Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54889 

property or for Government property 

properly consumed in performing this 

contract. 

Alternate II (Date). As prescribed in 

45.107(a)(3), substitute the following for 

paragraph (e) of the basic clause: 

(e) Title to property (and other tangible 

personal property) purchased with funds 

available for research and having an 

acquisition cost of less than $5,000 shall vest 

in the Contractor upon acquisition or as soon 

thereafter as feasible; provided that the 

Contractor obtained the Contracting Officer’s 

approval before each acquisition. Title to 

property purchased with funds available for 

research and having an acquisition cost of 

$5,000 or more shall vest as set forth in this 

contract. If title to property vests in the 

Contractor under this paragraph, the 

Contractor agrees that no charge will be made 

to the Government for any depreciation, 

amortization, or use under any existing or 

future Government contract or subcontract 

thereunder. The Contractor shall furnish the 

Contracting Officer a list of all property to 

which title is vested in the Contractor under 

this paragraph within 10 days following the 

end of the calendar quarter during which it 

was received. Vesting title under this 

paragraph is subject to civil rights legislation, 

42 U.S.C. 2000d. Before title is vested and by 

signing this contract, the Contractor accepts 

and agrees that—

‘‘No person in the United States or its 

outlying areas shall, on the ground of race, 

color, or national origin, be excluded from 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or 

be otherwise subjected to discrimination 

under this contemplated financial assistance 

(title to property).’’

52.245–2 Government Property 

(Installation Operations for Services). 

As prescribed in 45.107(b), insert the 

following clause: 

Government Property (Installation 

Operations for Services) (Date) 

(a) This Government Property is furnished 

to the Contractor in an ‘‘as-is, where is’’

condition. The Government makes no 

warranty regarding the suitability for use of 

the Government property specified in this 

contract. The Contractor shall be afforded the 

opportunity to inspect the Government 

property as specified in the solicitation. 

(b) The Government bears no responsibility 

for repair or replacement of any lost, 

damaged or destroyed Government property. 

If any or all of the Government property is 

lost, damaged or destroyed or becomes no 

longer usable, the Contractor shall be 

responsible for replacement of the property at 

Contractor expense. The Contractor shall 

have title to all replacement property and 

shall continue to be responsible for contract 

performance. 

(c) Unless the Contracting Officer 

determines otherwise, the Government 

abandons all rights and title to unserviceable 

(i.e., scrap) property resulting from contract 

performance. Upon notification to the 

Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall 

remove such property from the Government 

premises and dispose of it at Contractor 

expense. 

(d) Except as provided in this clause, 

Government property furnished under this 

contract shall be governed by the 

Government Property clause of this contract. 

(End of clause) 

52.245–3 through 52.245–8 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

19. Remove and reserve sections 

52.245–3 through52.245–8. 

20. Amend section 52.245–9 by—

a. Removing from the introductory 

paragraph ‘‘45.106(h)’’ and adding 

‘‘45.107(c)’’ in its place; 

b. Revising the date of the clause; and 

c. Revising in paragraph (a) the 

definitions ‘‘Acquisition cost’’, 

‘‘Government property’’, and ‘‘Real 

property’’. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

52.245–9 Use and Charges. 

* * * * * 

USE AND CHARGES (DATE) 

(a) * * * 

Acquisition cost means—

(1) For Contractor acquired property, the 

full cost determined in accordance with the 

system established by the Contractor in 

conformance with consistently applied 

sound accounting principles. 

(2) For Government-furnished property, the 

amount identified in the contract, or in the 

absence of such identification, the fair market 

value attributed to the item by the Contractor. 

Government property means all property 

owned or leased by the Government. 

Government property includes both 

Government-furnished and Contractoracquired property. 

Real property means land, land rights, 

buildings, structures, utility systems, steamgeneration systems, and equipment attached 

to and made part of buildings and structures 

(such as heating systems). As such, land 

rights are considered real property. It does 

not include foundations and other work 

necessary for installing special tooling, 

special test equipment, or equipment. 

* * * * * 

52.245–10 through 52.245–19 [Removed 

and Reserved] 

21. Remove and reserve sections 

52.245–10 through 52.245–19. 

PART 53—FORMS 

53.245 [Amended] 

22. Amend section 52.245 in 

paragraph (e) by removing ‘‘52.245–2(i), 

52.245–5(i)’’ and adding ‘‘52.245–1’’ in 

its place. 

