[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75304-75342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9554]



[[Page 75303]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 572



Anthropomorphic Test Devices; ES-2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 50th 
Percentile Adult Male and SID-IIs Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 5th 
Percentile Adult Female; Final Rules

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

[[Page 75304]]


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

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 vehicle-to-
vehicle ``T-bone'' type intersection crash.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On 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 Sec.  10302(a), the agency's 
notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 was pending. 
The final rule completing the rulemaking proceeding will be issued 
in the near future.

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

[[Page 75305]]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NHTSA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
(HIC<INF>36</INF>). 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 90.0 cm seated height of the ES-2re is representative of adult 
males mid-size 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 full-

[[Page 75306]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ WorldSID 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.
    \6\ The agency's response to the petition will be issued in 
rulemaking documents relating to the FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, <greek-i>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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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, <greek-i>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
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[deg] 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

[[Page 75308]]

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 mid-sized 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Delta, UMTRI vs
             Dimension                       UMTRI                  ES-2re*         Delta, UMTRI vs ES-2re         WorldSID               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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note that the WorldSID's abdomen and pelvis are slightly 
wider than the UMTRI dimension, which may also be inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Also, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 75309]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Samaha, R.S., Elliot, D., ``NHTSA Side Impact Research: 
Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 75310]]

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[deg] 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Furthermore, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 75311]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <greek-i>070'' and 
``dummy <greek-i>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 Teflon-covered bench seat with two 
Teflon-covered 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) <greek-i>070 falling outside 
the CV acceptability boundary at 14.8%. This elevated CV value for 
dummy <greek-i>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The first test in the series with dummy S/N <greek-i>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, the agency tentatively concluded that the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the

[[Page 75312]]

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 R \2\ 
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 R \2\ 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

[[Page 75313]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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[deg], 
+15[deg] (oblique front), or -15[deg], (oblique rear). Each test 
condition (0[deg], +15[deg] and -15[deg]) 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[deg]), 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

[[Page 75314]]

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[deg]; at forward oblique angles of +15[deg] and 
+30[deg]; and rearward oblique angles of -15[deg] and -30[deg]. The 
commenter stated that, when impacted at +30[deg], the ES-2re's rib 
deflection response exhibited a delayed onset and nearly 20 mm lower 
peak deflection as compared to the lateral (0[deg]) 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 ``flat-topping.'' Although the Alliance suggested that rib 
binding is occurring during the +30[deg]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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 non-governmental 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.

[[Page 75316]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 two-
dimensional 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 three-
dimensional 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 
non-standard, 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

[[Page 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 full-body 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):

[[Page 75318]]



         Table 4.-Alliance/SAE Suggested Neck Response Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Alliance/SAE
            Criteria                  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      53-88 ms..........  55-75 ms.
 from Peak.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 pre-flexed 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 75319]]

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 <plus-minus>8 mm and 459 
<plus-minus>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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<plus-minus>0.1 m/s. (The headform is a

[[Page 75320]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Alliance/SAE
            Criteria                  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      37-56 ms..........  40-65 ms.
 from Peak.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 three-year-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

[[Page 75321]]

pendulum suspension system, and did not measure a detectable difference 
(in response). We do not recommend the use of an 8-wire system which 
over-constrains 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  
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     12.2-17.0 ms......  9.9-15.9 ms.
 Load.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:

    <bullet> Mass moment of inertia shall be greater than 9000 kg-
cm<SUP>2</SUP>
    <bullet> Natural frequency shall be greater than 1000 Hz
    <bullet> The weight of 1/3 of the suspension cables should be added 
to the pendulum weight
    <bullet> Cable attachment hardware should not exceed 5% of the 
total pendulum weight
    <bullet> 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 Sec.  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 (Sec.  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

[[Page 75322]]

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[deg] C to 
26[deg] C (64.4[deg] F to 71.6[deg] 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[deg] C to 22.2[deg] C (69[deg] F to 
72[deg] 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Total
           Location              Type instrument      Measurement        Direction          CFC        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..........................         [radic]          [radic]
VW Jetta.....................................  C +T...........................         [radic]          [radic]
Saturn Ion...................................  C..............................         [radic]          [radic]
Honda Accord (MY 2004).......................  C +T...........................         [radic]          [radic]
VW Beetle Convertible........................  H + T..........................         [radic]   ...............
Saab 9-3 Convertible.........................  H + T..........................         [radic]   ...............
Ford 500.....................................  C + T..........................         [radic]          [radic]
Toyota Sienna (MY 2004)......................  C + T..........................         [radic]   ...............
Subaru Forester..............................  H + T..........................         [radic]          [radic]
Honda CRV....................................  C + T..........................         [radic]          [radic]
Chevy Colorado...............................  C..............................         [radic]   ...............
Ford Expedition..............................  C..............................         [radic]   ...............
Dodge 2500-A.................................  C..............................         [radic]   ...............

