75304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1On August 10, 2005, the President signed the 

‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,’’ 

(SAFETEA–LU), Pub. L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 

Stat. 1144), to authorize funds for Federal-aid 

highways, highway safety programs, and transit 

programs, and for other purposes. Section 10302(a) 

of SAFETEA–LU provides: 

Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection 

Rulemaking. 

(a) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall complete a 

rulemaking proceeding under chapter 301 of title 

49, United States Code, to establish a standard 

designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle 

occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side 

impact crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final 

rule by July 1, 2008. 

At the time of the enactment of § 10302(a), the 

agency’s notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade 

FMVSS No. 214 was pending. The final rule 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

Docket No. NHTSA–2004–25441 

RIN 2127–AI89 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; 

ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 

50th Percentile Adult Male 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

agency’s regulation on anthropomorphic 

test devices to add specifications and 

qualification requirements for a new 

mid-size adult male crash test dummy, 

called the ‘‘ES–2re’’ test dummy. The 

ES–2re dummy has enhanced injury 

assessment capabilities compared to 

devices existing today, which allows for 

a fuller assessment of the types and 

magnitudes of the injuries occurring in 

side impacts and of the efficacy of 

countermeasures in improving occupant 

protection. The agency plans to use the 

ES–2re dummy in an upgraded Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on side 

impact protection. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

June 12, 2007. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the regulations is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of 

June 12, 2007. If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by January 29, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, Room 

5220, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

The petition will be placed in the 

docket. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all documents 

received into any 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. 

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 Fujita, NHTSA Office 

of Chief Counsel (telephone 202–366– 

2992) (fax 202–366–3820). You may 

send mail to these officials at the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. The ES–2re Dummy Generally Described 

a. Development of the Rib Extensions 

b. The Reference Materials for the Dummy 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

III. Overview of Comments 

IV. Response to the Comments 

a. Biofidelity 

1. ISO Technical Report 9790 Methodology 

2. NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System 

b. Other Issues Relating to How Humanlike 

the Dummy Is 

1. Anthropometry of Abdominal and Pelvic 

Regions 

2. Sitting Height 

3. ES–2re’s Representation of Large Male 

Population 

4. Abdominal Instrumentation 

5. Shoulder Design 

6. Rib Deflections 

7. Rib Extensions 

c. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

1. Sample Size 

2. Reproducibility of Pelvic Load 

Measurements 

3. Sensitivity to Initial Conditions 

4. Rib Acceleration Response 

d. Directional Impact Sensitivity 

1. Impact Direction 

2. Rib Binding in ISO 9790 Tests 

3. ISO 9790 Ratings for Lateral and Oblique 

Impacts 

e. Durability 

f. Symmetry 

g. Using the ES–2 Test Dummy 

h. Test Dummy Drawing Package 

1. 3-D Shape Definitions 

2. Material Specifications 

3. Dummy Drawing Changes 

i. Certification Procedures and Response 

Corridors 

1. Overview of the Comments 

2. Head Drop Test 

3. Neck Flexion Test 

i. Neck Response Corridors 

ii. Neck Pendulum Aluminum Honeycomb 

iii. Neck Pendulum Deceleration Filter 

Class 

iv. Nodding Block Configuration 

v. Adjusting Half-Spherical Neck Screws 

4. Thorax 

i. Full-Body Systems Test 

ii. Specifying Impact Speed in Rib Module 

Drop Test 

iii. Recovery Time Between Successive 

Tests 

5. Lumbar Spine 

i. Response Corridors 

ii. Lumbar Cable Nut Adjustment 

6. Shoulder 

i. Shoulder Cord Tension 

ii. Pendulum Configuration 

7. Abdomen 

8. Pelvis 

9. Other Issues 

i. Test Probe Suspension Cables and 

Attachments 

ii. Pelvis and Abdomen Pendulum Filter 

Requirements 

iii. Temperature 

V. NHTSA Crash Test Experience 

a. MDB Tests 

b. Oblique Pole Tests 

c. Rib Responses 

d. Torso Back Plate Responses 

e. Durability 

VI. Conclusions 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Appendix A to Final Rule Preamble: Specific 

Drawing Comments and Agency 

Responses to Those Comments 

NHTSA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposed to upgrade Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

214, ‘‘Side Impact Protection’’ (49 CFR 

571.214) by, among other things, 

adopting a dynamic pole test into the 

standard (May 17, 2004; 69 FR 27990; 

Docket 17694; reopening of comment 

period, January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2105). 

The proposed pole test is similar to, but 

more demanding than, the one currently 

used optionally in FMVSS No. 201, 

‘‘Occupant Protection in Interior 

Impact’’ (49 CFR 571.201). In the 

proposed pole test, a vehicle is 

propelled sideways into a rigid pole at 

an angle of 75 degrees, at any speed up 

to 32 km/h (20 mph). The NPRM 

proposed that compliance with the pole 

test would be determined in two test 

configurations, one using a test dummy 

representing mid-size adult males and 

the other using a test dummy 

representing small adult females. The 

NPRM proposed to require vehicles to 

protect against head, thoracic and other 

injuries as measured by the two test 

dummies. The agency also proposed 

using the dummies in FMVSS No. 214’s 

existing moving deformable barrier 

(MDB) test, which simulates a vehicleto-vehicle ‘‘T-bone’’ type intersection 

crash.1


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75305 

completing the rulemaking proceeding will be 

issued in the near future. 

2NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to 

amend 49 CFR Part 572 to add the specifications for 

the small female dummy to Part 572 on December 

8, 2004 (69 FR 70947; Docket 18865; extension of 

comment period, March 8, 2005; 70 FR 11189). 

3The ES–2re can also assess load transfer 

between the upper and the lower torso, torso 

interaction with the vehicle seat back, neck injuries 

via upper and lower neck load cells; and the impact 

severity of the vehicle structure on the legs by way 

of a femur load cell. In addition, a clavicle load cell 

is available to assess shoulder loading. 

4A 50th percentile adult male with lower arms 

has a mass of approximately 78 kg (172 pounds). 

If the ES–2re had arms, its mass would be 

equivalent. 

This document establishes the 

specifications and qualification 

requirements for the new mid-size adult 

male crash test dummy, called the ‘‘ES–

2re’’ test dummy, for use in FMVSS No. 

214. The NPRM preceding this Part 572 

final rule on the ES–2re dummy was 

published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 

55550; Docket 18864; reopening of 

comment period, January 12, 2005, 70 

FR 2105).2

I. The ES–2re Dummy Generally 

Described 

The ES–2re can be instrumented with 

a wide array of sensors to better predict 

a wider range of injury potential than 

any other currently available mid-size 

male side impact test dummy. The ES–

2re is technically superior to both the 

SID–H3 50th percentile male test 

dummy (49 CFR Part 572, subpart M) 

currently used in the optional pole test 

of FMVSS No. 201 and the SID 50th 

percentile adult male test dummy (49 

CFR Part 572, subpart F) now used in 

the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214. It can 

assess the potential for head, neck, 

thoracic, abdominal, pelvic, and other 

injuries. It can assess the potential for 

head injury (measuring the resultant 

head acceleration, which is used to 

calculate the Head Injury Criterion 

(HIC)); thoracic injuries in terms of 

spine and rib accelerations and rib 

deflections (chest deflection has been 

shown to be the best predictor of 

thoracic injuries in low-speed side 

impacts); abdominal injuries through 

three load cells to assess the magnitude 

of lateral and oblique forces; and pelvic 

injuries.3

Its improved biofidelity and enhanced 

injury assessment capability allows for 

a fuller assessment of the types and 

magnitudes of the injuries occurring in 

side impacts and a more penetrating 

evaluation of the efficacy of vehicle 

countermeasures installed to improve 

side impact protection than now 

possible using other existing side 

impact dummies. In the May 17, 2004 

NPRM concerning FMVSS No. 214, 

NHTSA proposed injury criteria for the 

ES–2re’s injury measuring 

instrumentation of the dummy’s head, 

thorax, abdomen and pelvis. HIC would 

be limited to 1000 measured in a 36 

millisecond time interval (HIC36). Chest 

deflection would be limited to not 

greater than 42 millimeters (mm) (1.65 

inch (in)) for any rib. Abdominal loads 

would be limited to 2,500 Newtons (N) 

(562 pounds). For pelvic injury, pubic 

symphysis force would be limited to 

6,000 N (1,349 pounds). (See, ‘‘Injury 

Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,’’

Docket 17694.) 

The ES–2re consists of a metallic 

‘‘skeleton’’ which is covered by ‘‘soft 

tissue’’ consisting of rubber, plastic and 

foam. The dummy does not have lower 

arms because researchers concluded 

that lower arms on the side crash test 

dummy could interfere with the 

interaction of the side structure of a 

vehicle and the dummy’s measurement 

of potential harm to the thoracic and 

pelvic regions. The ES–2re has a mass 

of 72 kilograms (kg) (158.8 pounds), 

which is the mass of a 50th percentile 

adult male without lower arms.4

The 90.0 cm seated height of the ES–

2re is representative of adult males midsize and taller. The dummy will provide 

valuable data on the interaction of these 

occupants with the vehicle’s interior in 

FMVSS No. 214’s side impact tests. 

a. Development of the Rib Extensions 

The ES–2re is a modified version of 

a European ES–2 side impact dummy, 

which was originally developed in 

Europe as the EuroSID–1 dummy in the 

late 1980s and early 1990s. The 

EuroSID–1 dummy is used in European 

Directive 96/27/EC. The EuroSID–1 

dummy was redesigned and reevaluated 

during the late 1990s and early 2000 to 

address some problems with dummy 

performance, and was renamed the ES–

2. 

The ES–2re dummy is the result of a 

modification of the ES–2. Although the 

ES–2 has a better design than the 

EuroSID–1, the ES–2 has a back plate 

that causes a part of it to ‘‘grab’’ parts 

of a vehicle seat back in a crash test, 

which alters some of the dummy 

response measurements. To address the 

problem, which has also been observed 

in the EuroSID–1, the ES–2 dummy 

manufacturer redesigned the rib module 

by adding rib extensions to the dummy. 

The extended ribs provide a continuous 

loading surface that nearly encircles the 

thorax of the dummy and encloses the 

posterior gap of the ES–2 ribcage that 

was thought to be responsible for the 

seat back grabbing effect. The modified 

dummy is referred to as the ES–2re, 

with the ‘‘-re’’ suffix indicating the use 

of the rib extensions on the dummy. The 

agency’s evaluation of the ES–2re 

dummy indicates that the rib extensions 

successfully addressed the back plate 

grabbing problem in the environments 

in which grabbing had occurred with 

the ES–2 dummy. 

b. The Reference Materials for the 

Dummy 

A technical report and other materials 

describing the ES–2re in detail have 

been placed in the following NHTSA 

dockets: the docket for the September 

15, 2004 NPRM on the ES–2re (Docket 

18864); the docket for the May 17, 2004 

NPRM proposing the pole test upgrade 

to FMVSS No. 214 (Docket 17694); and 

the docket for today’s final rule (Docket 

25441). When we refer in this preamble 

to a docket item, we will identify by 

docket number where the item is filed. 

The specifications for the ES–2re 

consist of: (a) A drawing package 

containing all of the technical details of 

the dummy; (b) a parts list; and (c) a 

user manual containing instructions for 

inspection, assembly, disassembly, use, 

and adjustments of dummy 

components. These drawings and 

specifications ensure that ES–2re 

dummies will be the same in their 

design and construction. The drawings, 

parts list and user manual are available 

for examination in the NHTSA docket 

section for this final rule (Docket 

25441). Copies of those materials may 

also be obtained from Leet-Melbrook, 

Division of New RT, 18810 Woodfield 

Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879, 

telephone (301) 670–0090. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) 

The NPRM preceding this Part 572 

final rule on the ES–2re dummy was 

published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 

55550; Docket 18864). On January 12, 

2005, in response to a petition from the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 

NHTSA reopened the comment period 

for the NPRM until April 12, 2005 (70 

FR 2105). 

The September 15, 2004 NPRM 

discussed NHTSA’s tentative findings 

that the ES–2re was commercially 

available, was sufficiently biofidelic, 

had good repeatability and 

reproducibility of its impact responses, 

performed well in vehicle crash tests, 

and had good durability in evaluation 

programs. NHTSA believed that the ES–

2re could be used for both left- and 

right-side impacts. The agency also 

discussed in the NPRM that the 

dummy’s responses did not show 

sensitivity to oblique impacts in fullVerDate Aug<31>2005 22:05 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

5WorldSID is the next-generation 50th percentile 

male side impact dummy developed by industry 

representatives from the U.S., Europe and Japan, 

with the support of the European and Japanese 

governments (see Docket No. 2000–17252). This 

future dummy is believed by its developers to have 

better biofidelity than existing dummies, and is 

intended to better predict a wider range of injury 

potential in side impact testing than current 

dummies. 

6The agency’s response to the petition will be 

issued in rulemaking documents relating to the 

FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking. 

7The NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System method 

was reported by Rhule H., et al., in a technical 

paper in the 2002 Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, 

p. 477, ‘‘Development of a New Biofidelity Ranking 

System for Anthropomorphic Test Devices.’’

8The biofidelity rating for the SID dummy used 

in FMVSS No. 214 is 2.3. The rating for the SID/ 

HIII of 3.8, using the ISO method, reflects use of the 

special purpose side impact HIII head and neck as 

noted in 63 FR 41468, August 4, 1998. 

scale crash tests. The agency also 

discussed in the NPRM proposed 

calibration test specifications and 

procedures. 

III. Overview of Comments 

The agency received comments from 

5 different organizations: Autoliv, 

Denton ATD (DATD), First Technology 

Safety Systems (FTSS), Ferrari, and the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

(Alliance). These comments, 

summarized below, are discussed in 

detail in the next section of this 

preamble. Autoliv generally supported 

the agency’s proposal. DATD and FTSS 

were supportive, but suggested changes 

to the drawing package, certification 

corridors, and other technical matters of 

the NPRM. Ferrari stated that it 

observed ‘‘anomalous’’ peaks in the rib 

acceleration curves occurring between 

67 and 73 ms after barrier impact with 

the vehicle, which Ferrari believed were 

caused by insufficient rebound damping 

in the rib modules. 

The Alliance did not support the 

agency’s proposal. The Alliance was 

concerned about matters including: the 

biofidelity of the dummy (the 

commenter believed that there are 

shortcomings in the ES–2re’s shoulder, 

abdominal and pelvic regions, 

particularly when compared to the 

performance of the ES–2 and the 

WorldSID 5 in full-vehicle tests); the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

ES–2re; the directional impact 

sensitivity of the dummy; and 

miscellaneous issues, such as the 

symmetry of abdomen response when 

impacted on the right and left sides and 

the durability of the ES–2re. The 

Alliance also had comments regarding 

the proposed certification procedures 

and corridors. The Alliance submitted a 

petition for rulemaking (Docket 17252) 

asking NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to 

incorporate WorldSID into 49 CFR Part 

572 and to use WorldSID in the upgrade 

of FMVSS No. 214 rather than the ES–

2re.6 The Alliance further suggested 

that, prior to the incorporation of 

WorldSID into 49 CFR Part 572, the ES–

2 dummy should be used rather than the 

ES–2re, and only to the extent of using 

the dummy to measure responses 

relating to the head injury criterion 

(HIC). 

IV. Response to the Comments 

a. Biofidelity 

Biofidelity is a measure of how well 

a test device duplicates the responses of 

a human in an impact. As discussed in 

the NPRM, two methods are currently 

available for assessing the biofidelity of 

a dummy in side impact testing. These 

are: (a) An International Organization of 

Standardization (ISO) procedure, 

referred to as ISO Technical Report (TR) 

9790, which 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; and (b) a 

NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System.7

The latter method determines the 

dummy’s biofidelity based on two 

assessment measures: the ability of a 

dummy to load a vehicle or some other 

type of an impact surface as a cadaver 

does, termed ‘‘External Biofidelity’’; and 

the ability of a dummy to replicate those 

cadaver responses that best predict 

injury potential, termed ‘‘Internal 

Biofidelity.’’ The NPRM explained that 

the ES–2re’s biofidelity was evaluated 

under both of these methodologies. 

1. ISO Technical Report 9790 

Methodology 

The ISO rating system is based on a 

scale of 0 to 10, with 0 signifying total 

lack of biofidelity and 10 signifying that 

the body segment has a biofidelic 

response much like that of a human 

subject. Once the ratings are established 

for each body segment, the overall 

dummy’s biofidelity is calculated and 

its ranking determined using the 

following classification scale: 0 to 2.6 

(Unacceptable); 2.6 to 4.4 (Marginal); 4.4 

to 6.5 (Fair); 6.5 to 8.6 (Good); 8.6 to 10 

(Excellent). 

The agency had tentatively assessed 

in the NPRM that the ISO-based 

biofidelity assessment of 4.6 would 

generally be the same for the ES–2re as 

the ES–2. The Occupant Safety Research 

Partnership (OSRP) and Transport 

Canada conducted biomechanical 

testing on the ES–2 dummy using the 

ISO-specified methodology and test 

procedures. The results of these tests 

were reported by Byrnes et al. in the 

2002 Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, 

in Paper No. 2002–22–0014. Because the 

ES–2re dummy’s backplate 

modifications were developed with the 

express objective not to alter in any way 

the ES–2 dummy’s impact response, and 

because the ES–2re conformed to the 

same calibration levels as the ES–2, the 

agency believed that the rib extension 

modifications to the ES–2 would not 

affect the ISO based biofidelity 

assessment. (Moreover, as reported in 

the NPRM, the findings of the NHTSA 

Biofidelity Ranking System tests 

appeared to confirm this assessment, as 

it was established that under that 

ranking system both the ES–2 and the 

ES–2re dummies had nearly identical 

biofidelity levels.) 

In the NPRM, the agency stated that 

a biofidelity rating of ‘‘fair,’’ at 4.6, 

would be an improvement over the SID 

and EuroSID–1, which received ratings 

of 2.3 and 4.4, respectively (Byrnes, et 

al., ‘‘ES–2 Dummy Biomechanical 

Responses,’’ 2002, Stapp Car Crash 

Journal, Vol. 46, #2002–22–0014, p. 

353). The agency believed that the ES–

2 (ES–2re) ISO biofidelity rating also 

compared favorably to that of the SID/ 

HIII, which received an overall rating of 

3.8.8

Comment: In its comment, the 

Alliance disagreed with NHTSA’s 

statement that the rib modifications 

made to the ES–2 and resulting in the 

ES–2re configuration had no effect on 

the dummy’s ISO-based biofidelity 

assessment. The Alliance stated that 

testing conducted by the OSRP resulted 

in an overall ISO score of 4.3 for the ES–

2re, as compared to a 4.6 score for the 

ES–2. 

Agency response: The Alliance 

neither provided a reference to a 

published report nor provided 

supporting data related to the assertion 

that the overall ISO score for the ES–2re 

is 4.3. The absence of substantiation of 

the comment limits our ability to 

respond. Even so, assuming the 

accuracy of the comment that the rib 

extensions reduced the ISO-based 

biofidelity assessment of the ES–2 from 

4.6 to 4.3, or from ‘‘fair’’ to ‘‘marginal,’’

we nonetheless conclude that a 4.3 

rating of the ES–2re is acceptable. 

NHTSA believes that the side impact 

dummy used in FMVSS No. 214 should 

measure the risk of thoracic and 

abdominal injuries, since these injuries 

are the most prevalent injuries in side 

crashes. The ES–2 (which does not have 

the rib extensions) is not suitable for use 

in our compliance testing, because of its 

back plate design and the problem that 

can occur with the back plate loading 

some seat backs and influencing the 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75307 

dummy’s rib deflection measurements. 

The rib extensions of the ES–2re allow 

for more accuracy in the measurement 

of rib deflections. Although the dummy 

with the extensions has a slightly lower, 

yet acceptable, ISO biofidelity ranking 

than a dummy without the rib 

extensions, the ES–2re is preferable over 

the ES–2 because it allows the agency to 

measure fully the risk of thoracic and 

abdominal injury in side crashes. We 

note also that a 4.3 ISO rating is an 

improvement over the biofidelity rating 

of SID, which received a rating of 2.3 

(Byrnes, et al., ‘‘ES–2 Dummy 

Biomechanical Responses,’’ 2002, Stapp 

Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, #2002–22–

0014, p. 353). The ES–2re biofidelity 

rating also compares favorably to that of 

the SID/HIII, which received an overall 

rating of 3.8. Both the SID and SID/HIII 

have performed well in facilitating the 

installation of life-saving 

countermeasures that have substantially 

improved the safety of occupants in side 

crashes. 

2. NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System 

Further, under the NHTSA biofidelity 

ranking system, the biofidelity rankings 

for the ES–2 and ES–2re are nearly 

identical. The biofidelity ranking system 

developed by Rhule, H., et al., supra, 

includes an assessment of the dummy’s 

External Biofidelity and Internal 

Biofidelity. The Overall External and 

Internal Biofidelity ranks are an average 

of each of the external and internal body 

region ranks, respectively. A lower 

biofidelity rank indicates a more 

biofidelic dummy by this NHTSA 

ranking method. A dummy with an 

External and/or Internal Biofidelity rank 

of less than 2.0 is considered to respond 

much like a human subject. 

The NHTSA ranking system is based 

on a variety of cadaver and dummy 

exposures, such as head drop tests, 

thorax and shoulder drop tests, thorax 

and shoulder pendulum tests, and 

whole body sled tests. The NHTSA 

ranking system also includes abdominal 

and pelvic offset sled test conditions. 

Each test condition has a response 

corridor derived from human cadavers 

and assigned a weight factor based upon 

the robustness of the particular test and 

its similarity to full scale crash 

conditions. For each response 

requirement, the cumulative variance of 

the dummy response relative to the 

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 indicating 

better biofidelity. 

Although this method does not 

establish an ‘‘absolute’’ ranking scale, 

the ranks provide a relative sense of the 

‘‘number of standard deviations away’’

the dummy’s responses are from the 

mean human cadaver response. Rhule 

conducted an analysis and found that if 

the dummy’s biofidelity ranking is 

below two, then 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. 

Rhule et al., supra, determined 

external and internal biofidelity 

rankings for the ES–2 dummy. NHTSA 

later repeated the tests for the ES–2re to 

determine that dummy’s biofidelity 

rankings. Tables 1 and 2, below, provide 

a summary of External Biofidelity and 

Internal Biofidelity rankings, 

respectively, for the ES–2 and the ES–

2re. The results of NHTSA’s Biofidelity 

Ranking System tests indicate that the 

ES–2 and ES–2re dummies have 

essentially the same external and 

internal biofidelity assessment values, 

and that the rib extensions have had no 

effect on the biofidelity of the ES–2. The 

overall external biofidelity scores were 

2.7 and 2.6 for the ES–2 and ES–2re, 

respectively, while the overall internal 

biofidelity scores for both were 1.6. The 

testing conducted for the ranking 

indicates that there exists no significant 

difference in the response 

characteristics of the ES–2 and ES–2re 

dummies. 

TABLE 1.—EXTERNAL BIOFIDELITY

RANKINGS OF THE ES–2 AND ES–2RE

External biofidelity 

rank ES–2 ES–2re 

Overall ...................... 2.7 2.6 

Head/Neck ................ 3.7 3.7 

Shoulder ................... 1.4 1.4 

Thorax ....................... 3.2 2.9 

Abdomen .................. 2.5 2.6 

Pelvis ........................ 2.7 2.7 

TABLE 2.—INTERNAL BIOFIDELITY

RANKINGS OF THE ES–2 AND ES–2RE

Internal biofidelity 

rank ES–2 ES–2re 

Overall with T1 (w/o 

abdomen) .............. ................ 1.5 

Overall with Defl. (w/ 

o abdomen) ........... 1.6 1.6 

Overall with TTI (w/o 

abdomen) .............. n/a 1.6 

Head* ........................ 1.0 1.0 

Thorax—T1 ............... n/a 1.5 

Thorax—Delft ............ 1.7 1.8 

TABLE 2.—INTERNAL BIOFIDELITY

RANKINGS OF THE ES–2 AND ES– 

2RE—Continued 

Internal biofidelity 

rank ES–2 ES–2re 

Thorax—TTI .............. ................ 1.8 

Abdomen .................. n/a n/a 

Pelvis ........................ 2.1 2.0 

* In its comment, the Alliance pointed out an 

error in the internal biofidelity score for the 

ES–2 head, contained in Table 5 of the NPRM 

(69 FR at 55554, column 3). Table 5 indicated 

that the ES–2re head received a score of 1.0 

while the ES–2 scored a 1.6. As shown in this 

corrected Table 2, both dummies scored a 1.0 

for head internal biofidelity using the NHTSA 

ranking system. 

Conclusion: Back plate loading is an 

undesirable feature of the ES–2 dummy 

(see NHTSA Technical Report, ‘‘Design, 

Development, and Evaluation of the ES–

2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’ May 

2004, NHTSA Docket No. 2004–17694–

11). The rib extensions of the ES–2re 

have proven to reduce the likelihood of 

the dummy’s spine and back plate to 

interact with the vehicle’s seat back. 

NHTSA believes that the rib extensions 

are a necessary component of the 

dummy and their inclusion has minimal 

effect on the dummy’s response 

biofidelity. Accordingly, we conclude 

that the ES–2re test dummy, with rib 

extensions, will suitably duplicate the 

responses of a human in FMVSS No. 

214 side impact tests. 

b. Other Issues Relating to How 

Humanlike the Dummy Is 

Commenters, primarily the Alliance, 

raised other issues relating to the 

humanlike qualities of the ES–2re. The 

Alliance’s comment included a 

discussion of full-vehicle tests 

conducted by the OSRP, Toyota, and 

Transport Canada. The OSRP conducted 

matched-pair full-scale vehicle tests to 

compare the responses of the ES–2re, 

ES–2, and WorldSID in two conditions: 

(a) FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests at 33.5 

mph of a 4-door, mid-size sedan, no air 

bag and a 4-door, small sedan, head/ 

torso side air bag (SAB); and (b) oblique 

pole test at 20 mph, 15° impact angle, 

of a 4-door, small sedan, head/torso 

SAB. The majority of the Alliance’s 

comments regarding the OSRP tests 

compared the ES–2re responses to those 

of the WorldSID, to support the 

commenter’s opinion that the ES–2re is 

not as humanlike as the WorldSID. 

