[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75342-75384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

Docket No. NHTSA 25442
RIN 2127-AJ16


Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID-IIs Side Impact Crash Test 
Dummy 5th Percentile Adult Female

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the agency's regulation on 
anthropomorphic test devices to add specifications and qualification 
requirements for the 5th percentile adult female crash test dummy, 
called the SID-IIs Build Level D (``SID-IIs'') test dummy. The SID-IIs 
dummy is instrumented in the head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis, which 
enables it to assess in a comprehensive manner the performance of 
vehicles in protecting small-stature occupants in side impacts. NHTSA 
plans to use the SID-IIs dummy in an upgraded Federal motor vehicle 
safety standard on side impact protection.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 12, 2007. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 12, 2007. If you 
wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must 
be received by January 29 2007.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search 
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets 
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the 
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Stanley Backaitis, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 
202-366-4912). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA 
Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992) (fax 202-366-3820). 
You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    a. Need for the Dummy
    b. Development of the SID-IIs
    c. Development of the FRG and Build Level D Dummies
II. Response to the Comments on the FRG
III. Other Issues
    a. Overview
    b. How this Final Rule Differs from the NPRM
    c. Description and Reference Materials
    d. Biofidelity
    e. Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R)
    1. Component and Sled Tests Generally
    2. Repeatability and Reproducibility Assessments
    3. NPRM
    4. Comments on the NPRM
    5. Agency Response
    i. Component Qualification Tests
    A. Repeatability in Component Tests
    B. Reproducibility in Component Tests
    ii. Sled Tests
    A. Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s
    1. Repeatability in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s
    2. Reproducibility in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s
    B. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at MCW
    C. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC
    1. Repeatability in Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC
    2. Reproducibility in Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC
    iii. Conclusion
    f. Pelvis of the Dummy
    1. Pelvis Plug
    2. Iliac Load Cell
    3. Iliac Wing
    g. The Shoulder with Arm Test
    h. Other
    1. Directional Impact Sensitivity
    2. Toyota Suggests an Improved Upper Arm
    3. Injury Assessment Reference Values
    4. Reversibility
    i. Test Dummy Drawing Package
    1. Three-Dimensional (3-D) Shape Definitions
    2. Material Specifications
    3. Dummy Drawing Changes
IV. Qualification Procedures and Response Corridors
    a. Qualification Procedures
    b. Response Corridors
V. Dummy Performance in Full-Scale Vehicle Crash Tests
    a. Oblique Vehicle-to-Pole Crash Tests
    b. MDB Tests
    c. Summary
VI. Conclusions
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix A: Durability and Overload Analysis of the SID-IIsD Test 
Dummy

    NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 
proposed to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
214, ``Side Impact Protection'' (49 CFR 571.214) by, among other 
things, adopting a dynamic pole test into the standard (May 17, 2004; 
69 FR 27990; Docket 17694; reopening of comment period, January 12, 
2005, 70 FR 2105). The proposed pole test is similar to, but more 
demanding than, that currently used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. In the 
proposed pole test, a vehicle is propelled sideways into a rigid pole 
at an angle of 75 degrees, at any speed up to 32 km/h (20 mph). The 
NPRM proposed that compliance with the pole test would be determined in 
two test configurations, one using a ``SID-IIs'' test dummy 
representing 5th percentile adult females and the other using an ``ES-
2re'' test dummy representing mid-size adult males. Vehicles tested 
with the SID-IIs would have to comply with a head injury criterion and 
with thoracic and pelvic injury criteria developed for the new dummy. 
The agency also proposed using the dummies in FMVSS No. 214's existing 
moving deformable barrier (MDB) test, which simulates a vehicle-to-
vehicle ``T-bone'' type intersection crash.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the ``Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users,'' (SAFETEA-LU), P.L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 
1144), to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. Section 
10302(a) of SAFETEA-LU provides:
    Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection Rulemaking.
    (a) Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall complete a rulemaking 
proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to 
establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle 
occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side impact 
crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule by July 1, 2008.
    At the time of the enactment of Sec.  10302(a), the agency's 
notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 was already 
pending. The final rule completing the rulemaking proceeding will be 
issued at a future date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document establishes the specifications and qualification 
requirements for the SID-IIs 5th percentile adult female crash test 
dummy which would be used in the upgraded FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM 
preceding this Part 572 final rule was published on December 8, 2004 
(69 FR 70947; Docket 18865; extension of comment period, March 8, 2005; 
70 FR

[[Page 75343]]

11189). NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to amend 49 CFR Part 572 to 
add the specifications for the 50th percentile adult male ES-2re test 
dummy on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 55550; Docket 18864; reopening of 
comment period, January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2105). The SID-IIs Build Level 
D dummy has most of the features of the SID-II dummy proposed in the 
NPRM preceding this final rule, except for the floating rib guide 
design in the dummy's thorax. Commenters on the NPRM maintained that 
the floating rib guide design in the dummy's thorax was unnecessary and 
needlessly reduced the biofidelity and functionality of the dummy. Some 
commenters suggested alternative means of improving the durability of 
the dummy. After reviewing the comments to the NPRM and available test 
data, we have decided to adopt many of the proposed design features of 
the dummy, but not the design features that restricted vertical 
movement of the dummy's ribs. The resulting dummy adopted today into 
Part 572 is called the ``SID-IIsD'' dummy, for the SID-IIs Build Level 
D test dummy.
    Technical reports and other materials relating to the December 8, 
2004 SID-IIs NPRM have been placed in the docket for that NPRM (Docket 
18865) and in the docket for the May 17, 2004 NPRM proposing the pole 
test upgrade to FMVSS No. 214 (Docket 17694). While technical materials 
discussed in today's final rule generally have been placed in the 
docket for today's rule (Docket 25442), occasionally an item might be 
found in another docket. When we refer in this preamble to technical 
materials, we will identify the docket where the item is filed.
    In the May 17, 2004 FMVSS No. 214 NPRM, NHTSA proposed injury 
criteria for the SID-IIs injury measuring instrumentation of the 
dummy's head, thorax, and pelvis. HIC would be limited to 1000 measured 
in a 36 millisecond time interval (HIC<INF>36</INF>). Lower spine 
acceleration would be limited to 82 g. For pelvic injury, the maximum 
of the sum of the measured acetabular and iliac force would be limited 
to 5,100 N. The agency did not propose in the May 17, 2004 NPRM to 
limit chest deflection because the agency wanted to obtain more data on 
the rib deflection measurement capabilities of the proposed dummy. (A 
technical report titled, ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' 
discusses these proposed injury criteria. Docket 17694.)

I. Background

a. Need for the Dummy

    Data from the 1990-2001 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) 
and Crashworthiness Data System (CDC) show a need for a dummy that has 
the capability of predicting the risk of injury to a segment of small-
statured vehicle occupants in side crashes. Table 1 shows the injury 
distribution of the estimated target population less than 65 inches 
(in) in stature in all types of side impact crashes between 12 and 25 
mph delta V.

    Table 1.--U.S. Motor Vehicle Small Stature Adult Occupant Population Injury Severity Distribution in Side
                                                     Crashes
                                           [For delta-V of 12-25 mph]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Body region                MAIS 1     MAIS 2     MAIS 3     MAIS 4     MAIS 5    Fatality    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head and face......................       6706       1864         99        142        163        527       9049
Thorax.............................       4377        295       1213        671         11        446       7094
Abdomen............................        264         86         20        112         27         96        670
Pelvis.............................          0          0        123          0          0          6        136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1990-2001 NASS/CDS data also indicate that there are 
differences in the body region distribution of serious injuries between 
small and medium stature occupants in these side collisions. The data 
suggests that small stature occupants have a higher proportion of head, 
abdominal and pelvic injuries than medium stature occupants, and a 
lower proportion of chest injuries (Samaha et al, ``NHTSA Side Impact 
Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' 18th ESV 
Conference Proceedings). Use of a small-statured dummy in side impact 
testing, in addition to a mid-size adult male dummy, would better 
represent the population at-risk in side impacts and substantially 
enhance protection for small adult occupants.

b. Development of the SID-IIs

    The development of a small, second-generation side impact dummy was 
undertaken by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP), a 
consortium of the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), and 
dummy manufacturer First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS). (USCAR was 
formed in 1992 by DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors as a 
research and development organization.) The OSRP determined that there 
was a need for a test dummy that would be better suited to help 
evaluate the performance of advanced side impact countermeasures, 
notably air bags, for occupants that are smaller than the 50th 
percentile size male. The new dummy was named the SID-IIs: ``SID'' for 
``side impact dummy,'' ``II'' for second generation, and ``s'' for 
small.
    The SID-IIs dummy was extensively tested in the late 1990s and 
early 2000 in vehicle crashes by Transport Canada, and to a limited 
extent by U.S. automobile manufacturers and suppliers, and the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Continuous use of the 
SID-IIs dummy by various users uncovered some limitations and potential 
structural problems of the dummy that led to modifications of and 
upgrades to the dummy, resulting in OSRP's developing Build Levels A, B 
and C versions of the dummy. NHTSA modified the Build Level C dummy to 
develop a floating rib guide (``FRG'') design to address what were then 
NHTSA concerns about the durability of the dummy, and proposed in the 
December 8, 2004 NPRM to incorporate the SID-IIs with the floating rib 
guide design (``SID-IIsFRG'') into 49 CFR Part 572.

c. Development of the FRG and Build Level D Dummies

    In response to the comments on the NPRM, this final rule adopts a 
version of the SID-IIs that has many of the design features of the 
proposed FRG dummy, but not the particular floating rib guide design 
that constrained the vertical motion of the dummy's ribs. This dummy is 
referred to as the SID-IIs Build Level D dummy.
    The Build Level D dummy is an outgrowth of the SID-IIsFRG, which 
had originated from the Build Level C dummy. NHTSA's laboratory 
evaluation of the biofidelity of the SID-IIs Build Level C dummy found 
mechanical failures in chest displacement transducers and some ribcage 
and shoulder structural problems. The

[[Page 75344]]

agency believed that much of the problem was caused by the ribs of the 
Build C dummy not remaining constrained by the rib guides, which 
allowed their vertical motion during some impactor and sled tests. The 
agency was concerned the motion could affect the structural integrity 
of the ribs and that of the deflection potentiometers, and could also 
affect the accuracy of the deflection measurements. To address these 
concerns, the agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) modified 
the Build Level C dummy's thorax to incorporate the FRG (floating rib 
guide) system to prevent the compressed ribs from leaving the outside 
perimeter of the rib guides, and thereby prevent damage to the 
deflection measurement system and surrounding areas. Rib guides were 
used to ``float'' with the ribs as they expanded in the anterior-
posterior direction during rib compression. This was intended not only 
to eliminate the problem of ribs' extending outside the boundaries of 
the rib guides, but also to retain the ribs in their initial plane and 
thereby prevent damage to the deflection potentiometer shaft. To 
further prevent damage (bending) of potentiometer shafts and damage to 
potentiometer housings, the rib stops were reshaped and changed from a 
flexible urethane material to vinyl-coated aluminum. The maximum 
lateral rib deflection of the dummy was also reduced from 69 mm to 60 
mm to further protect the instrumentation.\2\ The modified dummy was 
referred to as the ``SID-IIsFRG,'' the ``FRG'' indicating the addition 
of the floating rib guide and other modifications to the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FRG design also encompassed other changes to improve the 
durability of the dummy. The shoulder rib guide of the dummy was 
reshaped and deepened beyond the front edge of the shoulder rib to 
keep the shoulder rib from moving vertically during its compression. 
The damping material of the shoulder rib assembly was made thinner 
and spanned the entire width of the steel band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The December 8, 2004 NPRM proposed to incorporate the SID-IIsFRG 
into Part 572. While NHTSA tentatively determined there was a need for 
the FRG modifications, the agency noted in the December 8, 2004 NPRM 
that there were other views as to the need for the FRG changes to the 
dummy (69 FR at 70954, footnote 21). The NPRM noted that Transport 
Canada, IIHS and the industry have used the SID-IIs Build Level C dummy 
to their satisfaction without the entirety of FRG modifications.

II. Response to the Comments on the FRG

    NHTSA received comments on the December 8, 2004 NPRM from IIHS, 
FTSS, Autoliv, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance), 
Denton ATD, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Toyota Motor North 
America, and several private individuals (Docket 18865). In addition, 
many entities responding to the May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 
(Docket 17694) also commented on the proposal to use the SID-IIsFRG 
dummy.
    All commenters responding to the issue of the need for the FRG 
design (Dockets 18865 and 17694) were strongly opposed to or were 
concerned about adopting the SID-IIsFRG dummy. Some commenters 
supported the use of an unmodified Build Level C dummy and/or a ``Build 
Level D'' dummy, which the commenters said would be a Build Level C 
dummy with many of the FRG enhancements developed by VRTC, except for 
the floating rib guide changes that constrain the vertical rib motion. 
Commenters believed that the Build Level C and Build Level D dummies 
were sufficiently durable for crash tests.
    In opposing the SID-IIsFRG (October 14, 2004 comment to the FMVSS 
No. 214 NPRM (Docket 17694)), the Alliance stated that the OSRP SID-IIs 
Upgrade Task Group \3\ had unanimously agreed to a majority of the 
proposed enhancements developed by NHTSA, ``which are recommended as 
either a running change to the Build Level C dummy or as major 
modifications to be incorporated into the Build Level D dummy.'' 
However, the Alliance emphasized, OSRP steadfastly maintained that 
there is no durability problem requiring the floating rib guide change 
to the dummy's thorax. The Alliance stated that NHTSA's Vehicle 
Research and Test Center (VRTC) (p. 11)--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Alliance stated that ``The OSRP SID-IIs Upgrade Task 
Group is responsible for coordinating, evaluating and approving any 
design modifications to the SID-IIs dummy, originally designed in 
1994-95.'' Id., page 8.

proposed the addition of floating rib guides to the SID-IIs dummy 
based on a small series of sled tests, including a single abdominal 
offset sled test in which the ribs were damaged and exited the 
original rib guides. The test was performed with an improperly 
positioned and improperly scaled abdominal plate that simulated a 
rigid armrest. This setup produced a very severe impact condition 
for the SID-IIs (AF05) dummy. Instead of being scaled for the AF05, 
the test was performed with an abdominal plate that was offset 100 
mm, which are the test conditions for the ES-2 (AM50) dummy. 
Further, the 100 mm offset is at the extreme end of the range of 
armrest width in typical vehicles. In addition, the abdominal plate 
is rigid and therefore provided a more severe impact surface than do 
typically padded and deformable vehicle armrests. This test setup 
produced an impact condition for the AF05 dummy more severe than 
that of full-scale vehicle tests, since the dummy's ribs were 
damaged in the sled test but no rib damage occurred in the vehicle 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tests using the SID-IIs Version C.

    The Alliance further stated that the agency's concern about the 
accuracy of the acceleration and deflection measurements of the Build 
Level C dummy due to the ribs' not staying in place ``does not follow 
logically because it is quite normal to have the ribs deform during 
impact by expanding in the fore-aft dimension of the chest. The fact 
that they change shape and do not stay in place has nothing to do with 
the accuracy of the deflection measurements.''
    IIHS also objected to the agency's FRG design, finding the FRG 
version of the SID-IIs to be ``an unacceptable and unnecessary 
compromise of the original dummy's biofidelity to address an unproven 
durability problem'' (March 4, 2005 comment to Docket 18865). IIHS 
stated:

    Not only have NHTSA's own vehicle crash tests failed to show any 
durability problems with the original dummy design, but Institute 
and industry experience confirms the dummy is durable enough for 
crash testing. As of October 2004 the Institute had conducted 48 
side impact tests with the SID-IIs dummies positioned in the driver 
and rear outboard seating positions, for a total of 96 SID-IIs test 
exposures. Of these only 6 caused any damage to the dummy; in 4 
tests the dummy's shoulder was damaged, and in 2 tests one of the 
abdominal ribs did not pass post-test verification. Similar trends 
are found in the Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP) 
dataset, which includes tests conducted by DaimlerChrysler, General 
Motors, the Institute, and Transport Canada. Of the 241 SID-IIs test 
exposures (or 1,446 exposures to the dummies' individual ribs), only 
21 tests (8.7 percent) caused any dummy damage; of these only 3 
tests (0.3 percent of total rib exposures) exhibited any evidence of 
ribs catching on the vertical guides.

    IIHS recommended that NHTSA adopt the SID-IIs Build Level C or the 
Build Level D dummy into FMVSS No. 214. IIHS stated (Docket 18865):

    Build Level D would incorporate many of the design upgrades 
currently in the FRG version that would improve the dummy while 
maintaining its high biofidelity rating. The changes IIHS supports 
for build level D include redesign of the shoulder rib and rib 
guide, neck mounting bracket, rib stops, and spine box. Using either 
C- or D-level SID-IIs would permit the agency to draw on the dummy's 
accumulated crash test experience

[[Page 75345]]

to incorporate rib deflection data among the FMVSS 214 requirements.

    Some commenters expressed the view that the SID-IIsFRG dummy was 
itself not adequate for incorporation into 49 CFR Part 572. The 
Alliance stated that in full vehicle crash tests, there are significant 
differences in the shape and magnitude of the chest deflection 
responses of the SID-IIsFRG and the Build C dummy, with the SID-IIsFRG 
having ``greatly reduced'' deflections. The Alliance stated that 
researchers at Transport Canada and elsewhere found ``no flat-topping 
in the original SID-IIs, but severe flat topping in the SID-IIsFRG.'' 
Nissan stated (Docket 17694) that it has observed scratching of the 
SID-IIsFRG's rib guides created by rib contact and was concerned that 
this phenomenon could reduce test repeatability using the dummy over 
time, or may negatively affect the accuracy of the rib data.
    Some commenters believed that it was more advantageous to adopt the 
SID-IIs Build Level C or Build Level D dummy than the SID-IIsFRG. The 
Alliance stated that the ISO 9790 biofidelity rating of the SID-IIsFRG 
is only ``fair'' (5.9), while that of the SID-IIs Build C was ``good'' 
(7.0). IIHS expressed serious concern that the FRG modification ``has 
considerably degraded'' the SID-IIs dummy's biofidelity. IIHS supported 
the Build Level C or D dummies in the rulemaking because it would 
permit the agency to incorporate rib deflection data in test 
requirements. IIHS stated:

    Without rib deflection limits for tests with the small dummy, 
the proposed side impact standard will not establish the same 
minimum levels of protection for vehicle occupants of various sizes. 
It is disappointing that part of NHTSA's reason for not including 
SID-IIsFRG rib deflection limits was the need to study the issue 
further. By favoring the FRG modified dummy the agency is ignoring 
the accumulated test experience with the original dummy.

    Advocates expressed ``misgivings over the lack of chest deflection 
measurement capability for the 5th percentile SID-IIsFRG female 
dummy.'' Honda expressed concern that the SID-IIsFRG is not commonly 
used by automakers today (Docket 17694). Honda stated that, ``The use 
of SID-IIs [Build Level C or D] will expand because it is specified in 
the [industry's] voluntarily commitment on FMVSS No. 214.'' TRW said 
that using ``known and accepted'' test dummies could help expedite 
motor vehicle manufacturers' meeting their ``voluntary commitment'' to 
install inflatable side head protection systems (Docket 17694).
    Agency response: After reviewing the comments and other 
information, we have decided not to adopt the entirety of the FRG 
design; this final rule adopts the SID-IIs Build Level D dummy (SID-
IIsD) into 49 CFR Part 572 for use in FMVSS No. 214.\4\ The SID-IIsD 
dummy has the enhancements of the SID-IIsFRG without the thorax design 
that prevents the compressed ribs from leaving the outside perimeter of 
the rib guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A final rule adopting the Build Level D dummy into FMVSS No. 
214 (49 CFR 571.214) will be published separately from this final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SID-IIsFRG floating rib guide concept was developed to improve 
the durability of the SID-IIs dummy under extremely severe impact 
conditions. We have concluded that test results do not support a need 
for all of the floating rib guide design. The test conditions 
precipitating the development of the FRG were exceptionally severe and 
appear to be unlike vehicle crashes to which the crash dummy is 
exposed.
    The OSRP task group and IIHS noted that the type of damage reported 
by NHTSA in VRTC sled tests was not experienced in their full scale 
vehicle crash tests. Our own testing bears this out. Since the time of 
the NPRM, NHTSA has used the SID-IIs (Build D) in over 24 oblique pole 
and MDB vehicle crash tests without seeing structural or functional 
problems with the dummy. In addition, the agency evaluated four SID-IIs 
Build D dummies in extensive component, sled, and pole and MDB vehicle 
crash tests without experiencing functionality and durability problems. 
See Appendix A to this preamble, ``Durability and Overload Analysis of 
the SID-IIsD Test Dummy.''
    The Build D dummy has many of the enhancements of the SID-IIsFRG 
and some enhancements similar to FRG features, including new rib stops, 
larger motion ranges of potentiometers pivots, \1/2\ inch diameter 
potentiometers, and enhancements to the shoulder structure. The 
shoulder enhancements address bending deformation (including gouging 
and/or delamination of the damping material) of the shoulder rib and 
damage to the deflection transducer. All of these enhancements have 
improved the structural integrity of the dummy and eliminated the need 
for floating rib guides.
    We further believe that there are advantages to adopting the SID-
IIsD dummy rather than the SID-IIsFRG beyond what is needed for the 
durability of the dummy. As noted by the commenters, while the FRG was 
very successful in containing the ribs within the rib guides and in 
preventing potentiometer-transducer failures, the floating rib guides 
added mass and additional stiffness to the ribs. As a result, the FRG 
became less human-like, rib deflections seriously reduced, and the 
shape of the deflection-time histories changed compared to testing 
under similar loading conditions without the FRG.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OSRP minutes dated September 18, 2004 and August 8, 2003. 
NHTSA Docket 25442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IIHS uses the SID-IIs in its side impact consumer information 
program. IIHS noted in its comments to the NPRM that the Build Level D 
dummy would incorporate many of the design upgrades currently in the 
FRG version that would improve the dummy while maintaining the dummy's 
high biofidelity rating. Transport Canada plans to continue using the 
SID-IIs in its research program. Using the SID-IIs Build Level D dummy 
in FMVSS No. 214 means that the same dummy will be used in governmental 
and non-governmental consumer information and research programs. This 
consistency will enhance the testing of vehicles by making the test 
results from NHTSA, Transport Canada, IIHS and industry in many ways 
more comparable. Using the same test dummy will also more effectively 
focus research and design efforts on more consistent and effective 
countermeasures that will most successfully protect smaller stature 
occupants.
    For the aforementioned reasons, after reviewing the comments to the 
May 17, 2004 (Docket 17694) and December 8, 2004 (Docket 18865) NPRMs 
and available test data, including the performance of the SID-IIs dummy 
in vehicle tests conducted with recent model year vehicles, we have 
decided to adopt the majority of the features of the proposed dummy, 
except for the floating rib guide that constrained the vertical motion 
of the dummy's ribs. This dummy adopted today is the SID-IIs Build 
Level D test dummy (``SID-IIsD'').