[FR Doc. 05–18516 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

[Docket No. 2005–22068] 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Denial 

of Petition for Consideration 

Regarding Amending the Side Impact 

Dummy (SID); Specifications 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition 

for rulemaking submitted by Ford Motor 

Company (Ford) on December 19, 2003, 

that asked the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) to 

amend the Side Impact Dummy (SID) 

specifications in 49 CFR Part 572, 

Subpart F, for use in Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

214, ‘‘Side Impact Occupant 

Protection,’’ and the Side Impact New 

Car Assessment Program (Side NCAP). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues: Mr. Sean Doyle, 

NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards. Telephone: (202) 366–1740. 

Facsimile: (202) 366–7002. 

For legal issues: Ms. Dee Fujita, 

NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992. Facsimile: 

(202) 366–3820. 

Both officials can be reached by mail 

at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA 

published a final rule (Federal Register 

Vol. 55, No. 210, Docket Number 88–06; 

Notice 8) to amend FMVSS No. 214, at 

the time titled, ‘‘Side Door Strength.’’

Prior to this final rule, a vehicle’s side 

impact performance was determined 

solely by a static assessment of the 

ability of a door to resist forces imparted 

by a piston pressing a rigid steel 

cylinder against the door’s outer surface. 

However, with the implementation of 

this final rule, effective September 1, 

1993, vehicles were additionally 

required to undergo full-scale dynamic 

crash tests to assess occupant 

protection. Because of its acceptable 

reliability and durability during 

research testing conducted in support of 

the final rule, the agency chose the SID 

to measure the potential for injuries to 

an occupant’s thorax and pelvis in a 

side impact crash (Federal Register Vol. 

54890 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1TTI is calculated by averaging the maximum 

filtered acceleration of the ribs (either the upper rib 

or the lower rib) and lower spine. The filter applied 

is a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter, which has 

a Passband frequency of 100 Hz, a Stopband 

frequency of 189 Hz, a Stopband gain of -50 db, and 

a Passband ripple of 0.0225 db. 

55, No. 210, Docket Number 88–07; 

Notice 3). To provide an assessment of 

the dummy’s measured readings, 

NHTSA developed an injury metric 

called the Thoracic Trauma Index 

(TTI).1

FMVSS No. 214, renamed, ‘‘Side 

Impact Protection,’’ with the 

implementation of dynamic testing in 

1990, was later amended on April 2, 

1998 (Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 63, 

Docket Number NHTSA–98–3668). 

During sled tests conducted by the 

agency to evaluate the effect of adding 

spacer inserts to the SID lumbar spine, 

it was observed that, ‘‘the position of the 

damper piston in the SID ribcage prior 

to the [side impact] test had an 

appreciable effect on the thorax 

accelerations recorded by the SID.’’

NHTSA further found that, ‘‘the return 

spring on the damper did not always 

return the damper to its fully extended 

position.’’ Because, in such instances, 

the piston was not fully extended in the 

dummy’s ribcage prior to impact, the 

agency observed internal collision of the 

damper piston at the onset of impact in 

some dummies. Subsequent testing 

showed that internal collision within 

the damper body would not occur if the 

damper piston were in the fully 

extended position prior to a side impact 

test. Therefore, FMVSS No. 214 was 

amended on April 2, 1998, to include 

specific dummy positioning procedures 

to solve this problem. 

Summary of the Petition 

In a letter dated December 19, 2003, 

Ford petitioned NHTSA to amend 

specifications for the SID in 49 CFR Part 

572, Subpart F. Ford alleged that the 

damper in the SID dummy’s thorax 

could induce erroneous, mechanical 

noise or ringing in the recorded data 

traces during side impact crash tests 

such as those conducted pursuant to 

FMVSS No. 214, ‘‘Side Impact 

Protection,’’ or Side NCAP. 

Consequently, Ford modified the SID’s 

thorax to include a SID ribcage 

deflection potentiometer, which 

allowed the company to assess the 

displacement of the damper piston 

(compression/extension) in the SID’s 

thorax during side impact tests. Ford 

claims ‘‘this mechanical ‘‘noise’’ or 

‘‘ringing’’ is due to metal-to-metal 

contact between the SID ribcage damper 

piston and the damper body.’’ The noise 

is present when the ribcage ‘‘fully 

expand[s] allowing the damper piston to 

fully extend and bottom out on the 

damper body.’’ In particular, Ford 

asserts this condition is present in 

certain vehicles tested both with and 

without side air bags. 

Ford presented unfiltered data for 

three vehicles equipped with side air 

bags that the company asserted were 

affected by internal collision of the 

damper piston against the damper body. 