We respond in this section to the 

issues raised by the commenters relating 

to the acceptability of the ES–2re as a 

test device for FMVSS No. 214. We will 

not discuss whether WorldSID is a more 

humanlike device than the ES–2re 

because the WorldSID dummy is still 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

9We note that the WorldSID’s abdomen and 

pelvis are slightly wider than the UMTRI 

dimension, which may also be inconsequential. 

10Also, no data was provided regarding what type 

of vehicle was used or what seating procedure was 

applied that resulted in the alleged 58 mm 

difference. Different vehicle seat configurations and 

materials will play an important role in the seating 

height of the dummy and, in the absence of any 

detailed information, it was not possible for us to 

further examine the assertion. 

under development. As recently as the 

spring of 2006, the WorldSID design 

was changing and has not been assessed 

for its suitability as a compliance test 

instrument. In short, WorldSID will not 

be ready for some time to attain the 

advancements in side impact occupant 

protection that the agency can achieve 

today with the ES–2re test dummy. 

1. Anthropometry of Abdominal and 

Pelvic Regions 

The Alliance believed that the 

EuroSID family, including the ES–2 and 

the ES–2re test dummies, is too narrow 

in the abdominal and pelvic regions as 

compared to ‘‘the UMTRI 

anthropometry,’’ whereas, the 

commenter believed, WorldSID is 

representative of the United States and 

world populations. 

Agency Response: In support of its 

comment, the Alliance references a 

figure in its submission that provides a 

coronal-plane view of the ES–2 dummy 

and the WorldSID. The figure identifies 

the ES–2 pelvis breadth as 364 mm and 

the abdominal breadth as 282 mm, 

while the WorldSID’s corresponding 

dimensions are labeled as 420 mm and 

240 mm. (NHTSA believes that the 

Alliance made an error in its label and 

that the correct WorldSID abdomen 

dimension should be 340 mm.) 

In its submission, the Alliance states: 

‘‘The anthropometry of the U.S. 

population is detailed in a study by 

UMTRI (1985)1. [Footnote in text.]’’ The 

footnote only states ‘‘UMTRI 1985’’

without a complete bibliographic 

reference. NHTSA believes that the 

Alliance is referring to the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research 

Institute (UMTRI) document 

‘‘Anthropometry of Motor Vehicle 

Occupants,’’ Volume 1, 1983, performed 

under NHTSA contract DTNH–80–C–

07502. In this UMTRI study, the pelvis 

and abdominal breadths of the midsized adult male are reported to be 385 

and 325 mm, respectively. 

Table 3 below, ‘‘UMTRI, ES–2re and 

WorldSID Dimensions,’’ summarizes the 

UMTRI dimensions and compares them 

to the corresponding dimensions in the 

ES–2re and WorldSID. 

TABLE 3.—UMTRI, ES–2RE AND WORLDSID DIMENSIONS

Dimension UMTRI ES–2re* 

Delta, 

UMTRI vs 

ES–2re 

WorldSID 

Delta, 

UMTRI vs 

WorldSID 

Abdomen breadth ............................................................................ 325 mm ....... 282 mm ....... ¥43 mm ..... 340 mm ....... +15 mm 

Pelvis breadth .................................................................................. 385 mm ....... 366 mm ....... ¥19 mm ..... 420 mm ....... +35 mm 

* The ES–2re dimensions are based on the Eurosid specifications derived from European anthropometric studies. 

From the table, it is observed that the 

ES–2re does have an abdomen and 

pelvis that are slightly narrower than 

the UMTRI target dimension. However, 

to our knowledge this is of no 

consequence. Discrepancies relative to 

the anthropometry targets are often 

necessary to balance a number of design 

issues, such as the need to fit the 

dummy with electronic instrumentation 

for injury assessment capabilities, 

component durability, and repeatability 

of the responses.9 The Alliance did not 

provide any information regarding 

potential adverse effects that might 

result from the abdomen and pelvis 

being slightly narrower in the coronal 

plane and NHTSA is not aware of any 

adverse effects associated with the 

commenter’s claim. Accordingly, 

NHTSA believes that the current 

dimensional properties of the ES–2re 

abdomen and pelvis are satisfactory for 

their intended purpose. 

2. Sitting Height 

The Alliance commented that the 

pelvis of the ES–2re does not account 

for compression of soft tissue that 

occurs when a person is seated in a 

vehicle seat, and results in a seating 

height difference between the ES–2re 

and WorldSID of 58 mm, with the ES–

2re seated higher. 

Agency Response: The comment did 

not provide any information as to why 

the seating height of the ES–2re is not 

adequate for the dummy’s intended 

application.10 It appeared that the 

commenter assumed that the WorldSID 

seating height is accurate and the ES–

2re’s seating height is erroneous because 

it does not match that of the WorldSID. 

NHTSA’s review of sitting height 

anthropometry shows that the mean 

value of the erect sitting height of the 

50th percentile male is 911 mm 

(reference UMTRI–83–53–1). The 

designed erect sitting height of the ES–

2 is 909 mm (reference E/ECE/324, 

Regulation No. 95, October 1, 2004). 

Comparable design targets for the 

WorldSID are not yet published. 

NHTSA attempted to measure the erect 

seating height of a sample WorldSID 

dummy, however, making a comparable 

measurement proved to be somewhat 

problematic. The WorldSID’s pelvis is 

designed to have an automotive-seated 

posture and is somewhat resistant to 

being placed into an erect posture. We 

measured the WorldSID to have a sitting 

height of 850 mm. While we do not have 

data for an average seated occupant 

height, the UMTRI data indicate that the 

ES–2re for the intended application is 

representative of the seated height of 

real people. 

3. ES–2re’s Representation of Large 

Male Population 

In the September 15, 2004 NPRM 

(Docket 18864), NHTSA presented 

injury and fatality statistics in Tables 1 

and 2 of that document. Table 1 

represented the entire U.S. motor 

vehicle population. The NPRM stated, 

‘‘Of these [statistics in Table 1], 

approximately 35 percent are small 

stature occupants. The remaining 

occupants fall into the midsize and large 

segments of the population. The ES–2re 

dummy would address the risk of injury 

of these occupants in side impacts.’’ The 

Alliance disagreed with NHTSA’s 

assertion that the ES–2re would address 

the risk of injury for the large-sized 

segment of the population. The Alliance 

stated, ‘‘[T]he ES–2re dummy 

anthropometry and weight are not 

representative of a large male.’’

Agency Response: The agency has 

assigned benefits to the 50th percentile 

adult male and 5th percentile adult 

female dummies in a similar manner as 

that conducted in the advanced air bag 

final rule of FMVSS No. 208 (65 FR 

30680; May 12, 2000). The 

countermeasures developed for the 50th 

percentile male are likely to benefit the 

95th percentile adult male. Differences 

in height between a midsize male and 

large male occupants in the UMTRI 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75309 

11The Alliance did not provide any data to 

substantiate a basis for comparison among tests, 

such as equivalency of vehicle crash pulses or 

intrusion patterns. 

12Samaha, R.S., Elliot, D., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact 

Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test 

Procedures,’’ supra. 

contoured seat study is 2.6 cm 

(approximately 1 inch), and in 

standardized normal driving posture is 

5 cm (1.96 inches) (UMTRI–83–53–1). 

The above data indicate that in a 

vehicle, the head of an ES–2re dummy 

would be lower than that of a large (95th 

percentile) male occupant by 

approximately 1 to 2 inches. FMVSS 

No. 214 pole test data indicate that 

curtain bags, at an inflated stage, come 

down far enough to cover the head of 

the ES–2re. Since the head of the seated 

95th percentile male is higher than that 

of the ES–2re 50th percentile adult male 

dummy, the countermeasures developed 

to meet the test using the ES–2re 50th 

percentile adult male dummy are likely 

to provide similar benefits to the 95th 

percentile adult male occupant. 

4. Abdominal Instrumentation 

The Alliance stated that OSRP 

reported that the ES–2re measured 

abdominal forces below an injury 

assessment reference value (IARV) in 

full-scale tests, whereas WorldSID 

measured abdominal deflections above 

an IARV.11 The commenter also stated 

that an upcoming research paper will 

report that the ES–2re is inadequately 

instrumented in the abdominal region, 

allowing it to miss important vehicle 

interactions. The Alliance stated that, in 

contrast to the ES–2re, the WorldSID 

presents a continuous surface through 

the thorax and abdomen up to the pelvis 

region, that is fully instrumented in the 

thorax and abdomen regions to ensure 

that all dummy to vehicle interactions 

are measured. 

Agency Response: The ES–2re makes 

possible a more complete assessment of 

vehicle performance in side impacts 

than the SID or the SID/HIII, which will 

lead to greater side impact protection for 

occupants. In a NASS study of side 

impact crashes, it was estimated that 

between 8.5 percent and 21.8 percent of 

all AIS 3+ injuries are to the abdomen 

of restrained near side front seat 

occupants.12 The abdominal load cells 

are sufficiently sensitive to measure the 

potential for injury. In an FMVSS No. 

214 moving deformable barrier (MDB) 

test described in the May 2004 NPRM 

(69 FR at 28010, Docket 17694), the ES–

2re detected a high abdominal force in 

the Chevrolet Impala at the dummy’s 

abdominal area that was caused by an 

intruding armrest. In full-scale vehicle 

oblique pole tests conducted by the 

agency (see ‘‘NHTSA Fleet Testing for 

FMVSS No. 214 Upgrade MY 2004–

2005,’’ discussed in Section V of this 

preamble), three vehicles exhibited 

loads which exceeded the IARV for the 

abdomen: the Ford 500, Chevy 

Colorado, and Ford Expedition. Because 

the current side impact dummy used in 

FMVSS No. 214 does not measure 

abdominal force, this potential injury 

risk will be newly detected by the ES–

2re. 

The commenter failed to show that 

the abdominal measurements of the ES–

2re are problematic or deficient. The 

injury measuring capabilities of the ES–

2re and the WorldSID are different. The 

WorldSID IARV for abdomen is based 

on abdomen rib deflection, while the 

ES–2re’s IARV used in the FMVSS No. 

214 final rule is based on loads 

measured at the abdomen (abdominal 

force limit of 2,500 N). Limiting the load 

to the abdomen will lead to important 

gains in occupant protection. 

The agency also believes that the ES–

2re is well instrumented in the abdomen 

region. The abdomen instrumentation is 

appropriately located and sensitive to 

lateral loading in the region above the 

pelvis and below the ribs. ES–2re 

drawing number 175–0000, sheet 4 of 5, 

provides information regarding the 

location of the abdominal load cells 

with respect to the pelvis and the lower 

rib of the thorax. The abdominal load 

cell extends from just below the upper 

surface of the pelvis, upward across the 

abdominal region, and ends 

approximately 50 mm below the lower 

surface of the lower thoracic rib. The 

load cell provides adequate coverage for 

measuring loads imparted to the 

abdominal region. 

5. Shoulder Design 

The Alliance referred to matched pair 

full-scale oblique pole tests that the 

commenter said Transport Canada (TC) 

conducted with the WorldSID and ES–

2re. The Alliance stated that visual 

observations made in the TC study 

indicated that the ES–2re shoulder 

‘‘rotated significantly’’ while the 

WorldSID shoulder ‘‘deflected laterally 

inward towards the spine of the 

dummy.’’ ‘‘This [WorldSID’s] motion is 

similar to the human shoulder tests run 

by Compigne et al,’’ which, the Alliance 

stated, showed that ‘‘the human 

shoulder deflects in oblique impact 

instead of rotating away from the 

impact’’ or ‘‘compresses inward and 

moves slightly backwards during 

loading from the front or directly from 

the side.’’ The Alliance stated that the 

ES–2re dummy’s shoulder rotates away 

from intruding structures, which can 

lead to a ‘‘reduced excursion of the head 

when compared to WorldSID head 

kinematics’’ and ‘‘lower rib deflections 

[compared to WorldSID] that were 

evenly distributed across the ribs.’’ To 

illustrate its comment, the Alliance 

referenced a Figure 18 in its submission, 

which depicted several camera images 

from tests on an Audi vehicle with 

thorax and window curtain side air bags 

using the ES–2re dummy and the 

WorldSID. The commenter also stated 

that in full-scale vehicle crash tests, 

‘‘The components of force measured at 

the shoulder of the ES–2re describe a 

combined loading characterized by 

equivalent longitudinal and lateral 

forces whereas the WorldSID forces are 

purely lateral.’’

Agency Response: Test data indicate 

that the ES–2re’s shoulder is fully 

acceptable. There is no indication of any 

detrimental effects in vehicle crash tests 

relating to the ES–2re’s shoulder design, 

such as rib flat-topping which might 

occur when the shoulder has reached its 

limit for range of motion. Further, upon 

examination of the Alliance’s Figure 18, 

we observe that: (1) The ES–2re’s 

shoulder and head appear to be higher 

relative to the vehicle interior than that 

of the WorldSID; (2) the ES–2re’s 

shoulder interacts substantially with the 

side curtain air bag, whereas the 

WorldSID’s shoulder does not appear to 

contact the window curtain air bag; (3) 

the ES–2re’s head contacts the window 

curtain air bag higher than does the 

WorldSID’s head, and possibly makes 

contact with the upper portion of the 

door trim. These observations indicate 

that the ES–2re and WorldSID dummies 

experienced different loading patterns, 

consistent with the lower seated height 

of the WorldSID. To the extent that the 

WorldSID development has not yet been 

completed, any assessment about 

differences in kinematics and impact 

responses between the two dummies is 

premature. Also, scientific information 

is not available at this time to support 

a determination as to whether the ES–

2re or the WorldSID has a better 

shoulder design. We believe the 

commenter’s reference to the Compigne 

study is not relevant. The Compigne 

research studied localized pendulum 

impacts to the shoulder in a controlled 

test environment, whereas the full-scale 

oblique pole crashes conducted by TC 

resulted in loading over a much broader 

area of the dummy, with no controls on 

the direction or magnitude of the 

loading. With regard to internal 

shoulder loading, the scientific 

literature on this subject has not 

characterized internal shoulder loads 

recorded during lateral and oblique 

shoulder impacts. In the studies, only 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

13Furthermore, rib deflection response variation 

could be attributed to variation in crash pulse or 

intrusion patterns, which were not quantified in the 

Alliance’s submission. We note also that the 

validity of the WorldSID’s rib deflection responses 

in a vehicle crash test has not been established. 

pendulum impact loads, an external 

load, have been recorded. In the absence 

of such data, it is not possible to 

establish a biofidelic basis for internal 

shoulder loads or to determine whether 

the ES–2re’s or the WorldSID’s internal 

shoulder responses better represent 

those of a human shoulder. 

6. Rib Deflections 

The Alliance’s comment included a 

discussion of full-vehicle tests 

conducted by the OSRP, Toyota, and 

Transport Canada. The OSRP conducted 

matched-pair full-scale vehicle tests to 

compare the responses of the ES–2re, 

ES–2, and WorldSID in two conditions: 

(a) FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests at 33.5 

mph of a 4-door, mid-size sedan, no air 

bag and a 4-door, small sedan, head/ 

torso side air bag (SAB); and (b) oblique 

pole test at 20 mph, 15° impact angle, 

of a 4-door, small sedan, head/torso 

SAB. The majority of the Alliance’s 

comments regarding the OSRP study are 

comparisons of the ES–2re responses to 

those of the WorldSID and ES–2. 

A. Rib Deflections of ES–2re vs. 

WorldSID in Perpendicular Impacts. 

The Alliance believed that in 

perpendicular impacts, the ES–2re 

exhibited higher rib deflections than 

either the WorldSID or ES–2. 

Agency Response: We note that the 

Alliance did not provide any data to 

substantiate a basis for comparison 

among tests, such as equivalency of 

vehicle crash pulses or intrusion 

patterns. Rib deflection response 

variation could be attributed to 

variations in crash pulse or intrusion 

patterns, which were not quantified in 

the Alliance’s submission. 

Further, with regard to the 

comparison between the ES–2 and the 

ES–2re, an increase in rib deflection is 

not unexpected or surprising. The ES–

2re’s rib extensions and modified back 

plate prevent the spine box from 

interacting with the vehicle seat. That 

interaction had limited the lateral torso 

translation of the ES–2 and provided an 

unrealistic load path in the dummy. 

Loads that would be absorbed by the 

spine box of the ES–2 are directed to 

other body segments in the ES–2re, such 

as the thorax, and thus a greater rib 

deflection in the ES–2re is anticipated. 

With regard to the comparison of ES–2re 

rib deflections with those of the 

WorldSID, the observation that the ES–

2re exhibited a different amount of rib 

deflection than that of the WorldSID 

does not indicate a shortcoming with 

the ES–2re. To the extent that the 

WorldSID development has not been 

completed, specific comments about 

differences in rib deflections in vehicle 

crash tests or comparative biofidelity 

between the two dummies are 

premature. 

B. Rib Deflections of ES–2re vs. 

WorldSID in Oblique Loading. The 

Alliance stated that the OSRP tests 

showed that the ES–2re exhibits lower 

rib deflections than either the WorldSID 

or ES–2 when subjected to oblique 

loading in FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests, 

and that Transport Canada observed 

‘‘under oblique loading conditions, the 

range of WorldSID rib deflections was 

much greater than the range of the ES–

2re rib deflections. * * * Therefore, 

WorldSID appears to be more sensitive 

to differences in loading along the torso 

and better able to discriminate different 

loading conditions than the ES–2re.’’

Agency Response: The observation 

that the ES–2re exhibited a different 

amount of rib deflection than that of the 

WorldSID and ES–2 does not indicate a 

shortcoming with the ES–2re.13 The 

ability of the ES–2re to measure rib 

deflections in a meaningful way in a 

vehicle crash test is discussed in the 

section, ‘‘Directional Impact 

Sensitivity,’’ infra. Inasmuch as the 

WorldSID development has not been 

completed, specific comments about 

differences in rib deflections in oblique 

vehicle crash tests are premature. While 

the agency remains committed to 

proposing the incorporation of the 

WorldSID when the dummy is fully 

developed and shown to be suitable, 

gains in occupant protection will result 

from use of the ES–2re in today’s side 

impact testing. 

7. Rib Extensions 

A. Back Plate Loads. The Alliance 

stated that the ES–2re back plate 

displayed reduced lateral loads and 

increased longitudinal loads as 

compared to the ES–2 when tested in 

FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests. 

Agency Response: The ‘‘no rib grab’’

modifications made to the ES–2 dummy 

are intended to preclude the dummy’s 

spine from acting directly as a lateral 

load path. Thus, it is reasonable to 

expect reduced lateral loads in the 

backplate of the ES–2re and somewhat 

increased front-to-back loading as the 

dummy interacts with the curvature of 

the seatback. The Alliance did not offer 

any supporting evidence that would 

indicate that the increase in 

longitudinal loads was unrealistic or 

that it resulted in any type of 

detrimental effect. NHTSA is unaware 

of detrimental effects that would arise 

due to increased longitudinal loading of 

the back plate. 

B. Load Path. The Alliance also 

provided comments on Toyota full-scale 

vehicle tests in which the performance 

of the ES–2 and ES–2re were compared 

for oblique pole impacts. The 

commenter stated that during the 

oblique pole test, the door trim 

separated from the back of the door and 

struck the dummy’s torso obliquely 

from the rear. The commenter believed 

that the rib extensions in the ES–2re 

provide a load path not found in the 

ES–2, and thus rib deflections for the 

ES–2re were greater than that observed 

in the ES–2. 

Agency Response: NHTSA believes 

that the rib extensions found in the ES–

2re represent a more humanlike 

continuous loading surface 

configuration than that of the ES–2. 

Since the ES–2 does not have structural 

elements at the oblique posterior 

location, there is nothing to impact, and 

so it is reasonable to expect lower rib 

deflections for oblique rear loading 

conditions than would occur for either 

the ES–2re, or in humans, under similar 

loading. 

c. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

A dummy’s repeatability and 

reproducibility is typically based on the 

results of component tests and sled 

tests. (Repeatability is the similarity of 

responses of a single dummy measured 

under multiple identical test conditions. 

Reproducibility is the smallness of 

response variability between different 

dummies of the same design under 

identical test conditions.) In the tests, 

the impact inputs as well as the test 

equipment are carefully controlled to 

minimize external effects on the 

dummy’s response. 

Component tests are typically better 

controlled than sled and vehicle tests, 

and thus produce more reliable 

estimates of the dummy’s repeatability 

and reproducibility than is possible in 

the latter-type tests. Component tests are 

used to establish the dummy’s 

component performance relative to the 

biomechanical corridors to which each 

major body segment must correctly 

respond. That is, if the dummy’s 

component is or becomes deficient, the 

component test will identify to the user 

that the component will not respond 

properly in impact tests. 

Sled tests offer a method of evaluating 

the dummy as a complete system in an 

environment more like a vehicle test. 

Sled tests establish the consistency of 

the dummy’s kinematics, its impact 

response as an assembly, and the 

integrity of the dummy’s structure and 

instrumentation under controlled and 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75311 

14 ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5. 

15The first test in the series with dummy S/N 

#070 was excluded. Upon review of the response 

traces after the test series was completed, it was 

noted that this test resulted in significantly lower 

abdominal and lumbar loads and larger rib 

displacements than in the remaining four tests. (See 

Appendix C, Figures C.10 through .18 of the 

Technical Report, Docket 18864–12, supra). Upon 

review, the data for that test indicated that impact 

contact with the abdominal offset block appear to 

have slightly favored the proximity of the lower rib 

rather than the middle of the abdomen, as had been 

the case in the subsequent four tests. This could 

have been caused either by a slight variation in the 

set-up of the dummy for the test or a slight posture 

realignment during the dummy’s movement while 

approaching the impact surface. Inasmuch as the 

seating procedure was not varied and this 

aberration did not reoccur in the four subsequent 

tests, this test was considered to be a legitimate 

outlier. 

representative crash environment test 

conditions. 

NPRM 

The NPRM stated that the agency’s 

component and sled repeatability and 

reproducibility tests were based on two 

dummies. (See ‘‘Technical Report—

Design, Development and Evaluation of 

the ES–2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’

Docket 17694.) 

Component Tests 

The component tests were conducted 

on head, neck, shoulder, upper rib, 

middle rib, lower rib, abdomen, lumbar 

spine and pelvis body regions. The 

repeatability assessment was made in 

terms of percent CV (Coefficient of 

Variance). A CV value of less than 5 

percent is considered excellent, 5–8 

percent good, 8–10 percent acceptable, 

and above 10 percent poor.14 The 

repeatability of the dummies was 

assessed in two separate series of tests. 

In the first series, the dummy 

calibrations were performed between 

sled or vehicle crash tests. In the second 

series, the calibration tests were 

performed consecutively without any 

other intermittent tests. In the first 

series, nine tests were performed with 

one of the dummies, and seven tests 

with the other. In the second series, two 

newly acquired dummies were exposed 

to five sets of calibration tests each. 

Reproducibility was assessed by 

comparing the average responses of both 

dummies. 

The results of the component 

repeatability tests indicated ‘‘excellent’’

and good repeatability for the ES–2re 

dummy for all components except for 

the pelvis, which had a rating 

classification of ‘‘good,’’ and the 

shoulder with a rating of ‘‘acceptable.’’

The reproducibility assessment was 

made in terms of response differences 

between each of the two sets of 

dummies with respect to the mean. The 

rating for reproducibility takes into 

account the cumulative variabilities of 

two or more dummies and is primarily 

indicative of the repeatability of the 

manufacturing process of the same type 

of dummy and to some extent the 

repeatability of design specifications, 

inspection, and test methodology. The 

reproducibility assessment does not 

serve the purposes of accepting or 

rejecting the dummy; rather it is an 

indication of how far the responses of 

different dummies could vary under 

identical test conditions. The results of 

the pooled component tests indicate 

that the neck, thorax, lumbar spine and 

pelvis responses are well below the 5% 

level and the head, shoulder and 

abdomen response below the 7% level. 

These levels are quite acceptable and 

consistent with the repeatability norms. 

Sled Tests 

To reduce test-to-test variation of sled 

pulse parameters, NHTSA tested two 

ES–2re dummies (designated ‘‘dummy 

#070’’ and ‘‘dummy #071’’) 

simultaneously on a dual occupant side 

impact Hyge sled buck developed by the 

agency. The sled pulse was an 

approximate half-sine wave, with the 

peak acceleration of 12.7 g’s and 

duration of approximately 80 ms. The 

impact speed was 6.7 meters per second 

(m/s) (22 ft/s). Two test conditions were 

used for the repeatability and 

reproducibility assessment: a flat rigid 

wall; and a rigid wall with abdomen 

offset (simulating a vehicle armrest). 

The two ES–2re dummies were exposed 

to two series of five Hyge sled tests, for 

a total of 10 test exposures per dummy. 

For the flat wall test condition, the 

wall was 374 mm (14.7 in) high from the 

front edge of the seat, and 368 mm (14.5 

in) long from the back of the seat. For 

the abdomen offset test condition, the 

same flat wall was used, with a 

protruding 305 mm (12 in) long, 76 mm 

(3 in) thick and 83 mm (3.3 in) wide 

wooden offset block attached to the 

wall. The offset block, simulating an 

armrest, was oriented such that it would 

impact the abdomen only, above the 

pelvis and below the lower rib. The 

objective of the abdomen offset tests was 

to provide a test environment with 

severe loading of the abdominal region. 