III. Other Issues

a. Overview

    The agency received comments on the December 8, 2004 NPRM (Docket 
18865) on issues other than those relating to the merits of the 
floating rib guide design. These included comments on: the biofidelity 
of the dummy; the adequacy of the agency's assessment of the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the dummy (Alliance and Autoliv); 
reported problems with the proposed pelvis plug test (the Alliance); 
reported sensitivity of the dummy to oblique impacts (the Alliance); 
the merits of the proposal to delete the shoulder with arm test

[[Page 75346]]

(Autoliv); suggested improvements to the upper arm of the dummy 
(Toyota); and the injury assessment reference values that NHTSA should 
use in tests with the dummy. In addition, comments were received on the 
drawing package, qualification corridors, and other technical matters 
of the NPRM. These and other comments are addressed in this section III 
and in section IV of this preamble.

b. How This Final Rule Differs From the NPRM

    In response to the comments and other information, we have 
reconsidered some of the tentative decisions we made in the NPRM. 
Notable changes are outlined below and explained in detail in this 
preamble. More minor changes are not highlighted here, but are 
discussed in the appropriate sections of this preamble.
    <bullet> As discussed earlier in this preamble, we have not adopted 
the entirety of the ``floating rib guide'' components that were 
proposed, notably the floating rib guide design that restricted 
vertical movement of the dummy's ribs.
    <bullet> At the urging of commenters, we have reviewed the proposed 
method of selecting and analyzing acetabulum plug characteristics 
needed to assure consistent and reliable acetabulum responses in 
compliance tests. After considering the results from a series of 
pendulum impact tests, we selected a 3 mm pre-crush requirement to 
determine the suitability of acetabulum plugs instead of the proposed 
22-25 mm requirement.
    <bullet> Qualification of the pelvis using the acetabulum load cell 
was proposed in the NPRM. This final rule includes a test of the iliac 
load cell to assure that the iliac load cell as mounted in the dummy is 
capable of repeatable and consistent response. The iliac test is 
similar to the acetabulum pendulum test, with the impact point centered 
on the iliac load cell.

c. Description and Reference Materials

Description
    The following general description of the SID-IIsD is the same as 
that of the SID-IIsFRG provided in the NPRM. The descriptions are 
identical because the dummies are versions of the same.
    The SID-IIsD has a mass of 44 kg (97 pounds) and a seated height of 
788 millimeters (mm) (31 inches). The dummy is capable of measuring 
accelerations, deflections and/or forces in the head, thorax, shoulder, 
abdomen, lumbar spine, and pelvis body regions, as well as femurs.
    The anthropometry and mass of the SID-IIsD are based on the Hybrid 
III 5th percentile frontal female dummy and also generally match the 
size and weight of a 12- to 13-year-old child. The head and neck 
designs are based on the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. The 
legs are Hybrid III 5th percentile female design available also with 
femur load cell instrumentation.
    At the same time, unlike the Hybrid III series of dummies, the SID-
IIsD's torso construction is particularly oriented for assessing the 
potential for side impact injury. The dummy's upper torso is made up of 
a rigid metallic spine to which six spring steel bands lined with 
bonded polymer damping material are attached to simulate the impact 
performance of the human shoulder (1 rib), thorax (3 ribs) and abdomen 
(2 ribs). Linear potentiometers are attached from the ribs to the spine 
for compression measurements. Provisions are available for mounting 
tri-axial accelerometer packs to the spine at T<INF>1</INF> and 
T<INF>12</INF> and at each rib.\6\ Replaceable foam pads are secured 
directly to the ribs and a neoprene jacket covers the complete chest 
assembly. The upper torso accommodates the attachment of the neck at 
the upper end and the lumbar spine at the lower end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ T <INF>1</INF>--sensor location on the dummy's thoracic 
spine equivalent to the first cervical on the human thoracic spine. 
T <INF>1</INF>--sensor location on the dummy's thoracic spine 
equivalent to the 12th cervical on the human thoracic spine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A stub arm on the impacted side is attached to the lateral aspect 
of the shoulder through a three-axis load cell. Tri-axial accelerometer 
packs can also be installed at the shoulder and at the upper and lower 
parts of the stub arm for assessing injuries in upper extremities in 
side crashes.
    The dummy's pelvis is a machined assembly with detachable hard 
urethane iliac wings at each side and covered by vinyl flesh. The 
pelvis design is shaped in a seated human-like posture and allows the 
attachment of the lumbar spine at its top and the legs at the left and 
right sides. The pelvis can be impacted from either side without any 
change in hardware. Foam crush plugs at the hip joint, which are 
replaced after each impact, are used to control the lateral pelvis 
response. The pelvis design allows the measurement of impact loads at 
the acetabulum and iliac wing as well as accelerations at the pelvis 
center of gravity (cg).
Reference Materials for the Dummy
    The specifications for the SID-IIsD consist of: (a) A drawing 
package containing all of the technical details of the dummy; (b) an 
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 SID-IIsD 
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 for this final rule (Docket 25442). 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.

d. 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System method was reported by 
Heather Rhule 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISO Technical Report 9790 Methodology
    The biofidelity requirements defined in ISO TR 9790 are based on 
two types of head drop tests, three types of lateral neck bending 
tests, four types of shoulder impact tests, six types of lateral 
thoracic tests, five abdominal test conditions, and thirteen lateral 
pelvis impact tests. The measured response values are assessed on their 
fit to the established cadaver response corridors.
    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

[[Page 75347]]

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 NPRM stated that the ISO methodology was used by OSRP members 
to evaluate the SID-IIsFRG in September 2004 ( Technical Summary of 
OSRP-SIDIIs Upgrade,'' September 2004, Docket 18865). The SID-IIsFRG 
received an ISO Biofidelity rating of 5.9, which corresponds to a 
``fair'' classification. Scherer et al. had rated the SID-IIs Beta 
prototype dummy a rating of 7.0, placing it in the ISO classification 
of ``good.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Scherer et al. ``SID IIs Beta+-Prototype Dummy Biomechanical 
Responses,'' 1998, SAE 983151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the agency stated that a biofidelity rating of the 
SID-IIs and SID-IIsFRG compare favorably with other side impact 
dummies. The overall ES-2re \9\ dummy's biofidelity rating was 
determined to be 4.6, while the SID (49 CFR part 572 subpart M) and 
EuroSID-1 dummies received ratings of 2.3 and 4.4,\10\ respectively. 
The SID/HIII received an overall rating of 3.8 (63 FR 41468).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ES-2re dummy is a 50th percentile European designed 
adult male side impact crash test dummy that the agency has proposed 
to use in the proposed upgrade of FMVSS No. 214 (69 FR 27990, 
supra).
    \10\ Byrnes, et al. ``ES-2 Dummy Biomechanical Responses,'' 
2002, Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, <greek-i>2002-22-0014, p. 
353.
    \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: In its comment, the Alliance provided recalculated ISO 
9790 biofidelity scores for the SID-IIs Build Level C (SID-IIsC) and 
the SID-IIsFRG test dummies. The overall biofidelity score for the SID-
IIsC dummy was 6.8 (classification of ``good''), while the SID-IIsFRG 
dummy had a score of 6.1 (``fair''). The commenter expressed concern, 
as did IIHS, that the FRG modification lowered the SID-IIsC dummy's 
biofidelity score.
    Agency response: In the SID-IIs Upgrade Task Group draft meeting 
minutes for May 25, 2006, the OSRP provided calculations for the SID-
IIsD and SID-IIsD <SUP>+</SUP> biofidelity ratings (Docket 25542). 
(This final rule SID-IIsD version is equivalent to the OSRP 
D<SUP>+</SUP> version.) The SID-IIsD received an overall score of 6.0 
(``fair'') and the SID-IIsD <SUP>+</SUP> a score of 6.2 (``fair''), 
which is comparable to the ISO 9790 rating of the SID-IIsFRG, while the 
overall biofidelity score for the SID-IIsC dummy was 6.8 (``good''). 
Table 2, below, ``Updated OSRP SID-IIs Biofidelity Ratings,'' shows the 
biofidelity scores for the SID-IIs C, FRG, D and D <SUP>+</SUP> 
dummies.

                               Table 2.--Updated OSRP SID-IIs Biofidelity Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              ISO 9790 Biofidelity Scores for the SID-IIs (excellent >8.6 to 10;
                                                  good >6.5 to 8.6; >fair >4.4 to 6.5; marginal >2.6 to 4.4;
                                                                    unacceptable 0 to 2.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Segment/Build Level....................              ``C''           FRG           ``D''*         ``D+''**
Head Biofidelity (B1).......................             7.5              7.5              7.5              7.5
Neck Biofidelity (B2).......................             5.2              4.7              5.1              5.1
Shoulder Biofidelity (B3)...................             6.2              5.1              5.2              5.8
Thorax Biofidelity (B4).....................             7.9              6.6              5.2              6.6
Abdomen Biofidelity (B5)....................             7.4              6.9              7.6              7.7
Pelvis Biofidelity (B2).....................             5.5              5.2              5.3              4.3
Overall Biofidelity (B).....................             6.8              6.1              6.0             6.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Build Level D (BLD) by OSRP designation without VRTC upgrades for rounded shoulder rib guide.
** BLD+ by OSRP designation is equivalent to NHTSA designated SID-IIsD dummy with rounded shoulder rib guide.

    As shown in the above table, the SID-IIsD has a very satisfactory 
ISO 9790 biofidelity rating. Its rating is markedly higher than that of 
the SID (ISO 9790 biofidelity rating of 2.3) and SID/HIII (ISO 9790 
biofidelity rating of 3.8) side impact test dummies used today. Both of 
the latter dummies have performed well in the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards, and have facilitated the installation of effective 
life-saving countermeasures.
NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System
    The biofidelity ranking system developed by NHTSA (Heather Rhule, 
et al., supra) consists of 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. 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 pendulum tests, 
and whole body sled tests. The NHTSA ranking system also includes 
abdominal and pelvic offset sled test conditions. Each test condition 
is assigned a weight factor, based on a number of human subjects 
tested, to form a biomechanical response corridor and the relevance of 
the biofidelity test to the intended test environment. For each 
response requirement, the cumulative variance of the dummy response 
relative to the 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 
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.
    The NPRM provided a comparison of external and internal 
biofidelities of SID-IIsFRG, the ES-2re and the SID/HIII test dummies. 
Data indicated that the SID-IIsFRG dummy had Overall External 
Biofidelity comparable to that of the ES-2re and better biofidelity 
than the SID/HIII dummy. At the body segment level, the SID-IIsFRG 
produced

[[Page 75348]]

better External Biofidelity ranks than the ES-2re in the Head/Neck, 
Thorax and Abdomen and worse ranks than the ES-2re in the Shoulder and 
Pelvis. The SID-IIsFRG produced better External Biofidelity ranks than 
the SID/HIII in all body regions except the Head/Neck. Based on the 
Overall External and Internal Biofidelity ranks, the agency tentatively 
concluded that the SID-IIsFRG and the ES-2re dummies were nearly 
equivalent and lower (better) than the SID/HIII dummy. The NPRM also 
noted that the SID-IIsC and the SID-IIsFRG dummy responses were 
substantially comparable to the mean cadaver responses and to each 
other. 69 FR at 70951, footnote 11.
    To establish the biofidelity rankings for the SID-IIsD dummy, the 
agency reran some of the biofidelity tests using the SID-IIsD dummy 
(Heather Rhule et al., ``Biofidelity Assessment of the SID-IIs Build 
Level D Dummy,'' hereinafter Biofidelity Assessment report, April 2006, 
Docket 25442). These tests, conducted at the Medical College of 
Wisconsin (MCW), included:
    (a) A rigid flat wall test at 6.7 m/s, one dummy, one test each--
    <bullet> Flat wall (dummy's arm down);
    <bullet> Pelvis lead (76 mm) with dummy's arm down;
    <bullet> Abdominal lead (97 mm) with dummy's arm at 90 degrees from 
vertical forward;
    (b) A padded wall test at 6.7 m/s, one dummy--
    <bullet> Flat wall (dummy's arm down);
    (c) And rigid and padded wall tests at 8.9 m/s, one dummy, one test 
each--
    <bullet> Flat wall (dummy's arm down).
    In reviewing the data from sled tests of the SID-IIs Build Level D 
at MCW, it was observed that the impact speed was faster than the 
impact speed from comparable SID-IIsFRG testing performed previously at 
the same lab. Because the Build Level D test results were intended to 
compare directly with the lower speed FRG test results, the force, 
displacement, and acceleration responses of the Build Level D dummy 
were scaled using the momentum and energy balance formulas to the delta 
V observed in the similar test with the FRG. The scaling factor is the 
ratio of the maximum delta V calculated from T12 lateral acceleration 
of the Build Level D and FRG dummies. NHTSA determined that the 
momentum equation (F*deltaT=m*deltaV) was appropriate to scale for 
force between two tests (F1/F2=deltaV1/deltaV2), under the assumption 
that the mass and deltaT are constant between the tests (i.e., the time 
period is the same) and the stiffness of the dummy is about the same at 
different deltaVs.
    The actual process of scaling the Build Level D results was based 
on the measured change in velocity determined from the dummy's T12 
lateral accelerometers. The delta velocity of the FRG dummy and the 
Build Level D (BLD) dummy was obtained by integrating the T12 lateral 
accelerometers, and the ratio of FRG to BLD delta velocity was 
calculated for each test. This ratio, shown in Table 3, was then used 
to scale results for the BLD dummy.

                Table 3.--Scale Factors Used To Correct BLD Data Due to Increased Impact Velocity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Maximum delta V
                                                                                    calculated from   FRG to BLD
             Test condition                  SID-IIs dummy design     Test <greek-    T12 lateral      delta V
                                                                           i>      acceleration (m/     ratio
                                                                                          s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HPF.....................................  BLD.......................          301          13.1454       0.88806
                                          FRG.......................          269          11.6739
HRF.....................................  BLD.......................          302          13.0473       0.93985
                                          FRG.......................          270          12.2625
LPF.....................................  BLD.......................          292           9.60399      0.87947
                                          FRG.......................      265,267           8.44641
LRF.....................................  BLD.......................          294          10.3005        0.9219
                                          FRG.......................          268           9.49608
LRA.....................................  BLD.......................          303           7.848         0.8375
                                          FRG.......................          275           6.5727
LRP.....................................  BLD.......................          296           8.95653      0.90361
                                          FRG.......................          273           8.09325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 4 and 5 show the External and Internal Biofidelity ranks, 
respectively, for the SID-IIsFRG, SID-IIsD, SID/HIII and ES-2re 
dummies. The SID-IIsFRG and BLD and ES-2re ranks were calculated based 
primarily on sled testing at the Medical College of Wisconsin and 
impactor testing at VRTC and MGA. The SID-IIsFRG, SID/HIII and ES-2re 
biofidelity ranks have been calculated previously and presented in 
Docket 18865. The SID-IIsD dummy data traces and the ``standard'' 
response corridors are shown in Appendix A of the Biofidelity 
Assessment report, id.
External Biofidelity
    Table 4 indicates that External Biofidelity of the FRG and BLD 
versions of the SID-IIs dummy both have similar overall ranks at 2.5 
and 2.6, respectively. This biofidelity is very good, is similar to 
that of the ES-2re, and is better than that of the SID/HIII. The BLD 
External Biofidelity ranks are better than those of the SID-HIII for 
the shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvis. The head/neck biofidelity of 
the SID-HIII is somewhat better than the BLD, but both provide human-
like responses. The BLD External Biofidelity ranks for the head/neck 
and thorax are better than those of the ES-2re. However, the ES-2re 
External Biofidelity ranks for the shoulder, abdomen and pelvis are 
better than those of the BLD.

                         Table 4.--External Biofidelity Rankings of Side Impact Dummies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               SID-IIsFRG    SID-IIsD     SID/HIII      ES-2re
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Rank................................................          2.6          2.5          3.8          2.6
Head/Neck...................................................          1.8          1.8          1.0          3.7
Shoulder....................................................          2.6          2.1          5.1          1.4
Thorax......................................................          2.8          2.7          6.1          2.9

[[Page 75349]]

 
Abdomen.....................................................          2.4          2.7          3.0          2.6
Pelvis......................................................          3.4          3.5          3.8          2.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internal Biofidelity
    Internal Biofidelity of the FRG and BLD versions of the SID-IIs 
dummy (Table 5) have similar overall ranks at 1.5 and 1.6, 
respectively. As both ranks are less than 2.0, it indicates that both 
dummies would respond quite like cadavers when considering the 
instrumentation used within the dummy. Since the head design did not 
change between the FRG and BLD, the FRG data was used to rank the head 
for both the FRG and BLD, thus obtaining the exact same rank for both. 
The remainder of the body regions had similar ranks between the FRG and 
BLD, with the largest discrepancy being 0.5 in the abdomen.
    The overall Internal Biofidelity of the BLD is the same as that of 
the ES-2re and similar to that of the SID/HIII. The BLD Internal 
Biofidelity ranks are better than those of the SID/HIII for the head, 
thorax and pelvis. Since the SID/HIII has no measurement capability in 
the abdomen, no rank was given. The BLD Internal Biofidelity ranks for 
the head and pelvis are better than those of the ES-2re. However, the 
ES-2re Internal Biofidelity rank for the thorax is slightly better than 
that of the BLD. Since the ES-2re has no measurement capability in the 
abdomen comparable to what can be measured in a post-mortem human 
subject, no rank was given.

