75342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the 

‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,’’

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

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

highways, highway safety programs, and transit 

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

of SAFETEA–LU provides: 

Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection 

Rulemaking. 

(a) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall complete a 

rulemaking proceeding under chapter 301 of title 

49, United States Code, to establish a standard 

designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle 

occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side 

impact crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final 

rule by July 1, 2008. 

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

agency’s notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade 

FMVSS No. 214 was already pending. The final rule 

completing the rulemaking proceeding will be 

issued at a future date. 

Issued: November 24, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

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

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

Docket No. NHTSA 25442 

RIN 2127–AJ16 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID–

IIs Side Impact Crash Test Dummy 5th 

Percentile Adult Female 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

agency’s regulation on anthropomorphic 

test devices to add specifications and 

qualification requirements for the 5th 

percentile adult female crash test 

dummy, called the SID–IIs Build Level 

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

dummy is instrumented in the head, 

thorax, abdomen and pelvis, which 

enables it to assess in a comprehensive 

manner the performance of vehicles in 

protecting small-stature occupants in 

side impacts. NHTSA plans to use the 

SID–IIs dummy in an upgraded Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard on side 

impact protection. 

DATES: This final rule is effective June 

12, 2007. The incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of June 12, 

2007. If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by January 29 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, Room 

5220, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

The petition will be placed in the 

docket. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all documents 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Stanley 

Backaitis, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 

202–366–4912). For legal issues, you 

may call Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office 

of Chief Counsel (telephone 202–366–

2992) (fax 202–366–3820). You may 

send mail to these officials at the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

a. Need for the Dummy 

b. Development of the SID–IIs 

c. Development of the FRG and Build Level 

D Dummies 

II. Response to the Comments on the FRG 

III. Other Issues 

a. Overview 

b. How this Final Rule Differs from the 

NPRM 

c. Description and Reference Materials 

d. Biofidelity 

e. Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R) 

1. Component and Sled Tests Generally 

2. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

Assessments 

3. NPRM 

4. Comments on the NPRM 

5. Agency Response 

i. Component Qualification Tests 

A. Repeatability in Component Tests 

B. Reproducibility in Component Tests 

ii. Sled Tests 

A. Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s 

1. Repeatability in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 

6.0 m/s 

2. Reproducibility in Flat Wall Sled Tests 

at 6.0 m/s 

B. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at MCW 

C. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC 

1. Repeatability in Abdominal Offset Sled 

Tests at TRC 

2. Reproducibility in Abdominal Offset 

Sled Tests at TRC 

iii. Conclusion 

f. Pelvis of the Dummy 

1. Pelvis Plug 

2. Iliac Load Cell 

3. Iliac Wing 

g. The Shoulder with Arm Test 

h. Other 

1. Directional Impact Sensitivity 

2. Toyota Suggests an Improved Upper 

Arm 

3. Injury Assessment Reference Values 

4. Reversibility 

i. Test Dummy Drawing Package 

1. Three-Dimensional (3-D) Shape 

Definitions 

2. Material Specifications 

3. Dummy Drawing Changes 

IV. Qualification Procedures and Response 

Corridors 

a. Qualification Procedures 

b. Response Corridors 

V. Dummy Performance in Full-Scale Vehicle 

Crash Tests 

a. Oblique Vehicle-to-Pole Crash Tests 

b. MDB Tests 

c. Summary 

VI. Conclusions 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Appendix A: Durability and Overload 

Analysis of the SID–IIsD Test Dummy 

NHTSA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposed to upgrade Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

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

571.214) by, among other things, 

adopting a dynamic pole test into the 

standard (May 17, 2004; 69 FR 27990; 