The sled buck incorporated a Tefloncovered bench seat with two Tefloncovered rails to support the seated 

dummies from behind. As the sled buck 

was accelerated, the buck slid beneath 

the dummies until the dummies’ left 

side impacted the rigid wall. 

High-speed digital video cameras 

were positioned in front of each dummy 

in order to capture head motion for use 

in performing motion analysis of the 

head translation. The dummies were 

instrumented with sensors to record 

principal injury indicators such as head, 

resultant lower spine (T12) and pelvis 

accelerations, rib deflections, 

abdominal, lumbar and pubic 

symphysis loads, and other parameters. 

A contact switch was positioned on the 

side of each dummy and on the load 

wall at the location of first contact to 

indicate the precise instant of dummy 

contact with the wall. 

Flat Rigid Wall Test Results 

Using the dummy rating practice set 

forth in ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5, generally 

the responses in the flat wall tests 

displayed either excellent or good 

repeatability, except for the lumbar Y 

(shear) force repeatability of dummy 

Serial Number (S/N) #070 falling 

outside the CV acceptability boundary 

at 14.8%. This elevated CV value for 

dummy #070 also was responsible for a 

reproducibility assessment at 17.5%. 

While these CV values are relatively 

high, the agency is not considering an 

injury assessment associated with this 

response. Moreover, this response is not 

considered to be of importance since it 

did not have an effect on either the 

magnitude of the loading or the 

variability of the adjacent structure 

responses, such as pubic symphysis, the 

abdomen and the T12. HIC responses 

exhibited excellent repeatability of each 

dummy and reproducibility of both 

dummies. In all tests, the rib 

displacement time history provided a 

smooth response, with no indications of 

the flat topping phenomena that had 

been a shortcoming of previous versions 

of the EuroSID, EuroSID–1, and the 

prototype ES–2 dummies. 

Rigid Wall With Abdomen Offset Test 

Results 

The responses for the abdomen offset 

sled tests 15 provided either excellent or 

good repeatability and reproducibility, 

except for one test in which the lumbar 

moment reproducibility response had a 

CV value of 16.7, which is only by 1.7% 

into the poor range. While this CV value 

is high, this measurement is not 

considered for injury assessment with 

the EuroSID, EuroSID–1 and ES–2re 

dummies. Furthermore, this slightly 

elevated response appears not to affect 

either the magnitude of the loading or 

the variability of the adjacent structure 

responses, such as pubic symphysis, the 

abdomen, the T12 moment and the rib 

displacement time history, without any 

indications of flat topping. 

Based on the above, the agency 

tentatively concluded that the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75312 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

ES–2re responses in flat wall and 

abdominal offset impacts are acceptable 

(generally in the order of ‘‘excellent’’). 

1. Sample Size 

Both the Alliance and Autoliv 

expressed concerns with the small 

sample size (n=2) of dummies used to 

establish repeatability and 

reproducibility of the ES–2re. The 

Alliance was concerned that only one 

dummy manufacturer was represented 

in the sample. The Alliance stated: ‘‘In 

order to get a reasonable assessment of 

dummy repeatability and 

reproducibility, it is necessary to subject 

six dummies, of each combination, to 

the same series of tests.’’

Agency Response: At the time NHTSA 

conducted its evaluation of the ES–2re, 

only one dummy manufacturer could 

provide NHTSA with production-ready 

samples of the dummy. That said, the 

agency nonetheless believes that the 

sample size (n=2) used for the NPRM 

was sufficient. The repeatability and 

reproducibility studies of the ES–2re 

described in the NPRM complemented 

the repeatability and reproducibility 

work previously conducted on the ES–

2 dummy. The ES–2 has been used for 

testing and research purposes in Europe, 

the United States and elsewhere for 

years and has proven repeatable and 

reproducible performance. The 

repeatability and reproducibility work 

on the ES–2re built on those earlier 

assessments of the ES–2 and showed 

that the ES–2 with the rib extensions 

had good to excellent repeatability and 

reproducibility. 

At the same time, we recognize that 

valid data can potentially be gleaned 

from tests of additional ES–2re test 

dummies with regard to the certification 

corridors used to assess performance of 

the dummy. As explained later in this 

preamble, the agency has therefore used 

ES–2re performance data submitted by 

the Alliance and the SAE in 

determining the certification corridors 

of this final rule, since the inclusive 

database is based on a larger sample size 

of ES–2re tests. 

2. Reproducibility of Pelvic Load 

Measurements 

The Alliance expressed concerns 

‘‘relative to the reproducibility of the 

pelvic load measurement of the 

EuroSID-family of dummies.’’ The 

commenter stated that it analyzed pelvic 

certification data provided by the SAE, 

studying the correlation between the 

internal and external loads measured in 

the pelvic impact certification test. The 

Alliance plotted the pubic symphysis 

load (internal loads) against the 

impactor force (external loads) and 

computed the coefficient of 

determination (R 2) for the relationship. 

The Alliance stated that the resulting R2

values were low and therefore expressed 

concern ‘‘* * *that the pelvic load 

measurement of the ES-families of 

dummies has a reproducibility 

issue.* * * ’’

Agency Response: We disagree with 

the implication that there is a need to 

establish controls on the ratio of force 

input to output for the pelvis 

certification test. The R2 is not a 

meaningful assessment in this case, 

because the external loads account for 

impact inputs through several portions 

of the dummy, such as friction of the 

dummy with the seat, lumbar spine 

shear, and compression of the flesh, 

whereas the pubic symphysis loading 

reflects internal loads between the two 

pelvis halves. Furthermore, the agency 

conducted an evaluation of the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

pelvis response in both certification and 

sled test environments (reference 

NHTSA–2004–18864–15 and –16, 

respectively). In certification testing 

(pendulum testing), the ES–2re 

dummies exhibited excellent 

repeatability and reproducibility for all 

response criteria. In the sled testing 

portion of the evaluation, both dummies 

displayed excellent repeatability and 

reproducibility when exposed to the 

flat-wall test condition. In the abdomen 

offset sled test condition, one dummy 

exhibited excellent repeatability, while 

the second dummy scored a good rating 

for repeatability. Taking the certification 

and sled test results both into account, 

the dummies’ pelvis response provided 

excellent reproducibility. Given these 

findings, the agency has concluded that 

the reproducibility of the pelvic load 

measurement of the ES–2re test dummy 

is acceptable. 

3. Sensitivity to Initial Conditions 

The Alliance believed that the ES–2re 

exhibited ‘‘an unacceptable sensitivity 

to initial conditions.’’ Citing an OSRP 

sled test study, the Alliance contended, 

‘‘The results show differences in the 

deflection responses depending on 

whether or not a contact switch was 

taped to the arm * * * ’’

Agency Response: In our review of the 

referenced OSRP study, we did not see 

a discussion indicating that the test 

parameters and setup procedures were 

reasonably controlled in a manner that 

would warrant comparison of the test 

results. The report offers no 

documentation of the dummy pre-test 

positioning, nor does it provide any 

analysis of the sled pulse or impact 

speeds. Variations in these conditions 

could produce the differences observed 

and would not indicate any deficiency 

with the ES–2re dummy. Furthermore, 

the addition of a contact switch to the 

dummy’s arm is not specified in the 

FMVSS No. 214 test procedure. Thus, 

the effect, if any, of a contact switch on 

shoulder response is not an issue 

relevant to this rulemaking proceeding. 

4. Rib Acceleration Response 

Ferrari provided comments on the 

ES–2re’s rib acceleration response in 

full-scale MDB tests. Ferrari said it 

observed ‘‘anomalous’’ peaks in the rib 

acceleration curves that happened 

between 67 and 73 ms after barrier 

impact with the vehicle. Ferrari 

provided plots of the upper, middle, 

and lower rib acceleration responses 

(Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the Ferrari 

submission). The plots indicated that 

secondary peaks exist in the time range 

between 67 and 73 ms after barrier 

impact with the vehicle. For the upper 

rib, the peak acceleration in this time 

range was approximately 400 g, while 

the peaks for the middle and lower ribs 

were on the order of 1,200 and 1,400 g. 

Ferrari believed the peaks are 

anomalous since ‘‘the dummy is still far 

from the door’’ during this time period, 

and thus the peaks ‘‘are not the result 

of any contact of the dummy torso with 

the interior surfaces.’’ Ferrari further 

stated that the ‘‘anomalous’’ rib 

acceleration peaks were coincident with 

an acceleration peak in the ‘‘VB12 

signal,’’ which NHTSA assumes to be a 

reference to the lower spine 

acceleration. Ferrari suggested that the 

source of the anomaly is insufficient 

damping of the rebound motion of the 

rib. Ferrari did not indicate the filter 

specifications used in processing the 

data they analyzed. 

Agency Response: NHTSA has 

reviewed the rib acceleration responses 

from a series of 10 sled tests conducted 

to evaluate the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the dummy’s 

responses (reference NHTSA Technical 

Report, ‘‘Repeatability and 

Reproducibility of the ES–2re Dummy 

in the Sled Test Environment,’’ June 

2004, NHTSA Docket No. 2004–18864–

16). In this review, we did not observe 

any occurrence of a secondary peak 

similar to that described by Ferrari. 

Further, anomalous peaks did not occur 

in the data from the vehicle crash tests 

conducted in support of the FMVSS No. 

214 NPRM (these data are discussed 

later in this preamble). We note also that 

some comments to the FMVSS No. 214 

NPRM suggested that NHTSA should 

not adopt any injury criteria in FMVSS 

No. 214 associated with the ES–2re’s 

resultant lower spine acceleration (for 

reasons unrelated to Ferrari’s 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75313 

16The steering committee of the EEVC is 

composed of representatives from European 

national governments. The EEVC conducts research 

in motor vehicle safety and develops 

recommendations for test devices and procedures 

that governments can decide to adopt into national 

regulations. 

comments). The agency will respond to 

this suggestion in the FMVSS No. 214 

final rule. If the agency agrees with the 

suggestion, the ES–2re’s lower spine 

acceleration will not be used in the 

FMVSS No. 214 compliance tests. 

d. Directional Impact Sensitivity 

The NPRM noted that limited testing 

of the ES–2re’s thorax in oblique 

pendulum impacts indicated some 

sensitivity in the rib deflection and 

spine acceleration responses. The 

NPRM noted also that the European 

Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee 

(EEVC)1 16 had also found similar 

sensitivity in the ES–2’s thorax rib 

compression measurements in oblique 

pendulum impact tests. However, 

NHTSA tentatively concluded in the 

NPRM that the pendulum test was not 

necessarily reflective of the dynamic 

interaction between impacted door and 

occupant during the crash event. In the 

pendulum test, the loading was imposed 

on the dummy’s ribcage in a fixed, large 

oblique impact angle throughout the 

entire loading period as well as by an 

impactor that produced a very 

concentrated, localized loading to the 

ribcage. The agency stated that test data 

from our full scale crash tests did not 

indicate evidence of the sensitivity 

produced in pendulum type impacts. 

Comments were requested on whether 

dummy users have seen such effects in 

measured responses during full scale 

vehicle crash tests. 

Citing research conducted by the 

Partnership for Dummy Technology and 

Biomechanics (PDB) (the PDB is an 

association of automobile manufacturers 

and equipment suppliers) and the 

OSRP, the Alliance expressed concerns 

over the ES–2re’s response to oblique 

impacts. In contrast, Autoliv stated ‘‘we 

do not feel that the effect of oblique 

loading on the ES–2 dummy rib 

deflection measurements in most full 

scale crash tests is significant.’’

1. Impact Direction 

According to the Alliance, the PDB 

conducted sled tests using a padded 

wall that could be rotated to provide 

impact angles of 0°, +15° (oblique front), 

or ¥15°, (oblique rear). Each test 

condition (0°, +15° and ¥15°) was 

repeated three times, with the ES–2, the 

ES–2re, and the WorldSID. The 

commenter stated that the PDB found 

that the ES–2re exhibited decreased 

peak rib deflections when impacted 

obliquely from the front (+15°), as 

compared to purely lateral impacts. The 

Alliance stated that PDB believed that 

the ES–2 and ES–2re are ‘‘highly 

sensitive to changes in the angle of the 

impact surface,’’ whereas, the Alliance 

stated, the WorldSID ‘‘is much less 

sensitive to impact direction, which is 

especially important for oblique 

loading.’’

Agency Response: There is no 

biofidelic standard for rib deflection 

response in oblique loading in the sled 

test environment that has been 

published and accepted by the 

biomechanics community. Thus, it 

cannot be determined that the ES–2re’s 

response characteristics inadequately 

replicate the human rib deflection 

response in oblique loading, or that the 

WorldSID’s response characteristics are 

a better match to this criteria than the 

response of the ES–2re. It could be that 

the ribs of a human occupant would 

respond differently to oblique loads 

than it would to lateral loads. 

Moreover, NHTSA believes that the 

ES–2re’s rib response in vehicle crash 

tests is fully satisfactory. Our analysis of 

the thoracic response of the ES–2re 

demonstrated that the dummy’s thoracic 

responses provide valid data. See 

‘‘Comparison of title and date of ES–2 

Driver Dummy in Lateral vs. Oblique 

Pole Impacts and ES–2re Driver and 

Passenger Dummies in FMVSS No. 214 

Type MDB Crash Tests,’’ (October 2006), 

placed in the docket for this final rule 

(Docket 25441). As discussed in the 

report, we analyzed crash data from 

oblique and perpendicular pole tests of 

a 1999 Maxima and a 2001 Saturn 

which were not equipped with side air 

bag systems. The rib deflections of the 

ES–2re in the driver’s seating position 

were almost identical in the oblique and 

perpendicular pole tests. The rib 

deflections of the dummies were 

consistent in time and were of similar 

magnitude. There was no indication of 

flat-topping, binding or distortion of the 

deflection signal due to oblique loading. 

In addition, T1 driver lateral 

acceleration was consistent and did not 

show differences between oblique and 

perpendicular impacts. 

While both the lower spine 

accelerations (T12) and the summed 

abdominal forces for the driver ES–2re 

were higher in the oblique pole test 

configuration, the oblique pole test was 

run at a higher impact speed than the 

perpendicular test (20 mph versus 18 

mph), which likely increased the 

dummy based measurements. Also, in 

the oblique pole test, the lower part of 

the dummy torso appears to be loaded 

earlier in the crash event than in a 

perpendicular test, which indicates that 

the T12 and abdominal forces could be 

higher because initial loading is more 

through the lower part of the torso. 

We also analyzed the measurements 

of the ES–2re in FMVSS No. 214 MDB 

tests of a 2001 Ford Focus, 2002 

Chevrolet Impala equipped with a 

combo head/thorax side air bag for the 

driver, and a 2004 Honda Accord 

equipped with a thorax bag. Overall, the 

driver rib deflections were higher than 

the deflections for the rear passenger 

dummy. However, a different loading 

environment caused the lower rib 

deflections for the ES–2re in the rear 

seat as compared to the driver. Rib 

deflections showed a slow rise, and the 

peaks occurred about 10 milliseconds 

later than those of the driver dummy. 

The loading duration was also 

considerably longer. The passenger rib 

deflections were consistently lower 

towards the bottom of the ribcage. 

For the Focus, the driver and rear 

passenger T12 accelerations were 

comparable. For the Impala and Accord, 

the rear passenger T12 acceleration was 

larger than that of the driver dummy. 

This difference could be attributed to 

the fact that both the Impala and Accord 

had a thorax side air bag for the driver 

position and none for the rear passenger 

position. 

Use of the ES–2re dummy in vehicle 

crash tests did not indicate any 

detrimental effects due to shoulder 

design, such as rib flat-topping or 

distortion of signals, which, if such had 

occurred, would have showed that the 

shoulder had reached its limit for range 

of motion or had otherwise performed 

unacceptably due to a forward motion of 

the clavicles. Further, the data from the 

tests did not show any sensitivity to 

oblique loading in the dummy’s 

abdomen. The passenger abdominal 

force for the Impala was very large 

compared to the driver abdominal force, 

but this was due primarily to large 

structural intrusions (the test film shows 

the arm rest intruding into the dummy 

in the MDB test). This indicates a 

localized loading through the abdomen 

for the Impala passenger (resulting in an 

off-loading condition for the chest and, 

thus, much lower rib deflection 

measurements as compared to the driver 

dummy). For the Accord, the passenger 

abdominal force was larger than the 

driver abdominal force, but the 

difference could be attributed to the 

presence of the side air bag in the driver 

position. 

In conclusion, the data show that 

there is virtually no effect due to 

oblique loading in the ES–2re deflection 

readings in oblique pole tests as 

compared to perpendicular pole 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75314 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

17 In response to a specific comment made by the 

Alliance, it should be noted that dummy 

component durability is not a simple function of 

the number of tests conducted. Test severity is a 

much more significant factor in determining 

component life. Any dummy, be it an ES–2re or a 

Hybrid III 50th dummy, may require rib 

replacement after a single test if the test severity is 

substantial or the structural and/or occupant 

protection systems do not sufficiently attenuate the 

energy distribution of the crash. 

impacts, and no indication of sensitivity 

in MDB tests. 

2. Rib Binding in ISO 9790 Tests 

The Alliance stated that OSRP 

subjected the ES–2re to linear impactor 

tests using the ISO 9790, Thorax Test 2 

methodology. Impacts were conducted 

at 0°; at forward oblique angles of +15° 

and +30°; and rearward oblique angles 

of ¥15° and ¥30°. The commenter 

stated that, when impacted at +30°, the 

ES–2re’s rib deflection response 

exhibited a delayed onset and nearly 20 

mm lower peak deflection as compared 

to the lateral (0°) impacts. ‘‘These 

observations * * * lead the OSRP to 

conclude that the rib system of the ES–

2re initially binds when impacted from 

an angle of 30 degrees forward of 

lateral.’’

Agency Response: Rib binding is 

typically observed as a flat period in the 

displacement-time history of the rib 

response, which is referred to as ‘‘flattopping.’’ Although the Alliance 

suggested that rib binding is occurring 

during the +30°oblique impact, the data 

provided by the Alliance do not exhibit 

any flat-topping in the rib deflection 

response. NHTSA has done testing with 

the ES–2re dummy similar to the impact 

tests conducted by the OSRP and has 

not observed a delayed onset such as 

that reported by the Alliance 

(referencing the OSRP tests). As stated 

in the preceding section, we have also 

concluded that crash test data do not 

indicate evidence of the magnitude of 

sensitivity produced in the pendulum 

type impacts. Thus, we do not concur 

with the OSRP’s concern of rib binding 

when impacted obliquely in the ISO 

9790 test procedure. 

3. ISO 9790 Ratings for Lateral and 

Oblique Impacts 

The Alliance compared the ES–2re’s 

impactor force-time histories from the 

lateral and oblique impacts to the 

corridor published for ISO 9790 Thorax 

Test 2. The commenter stated that there 

is a ‘‘fair’’ rating for the lateral impacts 

(biofidelity score = 5) and an 

‘‘unacceptable’’ rating for the oblique 

forward impacts (biofidelity score = 0). 

Agency Response: The Alliance’s 

comments again question the dummy’s 

oblique response characteristics. As 

previously explained, NHTSA believes 

that the ES–2re’s rib response in vehicle 

crash tests is fully acceptable for this 

rulemaking effort. Crash test data 

indicate that there is virtually no effect 

due to oblique loading on the driver ES–

2re deflection readings in oblique pole 

tests as compared to perpendicular pole 

impacts. Furthermore, the ES–2re 

represents a significant improvement in 

biofidelity as compared to the SID and 

SID–HIII dummies currently specified 

for use in FMVSS No. 214. NHTSA’s 

biofidelity evaluation using the 

Biofidelity Ranking System indicated 

that the ES–2re is superior to the SID–

HIII. OSRP’s research also supports this 

conclusion in that it has shown that the 

ES–2re is superior to the SID using the 

ISO biofidelity evaluation methodology. 

The ES–2re can also detect critical 

loading by intruding vehicle structures 

at the head and lower torso levels that 

are undetected by the SID. Adopting the 

ES–2re and the injury assessment 

reference values associated with the risk 

of injury to occupants will substantially 

enhance the safety of occupants in side 

impacts. 

e. Durability 

Autoliv concurred with NHTSA in 

concluding that the ES–2re has ‘‘good 

durability and withstands high severity 

loading.’’ In contrast, citing a statement 

in the Part 572 NPRM regarding 

replacement of parts in full-scale crash 

testing (69 FR at 55556), the Alliance 

expressed concern that the ES–2re 

required replacement of ribs after ten 

full-scale vehicle crash tests, whereas 

‘‘[i]t is usual for a Hybrid III 50th or 5th 

to endure approximately 25 full vehicle 

crash tests before requiring a full rib set 

replacement.’’

Agency Response: The durability of 

the ES–2re is fully acceptable. NHTSA 

conducted an extensive evaluation of 

the ES–2re dummy, which exposed two 

dummies to 10 rigid-wall sled tests and 

5 repeats of each certification test. In 

addition, one dummy was exposed to 

increased severity component tests, 

designed specifically to assess the 

durability of the ES–2re. In this testing, 

the proposed certification test 

procedures were followed, except the 

impact energies were increased by as 

much as 30 percent. The increased 

energy levels were achieved by 

performing the certification tests at 

higher velocities. The dummy was 

exposed to three repeats each of the 

increased severity neck and lumbar 

tests; and five repeats each of the 

shoulder, abdomen, and pelvis tests 

(reference NHTSA Technical Report, 

‘‘Evaluation of the EuroSID–2re 

Certification Test Repeatability and 

Reproducibility,’’ July, 2004, NHTSA 

Docket Number 2004–18864–15). Next, 

both dummies were subjected to severe 

thoracic impacts with a 23.4 kg 

impactor at 6.7 m/s in the development 

of a proposed full-body thorax impact 

test procedure (reference NHTSA 

Technical Report ‘‘Development of A 

Full-Body Thorax Certification 

Procedure and Preliminary Response 

Requirements for the ES–2re Dummy,’’

Sept. 2004, NHTSA Docket Number 

2004–18864–17). One dummy was 

subjected to 5 exposures and another 

was subjected to 15 impacts. 

Throughout these evaluations 

described above, the components of 

each dummy were inspected for any 

instance of excessive wear or failure. 

The dummies did not exhibit any 

observable component damage or 

failure.17

Finally, in addition to the tests 

described above, the ES–2re was 

subjected to 14 pole test exposures and 

14 vehicle crash (MDB) test exposures 

without significant durability problems. 

Both dummies required one new 

shoulder foam mid-way through the test 

series. Also, one dummy required the 

replacement of a rib displacement 

transducer that failed for reasons not 

known, and the other dummy needed a 

new skin suit and one rib after intruding 

interior components cut through the 

skin suit and damaged the skin and 

foam of the rib. Collectively, these 

observations lead to the conclusion that 

the durability of the ES–2re dummy is 

fully acceptable for its intended use in 

FMVSS No. 214. 

f. Symmetry 

The NPRM explained that NHTSA 

believed that the ES–2re dummy will 

perform equally well, upon appropriate 

conversion when struck on either side, 

i.e., in both driver (left) side and 

passenger (right) side crash tests. The 

agency noted that predecessor test 

dummy to the ES–2re (the EuroSID–1) 

has been and still is being used in 

England, Japan and Australia for right 

side impacts. The EuroSID–1 has the 

same left to right side impact conversion 

provisions as the ES–2re. The agency 

explained that the agency’s ES–2re users 

manual (the Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly and Inspection) (‘‘PADI’’) 

discusses the steps needed to be taken 

to convert the dummy for use from the 

left to the right side of the vehicle. 

The Alliance expressed concern for 

symmetry of the ES–2re’s abdomen 

response, i.e., the dummy’s ability to 

provide similar responses when 

impacted on the right and left sides. The 

Alliance, referring to a 2002 Stapp paper 

by Byrnes, et al., stated: ‘‘armrest forces 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75315 

from the right side impacts in Abdomen 

Test 2 were approximately 40% higher 

than those from the left side.’’

Agency Response: In the 2002 Stapp 

study cited by the Alliance, thorax 

impacts and abdomen drop tests were 

conducted with the ES–2 (standard 

version) dummy. Tests were conducted 

with the dummy configured for left or 

right side impacts to evaluate the 

symmetry of the ES–2. (From review of 

the paper, it is not possible to determine 

the quantity of tests conducted for each 

configuration.) The paper concluded 

that the ES–2 provided symmetrical 

responses in the thorax tests and in 

Abdomen Test 1. 

NHTSA does not believe that the 

Byrnes study definitively identifies a 

shortcoming with the dummy’s 

reversibility characteristics. Variations 

observed in Abdomen Test 2 were 

attributed to ‘‘a higher variability in the 

test procedure.’’ The report noted, ‘‘The 

difference observed * * * can be 

partially explained by the increased 

variability due to greater drop distance. 

Since the dummy had further to fall, it 

is more susceptible to rotating prior to 

impact with the armrest.’’

Additionally, the agency conducted 

tests to evaluate the symmetry of 

response. In the study, the ES–2re 

dummy was configured for right side 

impacts and certification tests were 

performed with the head, neck, 

abdomen, lumbar, and pelvis, as well as 

a full-body thorax impact. The results 

indicated that the ES–2re dummy was 

fully capable of meeting the certification 

response requirements when configured 

for right side impacts, as well as left 

side impacts. Accordingly, all data 

indicate that the dummy performs well 

when used on either side of the vehicle. 

g. Using the ES–2 Test Dummy 

ES–2re v. ES–2 

The Alliance supported the ES–2 

dummy as a temporary alternative test 

device, pending the availability of 

WorldSID. The Alliance supported the 

ES–2 because the dummy is already 

implemented in both EuroNCAP and the 

UN ECE-regulation 95.02 Supplement 1, 

i.e., ‘‘at least the ES–2 is harmonized 

with Europe and already in widespread 

use.’’