                         Table 5.--Internal Biofidelity Rankings of Side Impact Dummies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               SID-IIsFRG    SID-IIsD     SID/HIII      ES-2re
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Rank................................................          1.5          1.6          1.9          1.6
Head........................................................          0.4          0.4          1.1          1.0
Thorax......................................................          1.8          2.1          2.2          1.8
Abdomen.....................................................          2.0          2.5          n/a          n/a
Pelvis......................................................          1.7          1.5          2.5          2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
    The SID-IIsD and SID-IIsFRG Overall External and Internal 
Biofidelity ranks are quite similar. The SID-IIsD Overall External and 
Internal Biofidelity ranks are comparable to those of the ES-2re. The 
SID-IIsD Overall External Biofidelity rank is much better than that of 
the SID/HIII, but its Overall Internal Biofidelity rank is only 
slightly better than that of the SID/HIII.
    The agency concludes that the SID-IIsD based on NHTSA Internal 
Biofidelity ranking of 1.6 is as humanlike, if not more so, than any 
other side impact dummy. Similarly, based on the ISO 9790 Biofidelity 
scoring methodology, the Build Level D dummy with a score of 6.2 
(``fair'') has a much higher Biofidelity rating than all of the side 
impact dummies in current use. The agency concludes that all 
biofidelity indicators support the SID-IIsD dummy's suitability for use 
in occupant injury risk assessment in side impact crash testing.

e. Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R)

1. Component and Sled Tests Generally
    The agency's analysis of the repeatability and reproducibility \12\ 
of the SID-IIs was based on component tests and a series of sled tests. 
In the tests, the impact input was carefully controlled to minimize the 
variability of external effects on the dummy's response. Component 
tests were conducted on the SID-IIs's head, neck, shoulder, thorax with 
arm, thorax without arm, abdomen, and pelvis acetabulum and iliac 
regions. In sled tests the primary measures of interest were the HIC, 
chest and abdomen deflections, T1, T12 and pelvis accelerations, lumbar 
spine and acetabulum loadings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Repeatability refers to a similarity of responses of a 
single dummy measured under identical test conditions. 
Reproducibility refers to the smallness of response variability 
between different dummies of the same design under identical test 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Component tests are better controlled than is possible in sled and 
vehicle tests, and thus produce more reliable estimates of the dummy's 
repeatability and reproducibility. Component tests are also used to 
qualify the dummy's performance relative to the established response 
corridors for each major body segment. That is, if the dummy's 
component is or becomes deficient, the qualification test will identify 
to the user that the component will not respond properly in impact 
tests, and that a replacement of parts should precede further testing.
    Sled tests offer a method of efficiently evaluating the dummy as a 
complete system in an environment much like a vehicle test. The SID-IIs 
test dummies were positioned on a bench seat mounted to a sled. During 
the test, the SID-IIs dummies slid down the bench seat and impacted the 
rigid load wall. Sled tests established the consistency of the dummy's 
kinematics, its impact response as an assembly, and the integrity of 
the dummy's structure and instrumentation under controlled and 
representative crash environment test conditions.
2. Repeatability and Reproducibility Assessments
    We used the Coefficient of Variation (CV) in percentage as a 
measure of repeatability. A CV value of less than 5 percent is 
considered excellent, 5-8 percent good, 8-10 percent acceptable, and 
above 10 percent unacceptable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Repeatability of the dummy was assessed on two levels. The agency 
first identified those measurements that comprise injury assessment 
reference values (IARVs) proposed or considered for use in the May 17, 
2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214. The repeatability of those measurements was 
assessed based on the 10 percent CV limit. Second, the agency 
identified measurements that were not used in the proposed IARVs, but 
are of interest as monitored indicators of potential injuries. A CV 
above 10 percent value for these latter

[[Page 75350]]

measurements is not necessarily considered unacceptable.
    The reproducibility assessment of the dummy is derived through 
statistical summation of data from repeatability tests of multiple 
dummies. Reproducibility is related more to the measurement of design 
quality, and manufacturing precision and consistency. Inasmuch as any 
dummy used for compliance purposes must conform to the performance 
specifications of Part 572, reproducibility is not a measure of the 
dummy's acceptance or exclusion from Part 572. However, if the 
population of dummies as a group exceeds the CV by <plus-minus>15%, 
this would be a sign of concern that the dummy manufacturing process is 
flawed. The reproducibility of dummies is judged on the following 
qualitative scale: CV of 0-8% is ``excellent''; CV of 8-12% is 
``good'', 12-15% ``acceptable''; and CV over 15% is ``poor.''
3. NPRM
    The NPRM stated that two SID-IIsFRG dummies were tested and exposed 
to both component and sled test conditions multiple times to determine 
the dummy's ability to respond consistently in a human-like manner. The 
NPRM tentatively concluded that the two test dummies demonstrated 
excellent or good repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) in component 
and sled tests. The results of the component tests indicate 
``excellent'' repeatability for the SID-IIsFRG dummy for all components 
except for the thorax with arm, which has a ``good'' rating. The 
results of the component tests generally indicated ``excellent'' to 
``good'' reproducibility for the dummy for all components. The pelvis 
lateral acceleration was the only elevated reproducibility response at 
a CV of 9.1 (``acceptable''). The agency believed that some of this 
elevated variability was due to inconsistent force-deflection 
characteristics of the pelvis plug used in those dummies, which was not 
subjected to force-deflection limits that had been proposed in the 
NPRM. The results of the sled tests indicated generally excellent or 
good R&R results for the dummy. Instances of elevated CV for pelvis 
responses were thought to be due to the variability of the pelvis plug 
responses.
4. Comments on the NPRM
    The Alliance disagreed with NHTSA's finding that the R&R of the 
SID-IIsFRG responses established the suitability for use in the agency 
side impact test programs, because only two dummies were evaluated. The 
Alliance argued for tests with more than two dummies in a 
reproducibility evaluation program, believing that R&R cannot be 
adequately assessed with only two dummies in one laboratory. Autoliv 
also was concerned that the assessment of the R&R of the dummies was 
based on a ``rather limited sample of dummies.''
5. Agency Response
    As discussed above in this document, after considering the comments 
on the NPRM, NHTSA has decided to incorporate numerous SID-IIsFRG 
features, except for the proposed floating rib guide design, described 
in the NPRM into the SID-IIsD dummy. The SID-IIsD dummy has the design 
features that NHTSA wishes to adopt of the FRG design and not those 
that it has decided, after review of the comments, to be unnecessary. 
NHTSA also retained for the SID-IIsD essentially all of the 
qualification test procedures that were proposed in the NPRM for the 
SID-IIsFRG version, as supplemented with the shoulder test and the 
iliac test.
    To fully assess the R&R of the SID-IIsD dummy, following the NPRM 
the agency evaluated four SID-IIsD dummies at two facilities. (These 
dummies are referred to by serial numbers 032, 033, 020 and 056.) The 
additional testing also addressed the concerns of the Alliance and of 
Autoliv about the sample size used in the previous R&R assessment. We 
analyzed the response data from R&R tests of these dummies, as well as 
data from qualification tests performed as our vehicle and sled test 
program progressed. The R&R and vehicle test programs yielded large 
amounts of response data from each impacted body area consisting of 
some 394 individual impact tests.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Listing of all responses and their statistical analysis may 
be found in the technical report in docket No.18865 under the title 
``Development of Calibration Performance Specifications for the SID-
IIsD Crash Test Dummy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evaluation of the R&R of the SID-IIsD is described in the 
following technical reports (see Docket 25442): ``Repeatability and 
Reproducibility Analysis of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the 
Certification Environment,'' Jessica Gall, MGA, December 2005, and 
``Repeatability, Reproducibility and Durability Evaluation of the SID-
IIs Build Level D Dummy in the Sled Test Environment,'' Felicia L. 
McKoy et al, January 2006.
    i. Component Qualification Tests. A. Repeatability in Component 
Tests. The initial assessment of the dummy's repeatability by component 
tests was performed with SID-IIsD dummies 032 and 033 upon their 
refurbishment with new body parts.\15\ See ``Repeatability and 
Reproducibility Analysis of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the 
Certification Environment,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The dummies were originally SID-IIsFRG dummies. They were 
refurbished when they were converted to SID-IIsD dummies. Floating 
rib guide components constraining vertical rib movement were 
removed, and replaced by BLD designated parts. Worn parts were 
either refurbished or replaced with new ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 lists dummy responses from initial repeatability tests, 
consisting of five repeated sets of qualification test type impacts of 
dummies 032 and 033 (except for the iliac qualification test, which 
consisted of 5 repeated impacts each for iliacs L1 (left side) and R1 
(right side) on dummy 033). (Repeated impact tests were performed on 
dummy 033 right iliac to determine if response differences existed 
between the left and right sides. Since the responses were virtually 
identical, the left and right side impact responses were merged.) The 
data are compiled and calculations made to include the following 
information for each repeated set: averages, standard deviations (SD), 
and coefficients of variation (CV). The data show that the CVs for 
repeatability of measurements covered by IARVs are all in the 
``excellent'' range.

         Table 6.--Repeatability of Retrofitted SID-IIsD 032 and 033 Dummies in Qualification-Type Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Repeatability
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Serial No. 032                   Serial No. 033
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Mean        SD       CV ***      Mean        SD       CV ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head
    Resultant Accel. (g)......................        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a

[[Page 75351]]

 
    Peak X Accel (g)..........................        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
Neck
    Peak D-Plane Rotation (deg)...............        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
    Peak Lat. Flex Moment (N-m)...............        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
    Time Moment Decay (ms)....................        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
Shoulder--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
    Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm)..............       33.5       0.09       0.26       33.6       0.27       0.89
    Upper Spine Y Acceleration (G's) *........      -18.4       0.23       1.27      -17.9       0.20       1.14
Thorax w. Arm--Impact Speed (6.7m/s)
    Impact Speed (m/s)........................        6.7       0.01       0.20        6.7       0.01       0.13
    Probe Force (kN)..........................        4.8       0.03       0.70       4.51       0.05       1.10
    Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm)..............       37.6       0.70       1.86       39.0       0.41       1.05
    Upper Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)........       29.0       0.16       0.55       30.1       0.29       0.97
    Middle Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm).......       33.6       0.37       1.09       33.7       0.31       0.91
    Lower Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)........       34.8       0.50       1.42       35.3       0.44       1.25
    Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)............       40.1       0.62       1.54       37.9       1.07       2.83
    Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)............       31.6       1.40       4.41       29.3       0.72       2.47
Thorax w/o Arm--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
    Upper Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)........       35.8       1.04       2.90       37.6       0.68       1.81
    Middle Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm).......       42.3       0.58       1.36       42.5       0.58       1.37
    Lower Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)........       39.3       0.62       1.58       39.8       0.71       1.79
    Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)............        8.4       0.32       3.77        7.8       0.29       3.74
Abdomen--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
    Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm).......       40.6       0.48       1.18       41.8       1.41       3.37
    Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm).......       38.2       0.78       2.03       39.3       1.35       3.44
    Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)............       13.2       0.25       1.93       13.2       0.71       5.42
Acetabulum--Impact Speed (6.7 m/s)
    Pelvis Y Acceleration (g).................       43.9       1.17       2.66       47.4       1.36       2.86
    Acetabulum Force (kN).....................        3.9       0.06       1.42        3.9       0.08       2.13
Iliac--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s) **
    Pelvis Y Acceleration (g).................       28.6       1.10       3.86       31.9       1.05       3.29
    Iliac Force (kN)..........................        4.0       0.09       2.34        4.4       0.15      3.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Second set of repeat shoulder qualification tests conducted solely to establish upper spine qualification
  corridors.
** Six different iliac wings and four different pelvis skins were used to formulate the statistics for these
  test responses using dummy 033.
*** CV=SD/Mean x 100.

    B. Reproducibility in Component Tests. In Table 7 below, 
information on the reproducibility of dummies 032 and 033 under highly 
controlled, consecutive qualification tests are compared to the 
reproducibility of dummies 032, 033, 020 and 056 that were evaluated in 
conjunction with qualification tests performed as part of sled and 
vehicle tests. The reproducibility assessment was established by 
combining the responses of the dummies from all of the qualification 
tests and calculating the combined mean and the CV values for each set 
of tests. Data in Table 7 indicate that newly refurbished dummies 032 
and 033 in repeated consecutive tests have slightly lower CV values 
than summation of all dummies that have been used in other crash tests. 
As some of the dummies have been subjected to more than 10 crash tests, 
this continuous use is reflected in slightly larger CVs, indicating a 
shift within the excellent towards the good category, and in only one 
instance (the lower spine acceleration value in the thorax without arm 
test) did the reproducibility shift into the good range.

    Table 7.--Reproducibility of Dummies 032 and 033 and the Composite of All Dummies in Qualification Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Serial No. 032 & 033  (newly    Serial No. 020, 032, 033 & 056
                                                          retrofitted)          --------------------------------
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                   Mean        SD       CV ***      Mean        SD       CV ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head:
Resultant Accel. (g)..........................        n/a        n/a        n/a      128.2       4.32       3.37
Neck:
Peak D-Plane Rotation (deg)...................        n/a        n/a        n/a      74.25       1.09       1.47
Peak Lat. Flex Moment (N-m)...................        n/a        n/a        n/a       42.1       1.48       3.52
Time Moment Decay (ms)........................        n/a        n/a        n/a      114.3       2.28        2.0
Shoulder Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
Shoulder Rib Defl. (mm).......................       33.5       0.21       0.63       33.4       1.65       4.93
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)................     -18.2*      0.35*       1.9*      -18.2       0.32       1.77
Thorax w Arm--Impact Speed (6.7 m/s)

[[Page 75352]]

 
Shoulder Rib Deflect (mm).....................       38.3       0.92       2.41       35.6       2.74       7.70
Upper Rib Defl. (mm)..........................       29.6       0.60       2.04       28.5       1.40       4.92
Middle Rib Defl. (mm).........................       33.7       0.32       0.96       32.5       1.21       3.73
Lower Rib Defl. (mm)..........................       35.0       0.51       1.46       34.6       1.10       3.17
Lower Spine Accel. (g)........................       30.5       1.61       5.27       31.7       1.69       5.34
Thorax w/o Arm--Impact Speed
(4.3 m/s)
Upper Rib Deflect. (mm).......................       36.7       1.25       3.41       36.3       1.77       4.86
Middle Rib Deflect. (mm)......................       42.4       0.56       1.32       41.6       1.01       2.43
Lower Rib Deflect. (mm).......................       39.6       0.70       1.76       39.4       1.61       4.08
Lower Spine Accel. (g)........................        8.1       0.42       5.23        8.7       0.73       8.42
Abdomen--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
Upper Rib Defl. (mm)..........................       41.2       1.16       2.82       42.8       2.06       4.81
Lower Rib Defl. (mm)..........................       38.7       1.19       3.07       42.5       3.24       7.62
Lower Spine Accel. (g)........................       13.2       0.50       3.84      12.58       0.71       5.68
Acetabulum--Impact Speed (6.7 m/s)
Pelvis Lateral Accel. (g).....................       45.6       2.12       4.64       45.7       2.20       4.81
Acetabulum Force (kN).........................        3.9       0.07       1.67       4.02       0.16       3.89
Iliac--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s) **
Peak Lateral Accel. (g).......................       30.0       2.01       6.70       29.6       1.73       5.86
Iliac Force (kN)..............................        4.2       0.21       4.91        4.1       0.20      4.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] New plug used for each test.
* Second set of repeat shoulder qualification tests conducted solely to establish upper spine qualification
  corridors.
** Six different iliac wings and four different pelvis skins were used to formulate the statistics for these
  test responses using dummy 033.
*** CV = SD/Mean x 100.

    ii. Sled Tests. Sled tests of the SID-IIsD dummies were conducted 
to determine the repeatability and consistency of the dummy's impact 
response in an environment more similar to full vehicle crash tests 
than qualification-type tests. See, ``Repeatability, Reproducibility 
and Durability Evaluation of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the 
Sled Test Environment,'' supra.
    The performance of each of the SID-IIsD dummies was evaluated in 
five repeated tests at 6.0 m/s. At the Medical College of Wisconsin, 
dummies 032 and 033 were tested in a deceleration sled. They impacted 
laterally a ``Heidelberg'' type three segment flat rigid wall with and 
without an armrest attached to it. In tests at the Transportation 
Research Center (TRC), test dummies 020 and 056 were placed in the HYGE 
sled to impact laterally a flat rigid wall with an armrest attached to 
it.
    The SID-IIsD was evaluated using the test configurations to which 
the SID-IIsFRG was exposed (69 FR at 70952). The tests involved: (a) 
The dummy impacting a flat wall at 6.0 m/s with the lateral aspect of 
its torso, pelvis and lower extremities, with the dummy's arm oriented 
in the down position (lowest detent); and (b) tests conducted at 6.0 m/
s with an abdomen offset block on the load wall, with the dummy's arm 
oriented 90 degrees forward to the inferior superior axis of the torso. 
The abdomen offset test provides a test environment with severe loading 
of the abdominal region.
    A. Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s. Table 8 provides a summary of 
the responses of dummies 032 and 033 in flat wall tests at 6 m/s. The 
data is presented by the mean, standard deviation and percent CV for 
the responses of 5 sled tests for each dummy (repeatability) as well as 
their composite responses (reproducibility).

                           Table 8.--Repeatability and Reproducibility of SID-IIsD 032 and 033 Dummies in Flat Wall Sled Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Repeatability                                      Reproducibility
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Serial No. 032                     Serial No. 033                  Serial No. 032 & 033
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Mean         SD         CV *       Mean         SD         CV *       Mean         SD         CV *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC............................................       62.0        5.0          8.0       67.9        4.6          6.8       64.9        5.6          8.7
T1 acceleration................................       42.7        0.6          1.3       42.3        2.0          4.7       42.5        1.5          3.5
Shoulder Rib Defl. (mm)........................       41.4        1.9          4.5       41.3        0.8          2.0       41.4        1.5          3.5
Upper Rib Defl. (mm)...........................       32.8        1.6          4.9       36.5        0.7          2.0       34.7        2.2          6.4
Middle Rib Defl. (mm)..........................       37.0        2.0          5.3       40.3        0.7          1.7       38.7        2.2          5.8
Lower Rib Defl. (mm)...........................       38.7        2.5          6.5       44.2        0.8          1.9       41.4        3.3          8.0
T12 acceleration...............................       59.1        2.8          4.7       57.9        2.7          4.6       58.5        2.8          4.8
Abd.Upper Rib Defl. (mm).......................       29.6        3.4         11.5       39.5        0.9          2.2       34.6        5.5         16.0
Abd.Lower Rib Defl. (mm).......................       14.9        0.5          3.4       16.8        0.8          4.5       15.6        1.1          7.1
Pelvis Lateral Accel. (g)......................       68.0        4.2          6.2       71.1        8.8         12.3       69.5        7.1         10.2
Acetabulum Force (kN)..........................        3.89       0.185        4.8        3.9        0.039        1.0        3.89       1.34         3.4

[[Page 75353]]

 
Iliac Force (kN)...............................       -0.28       0.001        4.4       -0.26       0.002        7.0       -0.27       0.002       6.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CV = SD/Mean x 100.

    1. Repeatability in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s. The data in 
Table 8 for each of the dummies indicate excellent and good CV's for 
repeatability for all IARV-based measurements. For non-IARV 
measurements, the repeatability for most measurements is also good to 
excellent, with only a few exceptions. For dummy 033, the pelvis 
lateral (Y) and resultant accelerations have CVs of 12.3 and 12.4, 
respectively. For dummy 032, the abdomen rib <greek-i>1 displacement 
has a CV of 11.5. The above test results indicate that the dummy is 
capable of providing excellent and good repeatable measurements in flat 
wall rigid surface impact environment.
    2. Reproducibility in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s. The data 
presented in Table 8 shows the reproducibility of the two dummies for 
IARV measures are at the excellent level. For non-IARV measurements, 
the reproducibility for pelvis lateral acceleration at 10.2 is 
considered good, and at 16.0 the upper abdominal rib deflection is just 
outside the satisfactory range at the poor level.
    B. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at MCW. The abdominal offset test 
set-up with simulated armrest was the same as in 6.0 m/s flat wall 
tests, except that the barrier had a wooden armrest attached to the 
impact surface, and the dummy's arm was oriented 90 degrees forward of 
torso superior-inferior axis. The simulated wooden armrest was 58 mm 
deep, 76 mm wide, 250 mm long. Dummies 032 and 033 were employed at MCW 
for these tests.
    During the repeatability assessment of dummies 032 and 033 at MCW, 
several body segments showed CV measures that were not rated as either 
good or excellent repeatability. A thorough video review was conducted 
on the kinematics of the dummies and their interaction with the armrest 
and impact wall. The review of the crash event indicated that early 
armrest contact of the abdomen caused the dummies' upper torso to start 
leaning somewhat towards the barrier. During this process, the shoulder 
rib of the dummy interfaced with and became ``snagged'' by the upper 
edge of the thoracic force plate, causing the shoulder to dwell in the 
hung-up position for several milliseconds. The snagging was 
particularly evident in tests SD320 and SD322, in which the shoulder 
force went into tension after 70 ms. The snagging interaction also 
changed the profile of the shoulder loading curve of these two tests 
compared to the other three tests in the series. Inasmuch as the rest 
of the tests also indicated the effects of snagging, though to a lesser 
extent, it was decided to redo the test series with a higher load cell 
wall using the HYGE sled at TRC.
    C. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC. In view of the experience 
with shoulder snagging at MCW, the agency repeated the armrest test 
series at TRC with newly refurbished dummies 020 and 056 in the HYGE 
sled. The test set-up was the same as at MCW except that the upper edge 
of the barrier thoracic loading plate was set approximately 2.5 in 
above the shoulder pivot.
    Table 9 provides a summary of peak responses of dummies 020 and 056 
in the TRC sled test series with simulated arm rest.

               Table 9.--Repeatability and Reproducibility of SID-IIsD 020 and 056 Dummies in Flat Wall Sled Tests with Simulated Armrest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Repeatability                                      Reproducibility
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Serial No. 020                     Serial No. 056                  Serial No. 020 & 056
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Mean         SD         CV*        Mean         SD         CV*        Mean         SD         CV*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC............................................       80.7        1.4          1.7       81.3        2.8          3.4       81.0        2.2          2.7
T1 acceleration................................       59.2        5.7          9.7       53.4        5.6         10.5       56.3        6.4         11.3
Shoulder Rib Defl. (mm)........................       49.1        0.5          1.0       53.2        0.8          1.5       51.2        2.1          4.2
Upper Rib Defl. (mm)...........................       26.4        0.7          2.6       24.7        0.4          1.7       25.6        1.0          4.0
Middle Rib Defl. (mm)..........................       11.7        0.2          1.6       11.5        0.3          2.4       11.6        0.3          2.2
Lower Rib Defl. (mm)...........................       12.6        0.4          3.0       12.7        0.3          2.3       12.7        0.3          2.7
T12 acceleration...............................       38.3        1.7          4.3       37.5        1.7          4.4       37.9        1.7          4.5
Abd. Upper Rib Defl. (mm)......................       49.6        0.2          0.4       49.1        0.2          0.4       49.3        0.3          0.7
Abd. Lower Rib Defl. (mm)......................       48.2        0.9          1.8       45.7        0.4          0.8       47.0        1.4          3.0
Pelvis Lateral Accel. (g)......................       72.5        0.6          0.8       65.1        0.9          1.4       68.8        3.8          5.5
Acetabulum Force (kN)..........................        3.44       0.03         0.9        3.36       0.05         1.5        3.40       0.55         1.6
Iliac Force (kN)...............................       -0.32       0.005        1.8       -0.29       0.005        1.6       -0.30       0.016       5.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CV = SD/Mean x 100.