Docket 17694; reopening of comment 

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

The proposed pole test is similar to, but 

more demanding than, that currently 

used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. In 

the proposed pole test, a vehicle is 

propelled sideways into a rigid pole at 

an angle of 75 degrees, at any speed up 

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

proposed that compliance with the pole 

test would be determined in two test 

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

test dummy representing 5th percentile 

adult females and the other using an 

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

the SID–IIs would have to comply with 

a head injury criterion and with thoracic 

and pelvic injury criteria developed for 

the new dummy. The agency also 

proposed using the dummies in FMVSS 

No. 214’s existing moving deformable 

barrier (MDB) test, which simulates a 

vehicle-to-vehicle ‘‘T-bone’’ type 

intersection crash.1

This document establishes the 

specifications and qualification 

requirements for the SID–IIs 5th 

percentile adult female crash test 

dummy which would be used in the 

upgraded FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM 

preceding this Part 572 final rule was 

published on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 

70947; Docket 18865; extension of 

comment period, March 8, 2005; 70 FR 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 (HIC36). 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 smallstatured 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, secondgeneration 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75344 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

2The 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. 

3The 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. 

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 anteriorposterior 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. 

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)—

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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75345 

4A final rule adopting the Build Level D dummy 

into FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214) will be 

published separately from this final rule. 

5OSRP minutes dated September 18, 2004 and 

August 8, 2003. NHTSA Docket 25442. 

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. 

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

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 nongovernmental 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75346 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

6T1—sensor location on the dummy’s thoracic 

spine equivalent to the first cervical on the human 

thoracic spine. T1—sensor location on the dummy’s 

thoracic spine equivalent to the 12th cervical on the 

human thoracic spine. 

7The 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.’’

(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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 T1 and T12 and at each rib.6

Replaceable foam pads are secured 

directly to the ribs and a neoprene 

jacket covers the complete chest 

assembly. The upper torso 

accommodates the attachment of the 

neck at the upper end and the lumbar 

spine at the lower end. 

A stub arm on the impacted side is 

attached to the lateral aspect of the 

shoulder through a three-axis load cell. 

Tri-axial accelerometer packs can also 

be installed at the shoulder and at the 

upper and lower parts of the stub arm 

for 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.’’

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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75347 

8Scherer et al. ‘‘SID IIs Beta+-Prototype Dummy 

Biomechanical Responses,’’ 1998, SAE 983151. 

9The 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). 

10Byrnes, et al. ‘‘ES–2 Dummy Biomechanical 

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

#2002–22–0014, p. 353. 

11The 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. 

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

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

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 ∂ biofidelity ratings 

(Docket 25542). (This final rule SID–IIsD 

version is equivalent to the OSRP D∂

version.) The SID–IIsD received an 

overall score of 6.0 (‘‘fair’’) and the SID–

IIsD ∂ 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 ∂ 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75348 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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—

• Flat wall (dummy’s arm down); 

• Pelvis lead (76 mm) with dummy’s 

arm down; 

• 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—

• Flat wall (dummy’s arm down); 

(c) And rigid and padded wall tests at 

8.9 m/s, one dummy, one test each—

• 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

Test condition SID–IIs dummy design Test # 

Maximum delta V 

calculated from 

T12 lateral acceleration (m/s) 

FRG to BLD 

delta V ratio 

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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75349 

12Repeatability 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. 13 ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5 

TABLE 4.—EXTERNAL BIOFIDELITY RANKINGS OF SIDE IMPACT DUMMIES—Continued 

SID–IIsFRG SID–IIsD SID/HIII ES–2re 

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. 

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

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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75350 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

14Listing 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.’’

15The 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. 

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 

±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 forcedeflection 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

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. 

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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75351 

TABLE 6.—REPEATABILITY OF RETROFITTED SID–IISD 032 AND 033 DUMMIES IN QUALIFICATION-TYPE TESTS—

Continued 

Repeatability 

Serial No. 032 Serial No. 033 

Mean SD CV *** Mean SD CV *** 

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 retrofitted) 

Serial No. 020, 032, 033 & 056 

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) 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75352 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7.—REPRODUCIBILITY OF DUMMIES 032 AND 033 AND THE COMPOSITE OF ALL DUMMIES IN QUALIFICATION

TESTS—Continued 

Serial No. 032 & 033 

(newly retrofitted) 