Agency Response: The ES–2re is more 

appropriate for use in FMVSS No. 214 

than the ES–2 dummy. As explained 

above in this preamble, and in the May 

2004 FMVSS No. 214 NPRM and in the 

September 2004 NPRM preceding this 

final rule, the ES–2 dummy has a 

deficiency that limits its usefulness in 

FMVSS No. 214. The agency determined 

that, in a number of vehicle crash tests, 

the back plate of the ES–2’s upper torso 

grabbed into the seat back of the vehicle, 

which lowered the rib deflections 

measured by the dummy. (‘‘Design, 

Development, and Evaluation of the ES–

2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’ May 

2004, NHTSA Docket No. 17694–11.) 

This ‘‘back plate grabbing’’ problem has 

long existed in the ES–2 line of 

dummies. Although efforts were 

undertaken to address the problem in 

dummies preceding the ES–2, the back 

plate grabbing problem has continued 

with the ES–2. Back plate grabbing has 

been seen within the ES–2 in the nongovernmental European New Car 

Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) on 

side impact. EuroNCAP accounts for the 

problem by adjusting downward the 

consumer rating scores of vehicles when 

back plate grabbing is deemed to have 

occurred. 

The ES–2re has rib extensions that 

solve the back plate grabbing problem of 

the ES–2. The rib extensions provide a 

continuous loading surface that nearly 

encircles the thorax and encloses the 

posterior gap of the ES–2 ribcage that 

was responsible for the ‘‘grabbing’’

effects. Test data show that the rib 

extensions reduced the back plate 

grabbing force to insignificant amounts 

in vehicle side impact tests that had 

previously yielded large back plate 

loads with the ES–2. The rib extensions 

did not affect rib deflection responses in 

tests of vehicles that had not originally 

yielded high back plate loads. 

As discussed above, we have found 

the biofidelity, repeatability, 

reproducibility, and other aspects of the 

ES–2re to be fully acceptable. In short, 

considering all aspects of the ES–2re 

and ES–2 dummies, we conclude that 

the ES–2re dummy should be 

incorporated into FMVSS No. 214 rather 

than the ES–2. 

The ES–2re Should Measure More Than 

HIC 

While supporting the ES–2 over the 

ES–2re, the Alliance stated that both test 

dummies have design features that 

affect the dummies’ thoracic responses 

and the resulting rib deflection 

measurements. According to the 

commenter, the ‘‘limited stroke piston/ 

cylinder mechanism’’ of the dummies 

can bind in a lateral impact, and the 

‘‘binding potential is further 

compounded as the lateral impact 

becomes more oblique.’’ Further, as 

discussed above in this preamble, the 

Alliance also objected to the shoulder 

design and abdomen and pelvis of the 

ES–2re and ES–2. The commenter said 

that NHTSA should just require 

manufacturers to meet a head protection 

criterion, and not criteria assessing 

injury to the thorax, abdomen or pelvis. 

We are denying this request. As 

discussed previously, NHTSA analyzed 

response data from matched pairs of 

oblique and lateral pole tests with two 

non-air bag equipped vehicles. In doing 

so, NHTSA determined that the rib 

deflection responses in both oblique and 

purely lateral tests were consistent in 

time and similar in magnitude. The 

agency concluded that there is virtually 

no effect due to oblique loading in the 

driver ES–2re deflection readings in 

oblique pole tests as compared to 

perpendicular pole impacts. The data 

also do not demonstrate an indication of 

sensitivity to oblique loading in MDB 

tests. In sum, the data show that there 

are no deficiencies with the ES–2re that 

would justify limiting its injury 

assessment to that of HIC only. To the 

contrary, the test data from the Impala 

test show that the abdominal response 

of the ES–2re in the rear passenger 

position in the MDB test detected 

critical loading by intruding vehicle 

structures at the lower torso level. In a 

NASS study of side impact crashes, it 

was estimated that between 8.5 percent 

and 21.8 percent of all AIS 3+ injuries 

are to the abdomen of restrained near 

side front seat occupants. (Samaha, R.S., 

Elliot, D., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact 

Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test 

Procedures’’, 18th International 

Technical Conference on the Enhanced 

Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV), 

Paper No. 492, 2003.) Adopting the ES–

2re and the injury assessment reference 

values associated with the risk of injury 

to an occupant’s thorax, abdomen and 

pelvis will enhance the safety of 

occupants in side impacts. 

h. Test Dummy Drawing Package 

As set forth in the NPRM, the ES–2re 

test dummy is specified by way of a 

drawing package, parts list, user manual 

(PADI), and performance certification 

tests. The two-dimensional drawings 

and the PADI ensure that the dummies 

are the same in their design and 

construction. The performance 

certification tests serve to establish the 

uniformity of dummy assembly, 

structural integrity, consistency of 

impact response and adequacy of 

instrumentation. The repeatability of the 

dummy’s impact response in vehicle 

certification tests is thereby ensured. 

Both DATD and the Alliance 

expressed concerns regarding the lack of 

3-dimensional (3–D) shape definitions 

and material specifications for the 

dummy. Additionally, FTSS and DATD 

suggested corrections to perceived 

errors present in the drawing package. 

These comments are addressed below. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75316 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

18Although two-dimensional drawing 

specifications are sufficient for agency rulemaking 

purposes, we will explore the feasibility of 

developing three-dimensional scans for future 

research and development purposes. Furthermore, 

for a period of 180 days following publication of 

this final rule, we will have available for public 

inspection two (2) of the ES–2re dummies used by 

the agency in the development of the rule. To make 

arrangements to inspect these dummies, contact Dr. 

Bruce Donnelly at NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and 

Test Center, P.O. Box B37, East Liberty, Ohio, 

43319, or by telephone at 1–800–262–8309. 

1. 3–D Shape Definitions 

DATD requested that NHTSA specify 

3–D patterns, either physical or 

electronic, for all complex dummy 

parts. The Alliance contended that the 

‘‘current drawing package does not 

contain adequate detail for suppliers to 

manufacture comparable dummies. To 

allow multiple manufacturers to 

produce interchangeable parts and 

dummies with consistent performance, 

NHTSA must provide a drawing 

package that is sufficiently specific, 

including manufacturing tolerances. 

The drawing package for the ES–2re 

does not contain 3–D surface models.’’

Agency Response: We are denying the 

request to provide three-dimensional 

patterns to specify the dummy. The ES–

2re drawings are comparable in detail to 

all other dummies previously 

incorporated into 49 CFR part 572. No 

dummy specification in part 572 

contains three-dimensional patterns. 

This is because three-dimensional 

patterns are unnecessary in inspecting 

whether the dummy is acceptable for 

use in an agency test. The agency finds 

two-dimensional drawing specifications 

sufficient to assure proper 

anthropometry, composition and 

assembly, and functionality of the 

dummy in designated crash tests.18

The drawing package sets forth the 

criteria that the agency uses to 

determine acceptability of the dummy 

through an inspection process. The 

drawing package alone is not sufficient 

to manufacture a dummy, or to ensure 

the interchangeability of parts between 

dummies manufactured by different 

business entities. Although the agency 

does not provide three-dimensional 

drawings, shape dimensions are 

provided in the form of surface widths, 

lengths, and circumferences. The 

drawing package specifies features that 

are important to establish the 

appropriate anthropometry and 

composition of the dummy. The test 

device is typically intended to be 

representative of a segment of an 

identified population, e.g., small adult 

females or mid-size adult males. 

Accordingly, the dimensions and mass 

of the dummy are specified to ensure 

that the dummy physically represents 

the population intended. The 

dimensions, mass distribution and range 

of motion of dummy parts are also 

specified to ensure that the kinematics 

of the test device in a crash test 

replicates that of the human occupant 

and to assure that the dummy’s 

instrumentation performs as intended. 

The PADI document also provides 

procedures for a dummy’s assembly and 

disassembly during inspection. The 

document insures that a dummy is 

assembled properly for conducting the 

tests. 

The performance specifications that 

are set forth in 49 CFR part 572 establish 

the impact response requirements for 

the dummy. To determine the 

acceptability of a dummy, the dummy is 

inspected for its conformance to the 

drawing package and is tested according 

to the certification tests in part 572. The 

agency conducts impact tests for 

individual body segments and their 

assemblies, and on the dummy as a 

whole to determine acceptance. The 

impact calibration tests and associated 

instrumented measurements address the 

accuracy and consistency of dummy 

responses in crash events. 

The two-dimensional drawings, PADI 

document and impact performance 

requirements enable the establishment 

of an objective, repeatable test device. 

Dummies reflecting the configuration of 

the parts and their assemblies contained 

in these drawings have been 

successfully used for the development 

and evaluation of occupant protection 

systems in a variety of simulated and 

full-scale crash tests. Use of the twodimensional drawings limited to 

minimal but critical specifications 

affords dummy manufacturers an 

amount of flexibility to generate their 

own manufacturing and process 

drawings and to use whatever 

procedures are needed to facilitate 

production, which would be 

constrained if the drawings and other 

specifications were specified such as by 

use of three-dimensional patterns. Such 

restrictions in the design and 

production of the test dummy by 

government regulation is unnecessary, 

may impede technology development 

and manufacturing innovation, and may 

increase the costs of test dummies and 

crash tests. If manufacturers want more 

explicit design and manufacturing 

specifications and construction 

instructions to enable them to 

interchange parts among different test 

devices, the dummy manufacturers 

could work with or through technical 

societies and manufacturer associations 

to attain their desired objectives. 

For the aforementioned reasons, the 

agency is not specifying threedimensional patterns for the dummy 

parts. 

2. Material Specifications 

DATD stated that numerous drawings 

lacked sufficient specification of 

materials necessary to manufacture a 

reproducible dummy. DATD 

recommended that NHTSA provide 

performance-based specifications for all 

materials. 

Agency Response: On Aug. 2, 2005, 

NHTSA met with representatives of 

DATD to allow the manufacturer to 

clarify their comments regarding the 

ES–2re drawing package. The DATD 

comments were provided electronically 

on August 22, 2005 in PDF format and 

have been submitted to the docket 

(reference NHTSA–2004–18864–33 and 

34). NHTSA and DATD reviewed a 

number of drawings and DATD 

provided feedback to explain why the 

material specifications were inadequate. 

DATD stated that many of the material 

specifications listed in the NPRM 

drawing package referenced nonstandard, European, and/or British 

material specifications. DATD 

recommended appending numerous 

material specifications with the 

qualifying phrase ‘‘Or Equivalent.’’

DATD is correct that many of the 

material specifications referenced 

European standards, in part due to the 

European origin of the ES–2re. Material 

suppliers in the United States typically 

do not certify their materials to meet the 

European standards. Thus, maintaining 

European specifications could 

potentially force U.S. dummy 

manufacturers to obtain materials at a 

higher cost. 

Appending the material specifications 

with ‘‘Or Equivalent,’’ as DATD 

suggests, could potentially provide the 

dummy manufacturers with the 

opportunity to use alternate materials 

that are functionally equivalent to the 

European-specified materials. However, 

the agency is concerned that the phrase 

‘‘Or Equivalent’’ is open to wide 

interpretation. For example, would the 

phrase ‘‘Or Equivalent’’ mean that two 

materials must have the same chemical 

structure or physical properties? What 

differences, if any, are allowed between 

two ‘‘equivalent’’ materials and how 

would differences be quantified? On the 

other hand, NHTSA is concerned about 

maintaining material specifications that 

cannot be readily satisfied by all of the 

dummy manufacturers. Further, NHTSA 

believes that dummy manufacturers, in 

the case of European-based material and 

surface finish specifications, should 

have some latitude in material selection 

based on functional, density and 

stiffness similarities, so long as the final 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75317 

product meets the drawing package 

specifications and dynamic certification 

requirements in 49 CFR Part 572. 

To provide the flexibility for use of 

either European materials or U.S. based 

materials that meet the European 

specifications, the agency has changed 

the material ‘‘requirements’’ to material 

‘‘references.’’ In this way, the drawing 

package can provide a starting point for 

material selection, but the materials 

referenced in the drawings are not 

required to be used as long as the 

materials used for the dummy provide 

functional, density and stiffness 

similarities enabling the device to meet 

the drawing package specifications and 

the dynamic performance requirements 

in the 49 CFR Part 572 certification 

tests. This is the case even if the 

materials used are not identical to the 

material references listed on the 

individual component drawings. 

Accordingly, the agency has changed all 

material and finish specifications to 

‘‘material reference’’ and ‘‘finish 

reference.’’

3. Dummy Drawing Changes 

DATD and FTSS suggested 

corrections or other changes to over 50 

drawings in the ES–2re drawing 

package. Almost all of these were minor 

changes. The suggestions are discussed 

in detail in Appendix A to this 

preamble, ‘‘Specific Drawing Comments 

and Agency Responses to Those 

Comments.’’ NHTSA generally concurs 

with the recommended changes to the 

drawings, except for DATD’s suggested 

change to Drawing 175–1010 on the 

upper neck load cell replacement, and 

FTSS’s suggested change to Drawings 

175–4040, –4041 and –4042 on damper 

springs. Appendix A explains the 

reasoning behind each of our decisions 

on the drawings. 

i. Certification Procedures and Response 

Corridors 

The performance certification tests in 

this final rule serve to assure that the 

ES–2re responses are within the 

established biomechanical corridors and 

further assure the uniformity of dummy 

assembly, structural integrity, 

consistency of response and adequacy of 

instrumentation. The tests ensure the 

repeatability of the dummy’s impact 

response in vehicle compliance tests. 

The agency proposed certification 

tests for components of the ES–2re 

dummy (for the head, neck, thorax, and 

lumbar spine) and tests for local areas 

(the shoulder, abdomen, and pelvis) of 

a fully assembled seated dummy. The 

agency also explored adopting a fullbody thorax certification test in addition 

to or instead of individual rib module 

tests. 

1. Overview of the Comments 

The Alliance, DATD, FTSS and 

Autoliv commented on the proposed 

certification procedures and response 

corridors. 

The Alliance stated that the Alliance 

and the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Dummy Testing 

Equipment Subcommittee (DTESC) have 

agreed to accept, with minor suggested 

changes, the proposed tests for the head 

drop, shoulder, thorax (rib module drop 

test), and abdomen because the test 

protocols and corridors for those tests 

‘‘are essentially the same as those 

specified in the ECE–R95 European Side 

Impact Regulation.’’ The Alliance stated 

that the SAE DTESC determined that it 

was necessary to establish a larger 

database of component certification data 

for the proposed neck pendulum, 

lumbar spine and pelvis tests, and 

solicited that ‘‘committee members 

submit fairly recent and representative 

test data’’ for these tests ‘‘in order to 

establish a larger database that will 

better represent the certification 

performance of these components in the 

field.’’ The Alliance provided the data 

that the SAE DTESC obtained, and 

supported the NPRM’s proposed 

corridors and protocols for the neck 

pendulum, lumbar spine, and pelvis 

certification tests, as modified by the 

suggestions of the SAE DTESC. 

(Hereinafter, comments of the Alliance 

that reflect the SAE DTESC suggestions 

are referred to as comments of the 

‘‘Alliance/SAE.’’) 

In its comment, Denton ATD claimed 

that the certification corridors published 

in the NPRM do not adequately reflect 

lab-to-lab differences. 

FTSS provided specific comments 

regarding the test procedures and 

corridors. Because FTSS participated in 

the SAE activities that resulted in that 

organization’s recommended 

certification corridors which were 

submitted by the Alliance (i.e. the 

Alliance comments), the FTSS 

comments on certification corridors 

have been subsumed in the Alliance/ 

SAE comments. 

Regarding the proposal for a full-body 

thorax impact certification procedure, 

Autoliv, FTSS, and the Alliance 

expressed a preference to retain the 

individual rib drop certification tests. 

General Agency Response: To develop 

the certification corridors set forth in 

the NPRM, NHTSA subjected two ES–

2re dummies to certification type tests 

at the agency’s Vehicle Research and 

Test Center (VRTC) laboratory. The 

certification response data submitted by 

the Alliance/SAE in docket comments 

are based on a much larger sample size 

than that used for the NPRM and are 

statistically more significant and 

representative of the dummies’

response. Additionally, the Alliance/ 

SAE data were collected at several test 

laboratories and thus reflect lab-to-lab 

differences. In most cases, the Alliance/ 

SAE data are normally distributed and 

exhibit reasonable amounts of variation. 

For these reasons, the agency has 

accepted most of the suggested 

Alliance/SAE response corridors, 

particularly if the agency’s data did not 

indicate contradictions or if the 

suggested corridors were consistent 

with the ECE ES–2 performance 

specifications. However, there were a 

few instances where analysis of the SAE 

data either revealed a non-normal 

distribution of the data set based on 

different dummy makes, or were in 

substantial contradiction with 

comparable agency measurements. In 

those cases the agency considerably 

reviewed and analyzed the data to 

determine if the varying distributions of 

the tested populations could be 

reconciled. If they could not be, the 

suggested corridor was not accepted. 

2. Head Drop Test 

The NPRM proposed that the nominal 

mass of the ES–2re head assembly is 4.0 

kg and the tolerance is +/¥0.2 kg. The 

Alliance/SAE was concerned that the +/ 

¥0.2 kg head mass tolerance on 

drawing 175–0000 (sheet 2 of 6) is too 

large. 

Agency Response: We agree that the 

original tolerance for the head mass, as 

originally specified in the EU 

regulation, is too broad and needs to be 

revised. A review of other similarly 

sized dummies regulated by NHTSA 

shows that the Hybrid III small adult 

female dummy (49 CFR Part 572, 

Subpart O) has a nominal head mass of 

3.73 kg and a tolerance of +/¥0.05 kg, 

while the Hybrid III mid-sized adult 

male (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart E) has 

a nominal mass of 4.54 kg and a 

tolerance of +/¥0.05 kg. To maintain 

consistency with the other similarly 

sized Part 572 dummies, we are 

adopting a mass tolerance of +/¥0.05 kg 

for the head segment. 

3. Neck Flexion Test 

i. Neck Response Corridors. The 

Alliance/SAE recommended adopting 

the following criteria for the neck 

pendulum test shown in the Table 4, 

‘‘Alliance/SAE Suggested Neck 

Response Criteria,’’ below (note: NPRM 

corridors are shown for comparison): 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75318 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

19The NPRM had proposed to eliminate four of 

the neck test response criteria used by the ECE 

regulations: peak fore pendulum base angle, peak 

aft pendulum base angle, and their respective times 

at which the peak occurred. It is noted that the sum 

of the fore and aft base angles is equal to the 

maximum flexion angle, a response requirement 

maintained in the NPRM. In proposing to eliminate 

these minor requirements, NHTSA sought to 

simplify the certification requirements. NHTSA did 

not receive any comments objecting to the proposal. 

Accordingly, the approach of the NPRM is adopted. 

20We assume that the ‘‘nodding joints’’ noted in 

the Alliance comment refers to ‘‘neck buffers’’ since 

the ES–2 series dummies do not have nodding 

joints in the neck assemblies. 

TABLE 4.–ALLIANCE/SAE SUGGESTED NECK RESPONSE CRITERIA

Criteria Alliance/SAE proposal NPRM 

Max. Neck Flexion Angle .............................................................................................. 49–59 deg ................................................. 52–57 deg. 

Time at Max. Flexion Angle .......................................................................................... 54–66 ms .................................................. 54–64 ms. 

Time of Decay to Zero Angle from Peak ...................................................................... 53–88 ms .................................................. 55–75 ms. 

Agency Response: The SAE DTESC 

database includes 189 tests of necks 

from both Denton ATD and FTSS, and 

tested in both right and left-side impact 

conditions. 

The SAE DTESC data appear to be 

normally distributed for the first two 

criteria (maximum flexion angle and 

time of maximum flexion angle). 

Because the data are evenly distributed, 

and given that the Alliance/SAE’s 

proposed corridors are based on a much 

more statistically significant sample size 

and therefore better represents the 

broader dummy population, we have 

adopted the suggested corridors for 

maximum flexion angle and time of 

maximum flexion angle. We note that 

these flexion angle and associated time 

requirements are consistent with the 

latest ECE regulations.19

The data for the time of decay criteria 

appear to exhibit two slightly different 

populations. Analysis of the decay time 

data reveals a difference in response 

between the FTSS and DATD samples. 

The DATD samples yielded an average 

decay time of 76.97 ms, while the FTSS 

samples had an average decay time of 

60.38 ms, a difference of 21.6 percent in 

the average response. However, the 

decay time has less significance in the 

neck performance characterization than, 

for example, maximum neck flexion and 

time of maximum neck flexion. The 

latter is to assure that the neck, as a 

result of a specified impact, will deliver 

the head to a given location, whereas 

the former assures that the head does 

not remain in the fully flexed position 

and is capable of restitution to the preflexed position within a repeatable time 

frame. 

The agency’s test data on which the 

NPRM’s neck response corridors were 

based used FTSS neck assemblies 

because those were the only samples 

available at the time. Accordingly, the 

agency data are somewhat more similar 

to the FTSS data. Since the DATD 

impact velocity was within the range of 

impact velocities specified in the 

NPRM, we conclude that the DATD 

decay time data are valid. The data 

supplied by the Alliance/SAE represent 

a larger sample size of necks from both 

FTSS and DATD, and therefore is more 

representative of the total dummy 

population. Accordingly, we agree to 

expand the performance corridor of the 

decay to zero angle from maximum 

flexion from 55–75 ms to 53–88 ms. 

ii. Neck Pendulum Aluminum 

Honeycomb. The test procedure 

specifies that the neck-headform 

assembly is attached to a pendulum test 

fixture. Section 572.183(b)(3) referenced 

a ‘‘Figure 15 of part 572’’ in describing 

the pendulum accelerometer. Figure 15 

specifies a 6-inch thickness of 

honeycomb. The Alliance/SAE noted 

that ‘‘It is not clear that the proposed 

pulse can be achieved using a 6-inch 

thick piece of aluminum honeycomb.’’

The commenter suggested that a 3-inch 

aluminum honeycomb thickness should 

be specified for the neck pendulum test. 

Agency Response: We concur that the 

NPRM incorrectly referenced Figure 15. 

The Alliance/SAE is correct in stating 

that the proposed pulse cannot be 

achieved using a 6-inch thickness of 

honeycomb. As specified in the ECE 

regulations and confirmed by VRTC 

testing, a 3-inch thickness of 

honeycomb is needed to achieve the 

pulse. The correct reference is to Figure 

22 in subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. 

Figure 22 does not specifically identify 

the thickness of the aluminum 

honeycomb. This final rule makes the 

correction. 

iii. Neck Pendulum Deceleration 

Filter Class. The Alliance recommended 

filtering the neck pendulum 

acceleration data at CFC 180, as 

opposed to CFC 60 as proposed in the 

NPRM. 

Agency Response: We do not agree 

with this change. The preliminary 

certification procedures published by 

the dummy manufacturer, and used by 

the agency in its evaluation, specified a 

CFC 60 filter for the pendulum 

acceleration. All of the data gathered by 

NHTSA in its evaluations have been 

processed using CFC 60. This filter is 

consistent with that specified for the 

Hybrid III 50th male dummy in subpart 

E. In addition, the Alliance/SAE 

recommended corridors that this final 

rule adopts were based on data filtered 

at CFC 60. 

iv. Nodding Block Configuration. The 

Alliance stated that the proposed 

regulatory text did not specifically 

mention the ability to change nodding 

joints 20 in the neck in the event that the 

neck does not meet the certification 

requirements. The Alliance stated: ‘‘The 

different nodding joints for the ES–2re 

dummy are identified in the drawing 

package, but are not noted in the 

NPRM.’’

Agency Response: The proposed 

regulatory text did not specifically note 

the ability to change nodding joints in 

the neck when the neck does not meet 

the certification requirements. However, 

the text specifically stated that, ‘‘The 

neck assembly consists of parts shown 

in drawing 175–2000.’’ Drawing 175–

2000 (Neck Assembly) contains a note 

indicating that the buffers are to be 

selected based on the certification 

response of the neck. Thus the ability to 

change buffers to meet the certification 

requirements is available and no change 

to the regulatory text is necessary. 

v. Adjusting Half-Spherical Neck 

Screws. A comment by the Alliance 

regarding the adjustment of the lumbar 

cable nut of the dummy (see section 

IV.h.5, infra) led NHTSA to determine 

that the regulatory text should specify 

how the two half-spherical screws 

located at either end of the ES–2re’s 

neck should be tightened. Using the test 

procedures in the ES–2’s user’s manual, 

but adding to them to improve their 

objectivity, the agency has determined 

that the half-spherical screws should be 

tightened to a torque of 88 in-lbs using 

a special neck compression tool, a type 

of which is described in NHTSA 

drawing 175–9500. 

4. Thorax 

i. Full-Body Systems Test. The NPRM 

proposed that the dummy’s thoracic 

response would be evaluated by testing 

each individual rib module mounted in 

a drop test fixture. It was proposed that 

each rib module would be disassembled 

from the dummy, mounted in a drop rig 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75319 

21We note that the proposed test procedures in 

the NPRM did not specify a recovery time for any 

successive tests with the same component, even 

though recovery times are always employed in 

dummy test procedures. We have adopted a 

provision in section 572.189 of the regulatory text 

of this final rule that states that certification tests 

of the same component, segment, assembly, or fully 

assembled dummy shall be separated in time by a 

period of not less than 30 minutes unless otherwise 

specified. 

fixture, and impacted in free fall by an 

impactor with a mass of 7.78 kg. The 

impactor would be dropped from a 

height of 459 and 815 mm to produce 

impact speeds of 3.0 m/s and 4.0 m/s, 

respectively. The response criteria 

established the minimum and maximum 

deflection of the rib at each impact 

speed. For each rib (upper, middle, and 

lower rib), the proposed rib deflection 

for the 3.0 m/s impact would be 36 to 

40 mm, and for the 4.0 m/s impact 46.0 

to 51.0 mm. 

