decrease in 

velocity as obtained by integrating the 

pendulum acceleration output from 

time zero:

Time (ms) Pendulum Delta-V 

(m/s) 

10.0 ............................... ¥2.20 to ¥2.80 

15.0 ............................... ¥3.40 to ¥4.10 

20.0 ............................... ¥4.50 to ¥5.40 

25.0 ............................... ¥5.50 to ¥6.10 

25.0 to 100 .................... ¥5.20 to ¥6.20 

(2) The maximum translation-rotation 

of the midsagittal plane of the headform 

disk (180–9061 or 9062) in the lateral 

direction measured, with the rotation 

transducer specified in 49 CFR 

572.198(d) shall be 74 to 79 degrees 

with respect to the longitudinal axis of 

the pendulum occurring between 50 and 

70 ms from time zero; 

(3) Peak occipital condyle moment 

shall not be higher than ¥40 Nm and 

not lower than ¥45 Nm. The moment 

measured by the neck upper load cell 

(Mx) shall be adjusted by the following 

formula: Mx(oc) 1= Mx + 0.01778Fy,

(4) The decaying moment shall cross 

the 0 Nm line after peak moment 

113ms–123 ms after time zero.

§ 572.194 Thorax with arm. 

(a) The thorax is part of the upper 

torso assembly shown in drawing 180–

3000. For the ‘‘thorax with arm’’ impact 

test, the dummy is tested as a complete 

assembly (drawing 180–0000). The 

dummy’s thorax is equipped with T1 

and T12 laterally oriented 

accelerometers as specified in 49 CFR 

572.198(c), and with deflection 

potentiometers for the thorax and 

shoulder as specified in 180–3861 and 

180–3860, respectively, installed as 

shown in drawing180–0000 sheet 2 of 6. 

When subjected to the test procedure as 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the thorax shall meet 

performance requirements of paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the 

dummy assembly (180–0000) in a test 

environment as specified in 49 CFR 

572.198(i); 

(2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the 

torso jacket (180–3450) and cotton 

underwear pants, as shown in Figure V3 

of this subpart, on a certification bench, 

specified in Figure V4 of this subpart, 

with the seat pan and the seatback 

surfaces covered with a 2 mm thick 

PTFE (Teflon) sheet; 

(3) Align the impact side of the seated 

dummy tangent to a vertical plane 

located within 25 mm of the side edge 

of the bench and set the midsagittal 

plane of the dummy to a vertical 

orientation. 

(4) Push the dummy at the knees and 

at the upper torso with just sufficient 

horizontally oriented force towards the 

seat back until its buttocks and the back 

of the upper torso are in contact with 

the seat back. The top of the shoulder 

rib mount (drawing 180–3352) 

orientation in the fore-and-aft direction 

is 24.6 ± 1.0 degrees relative to 

horizontal. 

(5) Lower the legs such that the thighs 

touch the seat pan, the inner part of the 

right and left legs at the knees are in 

contact with each other, the heels touch 

the designated support surface and the 

feet are vertical and as close together as 

possible; 

(6) The dummy’s thoracic lateral 

reference surface is 0 ± 1 degree relative 

to horizontal as shown in Figure V3 of 

this subpart; 

(7) Orient the arm downward to the 

lowest detent; 

(8) The impactor is specified in 49 

CFR 572.198(a);

(9) The impactor is guided, if needed, 

so that at contact with the dummy’s 

arm, its longitudinal axis is within ± 1 

degree of a horizontal plane and 

perpendicular to the midsagittal plane 

of the dummy. The centerpoint of the 

impactor face is within 2 mm of the 

vertical midpoint of the second thoracic 

rib and coincident with a line parallel 

to the seat back incline passing through 

the center of the shoulder yoke 

assembly arm pivot (drawing 180–3327), 

as shown in Figure V3 of this subpart; 

(10) The dummy’s arm is impacted at 

6.7 ± 0.1 m/s. 