Serial No. 020, 032, 033 & 056 

Mean SD CV *** Mean SD CV *** 

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 

† 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 × 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75353 

TABLE 8.—REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY OF SID–IISD 032 AND 033 DUMMIES IN FLAT WALL SLED TESTS—

Continued 

Repeatability Reproducibility 

Serial No. 032 Serial No. 033 Serial No. 032 & 033 

Mean SD CV * Mean SD CV * Mean SD CV * 

Iliac Force (kN) ................. ¥0 .28 0 .001 4.4 ¥0 .26 0 .002 7.0 ¥0 .27 0 .002 6.7 

* CV = SD/Mean × 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 nonIARV 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 #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 setup 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 × 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75354 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

17A 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. 

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. 

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 forcedisplacement 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 quasistatically 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

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 precrushes. 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 forcedisplacement 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75355 

18The NPRM proposed in § 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. 

19Based on calculated adjustments of the total 

force on the pelvis by taking into account lower 

impact responses of the softer iliac wing. 

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. 

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±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 currentlymanufactured 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. 

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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75356 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ± 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: HIC36

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. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75357 

20Although 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. 

Continued 

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 twodimensional drawings limited to 

minimal but critical specifications 

affords dummy manufacturers an 

amount of flexibility to generate their 

own manufacturing and process 

drawings and to use whatever 

procedures are needed to facilitate 

production, which would be 

constrained if the drawings and other 

specifications were specified such as by 

use of 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 threedimensional (3-D) patterns for the 

dummy parts.20


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75358 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 selfevident, 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: 

• 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; 

• Modified thorax and abdominal rib 

stops to allow further motion of the ribs 

at oblique impact angles; and 

• 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: 

• 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; 

• Inclusion of a shoulder rib bumper; 

and 

• 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75359 

21WorldSID 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. 

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 midsaggital 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±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. 

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±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±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±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 ±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±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 ±2 

mm. With the dummy’s thoracic lateral 

plane set at ±1 deg. relative to the 

horizontal, the orientation of the 

impactor face is within ±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±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 ±2 mm. With the dummy’s 

thoracic lateral plane set at ±1 deg. 

relative to the horizontal, the orientation 

of the impactor is adjusted so that its 

50.5 mm wide surface is horizontal 

within ±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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75360 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 # 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: 

• If the percent standard deviation 

was equal to or below 3%, the 

performance limits were set at ±3 

standard deviations from the mean; 

• If the percent standard deviation 

was above 3%, but not more than 5%, 

the performance limits were set at ±2 

standard deviations from the mean; 

• If the percent standard deviation 

was above 5%, the performance limits 

were set at ±10% from the mean. 

• 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 

Body region/performance range Measurement parameter 

NHTSA 

SID–IIsD 

(initial) 

Draft OSRP* OSRP*** 

FTSS** 

Option 1* Option 2* Final 

Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor 

Head ............................................. Max Resultant Acceleration (g) .... 119.5–136.9 .................... .................... .................... 115–135* 

Neck .............................................. Max D–Plane Rotation (deg) ........ 70.9–77.6 72–82 .................... .................... 72–82* 

Max O–C Moment (N–m) ............. 37.6–47.5 36–43 .................... .................... 36–42* 

Shoulder ....................................... Max Shoulder Deflection (mm) ..... 30.1–36.8 30–36 29–36 29–36 ....................

Max Upper Spine Y Acceleration 

(g).

¥17.2–

(¥19.1) 

.................... .................... .................... ....................

Thorax with Arm ........................... Max Shoulder Deflection (mm) ..... 31.7–38.8 35–40 33–42 32–40 29–41 

Max Upper Rib Deflection (mm) ... 25.5–31.3 27–33 26–33 24–32 24–34 

Max Middle Rib Deflection (mm) .. 30.0–34.9 32–38 31–39 31–39 28–35 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75361 

22Final corridors are in Table 11, supra. 