The agency also explained that it was 

considering, in addition to or in lieu of 

the rib drop test, a test that addresses 

the performance of the thorax of the 

dummy as a complete system. The 

agency developed a test in which the 

thorax of a seated dummy is impacted 

by a pendulum at a specified impact 

speed. The proposed procedure was 

described in a report entitled, 

‘‘Development of a Full-Body Thorax 

Certification Procedure and Preliminary 

Response Requirements for the ES–2re 

Dummy, September 2004’’ (in Docket 

18864). A rib deflection range would be 

specified as part of the test 

requirements. The agency stated in the 

NPRM that a ‘‘systems’’ test of the 

thorax is used in calibration tests of all 

frontal impact and side impact dummies 

currently specified in 49 CFR part 572. 

Autoliv, FTSS, and the Alliance 

preferred the individual rib drop 

certification tests and did not support 

the full-body thorax impact test. FTSS 

commented that the proposed 6.7 

meters per second (m/s) impact velocity 

was ‘‘a severe test and the hard face of 

the pendulum is likely to reduce the 

effective life of the foam material 

bonded to the ribs.’’ FTSS 

recommended that a more appropriate 

impact speed than the proposed 6.7 m/ 

s impact velocity would be in the range 

of 5.0 m/s to 6.0 m/s. FTSS also 

expressed concern that the systems test 

could allow too much variation in 

individual rib performance. ‘‘The 

individual rib could have differing 

stiffnesses, but meet the specifications 

of the whole body test. This can result 

in higher variability and limit the 

accuracy of the ES–2re to discern local 

hard spots in the vehicle interior and 

structure.’’ The Alliance stated that the 

individual rib drop test procedure ‘‘was 

well established and appropriate for 

characterizing the performance of 

individual rib modules.’’

Agency Response: NHTSA believes 

that a thorax systems test is important 

to assess that the final assembly of the 

dummy is correct. The test procedures 

for the Hybrid III, SID, WorldSID, and 

SID–IIs crash test dummies employ a 

thorax systems test, and so too should 

those of the ES–2re to further check the 

assemblage of the dummy. However, the 

test procedures for full-body thorax 

impacts of the SID, WorldSID, and SID–

IIs side impact dummies employ a 

thorax impact speed of 4.3 m/s, as 

compared to the 6.7 m/s impact speed 

proposed in the NPRM for the ES–2re. 

After reviewing the comments, NHTSA 

has concluded that the impact severity 

proposed in the NPRM was at too high 

a severity (being much higher than that 

for other side impact dummy thoracic 

certifications). 

In response to the comments, the 

agency conducted a study to determine 

the appropriate velocity for the test. The 

agency’s follow-on study is discussed in 

a technical report entitled, 

‘‘Development of a Reduced Severity 

Full-Body Thorax Certification 

Procedure and Response Requirements 

for the ES–2re Dummy,’’ (December 

2005) (copy in the docket for this final 

rule, Docket 25441). Impact speeds of 

4.3 m/s, 5.0 m/s, 5.5 m/s and 6.0 m/s 

were evaluated. 

NHTSA has concluded from the test 

series and analysis that the appropriate 

impact speed should be 5.5 m/s. 

Because the test is to assure the integrity 

of the dummy’s thorax in the FMVSS 

No. 214 crash tests, the agency 

determined that the test should use an 

impact speed that resulted in rib 

deflections near the magnitude of the 

proposed injury criteria for the ES–2re 

dummy (44 mm) in the FMVSS No. 214 

final rule. The test speed of 5.5 m/s 

resulted in peak displacements of 41.9 

mm for the lower rib, 43.6 mm for the 

middle rib, and 40.3 mm for the upper 

rib. Considering that the agency also 

sought to reduce the test severity from 

that which was proposed to a speed 

comparable to that used in thorax 

systems tests of other crash test 

dummies, it was concluded that the rib 

responses of the ES–2re were 

satisfactorily close to the desired 

displacement target. (The 5.5 m/s test 

speed reduced the kinetic energy 

imparted to the dummy through the 

impactor by approximately 33 percent.) 

The 5.5 m/s speed also was within the 

range suggested by FTSS in its 

comments to the NPRM. 

We have also determined that the 

thorax systems test should be in 

addition to the individual rib module 

drop test. The individual rib module 

drop test would be retained because, as 

FTSS noted, the test could discern 

anomalies with individual ribs that the 

thorax systems test might not detect. 

ii. Specifying Impact Speed in Rib 

Module Drop Test. The Alliance and 

FTSS expressed concern with specifying 

impact velocity as opposed to drop 

height in the rib module drop test 

procedure. FTSS noted, ‘‘traditional 

velocity measurement methods in a 

dummy lab use speed vanes attached to 

the impactor and static light traps. This 

system works well for pendulum type 

impactors because the pendulum has 

approached a constant velocity at the 

bottom of its swing at the point of 

contact. However, a vertical drop 

(impactor) is still accelerating (at the 

instant it would pass through a 

traditional speed measuring device).’’

Thus, it would not be possible to 

accurately measure speed at the instant 

of impact in a drop test. 

Agency Response: The agency agrees 

with the FTSS analysis. Specifying a 

drop height facilitates the accuracy of 

the procedure. Section 572.185 of the 

regulatory text specifies that each rib is 

tested at two impactor drop heights, 815 

±8 mm and 459 ±5 mm. 

iii. Recovery Time Between 

Successive Tests. The Alliance noted 

that the NPRM did not specify a 

recovery time between successive rib 

module drop tests. The Alliance 

recommended ‘‘adopting a five (5) 

minute rib module recovery time 

between changes in velocity and a thirty 

(30) minute rib module recovery time 

between velocity sequences (as are 

called out in the ECE–R95 Regulation).’’

Agency Response: NHTSA agrees that 

the test procedures should specify a 

recovery time between tests. In 

conducting its own research to evaluate 

the certification test procedures and 

performance corridors, NHTSA allowed 

a five-minute recovery time between 

changes in velocity (drop height) when 

testing a given rib module in a test 

cycle. If a test cycle had to be repeated 

on a given rib module, a recovery time 

of 30 (thirty) minutes was allowed 

between successive applications of the 

test cycle. These provisions have been 

added to the rib module drop test 

procedures.21

5. Lumbar Spine 

The lumbar spine test involves 

attaching a lumbar spine/headform 

assembly to the bottom of a pendulum 

and releasing the pendulum from a 

height sufficient to allow it to fall freely 

to achieve an impact velocity of 

6.05±0.1 m/s. (The headform is a 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75320 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

22The NPRM had proposed to eliminate four of 

the lumbar test response criteria used by the ECE 

regulations: peak fore pendulum base angle, peak 

aft pendulum base angle, and their respective times 

at which the peak occurred. In proposing to 

eliminate these requirements, NHTSA sought to 

simplify the certification requirements. NHTSA did 

not receive any comments objecting to this 

proposal. Accordingly, the approach of the NPRM 

is adopted. 

convenient and available ballast from 

the neck pendulum test set-up to 

evaluate the consistency of lumbar 

spine flexion properties.) The pendulum 

deceleration pulse is to be characterized 

in terms of its change (decrease) in 

velocity as obtained by integrating the 

pendulum accelerometer output. The 

lumbar spine must meet specified limits 

on the maximum lumbar spine flexion 

angle, time period in which maximum 

lumbar flexion angle must occur, and 

the time required for the lumbar flexion 

angle to decay to zero after peak. 

i. Response Corridors. The Alliance/ 

SAE recommended adopting the 

following criteria for the lumbar spine 

pendulum test in Table 5, ‘‘Suggested 

Lumbar Response Criteria,’’ below (note: 

NPRM corridors are shown for 

comparison): 

TABLE 5.—SUGGESTED LUMBAR RESPONSE CRITERIA

Criteria Alliance/SAE proposal NPRM 

Max. Lumbar Flexion Angle .......................................................................................... 45–55 deg ................................................. 45–55 deg. 

Time at Max. Flexion Angle .......................................................................................... 39–53 ms .................................................. 39–53 ms. 

Time of Decay to Zero Angle from Peak ...................................................................... 37–56 ms .................................................. 40–65 ms. 

Agency Response: The SAE DTESC 

database includes 123 tests of necks 

from both FTSS and Denton ATD. The 

agency data base has been expanded 

since the NPRM to at least 25 sets of 

certification tests (see Supplement to 

the Technical Report: Design, 

Development, and Evaluation of the ES–

2re Crash Test Dummy, November 2005; 

Docket 25441). 

The Alliance/SAE data appear to be 

normally distributed and reflect 

reasonably similar dispersions between 

the two dummy makes, particularly for 

the first two criteria (maximum lumbar 

flexion angle and time of maximum 

lumbar flexion angle). The analysis of 

these data confirmed a good match with 

the agency data and the proposed 

performance corridors of 45–55 degrees 

for maximum flexion angle and 39–53 

ms for time at maximum flexion angle. 

On the other hand, the Alliance/SAE 

data for time to decay from peak angle 

to zero are somewhat separated in 

clusters: one for FTSS dummies being 

shorter in time and the other for Denton 

dummies being longer. The Alliance/ 

SAE suggested through the Alliance 

comment that a 37.1–55.8 ms decay 

time corridor was appropriate, based on 

plus or minus two standard deviations 

of the combined data sets. Analysis of 

the agency’s enlarged data set, based on 

two FTSS dummies, revealed that it 

matches nearly perfectly at +/¥3 

standard deviations the SAE DTESC 

suggested calibration corridor at the 

lower end of the limit (37 ms) and falls 

well within the corridor at the upper 

end at 46 ms. This dispersion confirmed 

the adequacy of the Alliance/SAE data 

set for analysis of the FTSS dummy. 

Inasmuch as the agency did not have 

any Denton dummies to establish their 

dispersion range, it had to use the SAE 

DTESC Denton-based data to establish 

the upper end of the corridor. Statistical 

analysis of the Denton dummy data 

revealed that its upper limit should to 

be set at 57 ms (56.8 ms rounded off). 

In summary, time of decay criteria from 

peak angle to zero angle is revised from 

the proposed 40–65 ms range to 37–57 

ms. The limit of 37–57 ms agrees with 

the limits derived by combining 

response data from all dummies 

regardless of their make or test facility.22

ii. Lumbar Cable Nut Adjustment. The 

Alliance noted that the NPRM did not 

specify how the lumbar cable nut is 

adjusted, and recommended that a cable 

adjustment procedure should be 

specified since this is common practice 

for other dummy types that have neck 

and lumbar components that contain a 

cable and tensioning nut configuration. 

Agency Response: The agency agrees 

with the suggestion. Historically, it has 

been common practice for NHTSA to 

specify torque requirements in 49 CFR 

Part 572 for fasteners that may 

potentially play a critical role in the 

certification responses. The neck test 

procedures for the Hybrid III 50th 

percentile male, 5th percentile adult 

female, six-year-old child, and threeyear-old child all contain adjustment 

torque requirements for the cable nut. 

The agency has reviewed the ES–2 

User’s Manual provided by the 

manufacturer and which was used by 

VRTC in performing its evaluation of 

the ES–2re states. The manual specifies 

that ‘‘* * * the nut should be tightened 

hand tight and further tightened with 

two complete turns of the nut * * *.’’

Using this procedure, but adding to it to 

enhance its objectivity, we have 

determined that the lumbar hex nut 

(part number 9000057) should be 

tightened to a torque of 50 +/¥5 in-lbs. 

We have added this specification to the 

test procedure for the lumbar spine test 

(section 572.187(b)(2) of the regulatory 

text of this final rule). 

6. Shoulder 

The impact test is performed on the 

shoulder area of a fully assembled, 

seated dummy. A 49 CFR Part 572, 

Subpart E pendulum (23.4 kg) impacts 

the dummy laterally (the dummy’s 

midsagittal plane is perpendicular to the 

direction of impact). The impactor 

swings freely to impact the dummy’s 

upper arm pivot at a velocity of 4.3 m/ 

s. The shoulder passes the test if the 

peak acceleration of the impactor is 

between 7.5 and 10.5 g. 

i. Shoulder Cord Tension. In its 

comments, the Alliance stated that ‘‘the 

ECE–R95 regulation applies a 27.5 to 

32.5 N chord tension specification for 

the elastic shoulder cords. This setting 

should be included in the Part 572 test 

procedure since it is critical to the test.’’

Agency Response: We have agreed to 

the recommendation, with modification. 

We conducted the shoulder impact test 

using the proposed procedures, 

including the shoulder cord tension 

specification of 27.5 to 32.5 N. In our 

assessment, one aspect of the ECE–95 

regulation needed to be more objective. 

The October 1, 2004 revision of ECE–

R95 specifies in Section 5.7.1.: ‘‘The 

length of the elastic cord should be 

adjusted so that a force between and 

including 27.5 and 32.5 N applied in a 

forward direction 4 +/¥1 mm from the 

outer edge of the clavicle in the same 

plane as the clavicle movement, is 

required to move the clavicle forward.’’

[Emphasis added.] We have modified 

the highlighted phrase to state: 

‘‘*** ’’ is required to initiate a 

forward motion of 1 to 5 mm.’’ The 

modified statement is more specific and 

objective. 

ii. Pendulum Configuration. FTSS 

commented that it does not recommend 

the use of an 8-wire pendulum system 

for conducting the shoulder impact 

certification test. FTSS stated, ‘‘We have 

tested with both a 4-wire and 6-wire 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75321 

23 It is noted that, in response to a comment from 

FTSS, this final rule limits the overall weight of the 

suspension cables and specifies that the weight of 

the suspension cables is included in calculating the 

total impactor mass. These specifications and others 

are discussed in section IV.h.9 of this preamble. 

pendulum suspension system, and did 

not measure a detectable difference (in 

response). We do not recommend the 

use of an 8-wire system which overconstrains the lateral motion of the 

pendulum which is a factor in the 

shoulder test.’’

Agency Response: In the NPRM, 

NHTSA provided specifications for the 

impact probe’s mass, geometry, and 

inertial properties and did not specify 

the configuration of the suspension 

cables. This final rule does not specify 

the configuration of the suspension 

cables because we do not believe that 

the configuration will affect the results 

of the certification tests. The 

configuration of the suspension cables is 

not specified in other 49 CFR Part 572 

test dummy regulations as the impactor 

could also be a linear impact probe.23

7. Abdomen 

This calibration test is performed on 

a fully assembled, seated dummy. The 

abdomen has to meet performance 

requirements when impacted laterally at 

4.0 m/s by a 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart 

E, 23.4 kg pendulum. Figure U5–A of 

the proposed regulatory text described 

the pendulum’s impact face material as 

‘‘rigid.’’

FTSS commented that most dummy 

labs use a bolt-on interface attached to 

the standard thorax pendulum. The 

commenter stated that, to conform to the 

weight specification for the pendulum, 

it typically uses a material of lower 

density than the aluminum used for the 

main pendulum. FTSS stated that it has 

observed differences in the pendulum 

acceleration depending on the choice of 

material used for the interface and 

further believes a specification of 

‘‘rigid’’ is too vague. FTSS 

recommended that the agency specify 

the material for the abdomen probe face 

as ‘‘Delrin.’’

Agency Response: We used the term 

‘‘rigid’’ to describe the impactor face to 

specify a material that was harder than 

that being struck (i.e., the dummy’s 

abdomen). However, we concur that the 

impactor face should be more fully 

specified. NHTSA used a Delrin 

impactor face to conduct the abdominal 

tests. Rather than specifying a particular 

brand of plastic or using the term 

‘‘rigid’’ in describing the impactor face, 

this impactor is characterized in this 

rule in the following manner. 

The abdomen impactor is the same as 

specified in § 572.189(a) except that on its 

impact surface is firmly affixed a special 

purpose rectangular shaped block whose 

weight is 1.0 +/-0.01 kg. The block is 70 mm 

high, 150 mm wide and 60 to 80 mm deep. 

The impact surface is flat, has a minimum 

Rockwell hardness of M85, and an edge 

radius of 4 to 5 mm. 

8. Pelvis 

This calibration test is performed on 

a fully assembled, seated dummy. The 

dummy pelvis is impacted by the 49 

CFR Part 572, Subpart E, 23.4 kg 

pendulum at a velocity of 4.3 m/s. The 

NPRM proposed certain minimum and 

maximum limits on the impact force 

measured by the pendulum 

accelerometer and on the pubic force 

measured by the dummy. 

The Alliance commented on the 

pelvis impact response corridors, 

recommending criteria for the pelvis 

impact test based on SAE DTESC data 

from 111 tests conducted with dummies 

from both Denton ATD and FTSS. The 

commenter suggested the following 

criteria for the pelvis impact test in 

Table 6, ‘‘Suggested Pelvis Response 

Criteria,’’ below (note: NPRM corridors 

are shown for comparison): 

TABLE 6.—SUGGESTED PELVIS RESPONSE CRITERIA

Criteria Alliance proposal NPRM 

Max. Impactor Force ..................................................................................................... 4.7–5.4 kN ................................................. 4.8–5.5 kN. 

Time at Max Impactor Force ......................................................................................... 11.8–16.1 ms ............................................ 10.3–15.5 

ms. 

Peak Pubic Symphysis Load ........................................................................................ 1.23–1.59 kN ............................................. 1.31–1.49 kN. 

Time at Peak Pubic Symphysis Load ........................................................................... 12.2–17.0 ms ............................................ 9.9–15.9 ms. 

Agency Response: The SAE DTESC 

data appear to be normally distributed. 

Because the data are evenly distributed, 

and given that the Alliance/SAE’s 

suggested corridors are based on a more 

statistically significant sample size and 

wider impact speed distribution than 

that used for the NPRM, the agency 

agrees that the Alliance proposal reflects 

a more representative response of a 

broader dummy population. 

Accordingly, the Alliance’s suggested 

corridors are incorporated into this final 

rule. Review of the NHTSA data used to 

support the NPRM corridors indicates 

that all responses would meet the 

commenter’s suggested corridors. 

9. Other Issues 

i. Test Probe Suspension Cables and 

Attachments. FTSS recommends adding 

additional specifications to the test 

probe used in the shoulder, abdomen, 

and pelvis impacts, as follows: 

• Mass moment of inertia shall be 

greater than 9000 kg-cm2

• Natural frequency shall be greater 

than 1000 Hz 

• The weight of 1/3 of the suspension 

cables should be added to the pendulum 

weight 

• Cable attachment hardware should 

not exceed 5% of the total pendulum 

weight 

• Suspension cables shall not 

interfere with the dummy during the 

test 

Agency Response: The suggested 

specifications for mass moment of 

inertia and natural frequency were 

proposed in § 572.189(a) of the NPRM 

and are adopted in this final rule. 

NHTSA agrees with adding the latter 

suggested specifications. As noted by 

the commenter, the provisions are 

typically part of the regulations for test 

dummies adopted in recent years (e.g., 

49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O, Hybrid III 

5th Percentile female frontal test 

dummy). Including the weight of 1⁄3 of 

the suspension cables prevents the use 

of unusually heavy suspension cables, 

which could affect the response of the 

dummy. The last provision will help 

eliminate a potential source of 

variability. We have clarified in the 

regulatory text (§ 572.189(a)) that ‘‘No 

suspension hardware, suspension 

cables, or any other attachments to the 

probe, including the velocity vane, shall 

make contact with the dummy during 

the test.’’ 

ii. Pelvis and Abdomen Pendulum 

Filter Requirements. Section 

572.189(k)(1) specified using an SAE 

J211 CFC 60 filter for the pendulum 

acceleration of the pelvis impact test. 

The correct specification is to a CFC 180 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75322 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

filter. NHTSA used a CFC 180 filter for 

the pendulum acceleration of the pelvis 

impact test. This final rule makes the 

correction. 

iii. Temperature. The NPRM 

explained that, while the 18° C to 26° 

C (64.4° F to 71.6° F) temperature range 

is specified for the EuroSID–1 by EU in 

96/27/EC and for the ES–2 by EEVC in 

EuroNCAP side impact tests, NHTSA 

tentatively concluded that the ES–2re’s 

temperature at the time of calibration, 

sled and full scale crash tests be in the 

range of 20.6° C to 22.2° C (69° F to 72° 

F). This temperature range is specified 

for all NHTSA Hybrid III series and SID/ 

HIII dummies, and, NHTSA stated, 

reduces the variability of the dummy’s 

impact response due to temperature 

sensitivity of damping and rubber and 

plastic materials used within the 

dummy. 

The Alliance found the proposal to be 

acceptable. No commenter opposed it. 

Accordingly, this final rule adopts the 

specification. 

V. NHTSA Crash Test Experience 

The agency conducted a series of 

vehicle crash tests utilizing a broad 

variety of passenger vehicles. The test 

program method and results are 

discussed in detail in a technical report 

entitled, ‘‘NHTSA Fleet Testing for 

FMVSS 214 Upgrade, MY 2004–2005, 

January 2006,’’ which has been placed 

in the docket for the final rule published 

today (Docket 25441). 

The objectives of the test program 

were to evaluate the dummy’s responses 

in different loading conditions with 

respect to the injury assessment 

reference values (IARV) proposed in the 

May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 

214, to assess the dummies’ durability, 

and to investigate the crashworthiness 

characteristics of a broad range of fleet 

vehicles. The series consisted of 

fourteen FMVSS No. 214 vehicle-to-pole 

tests and seven moving deformable 

barrier (MDB) tests. In the MDB tests, 

ES–2re dummies were seated in both 

the driver and rear passenger positions, 

resulting in 14 total MDB exposures 

with ES–2re dummies. 

Each dummy was instrumented with 

load cells, accelerometers, and 

potentiometers as listed in Table 7, 

‘‘Instrumentation and Filter Classes,’’

below. 

TABLE 7.—INSTRUMENTATION AND FILTER CLASSES

Location Type instrument Measurement Direction CFC Total channels 

Head (9-array) .......................... accelerometers ........................ Acceleration ............................. X, Y, Z .......... 1000 9 

Upper Neck ............................... load cell ................................... Force ........................................ X, Y, Z .......... 1000 3 

Moment .................................... X, Y, Z .......... 600 3 

Lower Neck ............................... load cell ................................... Force ........................................ X, Y, Z .......... 1000 3 

Moment .................................... X, Y, Z .......... 600 3 

Shoulder ................................... load cell ................................... Force ........................................ X, Y, Z .......... 600 3 

Upper Spine (T01) .................... accelerometers ........................ Acceleration ............................. X, Y, Z .......... 180 3 

Lower Spine (T12) .................... accelerometers ........................ Acceleration ............................. X, Y, Z .......... 180 3 

Ribs (upper, middle, lower) ...... potentiometers ......................... Displacement ........................... Y ................... 180 3 

accelerometers ........................ Acceleration ............................. Y ................... 180 3 

Back Plate ................................ load cell ................................... Force ........................................ X, Y .............. 600 2 

Moment .................................... Y, Z .............. 600 2 

T–12 .......................................... load cell ................................... Force ........................................ X, Y .............. 600 2 

Moment .................................... X, Y .............. 600 2 

Lumbar ...................................... load cell ................................... Force ........................................ Y, Z .............. 600 2 

Moment .................................... X ................... 600 1 

Abdomen (front, middle, rear) .. load cell ................................... Force ........................................ Y ................... 600 3 

Pubic Symphysis ...................... load cell ................................... Force ........................................ Y ................... 600 1 

Pelvis ........................................ accelerometers ........................ Acceleration ............................. X, Y, Z .......... 1000 3 

Femurs, Left and Right ............. load cell ................................... Force ........................................ X, Y, Z .......... 600 3 

Moment .................................... X, Y, Z .......... 600 3 

Table 8, ‘‘Full Scale Vehicle Test 

Matrix,’’ below, describes the vehicle 

test matrix. All vehicles were 2005 

model year versions, unless otherwise 

noted. Vehicles were selected to reflect 

a broad range of sizes and masses. Note 

that the Dodge 2500 Ram Pickup test 

was repeated, with the air bag being 

deployed manually in the second test 

(denoted as Dodge 2500–B). 

TABLE 8.—FULL-SCALE VEHICLE TEST MATRIX

Vehicle Side air bag type 1 Oblique pole MDB 

Toyota Corolla ........................................................................................... C + T ............................................... √ √ 

VW Jetta .................................................................................................... C +T ................................................ √ √ 

Saturn Ion .................................................................................................. C ...................................................... √ √ 

Honda Accord (MY 2004) .......................................................................... C +T ................................................ √ √ 

VW Beetle Convertible .............................................................................. H + T ............................................... √ ........................

Saab 9–3 Convertible ................................................................................ H + T ............................................... √ ........................

Ford 500 .................................................................................................... C + T ............................................... √ √ 

Toyota Sienna (MY 2004) ......................................................................... C + T ............................................... √ ........................

Subaru Forester ......................................................................................... H + T ............................................... √ √ 

Honda CRV ................................................................................................ C + T ............................................... √ √ 

Chevy Colorado ......................................................................................... C ...................................................... √ ........................

Ford Expedition .......................................................................................... C ...................................................... √ ........................

Dodge 2500–A ........................................................................................... C ...................................................... √ ........................


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75323 

24Non-normal rib deflection responses were 

noted in the Saturn Ion pole test. However, it was 

subsequently determined that the rib 

potentiometers had been incorrectly installed in the 

dummy’s rib modules. This assembly error left the 

rib potentiometers with a reduction in the amount 

of available displacement. When assembled 

properly, the pots can provide 60 mm of free travel, 

whereas post-test inspection of the dummy 

indicated the assembly error had reduced the free 

travel to 48–50 mm of displacement. Deflection 

measurements up to 48–50 mm were still accurate 

for this test. 

TABLE 8.—FULL-SCALE VEHICLE TEST MATRIX—Continued 

Vehicle Side air bag type 1 Oblique pole MDB 

Dodge 2500–B ........................................................................................... C ...................................................... √ ........................