(c) Performance criteria. (1) While the 

impactor is in contact with the dummy’s 

arm, the thoracic ribs and the shoulder 

shall conform to the following range of 

deflections: 

(i) Shoulder not less than 28 mm and 

not more than 34 mm; 

(ii) Upper thorax rib not less than 23 

mm and not more than 28 mm; 

(iii) Middle thorax rib not less 28 mm 

and not more than 33 mm; 

(iv) Lower thorax rib not less than 31 

mm and not more than 36 mm; 

(2) Peak acceleration of the upper 

spine (T1) shall not be less than 40 g’s 

and not more than 46 g’s and of the 

lower spine (T12) not less than 37 g’s 

and not more than 41 g’s; 

(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall 

be not less than 30 g’s and not more 

than 36 g’s.

§ 572.195 Thorax without arm. 

(a) The thorax is part of the upper 

torso assembly shown in drawing 180–

3000. For this thorax test, the dummy is 

tested as a complete assembly (drawing 

70960 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

180–0000) with the arm (180–6000) 

removed. The dummy’s thorax is 

equipped with T1 and T12 laterally 

oriented accelerometers as specified in 

49 CFR 572.198(c) and with deflection 

potentiometers for the thorax as 

specified in drawing 180–3861, 

installed as shown in drawing 180–0000 

sheet 2 of 6. When subjected to the test 

procedure specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the thorax shall meet the 

performance requirements set forth in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the 

dummy assembly (180–0000) in a test 

environment as specified in 49 CFR 

572.198(i); 

(2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the 

torso jacket (180–3450) and cotton 

underwear pants, as shown in Figure V5 

of this subpart, on a certification bench, 

specified in Figure V4 of this subpart, 

with the seat pan and the seatback 

surfaces covered with a 2 mm thick 

PTFE (Teflon) sheet; 

(3) Align the impact side of the seated 

dummy tangent to a vertical plane 

located within 25 mm of the side edge 

of the bench and set the midsagittal 

plane of the dummy to a vertical 

orientation. 

(4) Push the dummy at the knees and 

at the upper torso with just sufficient 

horizontally oriented force towards the 

seat back until its buttocks and the back 

of the upper torso are in contact with 

the seat back. The top of the shoulder 

rib mount (drawing 180–3352) 

orientation in the fore-and-aft direction 

is 24.6 ± 1.0 degrees relative to the 

horizontal. 

(5) Lower the legs such that the thighs 

touch the seat pan, the inner part of the 

right and left legs at the knees are in 

contact with each other, the heels touch 

the designated support surface and the 

feet are vertical and as close together as 

possible; 

(6) The dummy’s thoracic lateral 

reference surface is 0 ± 1 degree relative 

to the horizontal as shown in Figure V5 

of this subpart; 

(7) The impactor is specified in 49 

CFR 572.198(a); 

(8) The impactor is guided, if needed, 

so that at contact with the thorax, its 

longitudinal axis is within 1 degree of 

a horizontal plane and perpendicular to 

the midsagittal plane of the dummy. 

The centerpoint of the impactor face is 

within 2 mm of the vertical midpoint of 

the second thorax rib and coincident 

with a line parallel to the seat back 

incline passing through the center of the 

shoulder yoke assembly arm pivot 

(drawing 180–3327), as shown in Figure 

V5 of this subpart; 

(9) The dummy’s thorax is impacted 

at 4.3 ± 0.1 m/s; 

(c) Performance criteria. (1) While the 

impactor is in contact with the dummy’s 

thorax, the ribs shall conform to the 

following range of deflections: 

(i) Upper and lower thorax ribs not 

less than 33 mm and not more than 39 

mm; 

(ii) Middle thorax rib not less than 38 

mm and not more than 43 mm; 

(iii) Peak acceleration of the upper 

spine (T1) shall not be less than 14 g’s 

and not more than 18 g’s and of the 

lower spine (T12) not less than 8 g’s and 

not more than 12 g’s. 

(iv) Peak impactor acceleration shall 

not be less than 16 g’s and not more 

than 19 g’s. 

(2) [Reserved]

§ 572.196 Abdomen.