TABLE 11.—COMPARISON OF NHTSA INITIAL CORRIDORS FOR THE SID–IISD WITH THOSE SUGGESTED BY THE OSRP 

AND FTSS—Continued 

Body region/performance range Measurement parameter 

NHTSA 

SID–IIsD 

(initial) 

Draft OSRP* OSRP*** 

FTSS** 

Option 1* Option 2* Final 

Max Lower Rib Deflection (mm) ... 32.3–37.1 33–39 32–40 33–41 31–37 

Max Lower Spine Acceleration (g) 28.6–35.1 29–34 28–35 28–36 32–41 

Thorax without Arm ...................... Max Upper Rib Deflection (mm) ... 32.7–39.9 33–39 32–40 32–40 33–43 

Max Middle Rib Deflection (mm) .. 38.5–44.7 40–46 38–47 38–46 40–46 

Max Lower Rib Deflection (mm) ... 36.1–42.6 37–43 35–44 34–42 36–44 

Max Lower Spine Acceleration (g) 7.8–9.6 9–12 8.5–12.6 8–13 9–13 

Abdomen ...................................... Max Upper Rib Deflection (mm) ... 38.7–47.0 40–46 39–48 40–48 37–47 

Max Lower Rib Deflection (mm) ... 38.2–46.8 38–44 37–46 38–46 36–46 

Max Lower Spine Acceleration (g) 11.3–13.9 10–12 8.8–13.2 9–13 11–16 

Pelvis—Acetabulum ...................... Max Pelvis Accleration (g) ............ 41.3–50.1 47–54 45–56 46–56 ....................

Max Acetabulum Force (kN) ........ 3.7–4.3 3.8–4.8 3.9–4.8 3.9–4.8 ....................

Pelvis-Iliac ..................................... Max Pelvis Accleration (g) ............ 26.6–32.6 .................... .................... .................... ....................

Max Iliac Force (kN) ..................... 3.7–4.5 .................... .................... .................... ....................

*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 ##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 ±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. 

TABLE 12.—PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SID–IISD IN CERTIFICATION TESTS

Body region/performance 

range 

Probe 

impact 

velocity 

Response measurement 

NHTS 

A 

SID–HsD 

statistics 

NHTSA final rule 

performance 

specification 

Head ...................................... .................... Max Resultant Acceleration (g) ........................................... 119.5–136.9 115–137 

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 (g) ............................................ 14.1–17.8 14–18 

Max Shoulder Deflection (mm) ............................................ 30.1–36.8 30–37 

Max Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g) ................................... 17.2–19.1 17–19 

Thorax with Arm .................... 6.7 m/s Peak impactor acceleration (g) ............................................ 31.3–36.0 31–36 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75362 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 12.—PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SID–IISD IN CERTIFICATION TESTS—Continued 

Body region/performance 

range 

Probe 

impact 

velocity 

Response measurement 

NHTS 

A 

SID–HsD 

statistics 

NHTSA final rule 

performance 

specification 

Max Shoulder Deflection (mm) ............................................ 31.7–38.8 31–40 

Max Upper Rib Deflection (mm) .......................................... 25.5–31.3 26–32 

Max Middle Rib Deflection (mm) ......................................... 30.0–34.9 30–36 

Max Lower Rib Deflection (mm) .......................................... 32.3–37.1 32–38 

Max Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g) ................................... 34.9–42.4 34–43 

Max Lower Spine Acceleration (g) ...................................... 28.6–35.1 28–35 

Thorax without Arm ............... 4.3 m/s Peak impactor acceleration (g) ............................................ 14.8–17.3 14–18 

Max Upper Rib Deflection (mm) .......................................... 32.7–39.9 33–40 

Max Middle Rib Deflection (mm) ......................................... 38.5–44.7 39–45 

Max Lower Rib Deflection (mm) .......................................... 36.1–42.6 36–43 

Max Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g) ................................... 13.9–16.5 14–17 

Max Lower Spine Acceleration (g) ...................................... 7.8–9.6 7–10 