1Side Air Bag Types: C = Curtain; H = Head; T = Torso 

a. MDB Tests 

Seven vehicles were tested in the 

FMVSS No. 214 MDB test mode with 

one ES–2re dummy seated in the 

driver’s position and one in the left rear 

passenger’s position. All of the 

measured responses for both the driver 

and rear occupant were below the 

proposed IARV limits. Only two 

measurements, rib deflection of the 

driver in the Honda CRV and Honda 

Accord, were greater than 80 percent of 

the proposed limits. 

b. Oblique Pole Tests 

Fourteen vehicles were tested in the 

proposed FMVSS 214 oblique pole 

impact mode. For this test, the ES–2re 

dummy is seated in the driver’s position 

with the seat in mid-position and the 

dummy’s head CG aligned with the 

center of the pole. 

The HIC36 measurement exceeded the 

proposed limits in two of the tests 

(Subaru Forester and Dodge 2500–A) 

and was greater than 80 percent of the 

proposed limit in another (Saturn Ion). 

In the Subaru test, the air bag deployed 

but the head portion of the bag was 

directed towards the rear of the dummy 

and offered minimal protection to the 

dummy’s head. In the Dodge 2500–A 

test, the air bag did not deploy; the test 

was subsequently repeated and the 

curtain air bag was manually deployed. 

The ES–2re’s rib deflection response 

exceeded the proposed limit in seven of 

the tests (Toyota Corolla, Saturn Ion, 

Honda CRV, Chevy Colorado, Dodge 

2500–A and B, and Toyota Sienna) and 

was greater than 80 percent of the 

proposed limit in five other tests (VW 

Jetta, VW Beetle, Saab 9–3, Ford 500, 

and Subaru Forester). 

The ES–2re’s total abdomen force 

exceeded the proposed limit in four 

tests (Ford 500, Chevy Colorado, Dodge 

2500–B, and Ford Expedition). 

c. Rib Responses 

The rib module design incorporated 

into the ES–2re was developed in 

response to concerns over of the 

EuroSID and ES–2 dummy’s ribs 

binding. The rib binding was previously 

observed as a plateau in the rib’s 

displacement-time history at peak 

deflection and has been referred to as 

‘‘flat-topping.’’ The concern with rib 

flat-topping is that it would limit the 

ribs from full compression even under 

large loading conditions. 

The rib response curves for all of the 

MDB and oblique pole impacts tests 

were analyzed to determine if any rib 

flat-topping occurred. There was no 

evidence of rib flat-topping in the test 

series.24

d. Torso Back Plate Responses 

Another area of concern with the ES–

2 dummy configuration was that of the 

torso back plate interacting with the 

vehicle seat frame. When this occurred, 

loads were transferred directly to the 

spine, preventing the load from being 

applied laterally to the rib cage, and 

thus potentially reducing the rib 

displacements. This undesirable feature 

is referred to as ‘‘back plate grabbing.’’

The rib extensions and narrow, curved 

back plate of the ES–2re were designed 

to address this issue. 

In order to assess back plate-to-seat 

back interaction in the crash tests, torso 

back plate responses were monitored. A 

large positive y-component of the back 

plate force indicates that the back plate 

was experiencing a laterally inboarddirected force due to back plate-to-seat 

back interaction. In previous agency 

crash testing with the ES–2 (without rib 

extensions and narrow back plate) in 

which back plate-to-seat back 

interaction was observed, positive ycomponent back plate loads in the range 

of 5,000–12,000 N were recorded. Table 

9, ‘‘Peak Positive Lateral Back Plate 

Loads,’’ below, summarizes the peak 

positive y-component of the back plate 

loads for the MDB and oblique pole 

tests. 

TABLE 9.—PEAK POSITIVE LATERAL BACK PLATE LOADS

Vehicle 

Positive Y-Component of Back Plate Load (N) 

Oblique Pole MDB 

Driver Driver Passenger 

Toyota Corolla ............................................................................................................................. 78 65 16 

VW Jetta ...................................................................................................................................... 81 62 80 

Saturn Ion .................................................................................................................................... 226 158 105 

VW Beetle Convertible ................................................................................................................ 32 ........................ ........................

Saab 9–3 Convertible .................................................................................................................. 71 ........................ ........................

Ford 500 ...................................................................................................................................... 41 118 4 

Subaru Forrester .......................................................................................................................... 61 64 59 

Honda CRV .................................................................................................................................. 588 203 29 

Chevy Colorado ........................................................................................................................... 108 ........................ ........................

Ford Expedition ............................................................................................................................ 20 ........................ ........................

Dodge 2500–A ............................................................................................................................. 114 ........................ ........................

Dodge 2500–B ............................................................................................................................. 32 ........................ ........................

Honda Accord .............................................................................................................................. 51 182 40 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 9.—PEAK POSITIVE LATERAL BACK PLATE LOADS—Continued 

Vehicle 

Positive Y-Component of Back Plate Load (N) 

Oblique Pole MDB 

Driver Driver Passenger 

Toyota Sienna .............................................................................................................................. 103 ........................ ........................

As Table 9 indicates, the magnitude of 

the peak positive lateral back plate loads 

was very low and indicates that back 

plate grabbing did not occur. 

e. Durability 

As discussed above in section IV of 

this preamble, no significant durability 

problems were observed with the ES–

2re dummies used in the NHTSA crash 

tests. 

In conclusion, the ES–2re dummy 

performed in a satisfactory manner and 

demonstrated its usefulness as a test 

instrument in actual FMVSS No. 214 

testing. 

VI. Conclusions 

For the aforementioned reasons, 

NHTSA has decided to amend 49 CFR 

Part 572 by adding design and 

performance specifications for the ES–

2re 50th percentile adult male side 

impact dummy. The improved 

biofidelity and injury assessment 

capability of the ES–2re over other 

commercially available test dummies 

will enhance the assessment of the risk 

of injury in side impacts over that 

previously possible, particularly in side 

crashes involving the possibility of head 

or abdominal injury. Further, adopting 

the ES–2re into 49 CFR Part 572 is a 

step toward harmonizing our 

regulations internationally. The 

European New Car Assessment Program 

(EuroNCAP) on side impact uses the 

ES–2 dummy with the injury criteria 

specified in EU 96/27/EC. The agency is 

also cognizant of the efforts of the safety 

community to complete the evaluation 

of the WorldSID for side impact 

evaluation. By adopting the ES–2re at 

the present time, the agency is not 

precluding the incorporation of the 

WorldSID dummy. Furthermore, the 

agency is participating in the 

WorldSID’s evaluation, and is 

committed to proposing the 

incorporation of harmonized 5th and 

50th percentile dummies into the 

standard when the dummy development 

and evaluation are complete. 

Nonetheless, today’s final rule ensures 

that the important gains in occupant 

protection that can be achieved by the 

ES–2re will not be delayed or lost 

pending completion of that evaluation. 

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. 

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). The cost of an uninstrumented 

ES–2re is in the range of $54–57,000. 

Instrumentation adds approximately 

$43–47,000 for minimum requirements 

and approximately $80–84,000 for 

maximum instrumentation to the cost of 

the dummy. 

This document amends 49 CFR Part 

572 by adding design and performance 

specifications for a 50th percentile adult 

male side impact dummy that the 

agency will use in research and in 

compliance tests of the Federal side 

impact protection safety standards. This 

49 CFR Part 572 final rule does not 

impose any requirements on anyone. 

Businesses would be affected only if 

they choose to manufacture or test with 

the dummy. Because the economic 

impacts of this final rule are minimal, 

no further regulatory evaluation is 

necessary. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a proposed or final rule, it 

must prepare and make available for 

public comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions), 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, 

in part, as a business entity ‘‘which 

operates primarily within the United 

States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

We have considered the effects of this 

rulemaking under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this 

rulemaking action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

addition of the test dummy to Part 572 

will not impose any requirements on 

anyone. NHTSA will not require anyone 

to manufacture the dummy or to test 

vehicles with it. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

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 amendment 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132. The agency has determined that 

this final rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation and the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule would not have any 

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30103, whenever a Federal motor 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75325 

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 final rule does 

not have any requirements that are 

considered to be information collection 

requirements as defined by the OMB in 

5 CFR Part 1320. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

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

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when we 

decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The following voluntary consensus 

standards have been used in developing 

the ES–2re dummy: 

• SAE Recommended Practice J211, 

Rev. Mar95 ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact 

Test’’ and 

• SAE J1733 of 1994–12, ‘‘Sign 

Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing.’’

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Pub. L. 104–4, Federal 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 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

This final rule will not impose any 

unfunded mandates under the UMRA. 

This rule does not meet the definition 

of a Federal mandate because it does not 

impose requirements on anyone. It 

amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding 

design and performance specifications 

for a side impact dummy that the 

agency will use to evaluate 

manufacturers’ compliance with 

applicable Federal safety standards and 

for research purposes. This rule affects 

only those businesses that choose to 

manufacture or test with the dummy. It 

does not result in costs of $100 million 

or more to either State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

—Has the agency organized the material 

to suit the public’s needs? 

—Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

—Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

—Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

—Would more (but shorter) sections be 

better? 

—Could the agency improve clarity by 

adding tables, lists, or diagrams? 

—What else could the agency do to 

make this rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us about 

them. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

Appendix A to Final Rule Preamble: 

Specific Drawing Comments and 

Agency Responses to Those Comments 

Drawing 175–0000, Sheet 2, EuroSID 2 

With Rib Extensions 

Issue: With regard to the center of 

gravity table for the head, the vertical 

CG direction is incorrectly specified. 

FTSS recommends that ‘‘Y’’ be replaced 

with ‘‘Z.’’

Analysis and Response: FTSS has 

correctly identified a minor error in 

drawing 175–0000, sheet 2. The correct 

label is ‘‘Z.’’

NHTSA has modified drawing 

number 175–0000, sheet 2 by changing 

the label for the head CG from ‘‘Y’’ to 

‘‘Z.’’

Drawing 175–0000, Sheet 2, EuroSID 2 

With Rib Extensions 

Issue: DATD stated that for the 

Assembly Weights table, the sum of the 

individual segments does not equal the 

total weight shown in the table. 

Analysis and Response: There is an 

error in the table. The correct total 

dummy weight should be 72.4 kg. This 

error was also present in the PADI and 

has been corrected in that document 

also. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

0000, sheet 2, and Table 9.1 of the PADI 

to reflect the correct total mass of 72.4 

kg. 

Drawing 175–0000, Sheet 4, EuroSID 2 

With Rib Extensions 

Issue: DATD stated that in views A–

A and D–D, there is no call-out provided 

for the fasteners to be used. 

Analysis and Response: Denton’s 

comments are accurate. Adding 

identification to the accelerometer 

screws would improve the quality of the 

drawing. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

0000, sheet 4. In views A–A and D–D, 

add balloon callouts (Item 16) for the 

accelerometer mounting screws. We 

have modified the parts list to reflect a 

quantity of 30 for item 16. In addition, 

it is noted that the part number for item 

18 is missing. We have modified the 

parts list to indicate a part number of 

500025 for item 18. 

Drawing 175–1000, Head Assembly 

Issue: DATD stated that the reference 

line for the z-position of the center of 

gravity (CG) should be in line with the 

aluminum skull instead of the skin. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75326 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Analysis and Recommendation: 

Denton’s comments are correct. The 

reference line should be even with the 

aluminum skull casting. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

1000 by moving the reference line for 

the z-position of the CG from the surface 

of the skin to the surface of the skull 

casting. 

Drawing 175–1010, Upper Neck Load 

Cell Structural Replacement 

Issue: FTSS claims that the 2.53 

dimension for the dowel pin installation 

height results in an unnecessarily tight 

tolerance. FTSS recommends using a 

one-decimal dimension of 2.5. 

Analysis and Response: As shown on 

drawing 175–1010, a two-decimal 

dimension carries a tolerance of +/ 

¥0.05 mm, whereas a one-decimal 

dimension has a tolerance of +/¥0.1 

mm. The dowel pins are used to locate 

the head accelerometer mount and the 

slight increase in tolerance for their 

installation height will not result in any 

detrimental effects. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 

number 175–1010 by changing the 2.53 

dimension to 2.5. 

Drawing 175–1010, Upper Neck Load 

Cell Replacement 

Issue: As presently specified, the 

upper neck load cell replacement 

consists of three primary components: 

the upper, middle, and lower blanks. 

Denton ATD has requested an optional 

construction method whereby the part 

could be made as a one-piece unit. 

Analysis and Response: Technically, 

there is no reason why the part could 

not be constructed as a one-piece unit 

as long as the dimensional, mass, and 

inertial properties are maintained 

equivalent to those of the originally 

specified three-piece unit. Denton ATD 

did not provide any data to substantiate 

that the mass and inertial properties are 

indeed equivalent to the three-piece 

unit. In the absence of such data, and 

considering the late date of the 

comment submission, it is not possible 

for NHTSA to determine if a one-piece 

construction would provide equivalent 

performance. 

NHTSA has denied this request to 

allow an optional construction method 

for a one-piece unit of part number 175–

1010. 

Drawing 175–1011, Top Plate Upper 

Neck Load Cell Blank 

Issue: FTSS claims that the 88.90 

dimension is unnecessarily tight. FTSS 

recommends using a one-decimal 

dimension of 88.9. 

Analysis and Response: The 

dimension in question defines the outer 

diameter of the upper neck load cell 

structural replacement. The slight 

increase in tolerance proposed by FTSS 

will not result in any detrimental 

effects. Furthermore, this part is 

assembled to part number 175–1012, 

Middle Plate UNLC Blank, to form the 

upper neck load cell structural 

replacement. The outer diameter of the 

middle plate (¥1012) is specified at 

88.9. Thus, it is consistent to specify the 

mating component, the top plate 

(¥1011), similarly. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 

number 175–1011 by changing the 88.90 

dimension to 88.9. 

Drawing 175–1012, Middle Plate UNLC 

Blank 

Issue: FTSS claims the 6.97 and 17.24 

dimensions are unnecessarily tight. 

FTSS recommends using one-decimal 

dimensions for each of these items: 7.0 

and 17.2. 

Analysis and Response: As shown on 

drawing 175–1012, a two-decimal 

dimension carries a tolerance of +/ 

¥0.05 mm, whereas a one-decimal 

dimension has a tolerance of +/¥0.1 

mm. The dimensions in questions 

specify the height, or thickness, of the 

plate. The minor changes suggested to 

the nominal thickness dimensions will 

have virtually no effect on the fit or 

external dummy dimensions. 

Additionally, the thickness of the Top 

Plate UNLC Blank (175–1011) is 

dimensioned using one-decimal 

dimensions, thus modifying 175–1012 

will maintain consistency with the other 

components in the UNLC Blank 

Assembly. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

1012 by changing the 6.97 and 17.24 

dimensions to 7.0 and 17.2, 

respectively. 

Drawing 175–1013, Bottom Plate UNLC 

Blank 

Issue: FTSS claims that the 3.50, 0.50, 

and 6.40 dimensions are unnecessarily 

tight. FTSS recommends using onedecimal dimensions for each of these 

items. 

Analysis and Response: As shown on 

drawing 175–1013, a two-decimal 

dimension carries a tolerance of +/ 

¥0.05 mm, whereas a one-decimal 

dimension has a tolerance of +/¥0.1 

mm. The dimensions in question define 

a clearance hole and countersink feature 

and thus do not require high-precision 

tolerances. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 

number 175–1013 by changing the 3.50, 

0.50, and 6.40 dimensions to 3.5, 0.5, 

and 6.4. 

Drawing 175–2002, Neck Intermediate 

Plate 

Issue: FTSS claims that the 6 

dimension should be 6.0 and contends 

that note 2 is unnecessary and should be 

removed. 

Analysis and Response: The 

dimension in question is a feature in the 

neck assembly into which one end of 

the neck buffer is inserted. A zerodecimal dimension carries with it a 

tolerance of +/¥0.5 mm. This tolerance 

is too large to ensure proper retention of 

the neck buffer. Additionally, the other 

end of the neck buffer is inserted into 

the Neck Head and Torso Interface Plate 

(175–2003), which specifies the 

corresponding feature at 6.0. Thus, to 

maintain consistency with drawing 

175–2003, the dimension should be 

changed to 6.0 on drawing 175–2002. 

Note 2 states ‘‘Thread to conform to 

BS3643 & must be clear & free running.’’

The only feature of the part which 

contains screw threads is the M12 

Helicoil which is inserted into the 

center of the plate. Since a Helicoil is a 

purchased part which already contains 

threads, note 2 is essentially redundant. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

2002 by changing the 6 dimension to 6.0 

and by removing note 2. 

Drawing 175–2003, Plate, Neck Head 

and Torso Interface 

Issue: FTSS claims that the 84.00 

dimension is unnecessarily tight and 

should be changed to 84.0. 

Analysis and Response: The 

dimension in question defines the outer 

diameter of the component. The slight 

increase in the tolerance will not result 

in any detrimental effects. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 

number 175–2003 by changing the 84.00 

dimension to 84.0 

Drawings 175–2010–1, –2015–1, and 

–2020–1, Neck Buffer Molded Shore 

60/70/80 A 

Issue: Each of the three prints 

specifies a durometer tolerance of +/¥2. 

Denton ATD claims that such a 

tolerance is impractically tight and does 

not follow industry standard practice. 

DATD recommends a tolerance of +/¥5. 

Analysis and Response: A durometer 

tolerance of +/¥2 is not practical given 

the expected variation typically 

associated with durometer 

measurement. The complicated shape of 

the buffer exacerbates this situation. A 

tolerance of +/¥5 is more practicable. 

NHTSA has modified drawings 175–

2010–1, –2015–1, and –2020–1 to reflect 

a durometer tolerance of +/¥5. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75327 

Drawing 175–3000, Shoulder Assembly 

Issue: FTSS claimed that Item 17, Part 

Number 5000008 is incorrect and 

should be replaced with Part Number 

5000014, Screw, SHCS M6 x 1 x 35. 

Analysis and Response: Drawing 175–

3000, as issued with the NPRM, 

specifies Item 17, Screw, SHCS M6 x 1 

x 30. FTSS contends that the longer 35 

mm screw will provide proper thread 

engagement. NHTSA agrees that the 

longer screw will improve thread 

engagement and does not foresee any 

interference problem that would result 

from using a longer, 35 mm screw. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 

number 175–3000, replacing Part 

Number 5000008 with Part Number 

5000014, Screw, SHCS M6 x 1 x 35. 

Drawing 175–3003, Shoulder U Spring 

Issue: FTSS recommends adding a 

note stating: ‘‘Heat Treat: Harden and 

Temper to HRC 47 +/¥2.’’

Analysis and Response: As issued 

with the NPRM, drawing 175–3003 does 

not contain any notes regarding heat 

treat requirements. Inclusion of the 

proposed note would help to provide 

guidance, ensuring proper function of 

the unit. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

3003 by adding the note ‘‘Heat Treat: 

Harden and Temper to HRC 47 +/¥2.’’

Drawing 175–3011, Cam Buffer Pad 

Issue: FTSS claims that the 5.0 hole 

requires a dimension to define its 

distance from the vertical edge of the 

part and recommends a requirement of 

4.1. 

Analysis and Response: As currently 

shown in drawing 175–3011, the 

distance between the two 5.0 holes is 

defined, however, their distance from 

the edge is not adequately specified. 

FTSS is correct in pointing out the need 

for a dimension to specify the location 

of the holes with respect to the edge of 

the unit. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

3011 by adding a 4.1 dimension to 

specify the location of the hole relative 

to the vertical edge of the unit. 

Drawing 175–3016, Shoulder Cam 

Clavicle Assembly 

Issue: FTSS proposes that the note 

should be corrected as follows: ‘‘Scratch 

clavicle before bonding and rough 

underside of buffer (item #2) 175–3011 

with P60 grade paper.’’

Analysis and Response: As issued in 

the NPRM, the note on drawing 175–

3016 states: ‘‘Scratch clavicle as shown 

before bonding rough underside of 

buffer (item #2) 175–3011 with P60 

grade paper.’’ The FTSS proposal 

intends to clarify the note since the 

drawing does not actually ‘‘show’’

where the clavicle is to be scratched. 

The intention of the note is to prepare 

the mating surfaces of the clavicle and 

the buffer to be bonded together, thus 

ensuring a durable bond. However, the 

proposed language of the note could be 

improved. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

3016 by adding the following note: 

‘‘Prepare the mating surfaces of the 

clavicle (item #1) and buffer pad (item 

#2) by lightly abrading them with P60 

grit sandpaper.’’

Drawing 175–3017, Shoulder Cam 

Clavicle 

Issue: FTSS proposes the following 

changes: dimension 25.00 +0/¥.25 

should be 24.7 +/¥0.3; dimension 6.0 

should be 5.8 +/¥0.3; dimension 13.0 

should be 13.0 +/¥0.2; and dimension 

4.6 is unclear and unnecessary. 

Analysis and Response: The shoulder 

cam clavicle is a plastic molded part 

and therefore tight tolerances are harder 

to maintain. The changes proposed by 

FTSS will relax the tolerances but will 

not affect the functional performance of 

the parts. Also, the 4.6 dimension has 

no landmark or reference point and 

therefore it should be eliminated, as 

suggested by FTSS. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

3017 as follows: changed dimension 

25.00 +0/¥0.25 to 24.7 +/¥0.3; 

changed dimension 13.0 to 13.0 +/¥0.2; 

changed dimension 6.0 to 5.8 +/¥0.3; 

and deleted the 4.6 dimension. 

Drawings 175–4011, –4012, –4013, and 

–4014, Linear Rib Guide Assembly 

Issue: As currently specified, all of the 

dimensions on these parts are reference 

dimensions. Denton ATD suggests 

removing the parentheses around the 

dimensions, making them required 

dimensions. 

Analysis and Response: DATD is 

correct in noting that the dimensions 

should be required dimensions. 

NHTSA has modified drawings 175–

4011, –4012, –4013, and –4014 by 

removing the parentheses, thereby 

making all of the dimensions required 

dimensions. 

Drawings 175–4040, –4041, and –4042, 

Springs 

Issue: As currently specified, the 

drawings specify a spring rate for each 

item, but do not provide any allowable 

tolerance for the spring rate. DATD 

suggests that a tolerance of +/¥3% be 

applied to the spring rates. 

Additionally, DATD suggests a tolerance 

of +/¥1 mm on all dimensions. 

Analysis and Response: DATD is 

correct in noting that a spring rate 

tolerance is necessary. However, review 

of other spring drawings and research of 

typical spring rate tolerances used in 

other industries suggests that a tolerance 

of +/¥3% is too restrictive. A more 

realistic tolerance would be +/¥10%. 

Additionally, the spring rate tolerance 

does not supersede the certification 

requirements in the rib drop test and 

therefore adding such a tolerance to the 

print will have no effect on the 

functionality of the rib modules. With 

regard to the dimensional tolerance, 

NHTSA agrees that +/¥1 mm on all 

dimensions is reasonable and 

practicable. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

4040 by adding the following note: 

‘‘Spring rate tolerance: +/¥1.6 N/mm.’’

We have modified drawing 175–4041 by 

adding the following note: ‘‘Spring rate 

tolerance: +/¥1.4 N/mm.’’ We have 

modified drawing 175–4042 by adding 

the following note: ‘‘Spring rate 

tolerance: +/¥1.9 N/mm.’’ Also, we 

have modified all three drawings to 

reflect a tolerance of +/¥1 mm for all 

dimensions. 

Drawings 175–4040, 175–4041, and 175–

4042, Damper Springs 

Issue: FTSS proposes the inclusion of 

three additional springs with different 

stiffness for rib module tuning. To 

simplify the drawings, FTSS proposes 

the elimination of drawings 175–4041 

and 175–4042 and the modification of 

drawing 175–4040 to add three 

additional damper return springs of 

varying stiffness (17.7, 20.3, and 21.6 N/ 

mm) to offer additional tuning 

flexibility. 

Analysis and Response: The ES–2re 

dummy’s thorax response is primarily 

controlled by its three rib modules. Each 

rib module contains three components 

that influence their response: The 

damper, the stiff damper spring, and the 

damper return spring. The rib modules’

performances are individually verified 

by conducting the rib module 

certification test. The current drawing 

package specifies three damper return 

springs of varying stiffness: 13.8, 16.4, 

and 19.0 N/mm. Dummy users are given 

the option of using any of the three 

springs as long as the rib modules meet 

the certification requirements specified 

in the rib module drop test. The various 

springs provide users with the ability to 

change springs as necessary to meet the 

certification response parameters. 

Each of the primary components of a 

rib module (the damper, the stiff 

damper spring, and the damper return 

spring) contributes significantly to the 

overall system performance. NHTSA has 

tested extensively with the three springs 

that are presently specified in the 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75328 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

drawing package. However, NHTSA has 

no test experience with the three new 

springs proposed by FTSS. In order to 

determine the effect on the rib response 

of the three different springs proposed 

by FTSS, NHTSA would need to 

undertake an extensive study involving 

the three primary components. For 

example, it is entirely possible that a 

stiffer spring, suggested by FTSS, could 

mask other deficiencies such as 

unacceptable damper performance. 

Given that FTSS’s comments were 

received by the agency well after the 

published deadline for comments 

(FTSS’s memo is dated Aug. 4, 2005) 

and considering the extensive research 

needed to qualify the performance of the 

proposed springs, the agency is unable 

to concur with the suggested change. 

Furthermore, FTSS did not provide any 

supporting data to substantiate the use 

of the newly proposed springs. We do 

not acknowledge a need for additional 

optional rib module springs since the 

three springs presently specified appear 

to provide sufficient flexibility. FTSS 

failed to demonstrate that the proposed 

springs are necessary or that they would 

offer any additional benefits such as 

improved durability, repeatability, or 

biofidelity. Accordingly, NHTSA is 

denying the request to incorporate three 

additional damping springs. 

Drawing 175–4051, Damper Assembly 

Issue: The drawing presently specifies 

that the damper body shall be welded to 

the damper bracket. DATD expressed 

concern that the heat required to weld 

the two units together could lead to 

damage of the damper and adversely 

affect its performance. 