(a) The abdomen assembly is part of 

the upper torso assembly (180–3000) 

and is represented by two ribs (180–

3368) and the deflection sensors (180–

3861). The abdomen test is conducted 

on the assembled dummy (180–0000) 

with the arm (180–6000) on the 

impacted side removed. The dummy is 

equipped with a lower spine laterally 

oriented accelerometer as specified in 

49 CFR 572.198(c) and deflection 

potentiometers specified in drawing 

180–3861, installed as shown in sheet 2 

of drawing 180–0000. When subjected 

to the test procedure as specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the 

abdomen shall meet performance 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the 

dummy assembly (180–0000) in a test 

environment as specified in 49 CFR 

572.198(i); 

(2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the 

torso jacket (180–3450) and cotton 

underwear pants, as shown in Figure V6 

of this subpart, on a certification bench, 

specified in Figure V4 of this subpart, 

with the seat pan and the seatback 

surfaces covered with a 2 mm thick 

PTFE (Teflon) sheet; 

(3) Align the impacted side of the 

seated dummy tangent to a vertical 

plane located within 25 mm of the side 

edge of the bench and set the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy to a 

vertical orientation; 

(4) Push the dummy at the knees and 

at the upper torso with just sufficient 

horizontally oriented force towards the 

seat back until its buttocks and the back 

of the upper torso are in contact with 

the seat back. The top of the shoulder 

rib mount (drawing 180–3352) 

orientation in the fore-and-aft direction 

is 24.6 ± 1.0 degrees relative to the 

horizontal; 

(5) Lower the legs such that the thighs 

touch the seat pan, the inner part of the 

right and left legs at the knees are in 

contact with each other, the heels touch 

the designated support surface and the 

feet are vertical and as close together as 

possible; 

(6) The dummy’s thoracic lateral 

reference surface is within 0 ± 1 degree 

relative to the horizontal as shown in 

Figure V6 of this subpart; 

(7) The impactor is specified in 49 

CFR 572.198(b); 

(8) The impactor is guided, if needed, 

so that at contact with the abdomen, its 

longitudinal axis is within ± 1 degree of 

a horizontal plane and perpendicular to 

the midsagittal plane of the dummy and 

the centerpoint of the impactor’s face is 

within 2 mm of the vertical midpoint 

between the two abdominal ribs and 

coincident with a line parallel to the 

seat back incline passing through the 

center of the shoulder yoke assembly 

arm pivot (drawing 180–3327), as 

shown in Figure V6 of this subpart; 

(9) The dummy’s abdomen is 

impacted at 4.3 ±0.1 m/s. 

(c) Performance criteria. (1) While the 

impact probe is in contact with the 

dummy’s abdomen, the deflection of 

each abdominal rib shall be not less 

than 36 mm and not more than 42 mm; 

(2) Peak acceleration of the lower 

spine (T12) laterally oriented 

accelerometer shall be not less than 11 

g’s and not more than 15 g’s; 

(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall 

be not less than 13 g’s and not more 

than 16 g’s.

§ 572.197 Pelvis. 

(a) The pelvis is part of the lower 

torso assembly shown in drawing 180–

4000. The pelvis test is conducted on 

the assembled dummy (drawing 180–

0000), with the torso jacket (180–3450) 

removed. The dummy is equipped with 

a laterally oriented pelvis accelerometer 

as specified in 49 CFR 572.198(c), 

acetabulum load cell SA572–S68, and 

iliac wing load cell SA572–S66, 

mounted as shown in sheet 2 of 6 of 

drawing 180–0000. When subjected to 

the test procedure as specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the pelvis 

shall meet performance requirements of 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the 

dummy assembly (180–0000) in a test 

environment as specified in 49 CFR 

572.198(i); 

(2) Seat the dummy, without the torso 

jacket and cotton underwear pants, as 

shown in Figure V7 of this subpart, on 

a certification bench, specified in Figure 

V4 of this subpart, with the seatpan and 

the seatback surfaces covered with a 2 

mm thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet; 

(3) Align the impacted side of the 

seated dummy tangent to a vertical 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70961

plane located within 25 mm of the side 

edge of the bench and set the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy to a 

vertical orientation. 