    1. Repeatability in Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC. 
Repeatability of the responses for IARV assessment in sled tests of 
dummies 020 and 056, as shown in Table 9, were all excellent, except 
that the T1 acceleration of dummy 20

[[Page 75354]]

had a CV at 9.7 and a CV of 10.5 for dummy 56 which is borderline 
acceptable.
    The good to excellent CVs in repeatability tests of the dummies 
conducted at TRC illustrate that the arm snagging by the upper top edge 
of the barrier was the cause of poor dummy repeatability at MCW and 
that the dummy itself might not be the source of the problem.
    2. Reproducibility in Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC. To assess 
the reproducibility of dummies in sled tests, the repeatability 
responses of common measurements for both dummies were pooled for the 
calculation of mean response values, standard deviations and their 
respective CVs. Similar to flat wall sled tests, data in Table 9 
indicate that armrest tests on the whole have shifted somewhat towards 
wider variability from their individual repeatability values. The 
addition of the armrest however, has not altered the reproducibility 
levels of the dummy responses. All pertinent IARV values are well 
within excellent reproducibility range.
    iii. Conclusion. To enhance the quality and the quantity of 
available data, the agency evaluated four SID-IIsD dummies at two 
facilities. The response data from the dummies in sequentially repeated 
component tests indicated the repeatability and reproducibility of the 
dummy's impact responses to be excellent to good. Continued 
qualification tests of the four SID-IIsD dummies during their extensive 
use in sled and vehicle crash tests produced somewhat higher levels of 
response variability in component tests, but not enough to shift them 
out of excellent and good repeatability and reproducibility ranges. 
Nearly all of the dummy responses corresponding to IARVs injury 
assessment values fell into good to excellent repeatability categories. 
In addition, we found reasonably good match and overlap of dummy 
responses and respective coefficient of variation (CV) values between 
NHTSA SID-IIsD and a much larger SID-IIsC dummy population reported by 
FTSS in docket comments (``Development of Calibration Performance 
Specifications for the SID-IIsD Crash Test Dummy,'' supra). This 
finding of a good match confirms that the upgrades to bring the SID-
IIsFRG to the SID-IIsD level have not affected either the response or 
the repeatability of the dummy.
    The SID-IIsD dummies were evaluated for repeatability and 
reproducibility in a variety of sled tests. The SID-IIs dummies showed 
the repeatability and reproducibility of the dummy's responses to be 
excellent to good for the relevant injury assessment measurements under 
consideration for use in FMVSS No. 214, as proposed at 69 FR 27990. For 
the reasons provided above, the agency concludes that the SID-IIsD 
dummy is a suitable, reliable and consistent dummy to warrant 
incorporation into 49 CFR Part 572 and FMVSS No. 214.

f. Pelvis of the Dummy

    The agency noted in the NPRM that it was concerned about the 
repeatability of the data obtained in tests of the SID-IIs's pelvis (69 
FR at 70592). As discussed in the NPRM, during the agency's evaluation 
of the R&R of the dummy, NHTSA observed that some of the data traces of 
the dummy's pelvis acceleration showed an inconsistent first peak in 
the data trace that was generated by the probe's impact.\16\ NHTSA 
believed that the inconsistency of the first peak acceleration response 
could partly be attributed to an absence of control over aspects of the 
dummy that affect the consistency of the pelvis responses. To improve 
the consistency of the pelvis responses, the NPRM included provisions 
that provide checks on the performance of various parts of the dummy's 
pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Summary of the NHTSA Evaluation of the SID-IIsFRG Side 
Impact Crash Test Dummy Including Assessment of Durability, 
Biofidelity, Repeatability, Reproducibility and Directional 
Sensitivity'' (November 2004), Docket 18865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Pelvis Plug
    In the pelvis qualification test developed by dummy manufacturer 
FTSS, the pendulum impact probe is centered on the pelvis plug that is 
mounted within the pelvis flesh cavity in front of and in line with the 
acetabulum load cell's longitudinal axis at the H-point of the dummy. 
Because there was practically no control over the stiffness 
characteristics of the SID-IIs plugs, the agency believed that 
inconsistency of the first peak acceleration response was caused by 
variability of the crush characteristics of the pelvis plugs (i.e., 
variability of the resistance force during compression) rather than by 
other characteristics of the dummy (69 FR at 70953). Thus, to improve 
the consistency of all of the dummy's pelvis responses as well as the 
force values measured by the impact probe, the agency proposed to 
control the crush characteristics of the pelvis plug.
    NHTSA developed a force-displacement corridor for the pelvis plug 
and a test procedure for measuring the force-displacement 
characteristics of the plugs. The proposed procedure involved 
evaluating a plug by quasi-statically compressing it to a deflection 
range between a proposed range of 22 to 25 mm and a corresponding 
resistance force between 1920 and 2160 Newtons (N) at minimum 
compression and 2000 to 2240 N at maximum compression. Under the 
proposed procedure, only plugs that met the specified force levels at 
prescribed compression would be ``certified'' for use in a side impact 
test using the dummy.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A pelvis plug can only be used once per either vehicle 
crash test or pelvis qualification application. In the pelvis 
qualification test procedure under consideration, a certified plug 
is inserted into the pelvis cavity of the dummy and the dummy's 
pelvis is qualified according to the Part 572 test procedure. Since 
the pelvis plug can only be used once, after the dummy's pelvis is 
qualified, the plug must be discarded and a new ``certified'' plug 
is inserted into the pelvis cavity prior to the vehicle crash test. 
The agency stated in the NPRM that it believed that ``Carefully 
controlled and certified crush characteristics of the plugs will 
assure that their use will produce consistent and reliable pelvis 
response in the impact environment.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments Received: The Alliance believed that the 22-25 mm 
deflection range was excessive. The commenter stated that FTSS 
conducted ``numerous tests to understand the effects of different 
amounts of pre-crush on the pelvis plug and has tentatively determined 
that a 2 mm pre-crush provides the greatest consistency for the quasi-
static force deflection performance of the pelvis plug.'' FTSS in its 
comments noted that it has evaluated SID-IIs dummies with a variety of 
plugs having different pre-crushes. It observed ``that the plug 
properties change after each test if the quasi-static compression is 
higher than 3 mm. With 25 mm of compression the plug properties change 
significantly, which stiffens the pelvis response as well''. FTSS 
further stated that studies of plugs pre-crushed to a number of depth 
levels show that ``* * *the plug properties have no noticeable change 
with a 2 mm compression specification. The 2 mm compression can be 
repeated without damaging the plug. The tests can also distinguish 
between plugs with different stiffness.''
    Agency Response. Adopting a force-displacement corridor for the 
pelvis plug and the proposed test procedure to control the crush 
characteristics of the pelvis plug are warranted to improve the 
consistency of the dummy's pelvis responses. However, upon review of 
the Alliance and FTSS comments, the agency evaluated the effects on 
pelvis response by plugs of several pre-crush depths. We have 
determined that a 22-25 mm crush specification is too high and does 
stiffen the pelvis response excessively. We have also determined

[[Page 75355]]

that a nominal 3 mm pre-crush procedure would more assuredly sort out 
differences between plugs having different crush properties than a 2 mm 
pre-crush procedure. Accordingly, we selected a compression force 
requirement that pelvis plugs must exhibit when pre-crushed to a depth 
of 2.5-3.5 mm. The pelvis plug crush development is discussed in the 
technical report entitled, ``SID-II Pelvis Plug Certification 
Development,'' Alena Hagedorn and Heather Rhule, May 3, 2006, Docket 
25442. The pre-crush procedure and certification requirements are set 
forth in the plug drawing 180-4450.
2. Iliac Load Cell
    Along with specifying proposed stiffness characteristics for the 
pelvis plug to improve consistency in the pelvis responses, the 
December 8, 2004 NPRM proposed performance limits on the peak 
acceleration of the pelvis and the peak force responses of the 
acetabulum and iliac load cells when subjected to the proposed pelvis 
qualification test. However, in that test, the impact probe contacts an 
area of the dummy covering just a small part of the iliac load cell, 
resulting in a minimal force on the iliac load cell.\18\ (See ``SID-IIs 
Iliac Certification Development,'' Alena V. Hagedorn, August 2006, 
Docket 25442.) A question arose as to whether the qualification 
procedure for the pelvis should more fully assess the properties of the 
iliac load cell. The Alliance noted in its comment to the NPRM (Docket 
18865-35) that there could be higher loads from the iliac load cell 
than the acetabulum load cell, and suggested that the qualification 
test should limit both the iliac and acetabulum loads. We too observed 
that in agency pole and MDB side crash tests, impacts into the iliac 
area were occurring quite frequently and at magnitudes sometimes 
equaling and sometimes exceeding the loadings imparted to the 
acetabulum. Because the May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 proposed 
that the sum of the acetabular and iliac forces would be used for the 
pelvic injury criterion, it appeared prudent to have a procedure that 
checks the response consistency of the iliac load cell as installed in 
the dummy's pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The NPRM proposed in Sec.  572.197(c)(4) that the peak 
iliac wing force (load cell) response would have to be not less than 
524 N and not more than 730 N. Because the impact probe in the 
proposed procedure barely exercised the iliac load cell, the 
proposed iliac load cell loads were much less than the proposed 
acetabulum loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response. After considering the comments and other 
information, the agency has decided that the proposed pelvis 
qualification test should continue to measure the properties of the 
acetabulum load cell, and should also have a comparable procedure that 
involves impacting the iliac region for assessing the properties and 
repeatability of the iliac load cell response. The pelvis test will 
consist of the acetabulum impact test, and an impact test conducted on 
the iliac load cell area of the pelvis as well (see ``SID-IIs Iliac 
Certification Development,'' id.). In the iliac load cell test, a 13.97 
kg impactor is accelerated to 4.3<plus-minus>0.1 meters per second (m/
s) and directed laterally into the pelvis such that its impact surface 
strikes the centerline of the iliac access hole in the iliac load cell. 
Performance limits are adopted for peak impactor and pelvis lateral 
accelerations and peak iliac forces. In addition, the procedure calls 
for use of a thin steel plate between the iliac wing and iliac load 
cell to prevent the iliac wing urethane material from deforming and 
offloading a portion of the iliac load cell measurement, which can 
affect the repeatability of test results. Id. The iliac test procedure 
will ensure the validity and repeatability of the data produced by the 
iliac load cell and the pelvic responses of the dummy.
3. Iliac Wing
    During the course of NHTSA's R&R evaluation of the SID-IIsD, the 
agency observed that our SID-IIs set of left side wings had been used 
extensively for several years in numerous crash exposures, and was 
showing signs of wear. The agency decided to obtain six new iliac wings 
from the dummy manufacturer producing the dummies at the time (FTSS) 
for iliac R&R tests. During quasi-static and dynamic impact tests of 
the six new iliac wings, it was observed that the wings produced 
approximately 20% lower impact responses (softer) than previously-
tested wings. NHTSA contacted FTSS and was informed that formulation of 
the urethane materials for currently-manufactured wings changed in 
2004, as the material previously used was no longer available. (Agency 
memorandum, June 1, 2006, Docket 18865, number 18865-36.)
    All agency vehicle and sled testing of the SID-IIs dummies was done 
with pelves equipped with pre-2004 iliac wings. We estimate \19\ that 
in crash tests the softer iliac wings would lower the average driver 
occupant pelvis force approximately 8% and that of the passenger about 
3%. In only one of 25 dummy occupants responses reviewed would the 
pelvis IARV change from just being above the IARV limit to just being 
below. In view of these findings, the agency decided to specify the 
softer iliac wing for the SID-IIsD dummy. Accordingly, all of the 
pendulum response data have been revised to reflect the softer iliac 
wings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Based on calculated adjustments of the total force on the 
pelvis by taking into account lower impact responses of the softer 
iliac wing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. The Shoulder With Arm Test
    Although a shoulder qualification test in which the dummy's 
shoulder has to meet deflection and acceleration limits was described 
in the FTSS user manual for the SID-IIs dummy, the agency tentatively 
concluded that the qualification test was redundant to a thorax with 
arm test and was thus unnecessary. The agency made this tentative 
determination because both the shoulder with arm test and the thorax 
with arm test produced identical shoulder response values in our 
evaluation of the dummy.
    Comments on the NPRM: Both Autoliv and the Alliance urged the 
agency to adopt the separate shoulder qualification test developed by 
FTSS. The commenters believed that the shoulder test provides needed 
data specifically about the shoulder rib performance, and that it can 
influence dummy kinematics in full scale crash tests.
    Agency Response: We agree with the commenters that the shoulder 
with arm test has merit, and that it should be included in today's 
regulation. The thorax with arm test is conducted with the dummy's arm 
in the ``down'' position, with the impact probe contacting the dummy 93 
mm below the centerline of the shoulder yoke assembly arm pivot 
(measured along the length of the arm). The shoulder with arm test is 
conducted with the arm positioned so that it points forward at 90 
degrees relative to the centerline of the dummy's thorax, with the 
pendulum impact probe impacting the centerline of the rubber shoulder 
plug.
    The shoulder with arm test is needed to assess properly the 
performance of the dummy's shoulder. In the agency's pole and MDB 
tests, we observed that the shoulder of the small female dummy was one 
of the first body segments to contact the vehicle structure. Because of 
this, we believe that the response of the shoulder has implications on 
subsequent dummy kinematics and impact responses and should thus be 
evaluated in a separate qualification test. To assure that the shoulder 
impact response is not influenced by the arm's interaction with parts 
of the torso, the

[[Page 75356]]

test procedure requires the arm of the dummy to be in the raised 
position.
    Accordingly, this final rule includes a separate shoulder with arm 
test. The test specifies that the shoulder is impacted with a 14 kg, 
120.7 mm diameter probe at 4.4 m/s. The impact probe experiences a 
maximum deceleration of not less than 14 g and not more than 18 g, and 
the concurrent shoulder deflection is between 30-37 mm. Peak lateral 
acceleration of the upper spine (T1) is not less than 17 g and not more 
than 19 g.

h. Other

1. Directional Impact Sensitivity
    The NPRM stated that limited NHTSA tests indicated that the SID-
IIsFRG dummy's thoracic and abdominal rib deflections were reduced in 
+30 and +15 degree pendulum tests, as compared to deflections resulting 
from pure lateral pendulum impacts. Also, the SID-IIsFRG's peak lateral 
acceleration of the upper and lower spines in oblique pendulum impacts 
showed, as compared to non-oblique lateral impacts, elevated ratios 
(compared to non-oblique) of the upper spine in abdominal impact at +15 
degrees (1.27), and higher ratios of lower spine (3.22) and upper spine 
(2.20) accelerations in +30 degree impacts. The agency explained, 
however, that the loading of the dummy in the pendulum tests is unlike 
the loading experienced in a vehicle crash test. The agency tentatively 
concluded that, while the dummy demonstrated some sensitivity to impact 
direction in the pendulum tests, this demonstration has not been 
established as being relevant to loading conditions in vehicle tests.
    Comments on NPRM: The Alliance said it believed that laboratory 
pendulum tests show that the SID-IIs dummies ``exhibit sensitivity to 
impact direction that can adversely affect the ability of the dummy to 
accurately measure deflection* * *. As the impact angle increases, the 
peak rib deflection decreases.'' The commenter believed that in single 
rib oblique angle pendulum tests, the Build Level C rib was able to 
deflect more freely than the FRG rib, but this caused the potentiometer 
shaft to be oriented off axis to the housing, which resulted in the 
shaft scraping along the inside of the housing causing noise in the 
data response. The commenter believed that based on these data, it 
would be premature to require thoracic injury criteria (deflection and 
acceleration) in oblique loading conditions for the SID-IIsFRG.
    Agency Response: With regard to comments pertaining to the effect 
of the floating rib guides on the SID-IIs's deflection measurement 
capabilities, this final rule does not adopt the guide mechanism. With 
regard to comments opposed to the use of SID-IIs dummies in oblique 
impacts to measure rib deflection, NHTSA wanted to obtain more 
information on the SID-IIsFRG's rib deflection measurement capability 
under oblique loading conditions before proceeding with a proposal 
limiting rib deflections in oblique side impact tests (69 FR at 28006). 
We did not propose to use rib deflections in FMVSS No. 214, and the 
final rule on adopting the pole test into FMVSS No. 214 will not 
include an injury assessment reference value limiting the rib 
deflection of the SID-IIsD.
    However, we do not agree with the comments opposing use of the 
dummy's chest acceleration measurements in oblique impacts. In our 
vehicle pole and MDB test program using the SID-IIsD, we did not 
observe ``noise'' in the data responses caused by the potentiometer 
shaft scraping along the inside of the housing or by any other factor. 
The SID-IIsD's acceleration responses in vehicle crash tests appeared 
to be fully satisfactory (see Section V of this preamble, ``NHTSA Crash 
Test Experience,'' infra), as were the deflection responses.
    We also do not believe that the SID-IIsD's response characteristics 
in the oblique pendulum tests demonstrate that the dummy is unsuitable 
for assessing the risk of thoracic injury in oblique vehicle tests. The 
two test environments are very different. The pendulum has a small and 
rigid impact face and a relatively small mass that is intended to load 
a specific localized region of the dummy. In contrast, in a vehicle 
crash test, an intruding vehicle structure loads the dummy in multiple 
areas during a collision. The intruding area is usually fairly large, 
is typically energy absorbing, changes its configuration, and changes 
its direction of impact force during the crash. No commenter provided 
vehicle crash test data showing consistent increases or decreases in 
the dummy responses due to oblique loading. Further, as noted in the 
NPRM, the directional sensitivity of the dummy in <plus-minus> 15 
degree impacts appears at most comparable to or less than those of 
other side impact dummies. The agency's 49 CFR part 572, subpart F SID 
dummy has been successfully used in FMVSS No. 214's oblique MDB impact 
since 1990.
2. Toyota Suggests an Improved Upper Arm
    Toyota stated in its comments that the current SID-IIs upper arm is 
not biofidelic and that it negatively affects the thoracic rib 
responses. Toyota stated that the SID-IIs upper arm is stiffer, smaller 
and lighter than the human arm. The commenter believed that the arm 
increases deflection responses of the upper and middle thoracic ribs. 
Toyota stated that it has developed a biofidelic upper arm, which was 
used in Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 50 km/h side 
impact tests. According to Toyota, when compared to the results 
measured by the current SID-IIs arm, the upper rib deflection for the 
driver was reduced by 4.3 mm. Toyota claims that the reductions are 
even more pronounced for the rear passenger, showing upper and middle 
thoracic rib deflections lowered by 13.5 mm and 7.6 mm, respectively, 
as well as a decrease in upper rib acceleration. Toyota noted that the 
modified arm resulted in a slight decrease in shoulder biofidelity, but 
overall whole dummy biofidelity was improved from 6.24 to 6.35. Toyota 
believed that the biofidelity rating of the SID-IIs prototype with the 
modified arm would maintain an overall rating of ``fair.''
    Agency Response: Toyota has not established the need for or 
usefulness of the new arm as it relates to the FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking 
underway or generally to the prediction of the risks of occupant 
injury. We do not believe that this rulemaking should be delayed to 
ascertain the improvements to the SID-IIs's arm. The OSRP is compiling 
data on the Toyota proposed arm modifications and will be examining 
their effect on the biofidelity and usefulness of the dummy. Meanwhile, 
NHTSA believes that the current arm of the dummy is acceptable. The 
agency is satisfied with the biofidelity of the current SID-IIs arm and 
will proceed with this rulemaking to adopt the Build Level D dummy into 
part 572.
3. Injury Assessment Reference Values
    In the May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214, NHTSA proposed the 
following injury assessment reference values (IARVs) for use with the 
SID-IIs: HIC<INF>36</INF> would be limited to 1000; lower spine lateral 
acceleration would be limited to 82 g; and the sum of the measured 
acetabular and iliac force would be limited to 5,100 N. The agency did 
not propose in the May 17, 2004 NPRM to limit chest deflection because 
the agency wanted to obtain more data on the rib deflection measurement 
capabilities of the dummy.

[[Page 75357]]

    Comments Received: The agency received comments on the IARVs in 
response to both the May 17, 2004 NPRM (Docket 17694) and the December 
8, 2004 NPRM (Docket 18865). Comments on the proposals in the FMVSS No. 
214 rulemaking on the IARVs used with the SID-IIs will be addressed in 
that rulemaking proceeding rather than in today's final rule. (These 
comments include, for example, whether FMVSS No. 214 should limit lower 
spine (T12) acceleration of the SID-IIs.) Comments relating to the 
ability of the dummy to measure the relevant injury assessment values 
accurately and with acceptable repeatability and reproducibility have 
been addressed in this final rule. All tests conducted and/or analyzed 
to support the incorporation of the SID-IIsD dummy into Part 572 have 
shown reliable and repeatable responses suitable for the qualification 
testing required.
4. Reversibility
    The NPRM explained that the SID-IIs is designed to have equivalent 
performance when impacted from either the left or right side. Most 
agency tests have been left side impacts. To convert the dummy's impact 
side from left to right side and vice versa, the entire dummy's thorax, 
abdomen, and shoulder structure, upon disengagement of the neck and of 
the lumbar spine at the lower torso interfaces, is rotated as a unit 
around the vertical axis with respect to the neck and the lumbar spine 
without any further modifications.
    No comments were received on the reversibility of the dummy. The 
agency has determined that the dummy is appropriate for use for both 
right and left side impacts. The method for reversing the dummy for use 
in either left-or right-side impacts is discussed in the Procedures for 
Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) document for the SID-IIsD 
dummy.

i. Test Dummy Drawing Package

    The SID-IIs test dummy is specified by way of a drawing package, 
parts list, PADI users manual, and performance qualification tests. The 
two-dimensional drawings and the PADI ensure that the dummies are the 
same in their design and construction. The performance qualification 
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 Denton ATD (DATD) and FTSS suggested changes to the drawing 
package. DATD believed that to be ``complete,'' the specification 
package must have a ``definition of all 3 dimensional shapes with a 
pattern (definition of surfaces) with tolerances and complete material 
specifications.''
1. Three Dimensional (3-D) Shape Definitions
    DATD recommended that NHTSA specify 3-D patterns, either physical 
or electronic, ``for all complex dummy parts.'' DATD suggested that 
NHTSA should make available physical patterns made from stable 
materials, and that the 3-D patterns ``must be stored and maintained by 
NHTSA to have traceability for the rule, and must be available now and 
as long as the rule is in effect to anyone who wants to verify the 
basic shape of dummy components or start building the dummy.''
    Agency Response: We are denying the request to provide 3-D patterns 
to specify the dummy. The SID-IIsD drawings are comparable in detail to 
all other dummies previously incorporated into 49 CFR part 572. No 
dummy specification in Part 572 contains 3-D patterns. This is because 
3-D patterns are unnecessary in inspecting whether the dummy is 
acceptable for use in an agency test, and in some respects, would be 
overly design restrictive. The drawing package sets forth the criteria 
that the agency uses to determine acceptability of the dummy through an 
inspection process. The drawing package is not intended for use in 
manufacturing a dummy, or to ensure the interchangeability of parts 
between dummies manufactured by different business entities. Although 
the agency does not provide 3-D 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. 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 inspection is carried out using 
uniform disassembly procedures and in a proper sequence.
    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 
qualification 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 qualification 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 3-D 
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 (3-D) patterns for the dummy parts.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 one of the SID-IIsD dummies used by 
the agency in the development of the rule. To make arrangements to 
inspect the dummy, 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.