For two of these side airbag equipped 

vehicles, Ford indicated, ‘‘the SID 

thorax is initially loaded by the air bag 

positioning between the dummy and the 

vehicle door, then the thorax loading is 

relaxed due to the nature of the vehicle 

deformation and air bag kinematics, 

thereby allowing the damper piston to 

fully extend.’’ As the crash event 

proceeds, Ford noted, ‘‘the loading is reapplied to the thorax.’’ According to 

Ford, during this ‘‘loading/unloading/ 

re-loading’’ progression, ‘‘the ribcage is 

initially compressed but then rapidly 

expands back to zero measured 

deflection indicating full extension of 

the damper piston.’’ It is at this time, 

approximately 50–60 milliseconds (ms) 

from the initiation of the crash event, 

that Ford alleges erroneous spikes are 

present in the unfiltered thoracic data 

curves. In the third vehicle, Ford stated 

that the internal collision occurred ‘‘late 

in the crash event when the dummy is 

in rebound’’ and ‘‘therefore does not 

influence * * * dummy performance.’’

Contrary to that which occurred for the 

other two vehicles, in this vehicle, the 

dummy’s ribcage was continuously 

compressed until the loading subsided 

at the end of the crash event. 

Ford also presented unfiltered data 

from one vehicle that was tested 

without side air bags. In such a vehicle, 

the company contends, ‘‘the 

phenomenon can occur when the door 

structure of the vehicle initially loads 

the SID thorax as the FMVSS–214/ 

LINCAP [Side NCAP] barrier intrudes, 

then the loading is relaxed due to the 

kinematics of the vehicle’s deformation 

thereby allowing the internal 

‘‘collision’’ of the piston and damper 

body.’’ This resulted in a sharp spike at 

50 ms in the raw data traces. Ford 

further stated that the dummy’s thorax 

is then reloaded ‘‘when the SID rotates 

outboard and contacts the door structure 

a second time during the crash event.’’

Ford maintained that if ‘‘the ribcage 

damper piston can fully extend during 

the dummy loading event, * * * the 

internal ‘‘collision’’ phenomenon can 

significantly affect the measured rib and 

spine accelerations by introducing data 

spikes ‘‘ even with the FVMSS–214 

specified FIR [Finite Impulse Response] 

-filtering process.’’ Ford also stated, ‘‘the 

resulting data spikes in the SID 

responses can register a magnitude and 

duration such that the resulting 

Thoracic Trauma Index calculation can 

be unrealistically high, with the 

potential to result in a value exceeding 

FVMSS No. 214 limits and/or to reduce 

a vehicle’s LINCAP rating by one or 

more stars.’’

In an attempt to mitigate the spikes, 

Ford asked Denton ATD, Inc. to develop 

modifications for the SID ribcage 

damper, which included the addition of 

both an internal 1–2 mm thick nylon 

washer and a 7 mm external steel spacer 

to the piston shaft. Ford claimed that 

the internal nylon washer ‘‘creates a 

more ‘compliant’ bottoming out surface 

on the piston shaft, thereby reducing the 

likelihood of mechanical ‘ringing’ due 

to metal-to-metal contact between the 

shaft and damper body.’’ Ford also 

stated that the external spacer would 

‘‘provide more piston stroke length, 

thereby reducing the likelihood of 

bottoming out the piston against the 

damper body.’’ Ford believes that the 

above modifications ‘‘do not alter the 

SID response characteristics associated 

with FMVSS–214 compliance or 

LINCAP performance (except for 

reducing or eliminating the ringing from 

metal-to-metal contact), and will 

comply with all regulatory SID dummy 

response calibration requirements.’’

Therefore, Ford petitioned NHTSA to 

amend the SID specifications to 

incorporate the aforementioned 

modifications to the damper and 

accordingly, modify all SIDs used by 

contracting laboratories. 

In addition to the modifications 

discussed previously, Ford also 

requested that NHTSA add a ribcage 

deflection potentiometer to the SID 

specifications and the corresponding 

mounting bracket design that they 

currently use. Ford claims that this 

assembly ‘‘aids in the diagnosis and 

verification of the metal-to-metal 

contact condition.’’ Ford stated that the 

mounting bracket design presently used 

in their internal testing ‘‘was developed 

by NHTSA during the evolution of the 

bracket design associated with the 

[1986] NPRM’’ (Federal Register Vol. 

53, No. 17, Docket Number 88–06; 

Notice 1). However, Ford stated that 

unlike the mounting bracket design that 

was proposed in 1986, this ‘‘modified 

design’’ precludes potential metal-tometal contact. 