(4) Push the dummy at the knees and 

at the upper torso with just sufficient 

horizontally oriented force towards the 

seat back until its buttocks and the back 

of the upper torso are in contact with 

the seat back. The top of the shoulder 

rib mount (drawing 180–3352) 

orientation in the fore-and-aft direction 

is 24.6 ± 1.0 degrees relative to the 

horizontal. 

(5) Lower the legs such that the thighs 

touch the seat pan, the inner part of the 

right and left legs at the knees are in 

contact with each other, the heels touch 

the designated support surface and the 

feet are vertical and as close together as 

possible; 

(6) The dummy’s thoracic lateral 

reference surface is within 0 ± 1 degree 

relative to the horizontal as shown in 

Figure V7 of this subpart; 

(7) The pelvis impactor is specified in 

49 CFR 572.198(a); 

(8) The impactor is guided, if needed, 

so that at contact with the pelvis, its 

longitudinal axis is within ± 1 degree of 

a horizontal plane and perpendicular to 

the midsagittal plane of the dummy. 

The centerpoint of the impactor’s face is 

within 2 mm of the centerline of the 

screw (9001191) through the center of 

the acetabulum load cell, as shown in 

Figure V7 of this subpart; 

(9) The dummy’s pelvis is impacted at 

6.7 ± 0.1 m/s. 

(c) Performance criteria. While the 

impactor is contact with the pelvis: 

(1) Peak acceleration of the impactor 

is not less than 45 g’s and not more than 

49 g’s; 

(2) Peak acceleration of the pelvis is 

not less than 42 g’s and not more than 

46 g’s and occurs 5 ms or more after the 

impactor contacts the dummy; 

(3) Peak acetabulum force is not less 

than 3882 N and not more than 4270 N; 

(4) Peak iliac wing force is not less 

than 524 N and not more than 730 N.

§ 572.198 Instrumentation and test 

conditions.

(a) The test probe for lateral thorax 

and pelvis impact tests is the same as 

that specified in 49 CFR 572.137(a) 

except that its impact face diameter is 

120.70 ± 0.25 mm and it has a minimum 

mass moment of inertia of 3646 kg-cm 2; 

(b) The test probe for the lateral 

abdomen impact test is the same as that 

specified in 572.137(a) except that its 

impact face diameter is 76.20 ± 0.25 mm 

and it has a minimum mass moment of 

inertia of 3646 kg-cm 2; 

(c) Accelerometers for the head, the 

thoracic spine, and the pelvis conform 

to specifications of SA572–S4; 

(d) Rotary potentiometers for the 

neck-headform assembly conform to 

SA572–S51; 

(e) Instrumentation and sensors 

conform to the Recommended Practice 

SAE J–211 (March 1995), 

Instrumentation for Impact Test, unless 

noted otherwise; 

(f) All instrumented response signal 

measurements shall be treated to the 

following specifications: 

(1) Head acceleration—Digitally 

filtered CFC 1000; 

(2) Neck-headform assembly 

translation-rotation—Digitally filtered 

CFC 60; 

(3) Neck pendulum, T1 and T12 

thoracic spine and pelvis 

accelerations—Digitally filtered CFC 

180; 

(4) Neck forces (for the purpose of 

occipital condyle calculation) and 

moments—Digitally filtered at CFC 600; 

(5) Pelvis, thorax and abdomen 

impactor accelerations—Digitally 

filtered CFC 180; 

(6) Acetabulum and iliac wings 

forces—Digitally filtered at CFC 600; 

(7) Shoulder, thorax, and abdomen 

deflection—Digitally filtered CFC 600. 

(g) Mountings for the head, thoracic 

spine and pelvis accelerometers shall 

have no resonant frequency within a 

range of 3 times the frequency range of 

the applicable channel class;

(h) Leg joints of the test dummy are 

set at the force between 1 to 2 g’s, which 

just support the limb’s weight when the 

limbs are extended horizontally 

forward. The force required to move a 

limb segment does not exceed 2 g’s 

throughout the range of the limb 

motion. 