[[Page 75323]]

 
Dodge 2500-B.................................  C..............................         [radic]   ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Side 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 HIC<INF>36</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Non-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 inboard-directed 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 y-component 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Positive Y-Component of Back Plate Load (N)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                             Vehicle                               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

[[Page 75324]]

 
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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar95 
``Instrumentation for Impact Test'' and
    <bullet> 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.

[[Page 75326]]

    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 one-decimal 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 
zero-decimal 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.

[[Page 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 
<greek-i>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 <greek-i>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 <greek-i>1) and 
buffer pad (item <greek-i>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

[[Page 75328]]

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 ``under-specified'' as opposed to ``over-specified.'' In the 
proposed drawing, FTSS includes a dimension on the bend angle (89.0 
+1.5/-1.0 degrees) and x- and 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 75330]]

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:

M<INF>x,oc</INF> = M<INF>x</INF> <INF>measured</INF> + (0.02 x 
F<INF>y measured</INF>)
M<INF>y,oc</INF> = M<INF>y</INF> <INF>measured</INF> + (0.02 x 
F<INF>x measured</INF>)

    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 
``F<INF>x</INF>'' with `F<INF>y</INF>' and `F<INF>y</INF>' with 
`F<INF>z</INF>.' 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 F<INF>y</INF> and F<INF>z</INF> 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 
F<INF>y</INF> and F<INF>z</INF> 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 M<INF>x</INF>/
M<INF>y</INF> 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 z-axes (M<INF>x</INF> and 
M<INF>z</INF>), 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).

[[Page 75331]]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as 
follows:

Part 572--Anthropomorphic Test Dummies

0
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]

0
2. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by reserving subpart T.

0
3. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by adding a new subpart U, consisting of 
Sec. Sec.  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


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 75332]]

 
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 Sec.  572.180,
    (3) A listing of available transducers-crash 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  572.112(a).
    (c) Performance criteria.
    (1) When the head assembly is dropped in accordance with Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 velocity-time 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 Sec.  572.189(k).

Table to 1 to paragraph (a)--ES-2re Neck Certification Pendulum Velocity
                                Corridor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Upper boundary                       Lower boundary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Velocity              Velocity
               Time (ms)                   (m/s)    Time (ms)    (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[deg] 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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  572.189(n);

[[Page 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 
<plus-minus>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<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 Sec.  572.189(a);
    (4) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
shoulder, its longitudinal axis is within <plus-minus>0.5 degrees of a 
horizontal plane and perpendicular (<plus-minus>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<plus-minus>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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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<plus-minus>0.01 kg that is of rigid construction and with a flat 
impact face 150<plus-minus>1.0 mm in diameter and an edge radius of 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus> 
2.5 mm.
    (v) The impacting mass is dropped from the following heights:
    (A) 459 <plus-minus>5 mm
    (B) 815 <plus-minus>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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>5 mm;
    (iii) The impactor is the same as defined in Sec.  572.189(a);
    (iv) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
thorax its longitudinal axis is within <plus-minus>0.5 degrees of 
horizontal and perpendicular <plus-minus>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 <plus-
minus>0.1 m/s.
    (vi) Time zero is defined in Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
572.189(a) except that on its rectangular impact surface is

[[Page 75334]]

affixed a special purpose block whose weight is 1.0 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 0.5 degrees of a 
horizontal plane and perpendicular <plus-minus> 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 <plus-
minus> 0.1 m/s;
    (6) Time zero is defined in Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  572.189(o);
    (2) Attach the lumbar spine-headform assembly to the Part 572 
pendulum test fixture per procedure in Sec.  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 <plus-
minus> 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 <plus-minus>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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
572.189(a);
    (4) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
pelvis its longitudinal axis is within <plus-minus> 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 Sec.  
572.189(k);
    (2) The pubic symphysis load, measured with load cell specified in 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  572.189(k).


Sec.  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

[[Page 75335]]

specified in Sec.  572.36(a) and the impact probe has a minimum mass 
moment of inertia in yaw of 9,000 kg-cm<SUP>2</SUP>, 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 (T<INF>10</INF>).
    (3) Calculate time-zero: T0 = T<INF>10</INF>-T<INF>m</INF>.,

Where:

T<INF>m</INF> = 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/s\2\ (-.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

[[Page 75336]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.000


[[Page 75337]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.001


[[Page 75338]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.003


[[Page 75339]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.005


[[Page 75340]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.007


[[Page 75341]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.008



[[Page 75342]]


    Issued: November 24, 2006.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.

[FR Doc. 06-9554 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C