Abdomen ............................... 4.4 m/s Peak impactor acceleration (g) ............................................ 12.2–15.7 12–16 

Max Upper Rib Deflection (mm) .......................................... 38.5–47.1 39–47 

Max Lower Rib Deflection (mm) .......................................... 38.2–46.8 37–46 

Max Lower Spine Acceleration (g) ...................................... 11.3–13.9 11–14 

Pelvis—Acetabulum .............. 6.7 m/s Peak impactor acceleration (g) ............................................ 38.5–46.9 38–47 

Max Pelvis Acceleration (g) ................................................. 41.3–50.1 41–50 

Max Acetabulum Force (kN) ................................................ 3.7–4.3 3.8–4.6 

Pelvis—Iliac* .......................... 4.3 m/s Peak impactor acceleration (g) ............................................ 34.9–38.9 34–40 

Max Pelvis Acceleration (g) ................................................. 26.5–32.5 27–33 

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

Vehicles Side airbag type Vehicle class/weight 

Oblique impact/SID–IIsD dummy 

Pole 32 km/h MDB 52 km/h 

Driver Driver 

Rear 

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 


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

Vehicles HIC 36 

Lower 

spine 

(g) 

Thorax 

defl. 

(mm) 

Abdomen 

defl. 

(mm) 

Pelvis 

force *** 

(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 

• Head 

Four of the 10 vehicles tested with the 

SID–IIsD in the driver’s seating position 

exceeded the HIC36 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-andaft position differences between the 

dummies, as well as to the ES–2re’s 

taller seated height. 

• 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. 

• 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75364 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Vehicles 

Driver Rear 

pass 

Driver 

lower 

spine 

Rear pass 

lower 

spine 

Driver 

pelvis 

force 

Rear 

pass 

pelvis 

force 

Rear 

thorax 

defl.** 

Pass pass 

thorax 

defl.** 

Driver 

abdomen 

defl. 

** 

Rear pass 

abdomen 

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 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 


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

• SAE Recommended Practice J211, 

Rev. Mar95 ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact 

Tests’’; and 

• SAE J1733 of 1994–12 ‘‘Sign 

Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing’’. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75366 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

• over 400 qualification-type impacts; 

• 30 sled tests; 

• 11 full scale vehicle to pole crash 

tests and 20 MDB full scale crash tests; 

and 

• 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 #032 #033 #020 #056 Comments 

No. of pendulum type qualification impact tests (6 segment tests per procedure—does not include head and 

neck tests or faulty tests).

Impactor Probe ...... 75 128 50 54 Dummies #032 & #033 were refurbished after 10 pole tests. #20 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, overload) ...... Impactor Probe ...... ............ 5 ............ ............

Total Dummy Impact Exposures ............ ................................ 90 157 60 69 


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


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75368 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 # Test ref. 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 

± 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 

TABLE A4.—SID–IISD RESPONSES IN

THORAX OVERLOAD 5 M/S IMPACTS—Continued 

[Dummy’s arm removed] 

Probe loading 

and dummy 

response 

Measurement IARV 

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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75369 

TABLE A5.—SID–IISD RESPONSES

IN ABDOMINAL OVERLOAD 5 M/S IMPACTS—Continued 

[Dummy’s arm removed] 

Probe loading 

and dummy 

response 

Measurement IARV 

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,’’ #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

Biofidelity Test Series 

Bolte 

shoulder 

test* 

ISO 9790 Sect. 4.1&2 

Shoulder test 

1 

Thorax test 

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 (mm) ....................................................................................................... 10.1 16 .6 17.3 

Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ....................................................................................................... 6.3 13 .7 20.1 

Upper Thorax Rib X Acceleration (g) .................................................................................................... 12.9 15 .4 14.8 

Upper Thorax Rib Y Acceleration (g) .................................................................................................... 49.6 125 .4 46.8 

Middle Thorax Rib X Acceleration (g) ................................................................................................... 4.4 8 .1 20.4 

Middle Thorax Rib Y Acceleration (g) ................................................................................................... 47.3 67 .19 98.9 