(i) Performance tests are conducted, 

unless specified otherwise, at any 

temperature from 20.6 to 22.2 degrees C. 

(69 to 72 degrees F.) and at any relative 

humidity from 10% to 70% after 

exposure of the dummy to those 

conditions for a period of 3 hours.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

Appendix—Figures to Subpart V of Part 

572

70962 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP08DE04.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70963


EP08DE04.037</GPH>
70964 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP08DE04.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70965


EP08DE04.039</GPH>
70966 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP08DE04.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70967


EP08DE04.041</GPH>
70968 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP08DE04.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70969


EP08DE04.043</GPH>
70970 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP08DE04.044</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70971

Issued November 30, 2004. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 04–26753 Filed 12–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AI78

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of Availability of 

Draft Economic Analysis and 

Reopening of the Public Comment 

Period for the Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Astragalus 

jaegerianus (Lane Mountain Milkvetch)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis 

and reopening of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

for the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane 

Mountain milk-vetch) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We are also reopening 

the public comment period for the 

proposal to designate critical habitat for 

this species to allow all interested 

parties to comment on the proposed rule 

and the associated draft economic 

analysis. Comments previously 

submitted on the proposed rule need 

not be resubmitted as they have been 

incorporated into the public record as 

part of this reopening of the comment 

period, and will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule.

DATES: We will accept all comments and 

information received on or before 

January 7, 2005. Any comments that we 

receive after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on this 

proposal.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by any one of several methods: 

(1) You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola 

Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 

93003, or by facsimile 805/644–3958. 

(2) You may hand-deliver written 

comments to our office, at the address 

given above. 

(3) You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to: 

fw1Lanemv@r1.fws.gov. Please see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for file format and other 

information about electronic filing. In 

the event that our Internet connection is 

not functional, please submit your 

comments by the alternate methods 

mentioned above. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of the proposed critical 

habitat rule, will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the above 

address. You may obtain copies of the 

draft economic analysis for Astragalus 

jaegerianus by contacting the Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office at the above 

address. The draft economic analysis 

and the proposed rule for critical habitat 

designation are also available on the 

Internet at http://ventura.fws.gov/. In 

the event that our Internet connection is 

not functional, please obtain copies of 

documents directly from the Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Rutherford, Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office, at the address listed 

above (telephone 805/644–1766; 

facsimile 805/644–3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend any final action resulting 

from this proposal to be as accurate and 

as effective as possible. Therefore, we 

solicit comments or suggestions from 

the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning the 

economic analysis or the proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for 

Astragalus jaegerianus (69 FR 18018, 

April 6, 2004). We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why any habitat 

should or should not be determined to 

be critical habitat as provided by section 

4 of the Act, including whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Astragalus 

jaegerianus habitat, and what habitat is 

essential to the conservation of this 

species and why; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject area 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

habitat; 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation of critical habitat; in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families; 

(5) Whether the economic analysis 

identifies all State and local costs 

attributable to the proposed critical 

habitat designation. If not, what costs 

are overlooked;

(6) Whether the economic analysis 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat; 

(7) Whether the economic analysis 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs associated with land use controls 

that derive from the designation; 

(8) Whether the designation will 

result in disproportionate economic 

impacts to specific areas that should be 

evaluated for possible exclusion from 

the final designation; 

(9) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies all costs that 

could result from the designation; and 

(10) Whether our approach to critical 

habitat designation could be improved 

or modified in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concern and 

comments. 

All comments and information 

submitted during the initial comment 

period on the proposed rule need not be 

resubmitted. If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the draft economic 

analysis and proposed rule by any one 

of several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Please submit Internet comments to 

fw1Lanemv@r1.fws.gov in an ASCII file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters and encryption. Please also 

include ‘‘Attn: Lane Mountain Milkvetch Critical Habitat’’ in your e-mail 

subject header, and your name and 

return address in the body of your 

message. If you do not receive a 

confirmation from the system that we 

have received your Internet message, 

contact us directly by calling our 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home addresses from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish for us to withhold your name and/