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

[[Page 75358]]

2. Material Specifications
    DATD stated that the drawings lacked sufficient specification of 
materials necessary to manufacture a reproducible dummy. DATD 
recommended that NHTSA provide performance-based specifications for all 
materials. ``For materials, the drawing should call out the density 
with a tolerance, minimum tensile strength, and hardness with a 
tolerance. For materials that require a dynamic performance (such as 
rubbers, urethanes, foams), they should have basic performance-based 
specifications such as density with a tolerance, some stiffness 
specification with a tolerance, and a measure of the damping of the 
material with a tolerance.''
    Agency Response: The agency does not have the resources to provide 
the detailed performance-based specifications recommended by DATD for 
all materials used in the dummy, nor do we believe it is necessary to 
provide such exhaustive specifications. We have added ``or equivalent'' 
to the drawing when particular plastic or rubber materials are 
specified. The drawing package can provide a starting point for 
material selection, but the non-metallic materials referenced in the 
drawings are not required to be used to exact specifications as long as 
the material that is used has functional, density and stiffness 
similarities enabling the dummy to meet the drawing package 
specifications and the dynamic performance requirements in the 49 CFR 
Part 572 qualification tests. The materials used by the dummy 
manufacturer do not have to be identical, but must be generically alike 
with similar properties to the materials listed on the individual 
component drawings.
3. Dummy Drawing Changes
    Comments on the SID-IIsFRG drawing package were made by First 
Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD (DATD). While a number 
of comments related to the floating rib guide design, the majority of 
comments dealt with issues addressing design details of the base SID-
IIs dummy which are common to both the SID-IIsFRG and SID-IIsD 
versions. FTSS comments (Docket entry 18865-25) consisted of 11 
separate issues dealing mostly with the base dummy design. DATD (Docket 
entry 18865-32) identified by mark-ups 110 drawings that it felt were 
in need of specific changes.
    The agency examined the dummy manufacturers' comments in great 
detail by performing a review of the specifications within the drawings 
and additional laboratory inspection of parts as needed.
    As a result of this review, the agency developed a table, 
``September 15, 2006: SID-IIsD Drawing Changes Since SID-IIs NPRM 
Docketed in December 2004,'' in which all changes made to the drawings 
since publication of the NPRM are summarized (the table has been placed 
in Docket 25442). While changes to the drawing package relating to the 
removal of floating rib guides are self-evident, most other drawing 
changes deal with relatively minor adjustments, such as: Eliminating 
dimensioning inconsistencies, filling in missing specifications, 
adjusting some dimensional tolerances, clarifying material callouts, 
and correcting misplaced dimensions and typographical errors.
    The table has been structured to identify the changes by part 
number, drawing title, description of the change, initiating source and 
reason for the change, change letter, and date of revision. 
Furthermore, the reason for the change has been coded for the following 
categories:
    1. Identical cross reference drawings--drawings identical to 
Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th percentile female parts;
    2. ``Same as except for'' cross reference drawings--drawings 
identical to Subpart O; Hybrid III 5th percentile female parts with 
minor revisions;
    3. Changes made with regard to Denton docket comments;
    4. Changes made with regard to FTSS docket comments;
    5. Changes made due to corrections/clarifications found as a result 
of internal review;
    6. Changes due to change from FRG design;
    7. Changes due to OSRP recommendations; and,
    8. Changes due to design revisions based upon agency test results.
    Of the 170 drawings involving revisions, 34 are associated with 
changes from FRG to SID-IIsD. While most other drawing changes are 
minor, the more substantive changes include revisions suggested by OSRP 
to improve the basic SID-IIsC dummy, and consequently the SID-IIsD, 
without affecting the dummy's performance. They involve:
    <bullet> Use \1/2\-inch linear potentiometers instead of \3/8\-inch 
potentiometers and modifications of their attaching mounts to allow the 
potentiometer for more angular motion;
    <bullet> Modified thorax and abdominal rib stops to allow further 
motion of the ribs at oblique impact angles; and
    <bullet> Modified thorax and abdominal rib stop attachment brackets 
to accommodate 60 mm of rib deflection.
    The drawings encompass also a number of modifications developed by 
FTSS for the FRG dummy and adopted for the SID-IIsC and D versions of 
the dummy, including:
    <bullet> Shoulder rib revision to include thinner, taller damping 
material to improve durability and associated modification of the front 
guide to improve rib control and eliminate gouging;
    <bullet> Inclusion of a shoulder rib bumper; and
    <bullet> Revision of the neck bracket to accommodate the modified 
shoulder rib guides.

IV. Qualification Procedures and Response Corridors

a. Qualification Procedures

    The NPRM proposed qualification tests composed of impact tests of 
the head and neck, thorax with and without arm, abdomen, and pelvis 
(acetabulum). As discussed above in this preamble, commenters Autoliv 
and the Alliance recommended including a separate shoulder 
qualification test. Further, the Alliance raised a concern about the 
acetabulum test not fully exercising the iliac load cell.
    Agency Response: We agree with the commenters that the shoulder 
with arm test has merit. We also agree that the pelvis qualification 
test should include a pendulum test of the iliac. Both tests have been 
included in the procedures. In general, the qualification procedures 
for the SID-IIsD are the same as those proposed in the NPRM for the 
SID-IIsFRG, except for the addition of separate shoulder and iliac 
qualification test requirements. The qualification tests include impact 
tests of the head and neck, shoulder, thorax with and without arm, 
abdomen, and pelvis (acetabulum and iliac).
    The performance qualification tests in this final rule serve to 
assure that the SID-IIsD is within the established performance response 
corridors and further assure the uniformity of dummy assembly, 
structural integrity, consistency of impact response under identical 
loading conditions, and adequacy of instrumentation. The tests ensure 
the reliability of the dummy's impact response in vehicle compliance 
tests. They are generally conducted at energy levels that are just 
short of or at the threshold levels that result in dummy readings 
corresponding to

[[Page 75359]]

IARVs associated with moderate to serious injury.
    The below listing provides an overview of test procedures that the 
SID-IIsD dummies need to conform to in order to qualify as Part 572 
test devices. Performance criteria based on the results of these tests 
are provided in the next section b, infra.
    Head Drop Test: Test procedure is the same as for SID-IIsFRG 
proposed in the NPRM. The disarticulated head is suspended 200 mm above 
a rigid flat surface, with the D-plane of the head at an angle of 35 
degrees from vertical. After release, the head impacts the rigid flat 
surface on the lateral-superior aspect of the skull. Accelerations of 
the head center of gravity are measured in the 3 orthogonal axes.
    Lateral Neck Bending Pendulum Test: Test procedure is the same as 
for SID-IIsFRG proposed in the NPRM. The headform-neck complex is 
attached at the base of the neck (C7-T1) to the bottom of a swinging 
arm pendulum such that the arc of swing of the pendulum is 
perpendicular to the mid-saggital plane of the head-neck. To initiate 
the test, the pendulum is rotated upward from the vertical hanging 
position and released. The pendulum swings downward under the influence 
of gravity until it reaches the vertical hanging position at an impact 
speed of 5.51-5.63 m/s. At that instant an attenuator begins to arrest 
its motion. The arresting force causes the head form to decelerate and 
bend the neck laterally relative to the pendulum. Measurements include 
the time and magnitude of rotation of the neck, and the forces and 
moments generated by the neck at the upper load cell.
    Shoulder Impactor Test: This test procedure is similar to the 
thorax with arm impact procedure proposed in the NPRM. A 13.97 kg 
impactor with a 120.7 mm diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is 
accelerated to 4.4<plus-minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally to impact 
the shoulder of the dummy. The dummy is seated on a rigid bench 
developed by the WorldSID design team \21\ (hereinafter referred to as 
``the certification bench''). Measurements include lateral deflection 
of the shoulder and the acceleration of T1 and the impactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ WorldSID is a next-generation 50th percentile male side 
impact dummy developed by industry representatives from the U.S., 
Europe and Japan (see Docket No. 2000-17252). The design team 
developed a WorldSID test bench for use in testing the dummy. The 
seat back angle and other features of the WS bench provide more 
stability in supporting the dummy than conventional test benches, 
which facilitates the evaluation of the dummy. NHTSA believes that 
the WorldSID bench will also make testing of the SID-IIsD more 
thorough and efficient, and so the agency will use that bench in its 
tests of the SID-IIsD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thorax with Arm Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor with a 120.7 mm 
diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is accelerated to 6.7<plus-
minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally to impact the thorax of the dummy. 
The dummy is seated on a the certification bench. The arm in this test 
is down, positioned to the lowest detent, interposed between the ribs 
and the impactor. Longitudinal centerline of the probe is centered on 
the most lateral centerpoint of the middle rib within 2 mm. 
Measurements include the deflection of the shoulder and thorax ribs, 
accelerations of the spine at T1 and T12 and the impactor.
    Thorax without Arm Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor with a 120.7 
mm diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is accelerated to 4.3<plus-
minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally into the thorax of the dummy. The 
dummy is seated on the certification bench. The arm in this test is 
removed to allow the impactor to contact the thorax directly so that 
the longitudinal centerline of the probe is centered on the centerline 
of the middle rib within 2 mm. Measurements include the deflection of 
the thorax ribs, and accelerations of the spine at T1 and T12 and of 
the impactor.
    Abdominal Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor with a 76.2 mm 
diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is accelerated to 4.4<plus-
minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally to impact the abdomen of the dummy 
with the longitudinal probe aligned to coincide with the centerpoint 
between the two abdominal ribs. The dummy, with arm removed, is seated 
on the certification bench. The dummy is positioned so that the 
longitudinal centerline of the impact probe is centered at time of 
impact on the lateral midpoint between the two abdominal ribs within 
<plus-minus>2 mm. Measurements include the deflection of the abdominal 
ribs, accelerations of the spine at T12 and of the impactor.
    Pelvis Acetabulum Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor with a 120.7 
mm diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is accelerated to 6.7<plus-
minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally and targeted to impact the 
longitudinal center of the pelvis plug of the dummy. The dummy, without 
the torso jacket installed, is seated on the certification bench. The 
dummy is positioned in the seat so that the longitudinal centerline of 
the impact probe at time of impact coincides with the longitudinal 
centerline of the pelvis plug, as installed within the acetabulum 
access hole in the pelvis flesh within <plus-minus>2 mm. With the 
dummy's thoracic lateral plane set at <plus-minus>1 deg. relative to 
the horizontal, the orientation of the impactor face is within <plus-
minus>1 degree of the vertical at the time of impact. Measurements 
include peak impactor and pelvis lateral accelerations and peak 
acetabulum force.
    Iliac Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor, with a 50.8 x 88.9 mm 
rigid, flat face and a depth of at least 76 mm at these dimensions, is 
accelerated to 4.3<plus-minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally to impact 
the pelvis of an upright postured dummy seated with legs stretched out 
on a rigid flat horizontal surface. The dummy is positioned such that 
the longitudinal centerline of the impact probe coincides at the time 
of impact with the laterally oriented centerline of the iliac access 
hole in the iliac load cell within <plus-minus>2 mm. With the dummy's 
thoracic lateral plane set at <plus-minus>1 deg. relative to the 
horizontal, the orientation of the impactor is adjusted so that its 
50.5 mm wide surface is horizontal within <plus-minus>1 degree at the 
time of impact. Measurements include peak impactor and pelvis lateral 
accelerations and peak iliac force.

b. Response Corridors

    To develop the qualification corridors set forth in today's final 
rule, NHTSA first conducted qualification tests on each major body 
segment of dummies 032 and 033, yielding an initial data base of at 
least five sets of impacts to each dummy. The upper torso was tested in 
two configurations: one with the arm down in which the arm was impacted 
by the probe at the second rib level; and one directly into ribcage 
with the arm removed. In addition, the agency also accumulated 
considerable amount of data from qualification tests of four dummies 
performed in conjunction with vehicle pole and MDB crash tests, 
extensive sled impacts, as well as special durability and biofidelity 
tests, for a total of nearly 400 component tests. The qualification 
data from the tests of the four dummies were obtained at two test 
laboratories.
    The distribution of final qualification data used for corridor 
establishment from each of the four dummies per body segment are shown 
in Table 10. It should be noted that the number of qualification tests 
vary between body regions and between dummies. Inasmuch as the heads 
and necks are identical for all SID-IIs dummies, including the FRG 
version, and repeatability of these components was already established, 
we determined that there was no reason to subject these components to 
additional testing. In other instances, some dummies were used fewer 
times in vehicle tests. Also, the results of some tests had to be 
eliminated due to such circumstances as

[[Page 75360]]

incorrect impact speeds, transducer or data collection problems, etc. 
Additionally, as much as this data set included data from dummies used 
in crash tests, and as those dummies were not new, some judgment had to 
be used based on scatter plot dispersion as to which data points were 
outliers not fitting the general pattern of all other responses. Only 
two responses of nearly 400 were found to be significantly out of the 
range of all others, and were thus eliminated from consideration in 
setting the performance corridors. The final set of valid qualification 
data was obtained from a total of 394 component tests. Peak responses 
from each of the qualification tests, the complete list of 
qualification data, and a detailed discussion of data are provided in 
the Technical Report, ``Development of Certification Performance 
Specifications for the SID-IsD Crash Test Dummy,'' September 2006, 
NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Docket 25442 (hereinafter 
referred to as ``the Certification Performance Specifications 
Report'').

                            Table 10.--Number of Qualification Tests per Body Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Body region/No. of tests               Dummy 20     Dummy 32     Dummy 33     Dummy 56      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head...........................................            9            9           13           11           42
Neck...........................................           10            9           13           13           45
Shoulder.......................................            9           19           22           15           65
Thorax w/Arm...................................           12           14           18           10           54
Thorax w/o Arm.................................            9           14           18           10           51
Abdomen........................................           10           14           17            9           50
Pelvis.........................................           10           14           18           10           52
Iliac..........................................            0            0           35            0           35
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total <greek-i> Tests on Dummy.............           69           93          154           78          394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The combined data of all four dummies for a specific body segment 
were then subjected to a statistical analysis which included the 
calculation of the mean, the standard deviation and percent standard 
deviation from the mean. The construction of initial performance 
corridors was based on the following formulation:
    <bullet> If the percent standard deviation was equal to or below 
3%, the performance limits were set at <plus-minus>3 standard 
deviations from the mean;
    <bullet> If the percent standard deviation was above 3%, but not 
more than 5%, the performance limits were set at <plus-minus>2 standard 
deviations from the mean;
    <bullet> If the percent standard deviation was above 5%, the 
performance limits were set at <plus-minus>10% from the mean.
    <bullet> Upon derivation of initial upper and lower performance 
limits, any residual values beyond the first decimal in the lower part 
of the corridor were reduced to the next lowest first decimal value, 
and any residual beyond the first decimal in the upper part of the 
corridor was incremented to the next highest first decimal value.
    The intent of the above formulation was to keep the initial 
performance corridors within 10% of the mean of the data, yet 
facilitate the ability to use narrower corridors where warranted by 
tightly grouped data.
Initial Response Ranges of the SID-IIsD Dummy in Qualification Tests
    Based on the data compiled during the qualification tests in these 
test series and using the formulation cited above, the initial 
performance corridors for the SID-IIsD dummy were constructed for 
further consideration. They are shown in Table 11. The performance 
corridors developed by the agency using its own data and processing 
methods match relatively closely to the draft performance corridors 
developed by the OSRP for the Build Level SID-IIsC dummy, and to those 
submitted by FTSS in comments to the NPRM for the FRG dummy version, 
also shown in Table 11. Although control of the dummy maintenance is 
unknown for the OSRP testing, the results still were comparable to 
NHTSA's initial corridors. The reasonably well-matching responses 
between the two data sets indicate that improvements done to convert 
the SID-IIsC to SID-IIsD version did not significantly alter the 
dummy's performance, and substantiates the consistency and reliability 
of the dummy's design to reproduce similar responses. It also 
corroborates the corridors established and shows that they should be 
very representative of all dummies, regardless of qualification test 
lab. It should also be noted that this database is limited to dummies 
manufactured by FTSS, since at the time of the formulation of the data 
there were no other manufacturers producing this dummy.

   Table 11.--Comparison of NHTSA Initial Corridors for the SID-IIsD With Those Suggested by the OSRP and FTSS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  NHTSA SID-         Draft OSRP*          OSRP***
Body region/performance range     Measurement        IIsD    ---------------------------------------    FTSS**
                                   parameter      (initial)    Option 1*    Option 2*      Final
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Corridor     Corridor     Corridor     Corridor     Corridor
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
Head.........................  Max Resultant     119.5-136.9  ...........  ...........  ...........     115-135*
                                Acceleration
                                (g).
Neck.........................  Max D-Plane         70.9-77.6        72-82  ...........  ...........       72-82*
                                Rotation (deg).
                               Max O-C Moment      37.6-47.5        36-43  ...........  ...........       36-42*
                                (N-m).
Shoulder.....................  Max Shoulder        30.1-36.8        30-36        29-36        29-36  ...........
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Upper Spine      -17.2-(-  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                Y Acceleration         19.1)
                                (g).
Thorax with Arm..............  Max Shoulder        31.7-38.8        35-40        33-42        32-40        29-41
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Upper Rib       25.5-31.3        27-33        26-33        24-32        24-34
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Middle Rib      30.0-34.9        32-38        31-39        31-39        28-35
                                Deflection (mm).

[[Page 75361]]

 
                               Max Lower Rib       32.3-37.1        33-39        32-40        33-41        31-37
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Lower Spine     28.6-35.1        29-34        28-35        28-36        32-41
                                Acceleration
                                (g).
Thorax without Arm...........  Max Upper Rib       32.7-39.9        33-39        32-40        32-40        33-43
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Middle Rib      38.5-44.7        40-46        38-47        38-46        40-46
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Lower Rib       36.1-42.6        37-43        35-44        34-42        36-44
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Lower Spine       7.8-9.6         9-12     8.5-12.6         8-13         9-13
                                Acceleration
                                (g).
Abdomen......................  Max Upper Rib       38.7-47.0        40-46        39-48        40-48        37-47
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Lower Rib       38.2-46.8        38-44        37-46        38-46        36-46
                                Deflection (mm).
                               Max Lower Spine     11.3-13.9        10-12     8.8-13.2         9-13        11-16
                                Acceleration
                                (g).
Pelvis--Acetabulum...........  Max Pelvis          41.3-50.1        47-54        45-56        46-56  ...........
                                Accleration (g).
                               Max Acetabulum        3.7-4.3      3.8-4.8      3.9-4.8      3.9-4.8  ...........
                                Force (kN).
Pelvis-Iliac.................  Max Pelvis          26.6-32.6  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                Accleration (g).
                               Max Iliac Force       3.7-4.5  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                (kN).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on BLC version of dummy (Docket 25442, OSRP Upgrade Task Group (UTG) Chairman note of August 24, 2005);
  **based on FTSS docket comments; ***based on BLD version (Docket 25442, OSRP UTG minutes of July 20, 2006).