Lower Thorax Rib X Acceleration (g) .................................................................................................... 6.8 10 .1 19.7 

Lower Thorax Rib Y Acceleration (g) .................................................................................................... 41.9 43 .2 123.7 

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 #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. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75370 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

& vehicle 

tests* 

No of ribs or 

potentiometers* SID–IIsC** No of ribs & related** 

#Reported ............................................................................................................. 69 414 283 1698 

# With damage ..................................................................................................... 4 5 22 31 

% With damage .................................................................................................... 5 .8 1 .2 7 .8 1 .8 

# Indications ribs leaving the guides .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 

% Indications ribs leaving the guides ................................................................... 1 .5 0 .5 1 .1 0 .2 

# 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. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as 

follows: 

PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC 

TEST DUMMIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 572 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by 

adding a new subpart V consisting of 

§§ 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 

§ 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 § 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: 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75371 

1Mx(oc) is the moment at occipital condyle 

(Newton-meters) and Fy is the lateral shear force 

(Newtons) measured by the load cell. 

(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 LeetMelbrook, Division of New RT, 18810 

Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 

20879, telephone (301) 670–0090. 

(2) The SAE materials referred to in 

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

section are available from the Society of 

Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 

Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 

15096, telephone 1–877–606–7323. 

§ 572.191 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 transducerscrash 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 § 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). 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 ± 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 ± 0.06 m/s measured at the center 

of the pendulum accelerometer, as 

shown in 49 CFR Part 572 Figure 15, at 

the instant the pendulum makes contact 

with the decelerating mechanism; 

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

any object; 

(5) Time zero is defined as the time 

of initial contact between the pendulum 

mounted striker plate and the pendulum 

deceleration mechanism; 

(6) Allow a period of at least thirty 

(30) minutes between successive tests 

on the same neck assembly. 

(c) Performance Criteria. 

(1) The pendulum deceleration pulse 

is characterized in terms of decrease in 

velocity as obtained by integrating the 

pendulum acceleration output from 

time zero: 

Time 

(ms) 

Pendulum Delta–V 

(m/s) 

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

15.0 ............................... ¥3.30 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; 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75372 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) The decaying moment shall cross 

the 0 Nm line after peak moment 

between 102 ms-126 ms after time zero. 

§ 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 ± 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 midsagittal 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 interiorsuperior 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 ± 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±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. 

§ 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 ± 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 midsagittal 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 ±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 ± 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. 

§ 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 


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

§ 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 ± 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 midsagittal 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 ± 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 ± 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. 

§ 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 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
75374 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ± 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 midsagittal 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 ±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 1⁄4-20x1⁄2 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 ± 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. 

§ 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 ±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 ±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 ±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 ± 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. 

§ 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 ± 0.25 mm and 

it has a minimum mass moment of 

inertia of 3646 kg-cm2. 

(b) The test probe for the lateral 

abdomen impact test is the same as that 

specified in 572.137(a) except that its 

impact face diameter is 76.20 ± 0.25 mm 

and it has a minimum mass moment of 

inertia of 3646 kg-cm2. 

(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 × 

88.9 mm for a depth of at least 76 mm 

and a minimum mass moment of inertia 

of 5000 kg-cm2. 

(d) Accelerometers for the head, the 

thoracic spine, and the pelvis conform 

to specifications of SA572–S4. 

(e) Rotary potentiometers for the neckheadform 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; 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 572.191(a)(5)). 

Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572—

Figures 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.009</GPH>
75376 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75377 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.011</GPH>
75378 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.012</GPH> ER14DE06.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75379 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.014</GPH> ER14DE06.015</GPH>
75380 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.016</GPH> ER14DE06.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75381 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.018</GPH> ER14DE06.019</GPH>
75382 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.020</GPH> ER14DE06.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75383 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.022</GPH> ER14DE06.023</GPH>
75384 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued: November 24, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–9555 Filed 12–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES_2ER14DE06.024</GPH> ER14DE06.025</GPH>