Analysis of Petition 

NHTSA acknowledges that the 

unfiltered peak acceleration traces for 

the upper rib, lower rib, and lower spine 

presented by Ford in the petition appear 

to show evidence of ‘‘mechanical 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54891 

2 Indicant FMVSS No. 214 tests are conducted by 

the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, but are 

performed at the Side NCAP test speed of 38.5 mph 

instead of 33.5 mph, as specified in the FMVSS No. 

214 standard. 

3Spikes occurring considerably later than typical 

peak acceleration magnitudes seen in side impacts 

(from approximately 150 milliseconds to 

approximately 200 milliseconds) were present in 

the agency’s data as well. However, the agency has 

found that FIR filtering makes such spikes 

negligible compared to the peak acceleration at 

impact. Side NCAP vehicle test data is located in 

Docket No. 1998–3835. 

noise,’’ and the most prominent spikes 

in these curves tend to occur around 

45–60 ms after the initiation of the crash 

event. However, as Ford noted in the 

petition, the agency recognizes that 

internal collision of the piston against 

the damper body is possible, and that 

such contact could produce a ringing 

signal in the resulting data traces 

(Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 63, 

Docket Number NHTSA–98–3668). For 

that reason, in 1998, the agency 

amended the SID positioning procedure 

to fully extend the piston within the 

damper body prior to the side impact 

test to preclude the piston from 

bottoming out against the damper body 

at the onset of impact. However, Ford 

did not provide evidence to indicate 

that the SID positioning procedures 

outlined in the 1998 final rule were in 

fact followed for the tests discussed in 

this petition. Therefore, the agency 

cannot be certain that the ‘‘mechanical 

noise’’ documented by Ford is not a 

result of improper pretest SID 

positioning. Similarly, Ford did not 

provide data showing the effects on TTI 

with application of the FIR filter. 

Nevertheless, to ensure that the 

performance of the SID had not changed 

since its incorporation as a regulatory 

tool, NHTSA reviewed its own side 

impact test data. 

In analyzing Side NCAP test data 

spanning model years (MY) 1997–2004 

and indicant 2 FMVSS No. 214 test data 

spanning MY 2000–2004, NHTSA found 

only a few instances in which the upper 

rib, lower rib, or lower spine unfiltered 

data traces for the driver or rear 

passenger SID in vehicles tested show 

data spikes at approximately the same 

timeframe (∼ 50 ms) indicated in the 

Ford petition.3 However, NHTSA’s 

analysis also showed that ‘‘noise’’

effects are considerably reduced, if not 

nullified, by application of the FIR 

filter. Therefore, the agency could not 

establish that the dummies’ base 

acceleration response levels were 

elevated sufficiently to affect the TTI. 

Consequently, there is no evidence to 

suggest that the star ratings for Side 

NCAP vehicles were reduced because of 

mechanical noise. A similar review of 

thoracic data traces for the driver and 

rear passenger dummies in vehicles 

subjected to FMVSS No. 214 

compliance tests from MY 1998–2003 

uncovered a very limited number of 

vehicles in which a ringing signal was 

apparent between approximately 50–60 

ms in the raw data traces. These spikes 

were significantly reduced once the FIR 

filter was applied. Hence, NHTSA has 

concluded that similar to the Side 

NCAP tests, the recorded TTIs for the 

dummies in the compliance tests were 

not affected to the extent that a vehicle 

would have exceeded the injury criteria 

imposed by FMVSS No. 214. 

Ford additionally requested that the 

agency incorporate the ribcage 

deflection potentiometer and 

corresponding mounting bracket used in 

Ford’s in-house tests to aid in the 

diagnosis and verification of metal-tometal contact occurrence. Based on our 

analysis, NHTSA does not believe that 

these recommended changes are either 

needed or would serve the needs of 

safety. Therefore, the agency is choosing 

not to incorporate the ribcage deflection 

potentiometer and corresponding 

mounting bracket, or the internal 

washer and external spacer. 

Conclusion 

NHTSA did not find compelling 

evidence in the limited unfiltered data 

provided by Ford to suggest that the 

claimed erroneous acceleration data 

spikes are a cause of compliance 

problems or result in reduced Side 

NCAP star ratings. Furthermore, a 

review of the agency’s own side impact 

test data did not reveal any instances in 

which data spikes affected TTI to the 

extent that a vehicle did not meet the 

FMVSS No. 214 compliance limits or 

was unjustly given a lower star rating. 

Consequently, NHTSA feels that the 

currently specified SID is sufficiently 

suitable for FMVSS No. 214 and Side 

NCAP objective testing and deems that 

the requested modifications are not 

needed. NHTSA is therefore denying the 

Ford petition for rulemaking. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. 

Issued on: September 13, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–18593 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P