Performance Specification Selection for the SID-IIsD Dummy
    The agency evaluated the effect of the conversion of floating rib 
guides to fixed rib guides and other changes to the features of the 
dummy on the qualification performance corridors proposed in the NPRM 
and determined that the corridors should be adjusted. To arrive at the 
amount of adjustment needed, the agency pooled all of the available 
qualification data in its test records and performed a statistical 
analysis including the plotting of scattergrams for selection of 
potential upper and lower performance boundaries. Specific response 
data and statistical analysis for the combined dummy population can be 
found in the Certification Performance Specifications Report, id. These 
were subsequently compared to those made available in docket comments 
and those proposed in the NPRM, as well as the data provided by OSRP on 
SID-IIs Build Level C and D dummies. The final setting of performance 
corridors was to assure that the selected corridor limits reflected the 
entire set of response data generated by the agency, and that they also 
were in general agreement with the data made available through docket 
comments and by the OSRP SID-IIs dummy working group, who had the 
responsibility of developing performance criteria for the Alliance. 
(Minutes of the OSRP meeting containing suggested corridors have been 
submitted to the docket for today's final rule (Docket 25442).)
    Table 12 provides the final performance specification selections 
for each body segment. The first column, under NHTSA SID-IIsD 
Statistics, is a listing of performance corridors based on NHTSA 
qualification tests of dummies <greek-i><greek-i>020, 032, 033 and 056. 
Except for the head and neck, they include on the average just a little 
over 50 data points for each body segment. (Inasmuch as the heads and 
necks are the same as those tested under the FRG series, repeatability 
qualification tests for them were omitted. Accordingly, those tests are 
fewer in number.) Also, several impact tests were omitted from the 
statistics due to their higher or lower impact speeds than allowed by 
the limits.
    The initial limits related to IARVs shown in the NHTSA SID-IIs 
Statistics column were then reviewed in the context of FTSS scatter 
plots for the head and neck and the OSRP drafted corridors for the 
thorax and abdomen. Except for the pelvis acetabulum and iliac response 
values which were developed without FTSS and OSRP data, this review and 
adjustment took into account and attempted to reconcile both the limits 
developed by OSRP and the response ranges developed by the agency, 
including some certification test control values not related to IARVs. 
Some of the IARV-related corridors were adjusted to take into account 
the larger base of submitted qualification data, but only to the extent 
that adjustments were within approximately <plus-minus>10% of the mean 
of the agency's data. As indicated by Table 12, there was reasonably 
close correspondence between NHTSA SID-IIsD Statistics and the FTSS and 
OSRP ``Final'' suggested performance ranges,\22\ and adjustments needed 
to arrive at final qualification performance specifications were 
relatively minor. The specifications listed in Table 12 constitute the 
performance requirements to which Part 572 SID-IIsD dummies must 
conform, as specified in today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Final corridors are in Table 11, supra.

                  Table 12.--Performance Specifications for the SID-IIsD in Certification Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Probe                                                   NHTSA final rule
   Body region/performance range        impact       Response measurement     NHTS  A  SID-HsD     performance
                                       velocity                                   statistics      specification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head...............................  ...........  Max Resultant Acceleration       119.5-136.9           115-137
                                                   (g).
Neck...............................  ...........  Max D-Plane Rotation (deg)         70.9-77.6             71-81
                                     ...........  Max O-C Moment (N-m)......         39.0-45.1             36-44
Shoulder...........................      4.4 m/s  Peak impactor acceleration         14.1-17.8             14-18
                                                   (g).
                                                  Max Shoulder Deflection            30.1-36.8             30-37
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Upper Spine Y                  17.2-19.1             17-19
                                                   Acceleration (g).
Thorax with Arm....................      6.7 m/s  Peak impactor acceleration         31.3-36.0             31-36
                                                   (g).

[[Page 75362]]

 
                                                  Max Shoulder Deflection            31.7-38.8             31-40
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Upper Rib Deflection           25.5-31.3             26-32
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Middle Rib Deflection          30.0-34.9             30-36
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Lower Rib Deflection           32.3-37.1             32-38
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Upper Spine Y                  34.9-42.4             34-43
                                                   Acceleration (g).
                                                  Max Lower Spine                    28.6-35.1             28-35
                                                   Acceleration (g).
Thorax without Arm.................      4.3 m/s  Peak impactor acceleration         14.8-17.3             14-18
                                                   (g).
                                                  Max Upper Rib Deflection           32.7-39.9             33-40
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Middle Rib Deflection          38.5-44.7             39-45
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Lower Rib Deflection           36.1-42.6             36-43
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Upper Spine Y                  13.9-16.5             14-17
                                                   Acceleration (g).
                                                  Max Lower Spine                      7.8-9.6              7-10
                                                   Acceleration (g).
Abdomen............................      4.4 m/s  Peak impactor acceleration         12.2-15.7             12-16
                                                   (g).
                                                   Max Upper Rib Deflection          38.5-47.1             39-47
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Lower Rib Deflection           38.2-46.8             37-46
                                                   (mm).
                                                  Max Lower Spine                    11.3-13.9             11-14
                                                   Acceleration (g).
Pelvis--Acetabulum.................      6.7 m/s  Peak impactor acceleration         38.5-46.9             38-47
                                                   (g).
                                                  Max Pelvis Acceleration            41.3-50.1             41-50
                                                   (g).
                                                  Max Acetabulum Force (kN).           3.7-4.3           3.8-4.6
Pelvis--Iliac*.....................      4.3 m/s  Peak impactor acceleration         34.9-38.9             34-40
                                                   (g).
                                                  Max Pelvis Acceleration            26.5-32.5             27-33
                                                   (g).
                                                  Max Iliac Force (kN)......           3.7-4.5           3.7-4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Based on ``new'' (softer-version 2) iliac wings.

V. Dummy Performance in Full-Scale Vehicle Crash Tests

    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,'' 
Docket 25442.
    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 ten vehicle-to-pole tests (according to the 
FMVSS No. 214 proposed upgrade) and eight moving deformable barrier 
(MDB) tests (see test matrix in Table 13, below). In the MDB tests, 
SID-IIsD dummies were seated in both the driver and rear passenger 
positions, resulting in 16 total MDB exposures with SID-IIsD dummies. 
The tests provided information on how the SID-IIsD dummies function in 
a variety of impact environments and the extent to which their response 
signatures are consistent with the crash event and free of disruptions 
and anomalies.

                                       Table 13.--Vehicle Crash Test Matrix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Oblique impact/SID-IIsD dummy
                                                                       -----------------------------------------
                                                       Vehicle class/   Pole 32 km/h   MDB 52 km/h
            Vehicles              Side airbag type         weight      -----------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Rear
                                                                           Driver        Driver       Passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Corolla.................  Curtain + Torso...  Light PC.........            X             X             X
VW Jetta.......................  Curtain + Torso...  Compact PC.......            X             X             X
Saturn Ion.....................  Curtain...........  Compact PC.......            X             X             X
Honda Accord*..................  Curtain + Torso...  Medium...........            X             X             X
Ford 500.......................  Curtain + Torso...  Heavy PC.........            X             X             X
Toyota Sienna*.................  Curtain + Torso...  Mini Van.........            X
Subaru Forester................  Head + Torso Bag..  Small SUV........            X             X             X
Honda CRV......................  Curtain + Torso...  Small SUV........            X             X             X
Chevy Colorado (4x2 Ext. Cab)..  Curtain...........  Small Pickup.....            X
Ford Expedition................  Curtain...........  Large SUV........            X
Suzuki Forenza.................  Combo.............  Small SUV........  ............            X             X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ 2004 Vehicles.

    Tables 14 and 15 provide summaries of IARV-based dummy responses 
that were recorded in pole and MDB crash tests, respectively. Although 
rib deflections were not proposed as IARVs in the FMVSS No. 214 NPRM, 
the tables also include thorax and abdomen rib deflection measurements 
because the deflections are potential indicators of injury potential to 
the occupant and also provide information on the paths and sequence of 
loading that the intruding

[[Page 75363]]

vehicle interior imparts to the occupant. In this test series, the 
measured data traces were reviewed and correlated with visual 
observations of dummy kinematics and interaction with vehicle interior 
or intruding exterior surfaces.

a. Oblique Vehicle-to-Pole Crash Tests

    Test results for the 10 vehicles evaluated in the oblique pole test 
are presented in Table 14. In these tests, seven vehicles exceeded at 
least one or more IARVs of the FMVSS No. 214 NPRM. Two of the tested 
vehicles did not exceed any of the proposed IARV limits, but they had 
T12 accelerations and/or pelvic loads in excess of 80% of the IARVs. 
The Toyota Corolla test failed to record the pelvis force response 
because of electrical malfunction; all other IARV values for the 
vehicle were below the proposed thresholds.

                         Table 14.--SID-IIsD Driver Response in Pole Oblique Crash Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Driver Results
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Thorax      Abdomen     Pelvis
                       Vehicles                          HIC 36      Lower       defl.       defl.     force ***
                                                                  spine  (g)     (mm)        (mm)         (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARV........................................      1,000        82       ** 38       ** 45       5,100
Toyota Corolla.......................................        418        69.6        47          49         \1\
VW Jetta.............................................        478        54.2        33.3        33.8      7876
Saturn Ion...........................................       5203       109.6        32          52        5755
Ford 500.............................................       7017        92.4        37          57        6542
Subaru Forester......................................        160        54.6        31          45        4707
Honda CRV............................................        531        67.9        26          36        4670
Chevy Colorado.......................................        896       135.3        31          59        9387
Ford Expedition......................................       5661        95.6        35.3        53.3      8249
Honda Accord*........................................        567        63.0        31          30       10848
Toyota Sienna *......................................       2019        67          45.6        57.9      6956
Average..............................................       2295        82.9        34.9        47.3      7221.1 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No data.
 * 2004 MY.
 ** Informal thresholds; all measured values have been rounded to the nearest full number.
 *** Crush based pelvis plug and original (stiffer) iliac wing.

Overview of Driver Injury Assessment and Impact Mechanics in Pole Test
<bullet> Head
    Four of the 10 vehicles tested with the SID-IIsD in the driver's 
seating position exceeded the HIC<INF>36</INF> 1000 limit. These were 
the Saturn Ion, Ford Five Hundred, Toyota Sienna, and Ford Expedition.
    In the Saturn Ion test, the pole partially penetrated the air 
curtain, exposing a hard spot beneath the air pocket/tether attachment 
interface where the front portion of the dummy's head made contact.
    The Ford Five Hundred was equipped with a head curtain and a thorax 
bag, but review of the test film indicated that the Ford Five Hundred's 
sensor began to deploy the air curtain at approximately 70 ms. The 
dummy's head hit the pole at approximately 60 ms. In the Ford 
Expedition and the Toyota Sienna tests, air curtains deployed, but the 
dummies' heads hit the front edge of the curtain's front pocket. This 
allowed the heads to hit the pole, resulting in high HIC values.
    In contrast, the same four vehicles produced relatively moderate 
HIC scores with the ES-2re 50th percentile adult male dummy in the 
oblique pole test. Id. The difference in results can be attributed in 
large part to seat fore-and-aft position differences between the 
dummies, as well as to the ES-2re's taller seated height.
<bullet> Lower Spine and Thorax/Abdomen
    Lower spine acceleration magnitudes were generally consistent with 
the SID-IIsD thoracic and abdominal rib deflections. Seven of the 10 
vehicle tests with the SID-IIsD produced rib deflection measurements 
exceeding 38 mm for thoracic ribs and/or 45 mm for abdominal ribs. In 
six of the seven vehicle tests, the lower spine (T12) acceleration 
values were also elevated (within 80 to 100 percent of 82 g). The six 
vehicles were the 2005 Toyota Corolla, 2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford 500, 
2004/05 Toyota Sienna, 2005 Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab, and the 
2005 Ford Expedition. Likewise, the lower spine acceleration criterion 
identified elevated loading conditions in the test of the 2005 Honda 
CRV. In that test, the abdominal rib deflection and the lower spine 
acceleration were within 80 percent of the respective IARV limits.
<bullet> Pelvis Force
    Seven of the 10 vehicles exceeded the proposed 5,100 N pelvis force 
injury criterion. (One of the tested vehicles (Toyota Corolla) lost the 
pelvis data due to electrical problems not related to the dummy.) 
During pole impact, the collapsing door structure usually impacts the 
dummy in the pelvis area at significant severity levels. Video analysis 
shows the dummy, upon initial contact with the vehicle structure, 
typically being pushed towards the vehicle's interior and, in some 
tests, being wedged between the center console and the collapsed door 
structure. The dummies in the Honda Accord and the VW Jetta tests 
exceeded only the pelvis IARV limits while having relatively low 
responses for the remaining IARVs. The data from the tests indicate 
that the small dummy is capable of identifying a major potentially 
injurious load path in pole tests that current occupant protection 
systems will need to address.
    The above analysis was based on tests with SID-IIsD dummies used 
with the ``precrushed'' pelvis plug, and with the original (stiffer) 
iliac wing. The agency analyzed the vehicle crash test data and scaled 
down their iliac load component to reflect current ``softer'' iliac 
wing properties. The analysis estimated that softer iliac wings would 
lower the average driver occupant's pelvis force between 7% and 8%. In 
only one case of the 9 dummy occupants' responses reviewed would the 
pelvis IARV revert from just being above the proposed IARV limit to 
just being below the proposed limit. (It is also noted that the agency 
is considering comments to the

[[Page 75364]]

FMVSS No. 214 NPRM that suggest revising the proposed IARV limit.)

b. MDB Tests

    The test matrix included eight MDB tests. All eight vehicles in MDB 
crashes were the same model vehicles as in pole tests, except for the 
Chevy Colorado and Ford Expedition, which were not tested by the MDB. 
The SID-IIsD dummies were used in both the driver and rear passenger 
positions. Data from the tests are set forth in Table 15. The data show 
that dummies' impact responses in five out of eight crashed vehicles 
were all below the IARV limits for both the driver and rear occupant 
positions. Dummies in the three remaining vehicles exceeded the pelvis 
IARV. The data in the table also show that the average responses of any 
measurement were higher by rear passenger than driver dummies. The 
differences were most substantial in the HIC, thorax and abdominal 
deflections.

                                          Table 15.--SID-IIsD Driver-Rear Passenger Response in MDB Crash Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Driver   Rear pass    Driver     Rear pass    Driver   Rear pass     Rear      Pass pass    Driver     Rear pass
                                     ----------------------    lower       lower      pelvis     pelvis     thorax      thorax      abdomen     abdomen
              Vehicles                                         spine       spine      force      force      defl.**     defl.**    defl.  **    defl.**
                                        HIC 36     HIC 36  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                (g)         (g)       (N)***     (N)***      (mm)        (mm)        (mm)        (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARV.......................      1,000      1,000        82          82        5,100      5,100      **38        **38        **45        **45
Toyota Corolla......................         78        330        58.6        56.6       4655       3183        16.7        35.3        25.7        32.2
VW Jetta............................         46        103        30.4        52         2639       3026        12.2        48.8        18.2        43.1
Saturn Ion..........................        189        220        53.2        73.1       8993       3964        19.1        46.7        39.3        51.7
Ford 500............................         46        216        30.6        42.4       2140       2925        15.8        45.1        25.2        45.6
Subaru Forester.....................         43        150        37.1        43.1       3066       3572        11.4        24.2        11.2        25.9
Honda CRV...........................         38        107        31.5        55.8       1350       3149        16.3        37.3         7.5        40
Honda Accord*.......................        104        298        50.2        56.8       4150       6917        19.9        29.6        21.7        32.4
Suzuki Forenza......................         69        773        53          73.1       4948       6558        27          41.2        27.5        46.2
Average.............................         77        275        43.1        56.6       3993       4162        17.3        38.5        22          39.6 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2004 MY.
** Informal thresholds; all measured values have been rounded to the nearest full number.
*** Crush based pelvis plug and original iliac wing.

Overview of Injury Assessments and Impact Mechanics in MDB Tests
<bullet> Head
    All driver and passenger dummies passed the HIC 1000 criterion. All 
of the vehicles were equipped with air curtains and front seat torso 
air bags, except the Suzuki Forenza, which had only an air curtain. The 
front seat torso air bag in the vehicles interfaced the dummy's torso 
high near the shoulder, which appeared to provide additional head 
protection to the smaller driver dummy.
<bullet> Lower Spine
    All of the driver SID-IIsD dummies' lower spine T12 responses were 
well below the proposed IARV limit. The rear passenger dummies in six 
of eight vehicles tested were also below the proposed IARV value. The 
two exceptions, the Saturn Ion and the Suzuki Forenza, had rear 
passenger dummies measuring T12 responses within 80 percent of the 
proposed IARV.
<bullet> Pelvis
    The Saturn Ion driver dummy pelvis response was well above the 
proposed pelvis IARV limit. In addition, pelvis responses for the 
driver dummies of the Suzuki Forenza and the Toyota Corolla were within 
80% of the proposed pelvis IARV limit. The responses for the dummy in 
the rear passenger position in the Honda Accord and the Suzuki Forenza 
also exceeded the IARV threshold, but by a lesser margin than in the 
Ion test.
    The above analysis is based on tests with SID-IIsD dummies used 
with the ``precrushed'' pelvis plug and the original (stiffer) iliac 
wing. The agency analyzed the vehicle crash test data and scaled down 
their iliac load component to reflect current ``softer'' iliac wing 
properties. The analysis estimated that softer iliac wings would lower 
the average driver occupant'' pelvis force between 7% and 8% and the 
passenger's just above 3%. In none of the 16 dummy occupants responses 
reviewed would the pelvis IARV revert from just being above the IARV 
limit to just being below the IARV limit.
<bullet> Thorax and Abdomen
    All dummies in the driver position exhibited thorax and abdominal 
rib deflections below the informal IARV thresholds. The dummy in the 
Saturn Ion had an abdomen rib deflection (39 mm) within 80% of the 45 
mm informal IARV. The measurement reflected the significant intrusion 
of the passenger compartment and jamming the dummy between the 
displaced seat and the intruding door structure.
    Dummies in the rear passenger position in the VW Jetta, Saturn Ion, 
Suzuki Forenza, and Ford Five Hundred had thorax deflections exceeding 
the informal IARV limits. Abdominal rib deflections exceeded the 
informal IARV limit for rear-seated dummies in the Saturn Ion, Suzuki 
Forenza, and Ford Five Hundred. Rear passengers in the remaining 
vehicles, except for Subaru Forrester, did not exceed the limit but 
were within 80% of the thorax/abdomen informal IARV threshold values. 
The Subaru Forrester was the only vehicle in which all of the dummy's 
deflections were below 80% of the thorax and abdominal rib deflection 
thresholds.
    The average thorax and abdominal rib deflections of the SID-IIsD 
dummies in the vehicle test program were nearly twice as high for rear 
passengers than for drivers.

c. Summary

    The dummy responses in the MDB and pole crash tests showed that the 
SID-IIsD is well suited and equipped to assess the potential of injury 
to small stature occupants in the oblique pole

[[Page 75365]]

and MDB test environments. In the environments tested, the dummies' 
structure and the data acquisition systems retained their physical and 
response integrities, sometimes under very severe vehicle structural 
failures. The dummies did not produce data signals with indications of 
faults, disruptions, or distortions due to mechanical failures of the 
dummy.
    The SID-IIs dummies demonstrated necessary sensitivity to 
differentiate not only between vehicles having different structural 
side impact crush properties, but also between the protection systems 
offered in driver and passenger seating locations. The driver dummy in 
general was showing lower intensity impact responses than the rear 
passenger dummy. The most apparent reason for lower loadings on the 
driver was the crush characteristics of the crash which produced 
greater intrusion and concentrated loading to the rear passenger 
seating location. Importantly, the SID-IIsD demonstrated an ability to 
assess quantitatively insufficient countermeasures, such as unprotected 
environments or improperly operating occupant protection systems, e.g., 
late deployment timing.

VI. Conclusions

    For the aforementioned reasons, NHTSA has decided to amend 49 CFR 
Part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for the SID-
IIsD 5th percentile adult female side impact dummy. The agency 
concludes that the SID-IIsD dummy is a sound and useful test device 
that will provide valuable information for assessing the injury 
potential of small stature driver and rear seated passenger occupants 
in motor vehicle side crashes. The test dummy will allow the agency to 
assess the degree to which vehicle systems protect small stature 
occupants in side crashes, and will be a valuable tool in the agency's 
endeavors to increase the protection of smaller stature occupants in 
side impacts.

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 SID-IIsD is approximately $47,000. Instrumentation adds 
approximately $24,000 for minimum requirements. The total cost of a 
minimally-instrumented compliance dummy is approximately $71,000.
    This document amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and 
performance specifications for a 5th percentile adult female 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. This rule does not require anyone to manufacture the dummy 
or to test vehicles with it.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    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. 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 SID-IIsD dummy:
    <bullet> SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar95 
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests''; and
    <bullet> SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash 
Testing''.

[[Page 75366]]

    There were no relevant voluntary consensus standards that were not 
used in the formulation of this final rule.

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.

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 Preamble: Durability and Overload Analysis of the SID-
IIsD Test Dummy

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Durability Analysis
    a. NHTSA Durability Assessment Analysis
    1. Dummy Durability in Qualification Test Exposures
    2. Dummy Durability in Sled Tests
    3. Dummy Durability in Vehicle Crash Tests
    4a. Dummy Durability in Overload Sled Tests
    4b. Overload of Thorax and Abdomen Responses in Pendulum Tests
    b. Comparison of SID-IIsD With SID-IIsC Reported by Alliance
III. Summary of Appendix A

I. Introduction

    Durability of a crash test dummy is an important consideration in 
determining its suitability for adoption into Part 572 for use as a 
test device in FMVSS compliance and New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) 
consumer information programs. In FMVSS compliance testing, test 
dummies are exposed to a wide range of crash conditions, ranging from 
vehicles with highly advanced crashworthiness technologies to vehicles 
that lack either sufficient structural integrity and/or occupant 
protection provisions to mitigate crash forces adequately. A crash test 
dummy must be durable to maintain structural and data acquisition 
integrities sufficiently when used for testing throughout this range of 
crash conditions.