Analysis and Response: It is not in 

NHTSA’s best interest to specify a 

process that could potentially adversely 

affect the performance of the unit. On 

the other hand, there is no indication 

that the process has affected damper 

performance in the past and thus it 

would not be proper to disallow the use 

of a welding process to join the two 

units. Accordingly, it would be practical 

to allow manufacturers to decide for 

themselves what process provides the 

best performance. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

4051 by replacing the weld note with 

the following text: ‘‘Attach item 1 and 

2 securely to attain structural integrity 

of a monolithic body using appropriate 

mechanical method.’’ In addition, we 

modified drawing 175–4053 by adding 

the following note: ‘‘External body of 

the damper may be threaded to achieve 

mechanical attachment with the 

damping bracket as specified in 175–

4051.’’

Drawing 175–4052, Damper Bracket 

Issue: FTSS proposes removing the 

note ‘‘Masking Before Painting.’’

Analysis and Response: The note is 

not critical to the fit or function of the 

part and removing it from the drawing 

will not compromise the performance of 

the dummy. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

4052 to remove the note ‘‘Mask Before 

Painting.’’

Drawing 175–4053, Damper 

Issue: FTSS contends that the overall 

length dimension of 193 +/¥3 is 

inaccurate and should be 195.7 +/¥3 

Analysis and Response: NHTSA/ 

VRTC inspected the several typical 

dampers and determined that the 

proposed dimension of 195.7 +/¥3 is 

acceptable. However, it is noted that the 

tolerance proposed should maintain 

consistency with the nominal 

dimension in terms of the one-decimal 

place call-out. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

4053 by changing the 193 +/¥3 

dimension to 195.7 +/¥3.0, 

Drawing 175–4057, Damper Bracket 

Clamp 

Issue: FTSS proposes that the 16 and 

8 dimensions should be 16.0 and 8.0. 

Analysis and Response: The 

dimensions in question specify the 

clamp width and the location of a pair 

of through holes with respect to the 

edge of the clamp. Changing the 

dimensions to one-decimal place 

dimensions will reduce the allowable 

tolerance and ensure better 

reproducibility and fit. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

4057 by changing the 16 and 8 

dimensions to 16.0 and 8.0, 

respectively. 

Drawing 175–4058, Damper Return 

Spring 

Issue: DATD notes that the current 

drawing does not contain a tolerance for 

the spring rate listed in note 2. DATD 

suggests a value of +/¥20%. 

Analysis and Response: DATD is 

correct in noting that a tolerance on the 

spring rate is needed. The 

recommendation of +/¥20% is 

reasonable and practicable. 

NHTSA has modified note 2 of 

drawing 175–4058 by adding the 

tolerance ‘‘+/¥0.25 kN/m.’’

Drawing 175–4060, Rib, Rear Bracket, 

Rib Extension 

Issue: FTSS stated ‘‘the tolerance and 

the bend angle are over-specified such 

hat the part could not be made.’’ FTSS 

provided a drawing in their submission 

which describes the recommended 

corrections. 

Analysis and Response: The drawing 

submitted by FTSS provides additional 

detail for fabricating the rib and 

therefore NHTSA must assume that 

FTSS intended to state that the 

tolerance and bend angle are ‘‘underspecified’’ as opposed to ‘‘overspecified.’’ In the proposed drawing, 

FTSS includes a dimension on the bend 

angle (89.0 +1.5/¥1.0 degrees) and xand y-dimensions for mounting hole 

locations. The additional detail 

provided will help to assure that the rib 

can be reproduced by multiple 

manufacturers. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 

number 175–4060 to incorporate the 

additional dimensions and tolerances 

submitted by FTSS. 

Drawing 175–5501, Lumbar Spine, 

Molded 

Issue: FTSS claims to have studied ‘‘a 

large sample of lumbar spines.’’

According to the claim, FTSS states that 

the statistical analysis suggests the 

lumbar length should be 135 +/¥2 mm 

instead of 136 +0/¥3 mm. 

Analysis and Response: The proposed 

change would effectively change the 

allowable lumbar length from 133–136 

mm to 133–137 mm, thus allowing 

lumbar spines to be 1 mm longer. 

Review of the complete dummy’s 

external dimensions (175–0000, sheet 3) 

indicates that only two dimensions 

could potentially be affected by the 

proposed change: the sitting height and 

the seat to lower face of thoracic spine 

box. However, it is noted that these 

external dimensions have tolerances of 

+/¥9 mm and +/¥5 mm, respectively, 

and therefore the proposed change 

would have little or no effect on the 

ability of manufacturers to meet those 

requirements. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

5501 by changing the 136 +0/¥3 

dimension to 135 +/¥2. 

Drawings 175–6010 and –6002, Iliac 

Wing Assembly, Left and Right 

Issue: FTSS proposes changing the 

99.9 and 11.0 dimensions to 100 and 11, 

respectively. FTSS also proposes that 

note 3 should be modified to read: ‘‘All 

Tolerance Other Than Mounting Hole 

Centers +/¥1.’’

Analysis and Response: The iliac 

wing assembly is a plastic molded part 

and as such tolerances of +/¥0.1 are 

difficult to maintain. Therefore it is 

agreed that the 99.9 and 11.0 

dimensions can be changed to 100 and 

11, thus allowing the tolerances on 

those dimensions to be +/¥0.5. With 

regard to the note 3, it is not clear that 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75329 

note 3 is needed. There is only one 

dimension on the print, the 20.03 

diameter, that is neither a reference 

dimension nor the location of a hole 

center. Therefore, it appears 3 can be 

removed. 

NHTSA has modified drawings 175–

6010 and –6002 to change the 99.9 and 

11.0 dimensions to 100 and 11, and has 

deleted note 3. 

Drawing 175–6012, Hip Pivot Pin 

Issue: FTSS proposes the elimination 

of the 14.5 dimension and changing the 

58 (reference) dimension to 58.0 +/ 

¥0.2. 

Analysis and Response: Changing the 

overall length dimension of 58 from a 

reference dimension to an inspection 

dimension of 58.0 +/¥0.2 eliminates 

the need for the 14.5 dimension. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

6012 by removing the 14.5 dimension 

and changing the 58 dimension to 58.0 

+/¥0.2. 

Drawings 175–6015 and –6020, Femur 

Buffer Assembly, Left and Right 

Issue: The current print specifies that 

items 1 and 3 are attached using ‘‘Tape, 

Acrylic, Double Sided.’’ DATD suggests 

that ‘‘equivalent’’ materials be allowed 

for the bonding process. 

Analysis and Response: As previously 

stated, the phrase ‘‘equivalent’’ is open 

to interpretation. However, it is not in 

NHTSA’s best interest to maintain 

unnecessary material specifications. In 

this instance, the double sided tape 

listed in item 2 of the part list could be 

identified as ‘‘reference’’ and a note 

could be added stating ‘‘Attach items 1 

and 3 securely using appropriate 

bonding method.’’

NHTSA has modified drawings 175–

6015 and –6020 by adding the statement 

‘‘(reference)’’ to item 2 in the parts list. 

We have also added the following note: 

‘‘Attach items 1 and 3 securely using 

appropriate bonding method.’’

Drawing 175–6018, Plate, Femur Buffer 

Issue: FTSS proposes that the 8 and 

3 dimensions should be 8.0 and 3.0, 

respectively. 

Analysis and Response: The subject 

item is part of an assembly used in the 

upper femur. Tightening the tolerances 

as FTSS proposes will help to ensure a 

good match between mating parts in the 

assembly. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 175–

6018 by changing dimension 8 to 8.0 

and dimension 3 to 3.0. 

Drawing 175–6041, Sacrum Cover Plate 

Issue: The sacrum cover plate is used 

to mount and protect the pelvis 

accelerometers. DATD suggests 

modifying the drawing to allow a small 

cut-out that would be used for 

accelerometer cable routing, reducing 

the likelihood for pinching wires. 

Analysis and Response: DATD did not 

show that the current design leads to 

damaged accelerometer wires, therefore 

it does not seem necessary to require a 

cut-out in the plate. However, the DATD 

suggestion is not unreasonable or 

impractical and thus it could be shown 

as an optional configuration. 

We have modified drawing 175–6041 

to show an optional cut-out for 

accelerometer cable routing. 

Drawings 175–7000–1 and –2, Leg 

Assembly Left and Right 

Issue: FTSS recommended that Item 

23, Part Number 9000296, Washer, 

should be deleted. 

Analysis and Response: FTSS has 

correctly pointed out an error in the 

NHTSA drawing package. 

We have deleted part number 

9000296, Washer from drawings 175–

7000–1 and –2. 

Drawings 175–7001–1 and –2 Lower Leg 

Assembly Left and Right 

Issue: FTSS stated that the flesh 

component of the assembly should be 

specified as a separate item in the parts 

list and identified as part numbers 175–

7003–1 and –2, Lower Leg Flesh, Left 

and Right, respectively. 

Analysis and Response: NHTSA was 

unaware that the leg flesh was available 

as a separate part. Specifying the leg 

flesh as a separate part allows 

consumers to purchase the lower leg 

flesh separately, which is less expensive 

than purchasing the entire lower leg 

assembly. 

NHTSA has incorporated drawings 

175–7003–1 and –2, Lower Leg Flesh, 

Left and Right, into the drawing 

package. We have modified drawing 

175–7001–1 and –2 to identify the 175–

7003–1 and –2 as separate parts. 

Drawing 175–7034, Foot Rib 

Issue: FTSS stated that the 5/16′′ 

cutout feature has been eliminated from 

the design and should be removed from 

the drawing. 

Analysis and Response: The 5/16′′ 

cutout feature is not critical to the 

design’s performance and can be 

eliminated. Additionally, the cutout 

feature is shown in the foot weldment 

assembly drawing (175–3031) and 

should be deleted from that drawing, as 

well. 

We have modified drawings 175–7034 

and 175–7031 by removing the 5/16′′ 

cutout feature in each drawing. 

Drawings 175–7090–1 and –2, Thigh 

Molded, Left and Right 

Issue: FTSS suggests adding a 

reference dimension of 174 for the 

width of the thigh flesh. FTSS also 

suggests changing Note 2 on drawing 

175–7090–1 from ‘‘+/¥2 mm’’ to ‘‘+/¥3 

mm’’ to be consistent with drawing 

number 175–7090–2. 

Analysis and Response: As released 

with the NPRM, there is no dimension 

on the width of the thigh flesh. Because 

the proposed dimension would only be 

a reference value, the parts are not 

strictly required to meet the dimension 

and therefore the proposed change 

would not necessarily affect existing or 

future parts. The dimension could be 

useful to manufacturers as a reference 

check. With regard to Note 2, all of the 

dimensions on both 175–7090–1 and –2 

are reference dimensions. As such, the 

parts are not strictly required to conform 

to the dimensional tolerances and 

therefore changing the tolerance to +/ 

¥3 mm will have no effect. 

Furthermore, it is desirable to maintain 

consistency with 175–7090–2. 

NHTSA has modified drawings 175–

7090–1 and –2 to add a reference 

dimension of 174 for the width of the 

thigh flesh, and has modified Note 2 of 

drawing 175–7090–1 to reflect a 

tolerance of +/¥3 mm. 

Drawing SA572–S29, Six Channel 

Femur Load Cell 

Issue: The drawing specified by 

NHTSA in the NPRM is the same as that 

used for the femur load cell in the 

Hybrid III 5th female dummy. While the 

ES–2re femur load cell is dimensionally 

the same as that used in the 5th female, 

the weight of the load cell used in the 

ES–2re is less. FTSS recommends 

creating a new part number for the ES–

2re Six Channel Load Cell using the 

same dimensional and functional 

specifications, except changing the 

weight specification to 1.87 lb (0.85 kg) 

max. In its comments, Denton ATD also 

submitted that the load cell should have 

a weight of 1.87 lb (0.85 kg) max. 

Analysis and Response: NHTSA 

inspected the load cells used in their 

evaluations of the ES–2re dummy. It 

was determined that the load cells were, 

indeed, lighter than those specified for 

use in the Hybrid III 5th female. 

We have generated a new femur load 

cell drawing to reflect the ES–2re femur 

load cell as recommended. 

Drawing SA572–S70, Six Axis Upper 

Neck Load Cell 

Issue: FTSS claimed that the three 

dimensional coordinate axis system is 

incorrect as the Y-axis should be 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75330 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

pointing in the opposite direction. 

Additionally, FTSS requested that the 

drawing should include the formulae to 

calculate the moments about the 

occipital condyle. FTSS recommended 

adding: 

Mx,oc = Mx measured + (0.02 x Fy measured) 

My,oc = My measured + (0.02 x Fx measured) 

Analysis and Response: FTSS is 

correct in pointing out the error in the 

three-dimensional coordinate axis 

system. With regard to adding the 

formulae, there exists no current 

requirement for making the 

computations of neck moments about 

the occipital condyle. However, it is 

noted that the addition of the formulae 

does not impose any further 

requirements and thus can be added for 

reference purposes. 

NHTSA has modified drawing 

SA572–S70 to show the correct 

orientation of the Y-axis in the 

coordinate system. We added the 

formulae under the title: ‘‘Reference for 

Computing Moments about the 

Occipital Condyle. Units are Newtons 

for forces and Newton-meters for 

moments.’’

EuroSID2 in Title Block 

Issue: FTSS noted multiple drawings 

that contained the word ‘‘EuroSID2’’ in 

the title block. FTSS claims the official 

name is ‘‘ES–2.’’ The affected drawings 

are SA572–S70, SA572–S71–1, SA572–

S71–2, SA572–S71–3, SA572–S72, 

SA572–S73, SA572–S74, SA572–S75, 

SA572–S76, and SA572–S77. 

Analysis and Response: FTSS is 

correct in identifying the potential for 

confusion with the use of multiple 

references such as ‘EuroSID2’ and ‘ES–

2.’ However, NHTSA has adopted the 

name ‘ES–2re’ to identify the dummy as 

the ES–2 with rib extension. 

We have removed all references to 

‘‘EuroSID2’’ from the drawing package 

and replaced them with ‘ES–2re.’

Drawing SA572–S72, 3 Axis Shoulder 

Load Cell 

Issue: FTSS claims that the weight 

specification is incorrect and should be 

0.53 lbs (0.24 kg) max. DATD also 

suggested this specification in its 

comments. 

Analysis and Response: As issued in 

the NPRM, drawing SA572–S72 

specifies 0.47 lbs max. The FTSS 

proposal would increase the max weight 

by 0.06 lbs. NHTSA considers the 

proposed increase in maximum weight 

to be inconsequential to the overall 

assembled weight of the dummy. 

We have modified drawing SA572–

S72 to indicate ‘‘Weight: 0.53 lbs/0.24 

kg max.’’

Drawing SA572–S73, 4 Axis Backplate 

Load Cell 

Issue: FTSS states that the weight 

specification is incorrect and should be 

2.80 lbs (1.27 kg) max. DATD also 

suggested this specification in its 

comments. 

Analysis and Response: As issued in 

the NPRM, drawing SA572-–S73 

specifies 6.83 lbs max. Upon further 

analysis, NHTSA determined that the 

6.83 pound specification was 

established, incorrectly, by measuring 

the weight of the load cell and 

additional hardware. Upon learning of 

this mistake, NHTSA verified that the 

FTSS recommendation of 2.80 lbs 

maximum was appropriate. 

We have modified drawing SA572–

S73 to indicate ‘‘Weight 2.80 lbs/1.27 kg 

max.’’

Drawing SA572–S76, Lumbar Load Cell 

Issue: FTSS states that the axes 

referenced in the load capacity 

specification are incorrectly labeled. 

FTSS recommends replacing ‘‘Fx’’ with 

‘Fy’ and ‘Fy’ with ‘Fz.’ Also, FTSS states 

that the weight specification is incorrect 

and should be 0.57 lbs (0.26 kg). DATD 

suggests a weight specification of 0.59 

lbs (0.27 kg). 

Analysis and Response: FTSS is 

correct in pointing out the error with 

regard to the Fy and Fz axes. As issued 

in the NPRM, the drawing contains a 

weight specification of 0.55 lbs (0.25 

kg). The FTSS suggestion would 

increase the weight specification by 0.02 

lbs, while the DATD request would only 

increase the weight by 0.04 lbs. NHTSA 

considers the proposed increase in 

maximum weight to be inconsequential 

to the overall assembled weight of the 

dummy. 

We have modified the drawing by 

correctly identifying the Fy and Fz axes 

and by changing the weight 

specification to indicate: ‘‘Weight: 0.59 

lbs/0.27 kg.’’

Drawing SA572–S77, Pubic Load Cell 

Issue: FTSS claims that the 

specification for crosstalk is inadequate. 

In their comments, FTSS is concerned 

with bending loads applied to the load 

cell being reported as compressive 

loads. FTSS recommends an additional 

requirement be added to the drawing 

indicating ‘‘Moment Crosstalk Error < 

5% Full Scale at Applied Mx/My

Moments of 4000 in-lbs./452 Nm.’’

DATD, which also manufactures the 

load cells, independently provided the 

same comment, requesting that a 

moment crosstalk error of less than 5% 

be placed on the drawing. 

Analysis and Response: Crosstalk is 

measured during the load cell 

calibration process. When a load is 

applied exclusively to one channel, the 

other channels of the load cell are 

monitored to determine if they are 

(incorrectly) measuring a response. The 

pubic load cell is a single-axis load cell 

and therefore is calibrated only by 

applying a load along its single sensitive 

axis. In a strict interpretation, it is not 

possible to measure crosstalk on a single 

axis load cell because there are no other 

channels to monitor when the load is 

applied along the single sensitive axis. 

FTSS is proposing that a moment load 

(of 4,000 in-lbs) be placed on the load 

cell while monitoring the compressive 

load channel. There exists a precedent 

for this type of requirement. The 

uniaxial femur load cell, model number 

2121, manufactured by Robert A. 

Denton, Inc. contains a similar note: 

‘‘Moment error 6% maximum with a 

5,000 in-lb moment.’’

NHTSA tested one ES–2re pubic load 

cell to determine its sensitivity to 

applied bending loads. However, since 

it was unknown whether the pubic load 

cell could survive a large bending 

moment, only loads of 3,000 in-lbs were 

applied. To achieve the 3,000 in-lbs 

moment, an axial load of 3,000 pounds 

was applied at a distance of one inch 

from the longitudinal centerline of the 

load cell. The bending moments were 

applied at 4 equally-spaced locations 

around the perimeter of the load cell to 

assess the load cell’s sensitivity in 

multiple orientations. NHTSA’s testing 

at 3,000 in-lbs of bending moment 

resulted in errors of 4.6, 6.2, 1.2, and 

5.9% at the four locations. NHTSA 

notes that only one load cell was tested 

in this analysis, therefore any 

requirement should consider the greater 

possible variation that would be 

observed if additional load cells had 

been tested. 

It should also be noted that NHTSA 

believes the correct bending loads 

should be applied about the x- and zaxes (Mx and Mz), not about the x- and 

y-axes as proposed by FTSS and DATD. 

Additionally, upon review of the 

drawing, NHTSA observed one minor 

error. The capacity of the load cell is 

presently specified to be 2,000 N (450 

lbf). The correct specification should be 

20,000 N (4,500 lbf). 

We have modified drawing SA572–

S77 by adding the following note: 

‘‘Axial load error shall be less than 7% 

for a 3,000 pound axial load applied at 

any location along a one inch radius 

from the longitudinal centerline of the 

load cell.’’ We have also modified the 

print to reflect the correct load cell 

capacity of 20,000 N (4,500 lbf). 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75331 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572 

Incorporation by reference, Motor 

vehicle safety. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as 

follows: 

Part 572—Anthropomorphic Test 

Dummies 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 572 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Subpart T—[Reserved] 

■ 2. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by 

reserving subpart T. 

■ 3. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by 

adding a new subpart U, consisting of 

§§ 572.180 through 572.189 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart T—[Reserved] 

Subpart U— ES–2re Side Impact Crash 

Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult 

Male 

Sec. 

572.180 Incorporated materials. 

572.181 General description. 

572.182 Head assembly. 

572.183 Neck assembly. 

572.184 Shoulder assembly. 

572.185 Thorax (upper torso) assembly. 

572.186 Abdomen assembly. 

572.187 Lumbar spine. 

572.188 Pelvis. 

572.189 Instrumentation and test 

conditions. 

Appendix A to Subpart U of Part 572—

Figures 

Subpart U, ES–2re Side Impact Crash 

Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult 

Male 

§ 572.180 Incorporated materials. 

(a) The following materials are hereby 

incorporated into this Subpart by 

reference: 

(1) A parts/drawing list entitled, 

‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart 

U, Eurosid 2 with Rib Extensions 

(ES2re), Sept. 2006,’’

(2) A drawings and inspection 

package entitled ‘‘Parts List and 

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid 

2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha 

Version), September 2006,’’ consisting 

of: 

(i) Drawing No. 175–0000 ES–2re 

Dummy Assembly; 

(ii) Drawing No. 175–1000 Head 

Assembly; 

(iii) Drawing No. 175–2000, Neck 

Assembly Test/Cert; 

(iv) Drawing No. 175–3000, Shoulder 

Assembly; 

(v) Drawing No. 175–3500, Arm 

Assembly, Left; 

(vi) Drawing No. 175–3800, Arm 

Assembly, Right; 

(vii) Drawing No. 175–4000, Thorax 

Assembly with Rib Extensions; 

(viii) Drawing No. 175–5000, 

Abdominal Assembly; 

(ix) Drawing No. 175–5500 Lumbar 

Spine Assembly; 

(x) Drawing No. 175–6000 Pelvis 

Assembly; 

(xi) Drawing No. 175–7000–1, Leg 

Assembly—left; 

(xii) Drawing No. 175–7000–2, Leg 

Assembly—right; 

(xiii) Drawing No. 175–8000, 

Neoprene Body Suit; and, 

(xiv) Drawing No. 175–9000, 

Headform Assembly; 

(3) A procedures manual entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly 

and Inspection (PADI) of the EuroSID–

2re 50th Percentile Adult Male Side 

Impact Crash Test Dummy, September 

2006,’’ incorporated by reference in 

§§ 572.180(a)(2), and 572.181(a); 

(4) Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) Recommended Practice J211, Rev. 

Mar 95 ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact 

Tests—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation’’; and, 

(5) 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 the materials may be 

inspected at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA), and in 

electronic format through the DOT 

docket management system (DMS). For 

information on the availability and 

inspection 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. For information on 

the availability and inspection of this 

material at the DOT DMS, call 1–800–

647–5527, or go to: http://dms.dot.gov. 

(c) The incorporated materials are 

available as follows: 

(1) The Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 

Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib 

Extensions (ES2re), Sept. 2006, referred 

to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the 

Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 

Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib 

Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha Version), 

September 2006, referred to in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the 

PADI document referred to in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, are available in 

electronic format through the DOT 

docket management system and in 

paper format from Leet-Melbrook, 

Division of New RT, 18810 Woodfield 

Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20879, 

telephone (301) 670–0090. 

(2) The SAE materials referred to in 

paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this 

section are available from the Society of 

Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 

Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 

15096, telephone 1–877–606–7323. 

§ 572.181 General description. 

(a) The ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test 

Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult Male, is 

defined by: 

(1) The drawings and specifications 

contained in the ‘‘Parts List and 

Drawings, Part 572 Subpart U, Eurosid 

2 with Rib Extensions (ES–2re, Alpha 

Version), September 2006,’’ which 

includes the technical drawings and 

specifications described in Drawing 

175–0000, the titles of which are listed 

in Table A; 

TABLE A 

Component assembly Drawing No. 

Head Assembly .................................................................................................................................................................................... 175–1000 

Neck Assembly Test/Cert .................................................................................................................................................................... 175–2000 

Neck Bracket Including Lifting Eyebolt ................................................................................................................................................ 175–2500 

Shoulder Assembly .............................................................................................................................................................................. 175–3000 

Arm Assembly-Left .............................................................................................................................................................................. 175–3500 

Arm Assembly-Right ............................................................................................................................................................................ 175–3800 

Thorax Assembly with Rib Extensions ................................................................................................................................................ 175–4000 

Abdominal Assembly ........................................................................................................................................................................... 175–5000 

Lumbar Spine Assembly ...................................................................................................................................................................... 175–5500 

Pelvis Assembly ................................................................................................................................................................................... 175–6000 

Leg Assembly, Left .............................................................................................................................................................................. 175–7000–1 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75332 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE A—Continued 

Component assembly Drawing No. 

Leg Assembly, Right ............................................................................................................................................................................ 175–7000–2 

Neoprene Body Suit ............................................................................................................................................................................ 175–8000 

(2) ‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 

Subpart U, Eurosid 2 with Rib 

Extensions (ES2re), Sept. 2006,’’

containing 8 pages, incorporated by 

reference in § 572.180, 

(3) A listing of available transducerscrash test sensors for the ES–2re Crash 

Test Dummy is shown in drawing 175–

0000 sheet 4 of 6, dated September 

2006, incorporated by reference in 

§ 572.180, 

(4) Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of 

the ES–2re Side Impact Crash Test 

Dummy, September 2006, incorporated 

by reference in § 572.180, 

(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 ES–2re test 

dummy are shown in drawing 175–0000 

sheet 3 of 6, dated September 2006. 

(c) Weights of body segments (head, 

neck, upper and lower torso, arms and 

upper and lower segments) and the 

center of gravity location of the head are 

shown in drawing 175–0000 sheet 2 of 

6, dated September 2006. 

(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 in Standard No. 214, Side Impact 

Protection and Standard No. 201, 

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. 

§ 572.182 Head assembly. 

(a) The head assembly consists of the 

head (drawing 175–1000), including the 

neck upper transducer structural 

replacement, and a set of three (3) 

accelerometers in conformance with 

specifications in § 572.189(b) and 

mounted as shown in drawing (175–

0000 sheet 1 of 6). When tested to the 

test procedure specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section, the head assembly shall 

meet performance requirements 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Test procedure. The head shall be 

tested per procedure specified in 49 

CFR § 572.112(a). 