II. Durability Analysis

    The agency analyzed the durability of the SID-IIsD to assess 
whether the dummy will be durable enough to be used in FMVSS No. 214 as 
a compliance test instrument, and potentially as a test device in 
NHTSA's NCAP Program. The durability assessment was based on--
    (a) the results of our tests of four SID-IIsD dummies that were 
exposed to a total of:
    <bullet> over 400 qualification-type impacts;
    <bullet> 30 sled tests;
    <bullet> 11 full scale vehicle to pole crash tests and 20 MDB full 
scale crash tests; and
    <bullet> sled and pendulum tests at elevated impact speeds 
(elevated to assess durability and biofidelity); and
    (b) the data OSRP supplied on the durability of the predecessor 
SID-IIsC dummy.
    The dummy's structural robustness as assessed in the items under 
section (a) above is discussed in a technical report entitled, 
``Certification and Maintenance Records of the SID-IIs Build Level D 
Dummies used in NHTSA Rulemaking Support Tests'' (Docket 25422). Table 
A1, below, provides information on the number and the types of impacts 
to which each of the four dummies was exposed in agency testing.

                     Table A1.--Number of SID-IIsD Dummy Exposures for Assessment of Durability in a Variety of Impact Environments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Type of impact/dummy                                      <greek-i>032  <greek-i>033  <greek-i>020  <greek-i>056             Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of pendulum type qualification      Impactor Probe...........          75           128            50            54    Dummies <greek-i>032 & <greek-
 impact tests (6 segment tests per                                                                                          i>033 were refurbished after
 procedure--does not include head and                                                                                       10 pole tests. <greek-i>20
 neck tests or faulty tests).                                                                                               was refurbished after
                                                                                                                            completion of MDB tests. No
                                                                                                                            structural failures prior to
                                                                                                                            refurbishments.
Sled tests R&R........................  Flat Wall................           5             5                  ............  .............................
                                        Abdomen Offset...........           5             5             5             5    .............................
Pole tests at 32 km...................  Driver...................           2             3             3             3    .............................
MDB tests at 53 km/h..................  Driver...................           1             1             3             3    .............................
                                        Passenger................           1             1             3             3    .............................
MDB test at NCAP speed................  Driver...................           1    ............           1    ............
                                        Passenger................  ............           1    ............           1    .............................
Sled tests durability.................  Various..................  ............           8    ............  ............  .............................
Specialty tests (biofidelity,           Impactor Probe...........  ............           5    ............  ............  .............................
 overload).
Total Dummy Impact Exposures..........  .........................          90           157            60            69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 75367]]

a. NHTSA Durability Assessment Analysis

1. Dummy Durability in Qualification Test Exposures
    Insight into the dummies' durability was gained in qualification 
level tests when two dummies were tested for repeatability at the 
subsystem-component levels, and when the dummies were demonstrated to 
pass these Part 572 tests prior to sled and vehicle crash tests. Prior 
to this agency assessment series, dummies 032 and 033 had been 
subjected to a considerable number of crash tests. For this reason, 
since the dummies were already subjected to wear, the durability 
assessment based on qualification-type tests reflects a conservative 
estimate of the dummy's capability to withstand exposures in various 
types of impact environments.
    In the Build Level D test series, as shown in Table A2 below, 
individual body segments of dummies 032 and 033 were subjected each 
from 9 to 35 qualification test impacts, for a total of 93 and 154 
impacts, respectively. Prior to their scheduled repeatability test 
series, both dummies were retrofitted with new ribs, potentiometers, 
and pelvis flesh. The evaluation for repeatability consisted of a 
series of five consecutive qualification tests to each dummy's 
shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvis (acetabulum and ilium).

                            Table A2.--Number of Qualification Tests per Body Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Body region/No. of tests                   Dummy 20   Dummy 32   Dummy 33   Dummy 56    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head.....................................................          9          9         13         11         42
Neck.....................................................         10          9         13         13         45
Shoulder.................................................          9         19         22         15         65
Thorax w/Arm.............................................         12         14         18         10         54
Thorax w/o Arm...........................................          9         14         18         10         51
Abdomen..................................................         10         14         17          9         50
Pelvis...................................................         10         14         18         10         52
Iliac....................................................          0          0         35          0         35
����������������������������������������������������������
    Total <greek-i> Tests on Dummy.......................         69         93        154         78        394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, individual body segments of dummies 020 and 056 were 
subjected to about 9 to 15 qualification test impacts each during the 
test program.
    None of the dummies experienced any structural or instrumentation 
failures, except for noted structural degradation of the left iliac 
wings. In the subsequently adjusted qualification test loadings, the 
right iliac wings have not shown any evidence of structural 
degradation. Further details may be found in ``SID-IIs Iliac 
Certification Development,'' supra, Docket 25422.
2. Dummy Durability in Sled Tests
    Sled tests were performed at the Medical College of Wisconsin by 
permitting the seated dummy to slide laterally at 6.0 m/s and impact a 
flat rigid wall with and without armrest. Dummies 032 and 033 were 
exposed at MCW for a total of 10 sled tests each. The first five tests 
were lateral impacts into a flat wall rigid barrier configuration, and 
the subsequent five tests were into a flat barrier configuration with a 
protruding armrest simulation attached to it. In two armrest-equipped 
barrier tests, dummy 032 experienced clearly visible shoulder clipping 
as evidenced by the dummy being momentarily hung-up on the top edge of 
the barrier rigid load wall plate. In three other tests of dummy 032, 
as well as with dummy 033, the shoulder hang-up was still in evidence 
but to a lesser time duration as less distinct indications of clipping. 
Importantly for this durability analysis, despite the clipping, none of 
the dummies experienced structural or functional damage.
    It was also observed that at the time of clipping the shoulder 
deflection trace near peak compression went from a smooth to a 
distorted pattern and continued with some distortion during the 
unloading portion of the deflection time trace. While the clipping 
effects had nothing to do with the dummy's performance as a measuring 
test device, the agency was not certain how they might have affected 
all other sensor responses. Because the suspect data could not be used 
for decision-making, the agency decided to repeat the abdominal test 
offset test series at TRC with dummies 020 and 056 on the HYGE sled 
with the upper edge of the barrier raised sufficiently high to preclude 
shoulder clipping. In these tests, the dummies experienced neither 
shoulder clipping nor any other structural or functional problems. 
Further details on these sled tests may be found in ``Repeatability, 
Reproducibility and Durability Evaluation of the SID-IIs Build Level D 
Dummy in the Sled Test Environment,'' supra, Docket 25422 (hereinafter, 
``the MCW report'').
3. Dummy Durability in Vehicle Crash Tests
    Full scale crash testing in the proposed FMVSS No. 214 pole test 
configuration was a crucial phase of the dummy's durability assessment. 
Except to the extent discussed below regarding the Saturn Ion test, the 
SID-IIs dummies experienced no structural or functional problems, and 
even in the Ion test the damage was incidental.
    As indicated in Table A1, dummy 032 was used in two pole and two 
MDB crash tests, and dummy 033 in three pole and two MDB crash tests. 
In addition, each dummy was also used in an NCAP MDB crash at 62 km/h. 
In the pole crash test of the Saturn Ion, the driver dummy became 
jammed between the crushed door, the displaced and rotated seat, and 
the steering wheel. The vehicle structure had to be cut to extract the 
dummy from the driver compartment. Inspection of the dummy showed the 
abdominal ribs having been driven upwards and jammed into the interior 
aspects of the thoracic ribcage. As a result, both abdominal 
telescoping potentiometer rods were bent. In view of the very extensive 
vehicle intrusion and seat rotation into the lateral path of the 
dummy's motion, and the armrest driving the abdominal ribs upward into 
the thoracic ribcage in excess of the informal IARV limit by a 
considerable margin, the test facility judged that the extent of 
occupant compartment penetration was beyond any dummy's capability to 
withstand without structural damage. However, it must be noted that 
while the abdominal potentiometers were bent and needed replacement, 
they appeared to measure accurately beyond the informal IARV

[[Page 75368]]

limit. Both abdominal ribs sustained no permanent damage in the crash 
test. Upon release from the jammed position, the ribs snapped back into 
place and remained in use throughout all further vehicle tests.
    Dummies 020 and 056 were each used in the vehicle test program in 
six MDB crashes alternating as drivers and rear passengers, and in 
three pole test crashes. In addition, dummies 020 and 056 were exposed 
as driver and passenger, respectively, in an NCAP MDB crash at a test 
speed of 62 km/h. In that severe test, the shoulder potentiometer of 
dummy 020 was found to be bent. Investigation as to the cause indicated 
that a set screw, controlling the rotational stiffness of the pivoting 
mechanism of the potentiometer body, was over-tightened and exceeded 
the torque specification callouts in the SID-IIsD User Manual. 
Subsequent MDB tests of that dummy with proper torque setting did not 
produce any further potentiometer failures.
4a. Dummy Durability in Overload Sled Tests
    Eight special durability tests were conducted at MCW to determine 
the dummy's structural integrity and ability to acquire useful 
responses under overload impact conditions. Table A3 provides a matrix 
for these tests and the types of exposures to which the SID-IIs dummy 
(033) was subjected. Details on test set-up, dummy seating and 
positioning may be found in the MCW report, id.

                                        Table A3.--Special Durability and Biofidelity Overload Sled Tests at MCW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Test ref.
         Test <greek-i>               No.       Wall configuration        Padding         Speed m/s       Arm position        Dummy          Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        SD292  Flat Wall..........  Yes................          6.7  Down...............          033
2...............................        SD294  Flat Wall..........  No.................          6.7  Down...............          033
3...............................        SD295  Pelvis Offset......  Yes................          6.7  Up.................          033
4...............................        SD296  Pelvis Offset......  No.................          6.7  Up.................          033
5...............................        SD298  Thorax Offset......  No.................          6.7  Up.................          033
6...............................        SD301  Flat Wall..........  Yes................          8.9  Down...............          033
7...............................        SD302  Flat Wall..........  No.................          8.9  Down...............          033  Bent Pot.
8...............................        SD303  Abdomen Offset.....  No.................          6.7  Up.................          033
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Durability tests were conducted at 8.9 m/s for tests SD301 and 
SD302 and at 6.7 m/s for tests SD292, SD294, SD295, SD296, SD298, and 
SD303. Test speed tolerance was maintained to <plus-minus> 0.19 m/s. 
Some minor gouging of the shoulder damping material was observed at the 
location of the posterior rib guide in all of the tests. The first four 
tests were conducted using the original shoulder rib guide adapted from 
the FRG, which permitted some perceptible rib guide gouging. The last 
four tests used a modified FRG rib guide with rounded edges, which 
resulted in barely perceptible gouging (shallow and smooth scraping 
like indications). There was no damage to any of the displacement 
potentiometers, except for test 302 conducted at 8.9 m/s into a flat 
rigid wall, in which the shoulder rib contacted the rib stop. The 
potentiometer became slightly bent during this impact, but continued to 
measure the shoulder displacement accurately beyond the informal IARV 
limit without signal disruption. This was verified by re-qualifying the 
dummy and checking to see that the shoulder displacement was within the 
certification specifications.
    Maximum thoracic rib displacement of 61 mm was measured in test 
SD298 (6.7 m/s rigid wall thoracic offset test) and maximum abdominal 
rib displacement of 60.1 mm occurred in test SD301 (6.7 m/s rigid wall 
abdominal offset test). The corresponding ribs contacted the rib stops, 
as indicated by the contact switches, but there was no flat-topping in 
the displacement-time trace.
    In sum, the dummy demonstrated good durability in overload impact 
conditions.
4b. Overload of Thorax and Abdomen Responses in Pendulum Tests
    To further assess the dummy's durability at elevated impact loads, 
two 5 m/s pendulum impacts were administered to the thorax and abdomen 
of dummy 020. In both tests, the dummy's arm was removed. The 5 m/s 
impact tests represent an impact energy higher by 35% than the 4.3 m/s 
standard qualification test. Tables A4 and A5 show thorax and abdomen 
rib deflection and upper and lower spine acceleration values measured 
in these tests. While, as expected, none of the spine acceleration 
values were near any of the IARV limits, both thorax and abdominal rib 
deflections were either at or above the injury limit.

     Table A4.--SID-IIsD Responses in Thorax Overload 5 m/s Impacts
                          [Dummy's arm removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Probe loading  and dummy  response        Measurement      IARV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendulum Probe Acceleration (g)...............         18.2  ...........
Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)..............         43.4           38
Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm).............         50.3           38
Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)..............         46.1           38
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)................         17.8          n/a
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)................         10.5           82
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table A5.--SID-IIsD Responses in Abdominal Overload 5 m/s Impacts
                          [Dummy's arm removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Probe loading  and dummy  response        Measurement      IARV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendulum Probe Acceleration (g)...............         16.2  ...........
Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm)...........         48.3           45
Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm)...........         45.6           45

[[Page 75369]]

 
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)................          8.7          n/a
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)................         17.0           82
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the agency conducted three biofidelity tests with 
dummy 020 to provide test response values for the calculation of the 
NHTSA based biofidelity ranking. The first shoulder impact test 
followed the procedure outlined in ``Shoulder Biofidelity Lateral 
Shoulder Pendulum Test,'' reported by Bolte et al. (John H. Bolte IV, 
et al., ``Shoulder Impact Response and Injury Due to Lateral and 
Oblique Loading,'' <greek-i>2003-22033, Proceedings 47th Stapp 
Conference 2003.) The tests consisted of a dummy seated on the 
calibration bench and its shoulder impacted laterally at a speed of 4.3 
m/s with an impactor that had a mass of 13.98 kg and a 20 cm wide by 15 
cm high ram face, covered with a 5 cm thick piece of Arcel 730 foam. 
The impactor was centered on the shoulder/arm pivot with the arm down. 
The second and third shoulder impacts followed the procedure described 
in ISO 9790, section 4.1 for the shoulder and section 4.2 for the 
thorax. A 14 kg pendulum (150 mm diameter and rigid face) was used in 
these tests in lieu of the ISO specified 23 kg pendulum for the ES-2 
dummy. The shoulder impact probe for the second test was centered on 
the shoulder/arm pivot with the arm down at a speed of 4.5 m/s, and for 
the third test the impactor was centered on the middle thorax rib with 
the dummy's arm set 90 degrees forward (horizontal) at a speed of 4.3 
m/s.
    Results from the biofidelity tests are summarized in Table A6. As 
expected, the Bolte test data indicate a lower level of dummy responses 
due to the impactor's face being covered by a 5 cm thick Arcel 730 
foam. The ISO 9790 test data are similar in trends but of elevated 
responses from the results of the Bolte dummy shoulder tests. The dummy 
experienced neither structural nor functional damage in these tests.

   Table A6.--Summary of Impact Responses in Biofidelity Impact Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  ISO 9790 Sect. 4.1&2
                                     Bolte    --------------------------
     Biofidelity Test Series        shoulder     Shoulder    Thorax test
                                     test*        test 1          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendulum Impact Speed (m/s).....          4.3          4.5           4.3
Pendulum Probe Force (kN).......          2.0          2.7           2.2
Shoulder Fx (N).................         38.2         82.3         127.7
Shoulder Fy (N).................       1002.9       1256.2        1208.4
Shoulder Fz (N).................        223.8        236.9         809.6
Shoulder Rib X Acceleration (g).         15.9         31.9          24.3
Shoulder Rib Y Acceleration (g).         96.5        167.8         148.4
Shoulder Rib Z Acceleration (g).         54.2         79.1         149.7
Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm)....         25.2         33.5          15.7
Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)         11.2         16.9          14.6
Middle Thorax Rib Deflection             10.1         16.6          17.3
 (mm)...........................
Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)          6.3         13.7          20.1
Upper Thorax Rib X Acceleration          12.9         15.4          14.8
 (g)............................
Upper Thorax Rib Y Acceleration          49.6        125.4          46.8
 (g)............................
Middle Thorax Rib X Acceleration          4.4          8.1          20.4
 (g)............................
Middle Thorax Rib Y Acceleration         47.3         67.19         98.9
 (g)............................
Lower Thorax Rib X Acceleration           6.8         10.1          19.7
 (g)............................
Lower Thorax Rib Y Acceleration          41.9         43.2         123.7
 (g)............................
Upper Spine X Acceleration (g)..          2.5          3.6           3.2
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)..         17.2         22.6          22.8
Lower Spine X Acceleration (g)..          1.6          2.9           3.4
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)..          8.4         13.6          15.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Procedure in Stapp Conference Paper <greek-i>2003-22033.

b. Comparison of SID-IIsD With SID-IIsC Reported by Alliance

    In its docket comments (Docket 17694 and 18865), the Alliance 
included damage rates for the SID-IIsC dummy evaluated by its member 
companies. Table A7 provides a summary of these damage rates, as well 
as those the agency experienced with the SID-IIsD. The Alliance noted 
7.8 dummy damages per 100 crash applications. The comparable damage 
rate for the SID-IIsD in agency testing is 5.8 per 100. Based on the 
six ribs and telescoping potentiometer units per dummy, the SID-IIsD 
had a damage rate of zero for ribs and 1.2 per 100 for the 
potentiometers. Comparable Alliance damage rates are 0.7 for the ribs 
and 0.4 for telescoping potentiometers. Inasmuch as the impact 
intensities of the Alliance reported dummy exposures are not known, it 
is difficult to establish direct comparability between Build Level C 
and Build Level D dummies. However, the agency observed failures rates 
for the Build Level D might be far lower, since damage was experienced 
by only one abdominal set of telescoping potentiometers associated with 
a vehicle crush deformation that is considerably in excess of the 
anticipated IARVs.

[[Page 75370]]



  Table A7.--Damage to SID-IIsD Dummies in Agency and OSRP reported SID-IIsC Dummies in Sled and Vehicle Crash
                                                      Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Exposures
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        No. of SID-
                                                         IIsDs in
                                                          sled &      No of ribs or    SID-IIsC**   No of ribs &
                                                          vehicle    potentiometers*                  related**
                                                          tests*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<greek-i>Reported....................................          69             414            283          1698
<greek-i> With damage................................           4               5             22            31
% With damage........................................           5.8             1.2            7.8           1.8
<greek-i> Indications ribs leaving the guides........           1               2              3             4
% Indications ribs leaving the guides................           1.5             0.5            1.1           0.2
<greek-i> With specific damage
Damping material damaged.............................           4              NA             NA             6
Damping material de-bonded...........................           5.8             0             NA             6
Ribs bent............................................           0               0             NA            12
% Ribs bent..........................................           0               0             NA             0.7
Potentiometer shaft bent.............................           4               5             NA            NA
Potentiometer shaft broken...........................           0               0             NA             6
% Potentiometers bent or broken......................           5.8             1.2           NA             0.4
Other................................................  ............  ...............          NA             3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Agency tests based on 10 Pole tests; 8 MDB tests (2 dummies per test); 2 MDB tests at NCAP speed (2 dummies
  per test); 8 Bio/Durability sled tests; 20 R/R sled tests at MCW; 5 R/R sled tests at TRC (2 dummies per
  test).
** OSRP data.

III. Summary of Appendix A

    The SID-IIsD dummy's durability was examined in at least four types 
of impact applications. The dummy was found to be extremely durable and 
capable of yielding measurements for occupant injury assessment over a 
wide range of impact conditions. While we do not have information at 
this time to estimate the service life for this dummy, the service life 
appears to be comparable or better than other crash dummies. We 
conclude that the SID-IIsD is well suited for use in research, FMVSS 
and NCAP test programs.

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.

0
2. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by adding a new subpart V consisting of 
Sec. Sec.  572.190 through 572.200 to read as follows:
Subpart V, SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, Small Adult Female
Sec.
572.190 Incorporated materials.
572.191 General description.
572.192 Head assembly.
572.193 Neck assembly.
572.194 Shoulder.
572.195 Thorax with arm.
572.196 Thorax without arm.
572.197 Abdomen.
572.198 Pelvis acetabulum.
572.199 Pelvis iliac.
572.200 Instrumentation and test conditions.
Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572--Figures

Subpart V, SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, Small Adult 
Female


Sec.  572.190  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 V, SID-IIsD, September 2006,''
    (2) A drawings and inspection package entitled ``Drawings and 
Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572 
Subpart V, September 2006,'' consisting of:
    (i) Drawing No. 180-0000, SID-IIsD Complete Assembly;
    (ii) Drawing No. 180-1000, 6 Axis Head Assembly;
    (iii) Drawing No. 180-2000, Neck Assembly;
    (iv) Drawing No. 180-3000, Upper Torso Assembly;
    (v) Drawing No. 180-3005, Washer, Clamping;
    (vi) Drawing No. 9000021, Screw, SHCS \3/8\-16 x 1 NYLOK;
    (vii) Drawing No. 900005, Screw, SHCS \1/4\-20 x \5/8\ NYLOK;
    (viii) Drawing No. 180-4000, Lower Torso Assembly Complete;
    (ix) Drawing No. 180-5000-1, Complete Leg Assembly, Left;
    (x) Drawing No. 180-5000-2, Complete Leg Assembly, Right;
    (xi) Drawing No. 180-6000-1, Arm Assembly Left Molded;
    (xii) Drawing No. 180-6000-2, Arm Assembly Right Molded; and,
    (xiii) Drawing No. 180-9000, SID-IIsD Headform Assembly.
    (3) A procedures manual entitled, ``Procedures for Assembly, 
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash 
Test Dummy, September 2006,'' incorporated by reference in Sec.  
572.191;
    (4) 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:

[[Page 75371]]

    (1) The Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart V, SID-IIsD, 
September 2006, referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the 
package entitled Drawings and Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female 
Crash Test Dummy, Part 572 Subpart V, 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.  572.191  General description.

    (a) The SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, small adult female, 
is defined by:
    (1) The drawings and specifications contained in the ``Drawings and 
Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572 
Subpart V, September 2006,'' which includes the technical drawings and 
specifications described in Drawing 180-0000, the titles of which are 
listed in Table A;

                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Component assembly                       Drawing No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Axis Head Assembly....................................        180-1000
Neck Assembly...........................................        180-2000
Upper Torso Assembly....................................        180-3000
Washer, Clamping........................................        180-3005
Lower Torso Assembly Complete...........................        180-4000
Complete Leg Assembly, Left.............................      180-5000-1
Complete Leg Assembly, Right............................      180-5000-2
Arm Assembly Left Molded................................      180-6000-1
Arm Assembly Right Molded...............................      180-6000-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The ``Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart V, SID-IIsD,'' dated 
September 2006 and containing 7 pages,
    (3) A listing of available transducers-crash test sensors for the 
SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 5th percentile adult female, is 
shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 2 of 5, dated September 2006,
    (4) ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) 
of the SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, September 2006,'' and,
    (5) Sign convention for signal outputs reference document SAE J1733 
Information Report, titled ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash 
Testing,'' dated July 12, 1994, incorporated by reference in Sec.  
572.200(k).
    (b) Exterior dimensions of the SID-IIsD Small Adult Female Side 
Impact Crash Test Dummy are shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 3 of 5, 
dated September 2006.
    (c) Weights and center of gravity locations of body segments are 
shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 4 of 5, 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 that set forth in Standard 214, Side Impact Protection (49 
CFR 571.214).


Sec.  572.192  Head assembly.

    (a) The head assembly consists of the head (180-1000) and a set of 
three (3) accelerometers in conformance with specifications in 49 CFR 
572.200(d) and mounted as shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 2 of 5. When 
tested to the 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 according to the 
procedure specified in 49 CFR 572.112(a).
    (c) Performance criteria.
    (1) When the head assembly is dropped from either the right or left 
lateral incline orientations in accordance with procedure in Sec.  
572.112(a), the measured peak resultant acceleration shall be between 
115 g and 137 g;
    (2) The resultant acceleration-time curve shall be unimodal to the 
extent that oscillations occurring after the main acceleration pulse 
shall not exceed 15% (zero to peak) of the main pulse;
    (3) The longitudinal acceleration vector (anterior-posterior 
direction) shall not exceed 15 g.


Sec.  572.193  Neck assembly.

    (a) The neck assembly consists of parts shown in drawing 180-2000. 
For purposes of this test, the neck assembly is mounted within the 
headform assembly (180-9000) as shown in Figure V1 in Appendix A to 
this subpart. When subjected to the test procedure specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, the neck-headform assembly shall meet 
the performance requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (b) Test procedure.
    (1) Soak the assembly in a test environment as specified in 49 CFR 
572.200(j);
    (2) Attach the neck-headform assembly, as shown in Figure V2-A or 
V2-B in Appendix A to this subpart, to the 49 CFR Part 572 pendulum 
test fixture (Figure 22, 49 CFR 572.33) in either the left or right 
lateral impact orientations, respectively, so that the midsagittal 
plane of the neck-headform assembly is vertical and at right angle (90 
<plus-minus> 1 degrees) to the plane of motion of the pendulum 
longitudinal centerline;
    (3) Release the pendulum from a height sufficient to achieve a 
velocity of 5.57 <plus-minus> 0.06 m/s measured at the center of the 
pendulum accelerometer, as shown in 49 CFR Part 572 Figure 15, at the 
instant the pendulum makes contact with the decelerating mechanism;
    (4) The neck flexes without the neck-headform assembly making 
contact with any object;
    (5) Time zero is defined as the time of initial contact between the 
pendulum mounted striker plate and the pendulum deceleration mechanism;
    (6) Allow a period of at least thirty (30) minutes between 
successive tests on the same neck assembly.
    (c) Performance Criteria.
    (1) The pendulum deceleration pulse is characterized in terms of 
decrease in velocity as obtained by integrating the pendulum 
acceleration output from time zero:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Pendulum Delta-V
                     Time  (ms)                              (m/s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0................................................      -2.20 to -2.80
15.0................................................      -3.30 to -4.10
20.0................................................      -4.40 to -5.40
25.0................................................      -5.40 to -6.10
>25.0 < 100.........................................      -5.50 to -6.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The maximum translation-rotation of the midsagittal plane of 
the headform disk (180-9061 or 9062) in the lateral direction measured, 
with the rotation transducers specified in 49 CFR 572.200(e) shall be 
71 to 81 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the pendulum 
(see Figure V2-C in Appendix A to this subpart) occurring between 50 
and 70 ms from time zero;
    (3) Peak occipital condyle moment shall not be higher than -36 Nm 
and not lower than -44 Nm. The moment measured by the upper neck load 
cell (Mx) shall be adjusted by the following formula: Mx(oc) \1\= 
Mx+0.01778Fy;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mx(oc) is the moment at occipital condyle (Newton-meters) 
and Fy is the lateral shear force (Newtons) measured by the load 
cell.

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

[[Page 75372]]

    (4) The decaying moment shall cross the 0 Nm line after peak moment 
between 102 ms-126 ms after time zero.


Sec.  572.194  Shoulder.

    (a) The shoulder structure is part of the upper torso assembly 
shown in drawing 180-3000. For the shoulder impact test, the dummy is 
tested as a complete assembly (drawing 180-0000). The dummy is equipped 
with T1 laterally oriented accelerometer as specified in 49 CFR 
572.200(d), and deflection potentiometer as specified in 180-3881 
configured for shoulder and installed as shown in drawing 180-0000 
sheet 2 of 5. When subjected to the test procedure as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, the shoulder shall meet the performance 
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a 
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
    (2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the torso jacket (180-3450) and 
cotton underwear pants on a certification bench, specified in Figure V3 
in Appendix A to this subpart, the seat pan and the seatback surfaces 
of which are covered with a 2 mm thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet;
    (3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted 
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 10 
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V4-A in Appendix A 
to this subpart, while the midsagittal plane of the dummy is in 
vertical orientation.
    (4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper 
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat 
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat 
back.
    (5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib 
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is 
24.6 <plus-minus> 2.0 degrees relative to horizontal, as shown in 
Figure V4-B in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical 
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner 
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible 
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and 
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible.
    (7) Orient the arm to point forward at 90 degrees relative to the 
interior-superior orientation of the upper torso spine box incline.
    (8) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(a).
    (9) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
dummy's arm rotation centerline (ref. item 23 in drawing 180-3000) the 
impactor's longitudinal axis is within <plus-minus> 1 degree of a 
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the 
dummy. The centerpoint of the impactor face at contact is within 2 mm 
of the shoulder yoke assembly rotation centerline (drawing 180-3327), 
as shown in Figure V4-A in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (10) The dummy's arm-shoulder is impacted at 4.4<plus-minus>0.1 m/s 
with the impactor meeting the alignment and contact point requirements 
of paragraph (b)(9) of this section.
    (c) Performance criteria.
    (1) While the impactor is in contact with the dummy's arm, the 
shoulder shall compress not less than 30 mm and not more than 37 mm 
measured by the potentiometer specified in (a);
    (2) Peak lateral acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be 
less than 17 g and not more than 19 g;
    (3) Peak impactor acceleration shall be not less than 14 g and not 
more than 18 g.


Sec.  572.195  Thorax with arm.

    (a) The thorax is part of the upper torso assembly shown in drawing 
180-3000. For the thorax with arm impact test, the dummy is tested as a 
complete assembly (drawing 180-0000). The dummy's thorax is equipped 
with T1 and T12 laterally oriented accelerometers as specified in 49 
CFR 572.200(d), and deflection potentiometers for the thorax and 
shoulder as specified in 180-3881, installed as shown in drawing 180-
0000 sheet 2 of 5. When subjected to the test procedure as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, the thorax shall meet performance 
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a 
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
    (2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the torso jacket (180-3450) and 
cotton underwear pants on a certification bench, specified in Figure 
V3, the seat pan and the seatback surfaces of which are covered with a 
2-mm-thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet.
    (3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted 
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 10 
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V5-A, while the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy is in vertical orientation.
    (4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper 
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat 
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat 
back.
    (5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib 
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is 
24.6 <plus-minus> 2.0 degrees relative to horizontal as shown in Figure 
V5-B in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical 
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner 
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible 
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and 
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible.
    (7) Orient the arm downward to the lowest detent.
    (8) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(a).
    (9) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
dummy's arm, its longitudinal axis is within <plus-minus>1 degree of a 
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the 
dummy. The centerpoint of the impactor face is within 2 mm of the 
vertical midpoint of the second thoracic rib and coincident with a line 
parallel to the seat back incline passing through the center of the 
shoulder yoke assembly arm rotation pivot (drawing 180-3327), as shown 
in Figure V5-A in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (10) The dummy's arm is impacted at 6.7 <plus-minus> 0.1 m/s.
    (c) Performance criteria.
    (1) While the impactor is in contact with the dummy's arm, the 
thoracic ribs and the shoulder shall conform to the following range of 
deflections:
    (i) Shoulder not less than 31 mm and not more than 40 mm;
    (ii) Upper thorax rib not less than 26 mm and not more than 32 mm;
    (iii) Middle thorax rib not less than 30 mm and not more than 36 
mm;
    (iv) Lower thorax rib not less than 32 mm and not more than 38 mm;
    (2) Peak lateral acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be 
less than 34 g and not more than 43 g, and the lower spine (T12) not 
less than 28 g and not more than 35 g;
    (3) Peak impactor acceleration shall be not less than 31 g and not 
more than 36 g.


Sec.  572.196  Thorax without arm.

    (a) The thorax is part of the upper torso assembly shown in drawing 
180-3000. For this thorax test, the dummy is

[[Page 75373]]

tested as a complete assembly (drawing 180-0000) with the arm (180-
6000) on the impacted side removed. The dummy's thorax is equipped with 
T1 and T12 laterally oriented accelerometers as specified in 49 CFR 
572.200(d) and with deflection potentiometers for the thorax as 
specified in drawing 180-3881, installed as shown in drawing 180-0000 
sheet 2 of 5. When subjected to the test procedure specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, the thorax shall meet the performance 
requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a 
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
    (2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the torso jacket (180-3450) and 
cotton underwear pants on a calibration bench, specified in Figure V3 
in Appendix A to this subpart, the seat pan and the seatback surfaces 
of which are covered with a 2-mm-thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet.
    (3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted 
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 25 
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V4-A, while the 
midsagittal plane of the dummy is in vertical orientation.
    (4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper 
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat 
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat 
back.
    (5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib 
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is 
24.6 <plus-minus> 2.0 degrees relative to horizontal, as shown in 
Figure V6-B in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical 
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner 
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible 
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and 
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible.
    (7) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(a).
    (8) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
thorax, its longitudinal axis is within 1 degree of a horizontal plane 
and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the dummy. The 
centerpoint of the impactor face is within 2 mm of the vertical 
midpoint of the second thorax rib and coincident with a line parallel 
to the seat back incline passing through the center of the shoulder 
yoke assembly arm rotation pivot (drawing 180-3327), as shown in Figure 
V6-A in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (9) The dummy's thorax is impacted at 4.3 <plus-minus> 0.1 m/s.
    (c) Performance criteria.
    (1) While the impactor is in contact with the dummy's thorax, the 
ribs shall conform to the following range of deflections:
    (i) Upper thorax rib not less than 33 mm and not more than 40 mm;
    (ii) Middle thorax rib not less than 39 mm and not more than 45 mm;
    (iii) Lower thorax rib not less than 36 mm and not more than 43 mm;
    (2) Peak acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be less 
than 14g and not more than 17 g and the lower spine (T12) not less than 
7 g and not more than 10 g;
    (3) Peak lateral impactor acceleration shall not be less than 14 g 
and not more than 18 g.


Sec.  572.197  Abdomen.

    (a) The abdomen assembly is part of the upper torso assembly (180-
3000) and is represented by two ribs (180-3368) and two linear 
deflection potentiometers (180-3881). The abdomen test is conducted on 
the complete dummy assembly (180-0000) with the arm (180-6000) on the 
impacted side removed. The dummy is equipped with a lower spine 
laterally oriented accelerometer as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(d) and 
deflection potentiometers specified in drawing 180-3881, installed as 
shown in sheet 2 of drawing 180-0000. When subjected to the test 
procedure as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the abdomen 
shall meet performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a 
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
    (2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the torso jacket (180-3450) and 
cotton underwear pants on a calibration bench, specified in Figure V3, 
the seat pan and the seatback surfaces of which are covered with a 2 mm 
thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet.
    (3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted 
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 25 
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V7-A in Appendix A 
to this subpart, while the midsagittal plane of the dummy is in 
vertical orientation.
    (4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper 
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat 
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat 
back.
    (5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in 
paragraph (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib 
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is 
24.6 <plus-minus> 2.0 degrees relative to horizontal, as shown in 
Figure V7-B in Appendix A to this subpart);
    (6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical 
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner 
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible 
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and 
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible;
    (7) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(b);
    (8) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
abdomen, its longitudinal axis is within <plus-minus> 1 degree of a 
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the 
dummy and the centerpoint of the impactor's face is within 2 mm of the 
vertical midpoint between the two abdominal ribs and coincident with a 
line parallel to the seat back incline passing through the center of 
the shoulder yoke assembly arm rotation pivot (drawing 180-3327), as 
shown in Figure V7-A in Appendix A to this subpart;
    (9) The dummy's abdomen is impacted at 4.4 <plus-minus> 0.1 m/s.
    (c) Performance criteria. (1) While the impact probe is in contact 
with the dummy's abdomen, the deflection of the upper abdominal rib 
shall be not less than 39 mm and not more than 47 mm, and the lower 
abdominal rib not less than 37 mm and not more than 46 mm.
    (2) Peak acceleration of the lower spine (T12) laterally oriented 
accelerometer shall be not less than 11 g and not more than 14 g;
    (3) Peak impactor acceleration shall be not less than 12 g and not 
more than 16 g.


Sec.  572.198  Pelvis acetabulum.

    (a) The acetabulum is part of the lower torso assembly shown in 
drawing 180-4000. The acetabulum test is conducted by impacting the 
side of the lower torso of the assembled dummy (drawing 180-0000). The 
dummy is equipped with a laterally oriented pelvis accelerometer as 
specified in 49 CFR 572.200(d), acetabulum load cell SA572-S68, mounted 
as shown in sheet 2 of 5 of drawing 180-0000, and an unused and 
certified pelvis plug (180-4450). When subjected to the test procedure 
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the pelvis shall meet

[[Page 75374]]

performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a 
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
    (2) Seat the dummy, without the torso jacket (180-3450) and without 
cotton underwear pants, as shown in Figure V8-A in Appendix A to this 
subpart, on a calibration bench, specified in Figure V3 in Appendix A 
to this subpart, with the seatpan and the seatback surfaces covered 
with a 2-mm-thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet;
    (3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted 
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 10 
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V8-A in Appendix A 
to this subpart, while the midsagittal plane of the dummy is in 
vertical orientation.
    (4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper 
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat 
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat 
back.
    (5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib 
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is 
24.6 <plus-minus> 1.0 degrees relative to horizontal, as shown in 
Figure V8-B in Appendix A to this subpart;
    (6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical 
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner 
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible 
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and 
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible.
    (7) Rotate the arm downward to the lowest detent.
    (8) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(a).
    (9) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
pelvis, its longitudinal axis is within <plus-minus>1 degree of a 
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the 
dummy. The centerpoint of the impactor's face is in line within 2 mm of 
the longitudinal centerline of the \1/4\-20x\1/2\ flat head cap screw 
through the center of the acetabulum load cell (SA572-S68), as shown in 
Figure V8-A in Appendix A to this subpart;
    (10) The dummy's pelvis is impacted at the acetabulum at 6.7 <plus-
minus> 0.1 m/s.
    (c) Performance criteria. While the impactor is in contact with the 
pelvis:
    (1) Peak acceleration of the impactor is not less than 38 g and not 
more than 47 g;
    (2) Peak lateral acceleration of the pelvis is not less than 41 g 
and not more than 50 g;
    (3) Peak acetabulum force is not less than 3.8 kN and not more than 
4.6 kN.


Sec.  572.199  Pelvis iliac.

    (a) The iliac is part of the lower torso assembly shown in drawing 
180-4000. The iliac test is conducted by impacting the side of the 
lower torso of the assembled dummy (drawing 180-0000). The dummy is 
equipped with a laterally oriented pelvis accelerometer as specified in 
49 CFR 572.200(d), and acetabulum load cell SA572-S68, mounted as shown 
in sheet 2 of 5 of drawing 180-0000. When subjected to the test 
procedure as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the pelvis 
shall meet performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a 
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
    (2) Seat the dummy, without the torso jacket and without cotton 
underwear pants, as shown in Figure V9-A in Appendix A to this subpart, 
on a flat, rigid, horizontal surface covered with a 2-mm-thick PTFE 
(Teflon) sheet.
    (3) The legs are outstretched in front of the dummy such that they 
are symmetrical about the midsagittal plane, the thighs touch the 
seated surface, the inner part of the right and left legs at the knees 
are as close as possible to each other, and the feet are in full 
dorsiflexion and as close together as possible.
    (4) The midsagittal plane of the dummy is vertical and superior 
surface of the lower half neck assembly load cell replacement (180-
3815) in the lateral direction is within <plus-minus>1 degree relative 
to the horizontal as shown in Figure V9-A.
    (5) While maintaining the dummy s position as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib 
mount (180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is within 
<plus-minus>1.0 degrees relative to horizontal as shown in Figure V9-B 
in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (6) The pelvis impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(c).
    (7) The dummy is positioned with respect to the impactor such that 
the longitudinal centerline of the impact probe is in line with the 
longitudinal centerline of the iliac load cell access hole and the 88.9 
mm dimension of the probe's impact surface is aligned horizontally.
    (8) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the 
pelvis, the longitudinal axis of the impactor is within <plus-minus>1 
degree of a horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane 
of the dummy.
    (9) The dummy s pelvis is impacted at the iliac location at 4.3 
<plus-minus> 0.1 m/s.
    (c) Performance criteria. While the impactor is in contact with the 
pelvis:
    (1) Peak lateral acceleration of the impactor is not less than 34 g 
and not more than 40 g;
    (2) Peak lateral acceleration of the pelvis is not less than 27 g 
and not more than 33 g;
    (3) Peak iliac force is not less than 3.7 kN and not more than 4.5 
kN.


Sec.  572.200  Instrumentation and test conditions.

    (a) The test probe for shoulder, lateral thorax, and pelvis-
acetabulum impact tests is the same as that specified in 49 CFR 
572.137(a) except that its impact face diameter is 120.70 <plus-minus> 
0.25 mm and it has a minimum mass moment of inertia of 3646 kg-cm\2\.
    (b) The test probe for the lateral abdomen impact test is the same 
as that specified in 572.137(a) except that its impact face diameter is 
76.20 <plus-minus> 0.25 mm and it has a minimum mass moment of inertia 
of 3646 kg-cm\2\.
    (c) The test probe for the pelvis-iliac impact tests is the same as 
that specified in 49 CFR 572.137(a) except that it has a rectangular 
flat impact surface 50.8 x 88.9 mm for a depth of at least 76 mm and a 
minimum mass moment of inertia of 5000 kg-cm\2\.
    (d) Accelerometers for the head, the thoracic spine, and the pelvis 
conform to specifications of SA572-S4.
    (e) Rotary potentiometers for the neck-headform assembly conform to 
SA572-S51.
    (f) Instrumentation and sensors conform to the Recommended Practice 
SAE J-211 (March 1995), Instrumentation for Impact Test, unless noted 
otherwise.
    (g) All instrumented response signal measurements shall be treated 
to the following specifications:
    (1) Head acceleration--digitally filtered CFC 1000;
    (2) Neck-headform assembly translation-rotation--digitally filtered 
CFC 60;
    (3) Neck pendulum, T1 and T12 thoracic spine and pelvis 
accelerations--digitally filtered CFC 180;
    (4) Neck forces (for the purpose of occipital condyle calculation) 
and moments--digitally filtered at CFC 600;
    (5) Pelvis, shoulder, thorax and abdomen impactor accelerations--
digitally filtered CFC 180;
    (6) Acetabulum and iliac wings forces--digitally filtered at CFC 
600;

[[Page 75375]]

    (7) Shoulder, thorax, and abdomen deflection--digitally filtered 
CFC 600.
    (h) Mountings for the head, thoracic spine and pelvis 
accelerometers shall have no resonant frequency within a range of 3 
times the frequency range of the applicable channel class;
    (i) Leg joints of the test dummy are set at the force between 1 to 
2 g, which just support the limb's weight when the limbs are extended 
horizontally forward. The force required to move a limb segment does 
not exceed 2 g throughout the range of the limb motion.
    (j) Performance tests are conducted, unless specified otherwise, at 
any temperature from 20.6 to 22.2 degrees C. (69 to 72 degrees F.) and 
at any relative humidity from 10% to 70% after exposure of the dummy to 
those conditions for a period of 3 hours.
    (k) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity shall conform to 
the Sign Convention For Vehicle Crash Testing, Surface Vehicle 
Information Report, SAE J1733, 1994-12 (refer to Sec.  572.191(a)(5)).

Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572--Figures

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.009


[[Page 75376]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.010


[[Page 75377]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.011


[[Page 75378]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.013


[[Page 75379]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.015


[[Page 75380]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.017


[[Page 75381]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.019


[[Page 75382]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.021


[[Page 75383]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.023


[[Page 75384]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.025


    Issued: November 24, 2006.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-9555 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C