(c) Performance criteria. 

(1) When the head assembly is 

dropped in accordance with § 572.112 

(a), the measured peak resultant 

acceleration shall be between 125 g’s 

and 155 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 fore-and-aft component of the 

head acceleration shall not exceed 15 

g’s. 

§ 572.183 Neck assembly. 

(a) The neck assembly consists of 

parts shown in drawing 175–2000. For 

purposes of this test, the neck is 

mounted within the headform assembly 

175–9000 as shown in Figure U1 in 

Appendix A to this subpart. When 

subjected to tests procedures specified 

in paragraph (b) of this section, the 

neck-headform assembly shall meet 

performance requirements specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(b) Test procedure. 

(1) Soak the neck-headform assembly 

in a test environment as specified in 

§ 572.189(o); 

(2) Attach the neck-headform 

assembly to the Part 572 subpart E 

pendulum test fixture as shown in 

Figure U2–A in Appendix A to this 

subpart, so that the midsagittal plane of 

the neck-headform assembly is vertical 

and perpendicular to the plane of 

motion of the pendulum longitudinal 

centerline shown in Figure U2–A. 

Torque the half-spherical screws (175–

2004) located at either end of the neck 

assembly to 88 +/¥5 in-lbs using the 

neck compression tool (175–9500) or 

equivalent; 

(3) Release the pendulum from a 

height sufficient to allow it to fall freely 

to achieve an impact velocity of 3.4+/ 

¥0.1 m/s measured at the center of the 

pendulum accelerometer (Figure 22 as 

set forth in 49 CFR 572.33) at the time 

the pendulum makes contact with the 

decelerating mechanism. The velocitytime history of the pendulum falls 

inside the corridor determined by the 

upper and lower boundaries specified in 

Table 1 to paragraph (a) of this section. 

(4) Allow the neck to flex without the 

neck-headform assembly making contact 

with any object; 

(5) Time zero is defined in 

§ 572.189(k). 

TABLE TO 1 TO PARAGRAPH (A)—ES–

2RE NECK CERTIFICATION PENDULUM VELOCITY CORRIDOR

Upper boundary Lower boundary 

Time 

(ms) 

Velocity 

(m/s) 

Time 

(ms) 

Velocity 

(m/s) 

1.0 ......... 0.00 0.0 ¥0.05 

3.0 ......... ¥0.25 2.5 ¥0.375 

14.0 ....... ¥3.20 13.5 ¥3.7 

17.0 ¥3.7 

(c) Performance criteria. (1) The 

pendulum deceleration pulse is to be 

characterized in terms of decrease in 

velocity as determined by integrating 

the filtered pendulum acceleration 

response from time-zero. The pendulum 

shall be vertical within +/¥1° when its 

speed is reduced to 0 m/s. 

(2) The maximum rotation in the 

lateral direction of the reference plane 

of the headform (175–9000) as shown in 

Figure U2–B in Appendix A to this 

subpart, shall be 49 to 59 degrees with 

respect to the longitudinal axis of the 

pendulum occurring between 54 and 66 

ms from time zero. Rotation of the 

headform-neck assembly and the neck 

angle with respect to the pendulum 

shall be measured with potentiometers 

specified in § 572.189(c), installed as 

shown in drawing 175–9000, and 

calculated per procedure specified in 

Figure U2–B in Appendix A to this 

subpart; 

(3) The decaying headform rotation 

vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle 

with respect to its initial position at 

time of impact relative to the pendulum 

centerline between 53 ms to 88 ms after 

the time the peak translation-rotation 

value is reached. 

§ 572.184 Shoulder assembly. 

(a) The shoulder (175–3000) is part of 

the body assembly shown in drawing 

175–0000. When subjected to impact 

tests specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the shoulder assembly shall 

meet performance requirements of 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(b) Test procedure. 

(1) Soak the dummy assembly, 

without suit and shoulder foam pad 

(175–3010), in a test environment as 

specified in § 572.189(n); 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75333 

(2) The dummy is seated, as shown in 

Figure U3 in Appendix A to this 

subpart, on a flat, horizontal, rigid 

surface covered by two overlaid 2 mm 

thick Teflon sheets and with no back 

support of the dummy’s torso. The 

dummy’s torso spine backplate is 

vertical within ±2 degrees and the 

midsagittal plane of the thorax is 

positioned perpendicular to the 

direction of the plane of motion of the 

impactor at contact with the shoulder. 

The arms are oriented forward at 50±2 

degrees from the horizontal, pointing 

downward. The dummy’s legs are 

horizontal and symmetrical about the 

midsaggital plane with the distance 

between the innermost point on the 

opposite ankle at 100 ±5 mm. The 

length of the elastic shoulder cord (175–

3015) shall be adjusted so that a force 

between and including 27.5 and 32.5 N 

applied in a forward direction at 4 ±1 

mm from the outer edge of the clavicle 

in the same plane as the clavicle 

movement, is required to initiate a 

forward motion of 1 to 5 mm; 

(3) The impactor is the same as 

defined in § 572.189(a); 

(4) The impactor is guided, if needed, 

so that at contact with the shoulder, its 

longitudinal axis is within ±0.5 degrees 

of a horizontal plane and perpendicular 

(±0.5 degrees) to the midsagittal plane of 

the dummy and the centerpoint on the 

impactor’s face is within 5 mm of the 

center of the upper arm pivot bolt 

(5000040) at contact with the test 

dummy, as shown in Figure U3 in 

Appendix A to this subpart; 

(5) The impactor impacts the 

dummy’s shoulder at 4.3±0.1 m/s. 

(c) Performance criteria. The peak 

acceleration of the impactor is between 

7.5 g’s and 10.5 g’s during the 

pendulum’s contact with the dummy. 

§ 572.185 Thorax (upper torso) assembly. 

(a) The thorax assembly of the dummy 

must meet the requirements of both (b) 

and (c) of this section. Section 

572.185(b) specifies requirements for an 

individual rib drop test, and 

§ 572.185(c) specifies requirements for a 

full-body thorax impact test. 

(b) Individual rib drop test. For 

purposes of this test, the rib modules 

(175–4002), which are part of the thorax 

assembly (175–4000), are tested as 

individual units. When subjected to test 

procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section, the rib modules shall 

meet performance requirements 

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. Each rib is tested at both the 

459 mm and 815 mm drop height tests 

described in paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A) and 

(B) of this section. 

(1) Test procedure. 

(i) Soak the rib modules (175–4002) in 

a test environment as specified in 

§ 572.189(o); 

(ii) Mount the rib module rigidly in a 

drop test fixture as shown in Figure U7 

in Appendix A to this subpart with the 

impacted side of the rib facing up; 

(iii) The drop test fixture contains a 

free fall guided mass of 7.78±0.01 kg 

that is of rigid construction and with a 

flat impact face 150±1.0 mm in diameter 

and an edge radius of ±0.25 mm; 

(iv) Align the vertical longitudinal 

centerline of the drop mass so that the 

centerpoint of the downward-facing flat 

surface is aligned to impact the 

centerline of the rib rail guide system 

within ± 2.5 mm. 

(v) The impacting mass is dropped 

from the following heights: 

(A) 459 ±5 mm 

(B) 815 ±8 mm 

(vi) A test cycle consists of one drop 

from each drop height specified in 

paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section. Allow 

a period of not less than five (5) minutes 

between impacts in a single test cycle. 

Allow a period of not less than thirty 

(30) minutes between two separate 

cycles of the same rib module. 

(2) Performance criteria. 

(i) Each of the rib modules shall 

deflect as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, with 

the deflection measurements made with 

the internal rib module position 

transducer specified in § 572.189(d): 

(A) Not less than 36 mm and not more 

than 40 mm when impacted by the mass 

dropped from 459 mm; and, 

(B) Not less than 46 mm and not more 

than 51mm when impacted by the mass 

dropped from 815 mm. 

(c) Full-body thorax impact test. The 

thorax is part of the upper torso 

assembly shown in drawing 175–4000. 

For this full-body thorax impact test, the 

dummy is tested as a complete assembly 

(drawing 175–0000) with the struck-side 

arm (175–3500, left arm; 175–3800, right 

arm) removed. The dummy’s thorax is 

equipped with deflection 

potentiometers as specified in drawing 

SA572–S69. When subjected to the test 

procedures specified in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section, the thorax shall meet the 

performance requirements set forth in 

paragraph (c)(2). 

(1) Test Procedure. 

(i) Soak the dummy assembly (175–

0000), with struck-side arm (175–3500, 

left arm; 175–3800, right arm), shoulder 

foam pad (175–3010), and neoprene 

body suit (175–8000) removed, in a test 

environment as specified in 

§ 572.189(n); 

(ii) The dummy is seated, as shown in 

Figure U4 in Appendix A to this 

subpart, on a flat, horizontal, rigid 

surface covered by two overlaid 2 mm 

thick Teflon sheets and with no back 

support of the dummy’s torso. The 

dummy’s torso spine backplate is 

vertical within ±2 degrees and the 

midsagittal plane of thorax is positioned 

perpendicular to the direction of the 

plane of motion of the impactor at 

contact with the thorax. The non-struck 

side arm is oriented vertically, pointing 

downward. The dummy’s legs are 

horizontal and symmetrical about the 

midsagittal plane with the distance 

between the innermost point on the 

opposite ankle at 100 ±5 mm; 

(iii) The impactor is the same as 

defined in § 572.189(a); 

(iv) The impactor is guided, if needed, 

so that at contact with the thorax its 

longitudinal axis is within ±0.5 degrees 

of horizontal and perpendicular ±0.5 

degrees to the midsagittal plane of the 

dummy and the centerpoint of the 

impactor’s face is within 5 mm of the 

impact point on the dummy’s middle 

rib shown in Figure U4 in Appendix A 

to this subpart; 

(v) The impactor impacts the 

dummy’s thorax at 5.5 m/s ±0.1 m/s. 

(vi) Time zero is defined in 

§ 572.189(k). 

(2) Performance Criteria. 

(i) The individual rib modules shall 

conform to the following range of 

deflections: 

(A) Upper rib not less than 33.2 mm 

and not greater than 41.3 mm; 

(B) Middle rib not less than 37.1 mm 

and not greater than 45.4 mm; 

(C) Lower rib not less than 35.6 mm 

and not greater than 43.0 mm. 

(ii) The impactor force shall be 

computed as the product of the impact 

probe acceleration and its mass. The 

peak impactor force at any time after 6 

ms from time zero shall be not less than 

5,173 N and not greater than 6,118 N. 

§ 572.186 Abdomen assembly. 

(a) The abdomen assembly (175–5000) 

is part of the dummy assembly shown 

in drawing 175–0000 including load 

sensors specified in § 572.189(e). When 

subjected to tests procedures specified 

in paragraph (b) of this section, the 

abdomen assembly shall meet 

performance requirements specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(b) Test procedure. 

(1) Soak the dummy assembly (175–

0000), without suit (175–8000) and 

shoulder foam pad (175–3010), as 

specified in § 572.189(n); 

(2) The dummy is seated as shown in 

Figure U5 in Appendix A to this 

subpart; 

(3) The abdomen impactor is the same 

as specified in § 572.189(a) except that 

on its rectangular impact surface is 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75334 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

affixed a special purpose block whose 

weight is 1.0 ± 0.01 kg. The block is 70 

mm high, 150 mm wide and 60 to 80 

mm deep. The impact surface is flat, has 

a minimum Rockwell hardness of M85, 

and an edge radius of 4 to 5 mm. The 

block’s wide surface is horizontally 

oriented and centered on the 

longitudinal axis of the probe’s impact 

face as shown in Figure U5–A in 

Appendix A to this subpart; 

(4) The impactor is guided, if needed, 

so that at contact with the abdomen its 

longitudinal axis is within ± 0.5 degrees 

of a horizontal plane and perpendicular 

± 0.5 degrees to the midsagittal plane of 

the dummy and the centerpoint on the 

impactor’s face is aligned within 5 mm 

of the center point of the middle load 

measuring sensor in the abdomen as 

shown in Figure U5; 

(5) The impactor impacts the 

dummy’s abdomen at 4.0 m/s ± 0.1 m/ 

s; 

(6) Time zero is defined in 

§ 572.189(k). 

(c) Performance criteria. 

(1) The maximum sum of the forces of 

the three abdominal load sensors, 

specified in 572.189(e), shall be not less 

than 2200 N and not more than 2700 N 

and shall occur between 10 ms and 12.3 

ms from time zero. The calculated sum 

of the three load cell forces must be 

concurrent in time. 

(2) Maximum impactor force (impact 

probe acceleration multiplied by its 

mass) is not less than 4000 N and not 

more than 4800 N occurring between 

10.6 ms and 13.0 ms from time zero. 

§ 572.187 Lumbar spine. 

(a) The lumbar spine assembly 

consists of parts shown in drawing 175–

5500. For purposes of this test, the 

lumbar spine is mounted within the 

headform assembly 175–9000 as shown 

in Figure U1 in Appendix A to this 

subpart. When subjected to tests 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the lumbar spine-headform 

assembly shall meet performance 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(b) Test procedure. 

(1) Soak the lumbar spine-headform 

assembly in a test environment as 

specified in § 572.189(o); 

(2) Attach the lumbar spine-headform 

assembly to the Part 572 pendulum test 

fixture per procedure in § 572.183(b)(2) 

and as shown in Figure U2–A in 

Appendix A to this subpart. Torque the 

lumbar hex nut (p/n 9000057) on to the 

lumbar cable assembly (175–5506) to 50 

± 5 in-lb; 

(3) Release the pendulum from a 

height sufficient to allow it to fall freely 

to achieve an impact velocity of 6.05 

±0.1 m/s measured at the center of the 

pendulum accelerometer (Figure 22) at 

the time the pendulum makes contact 

with its decelerating mechanism. The 

velocity-time history of the pendulum 

falls inside the corridor determined by 

the upper and lower boundaries 

specified in Table 1 to paragraph (b) of 

this section; 

(4) Allow the lumbar spine to flex 

without the lumbar spine or the 

headform making contact with any 

object; 

(5) Time zero is defined in 

§ 572.189(k). 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b).—ES–2RE LUMBAR SPINE CERTIFICATION PENDULUM VELOCITY CORRIDOR

Upper boundary Lower boundary 

Time 

(ms) 

Velocity 

(m/s) 

Time 

(ms) 

Velocity 

(m/s) 

1.0 0.00 0.0 ¥0 .05 

3.7 ¥0.24 2.7 ¥0 .425 

27.0 ¥5.80 24.5 ¥6 .50 

30.0 ¥6 .50 

(c) Performance criteria. (1) The 

pendulum deceleration pulse is to be 

characterized in terms of decrease in 

velocity as determined by integrating 

the filtered pendulum acceleration 

response from time-zero. 

(2) The maximum rotation in the 

lateral direction of the reference plane 

of the headform (175–9000) as shown in 

Figure U2–B in Appendix A to this 

subpart, shall be 45 to 55 degrees with 

respect to the longitudinal axis of the 

pendulum occurring between 39 and 53 

ms from time zero. Rotation of the 

headform-neck assembly shall be 

measured with potentiometers specified 

in § 572.189(c), installed as shown in 

drawing 175–9000, and calculated per 

procedure specified in Figure U2–B in 

Appendix A to this subpart. 

(3) The decaying headform rotation 

vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle 

with respect to its initial position at 

impact relative to the pendulum 

centerline between 37 ms to 57 ms after 

the time the peak translation-rotation 

value is reached. 

§ 572.188 Pelvis. 

(a) The pelvis (175–6000) is part of 

the torso assembly shown in drawing 

175–0000. The pelvis is equipped with 

a pubic symphysis load sensor in 

conformance with § 572.189(f) and 

mounted as shown in drawing (175–

0000 sheet 4). When subjected to tests 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the pelvis assembly shall 

meet performance requirements 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Test procedure. 

(1) Soak the dummy assembly (175–

0000) without suit (175–8000) and 

shoulder foam pad (175–3010) as 

specified in § 572.189(n); 

(2) The dummy is seated as specified 

in Figure U6 in Appendix A to this 

subpart; 

(3) The pelvis impactor is the same as 

specified in § 572.189(a); 

(4) The impactor is guided, if needed, 

so that at contact with the pelvis its 

longitudinal axis is within ± 0.5 degrees 

of a horizontal plane and perpendicular 

to the midsagittal plane of the dummy 

and the centerpoint on the impactor’s 

face is within 5 mm of the center of the 

H-point in the pelvis, as shown in 

Figure U5 in Appendix A to this 

subpart; 

(5) The impactor impacts the 

dummy’s pelvis at 4.3 +/¥0.1 m/s. 

(c) Performance criteria. 

(1) The impactor force (probe 

acceleration multiplied by its mass) 

shall be not less than 4,700 N, and not 

more than 5,400 N, occurring between 

11.8 ms and 16.1 ms from time zero as 

defined in § 572.189(k); 

(2) The pubic symphysis load, 

measured with load cell specified in 

§ 572.189(f) shall be not less than 1,230 

N and not more than 1,590 N occurring 

between 12.2 ms and 17.0 ms from time 

zero as defined in § 572.189(k). 

§ 572.189 Instrumentation and test 

conditions. 

(a) The test probe for lateral shoulder, 

thorax without arm, abdomen, and 

pelvis impact tests is the same as that 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75335 

specified in § 572.36(a) and the impact 

probe has a minimum mass moment of 

inertia in yaw of 9,000 kg-cm2, a free air 

resonant frequency not less than 1,000 

Hz and the probe’s end opposite to the 

impact face has provisions to mount an 

accelerometer with its sensitive axis 

collinear with the longitudinal axis of 

the probe. All hardware attached 

directly to the impactor and one-third 

(1⁄3) of the mass of the suspension cables 

must be included in the calculations of 

the total impactor mass. The sum mass 

of the attachments and 1⁄3 cable mass 

must not exceed 5 percent of the total 

pendulum mass. No suspension 

hardware, suspension cables, or any 

other attachments to the test probe, 

including velocity vane, shall make 

contact with the dummy during the test. 

(b) Accelerometers for the head, the 

thoracic spine, and the pelvis conform 

to specifications of SA572–S4. 

(c) Rotary potentiometer for the neck 

and lumbar spine certification tests 

conforms to SA572–53. 

(d) Linear position transducer for the 

thoracic rib conforms to SA572–S69. 

(e) Load sensors for the abdomen 

conform to specifications of SA572–S75. 

(f) Load sensor for the pubic 

symphysis conforms to specifications of 

SA572–77. 

(g) Load sensor for the lumbar spine 

conforms to specifications of SA572–76. 

(h) Instrumentation and sensors 

conform to the Recommended Practice 

SAE J–211 (Mar. 1995)—

Instrumentation for Impact Test unless 

noted otherwise. 

(i) All instrumented response signal 

measurements shall be treated to the 

following specifications: 

(1) Head acceleration—Digitally 

filtered CFC 1000; 

(2) Neck and lumbar spine rotations—

Digitally filtered CFC 180; 

(3)Neck and lumbar spine pendulum 

accelerations—Digitally filtered CFC 60; 

(4) Pelvis, shoulder, thorax without 

arm, and abdomen impactor 

accelerations—Digitally filtered CFC 

180; 

(5) Abdominal and pubic symphysis 

force—Digitally filtered at CFC 600; 

(6) Thorax deflection—Digitally 

filtered CFC 180. 

(j)(1) Filter the pendulum acceleration 

data using a SAE J211 CFC 60 filter. 

(2) Determine the time when the 

filtered pendulum accelerometer data 

first crosses the ¥10 g level (T10). 

(3) Calculate time-zero: T0 = T10¥Tm., 

Where: 

Tm = 1.417 ms for the Neck Test 

= 1.588 ms for the Lumbar Spine Test 

(4) Set the data time-zero to the 

sample number nearest to the calculated 

T0. 

(k)(1) Filter the pendulum 

acceleration data using a SAE J211 CFC 

180 filter. 

(2) Determine the time when the 

filtered pendulum accelerometer data 

first crosses the ¥1.0 m/s2 (¥.102 g) 

acceleration level (T0). 

(3) Set the data time-zero to the 

sample number of the new T0. 

(l) Mountings for the head, spine and 

pelvis accelerometers shall have no 

resonance frequency within a range of 3 

times the frequency range of the 

applicable channel class. 

(m) Limb joints of the test dummy are 

set at the force between 1 to 2 G’s, 

which just supports 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. 

(n) 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 percent to 70 percent 

after exposure of the dummy to those 

conditions for a period of not less than 

4 hours. 

(o) Certification tests of the same 

component, segment, assembly, or fully 

stassembled dummy shall be separated 

in time by a period of not less than 

thirty (30) minutes unless otherwise 

specified. 

Appendix A to Subpart U of Part 572—

Figures 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75336 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75337 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.001</GPH>
75338 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75339 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.005</GPH>
75340 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75341 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.008</GPH>
75342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the 

‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,’’

(SAFETEA–LU), P.L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 

Stat. 1144), to authorize funds for Federal-aid 

highways, highway safety programs, and transit 

programs, and for other purposes. Section 10302(a) 

of SAFETEA–LU provides: 

Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection 

Rulemaking. 

(a) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall complete a 

rulemaking proceeding under chapter 301 of title 

49, United States Code, to establish a standard 

designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle 

occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side 

impact crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final 

rule by July 1, 2008. 

At the time of the enactment of § 10302(a), the 

agency’s notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade 

FMVSS No. 214 was already pending. The final rule 

completing the rulemaking proceeding will be 

issued at a future date. 

Issued: November 24, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–9554 Filed 12–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

Docket No. NHTSA 25442 

RIN 2127–AJ16 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID–

IIs Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 5th 

Percentile Adult Female 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

agency’s regulation on anthropomorphic 

test devices to add specifications and 

qualification requirements for the 5th 

percentile adult female crash test 

dummy, called the SID–IIs Build Level 

D (‘‘SID–IIs’’) test dummy. The SID–IIs 

dummy is instrumented in the head, 

thorax, abdomen and pelvis, which 

enables it to assess in a comprehensive 

manner the performance of vehicles in 

protecting small-stature occupants in 

side impacts. NHTSA plans to use the 

SID–IIs dummy in an upgraded Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard on side 

impact protection. 

DATES: This final rule is effective June 

12, 2007. The incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of June 12, 

2007. If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by January 29 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, Room 

5220, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

The petition will be placed in the 

docket. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all documents 

received into any 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Stanley 

Backaitis, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 

202–366–4912). For legal issues, you 

may call Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office 

of Chief Counsel (telephone 202–366–

2992) (fax 202–366–3820). You may 

send mail to these officials at the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

a. Need for the Dummy 

b. Development of the SID–IIs 

c. Development of the FRG and Build Level 

D Dummies 

II. Response to the Comments on the FRG 

III. Other Issues 

a. Overview 

b. How this Final Rule Differs from the 

NPRM 

c. Description and Reference Materials 

d. Biofidelity 

e. Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) 

1. Component and Sled Tests Generally 

2. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

Assessments 

3. NPRM 

4. Comments on the NPRM 

5. Agency Response 

i. Component Qualification Tests 

A. Repeatability in Component Tests 

B. Reproducibility in Component Tests 

ii. Sled Tests 

A. Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s 

1. Repeatability in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 

6.0 m/s 

2. Reproducibility in Flat Wall Sled Tests 

at 6.0 m/s 

B. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at MCW 

C. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC 

1. Repeatability in Abdominal Offset Sled 

Tests at TRC 

2. Reproducibility in Abdominal Offset 

Sled Tests at TRC 

iii. Conclusion 

f. Pelvis of the Dummy 

1. Pelvis Plug 

2. Iliac Load Cell 

3. Iliac Wing 

g. The Shoulder with Arm Test 

h. Other 

1. Directional Impact Sensitivity 

2. Toyota Suggests an Improved Upper 

Arm 

3. Injury Assessment Reference Values 

4. Reversibility 

i. Test Dummy Drawing Package 

1. Three-Dimensional (3-D) Shape 

Definitions 

2. Material Specifications 

3. Dummy Drawing Changes 

IV. Qualification Procedures and Response 

Corridors 

a. Qualification Procedures 

b. Response Corridors 

V. Dummy Performance in Full-Scale Vehicle 

Crash Tests 

a. Oblique Vehicle-to-Pole Crash Tests 

b. MDB Tests 

c. Summary 

VI. Conclusions 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Appendix A: Durability and Overload 

Analysis of the SID–IIsD Test Dummy 

NHTSA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposed to upgrade Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

214, ‘‘Side Impact Protection’’ (49 CFR 

571.214) by, among other things, 

adopting a dynamic pole test into the 

standard (May 17, 2004; 69 FR 27990; 

Docket 17694; reopening of comment 

period, January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2105). 

The proposed pole test is similar to, but 

more demanding than, that currently 

used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. In 

the proposed pole test, a vehicle is 

propelled sideways into a rigid pole at 

an angle of 75 degrees, at any speed up 

to 32 km/h (20 mph). The NPRM 

proposed that compliance with the pole 

test would be determined in two test 

configurations, one using a ‘‘SID–IIs’’

test dummy representing 5th percentile 

adult females and the other using an 

‘‘ES–2re’’ test dummy representing midsize adult males. Vehicles tested with 

the SID–IIs would have to comply with 

a head injury criterion and with thoracic 

and pelvic injury criteria developed for 

the new dummy. The agency also 

proposed using the dummies in FMVSS 

No. 214’s existing moving deformable 

barrier (MDB) test, which simulates a 

vehicle-to-vehicle ‘‘T-bone’’ type 

intersection crash.1

This document establishes the 

specifications and qualification 

requirements for the SID–IIs 5th 

percentile adult female crash test 

dummy which would be used in the 

upgraded FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM 

preceding this Part 572 final rule was 

published on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 

70947; Docket 18865; extension of 

comment period, March 8, 2005; 70 FR 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2