29862 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1 72 FR 51908, Docket No. NHTSA–2007–29134; 

response to petitions for reconsideration, June 9, 

2008, 73 FR 32473; Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0104. 

NHTSA will be publishing a second response to 

petitions for reconsideration addressing other 

issues. 

2NHTSA added the specifications for the ES–2re 

to 49 CFR part 572 (see final rule, December 14, 

2006, 71 FR 75304, Docket No. NHTSA–2004– 

25441; response to petitions for reconsideration, 

June 16, 2008, 73 FR 33903, Docket No. NHTSA 

2008–0111). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0002] 

RIN 2127–AK26 

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, response to petitions 

for reconsideration, technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to 

petitions for reconsideration of a 

December 14, 2006 final rule 

establishing a new small adult female 

side impact crash test dummy, called 

the ‘‘SID–IIs’’ test dummy. The petitions 

were submitted by the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, First 

Technology Safety Systems, and Denton 

ATD. In response to the petitions, 

among other things today’s final rule 

modifies the iliac performance criteria 

to allow a new material formulation and 

design to be used for the iliac wing of 

the dummy’s pelvis, defines a time 

period in which accelerations are 

measured in the thorax with arm and 

pelvis acetabulum tests, slightly 

modifies some of the test procedures 

used in the qualification tests (e.g., by 

slightly lowering the impact speed of 

the impactor in two tests and by 

increasing the recovery time for the 

pelvis-iliac and pelvis-acetabulum 

tests), adjusts the performance corridors 

for the various impact tests of the 

dummy, and revises parts of the 

drawing package and the user’s manual 

for the dummy. 

DATES: This final rule is effective August 

24, 2009. The incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of August 24, 

2009. If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by August 7, 

2009. 

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, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., 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 docket 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). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Lori 

Summers, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 

202–366–1740) (fax 202–493–2990). For 

legal issues, you may call Ms. 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, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Description of SID–IIs 

a. General Description 

b. Performance Characteristics 

III. Petitions for Reconsideration 

IV. Overview of Response to the Petitions 

V. Issues Relating to the Pelvis of the Dummy 

a. Iliac Wing Material 

b. Iliac Load Cell Stand-Off Design 

c. Iliac Qualification Procedure 

1. Use of OSRP Procedure 

2. Pelvic Iliac Probe Acceleration 

3. Specification of Tape 

4. Corrections 

d. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification 

Procedure 

1. Pelvic Plug Pre-Crush and Associated 

Variability 

2. Pelvic Plug Qualification Corridor 

3. Pelvis Acceleration Requirement 

4. Measuring Peak Pelvis Lateral 

Acceleration 5 ms or More After Contact 

VI. Shoulder Qualification Procedures 

a. Impact Velocity 

b. Arm Position 

VII. Thorax with Arm Qualification 

Procedures 

a. Peak Impactor Acceleration 

b. Time Zero 

c. Reported Noise in Potentiometers 

VIII. Thorax Without Arm Petitioned Issues 

a. Peak Impactor Acceleration 

b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench 

IX. Abdomen Qualification Procedure 

a. Impact Velocity 

b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench 

X. Other Testing Issues 

a. Dummy Clothing 

b. Recovery Time Between Tests 

c. Soak Time 

d. Tolerance on the Impactor Mass 

e. Neck Cable Torque in PADI 

f. Pendulum Deceleration Pulse 

g. Neck Potentiometers 

XI. Qualification Performance Corridors 

a. Shoulder Qualification Corridors 

b. Thorax with Arm Qualification 

Corridors 

c. Thorax without Arm Qualification 

Corridors 

d. Abdomen Qualification Corridors 

e. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification 

Corridors 

f. Pelvis Iliac Qualification Corridors 

XII. Drawing Package and PADI 

a. Issues Raised By Both FTSS and Denton 

b. Issues Raised By FTSS 

c. Issues Raised By Denton 

d. Agency Corrections and Clarifications 

XIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

I. Introduction 

This final rule responds to petitions 

for reconsideration of a December 14, 

2006 final rule (71 FR 75342; Docket No. 

NHTSA–2006–25442) that amended 49 

CFR part 572 to add specifications and 

qualification requirements for a 5th 

percentile adult female side impact test 

dummy, called the ‘‘SID–IIs.’’ The 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

preceding the December 14, 2006 final 

rule was published on December 8, 2004 

(69 FR 70947; Docket NHTSA–2004– 

18865; reopening of comment period, 

March 8, 2005, 70 FR 11189). The SID– 

IIs is used by NHTSA and other testing 

organizations in side impact test 

programs. The use of the SID–IIs test 

dummy in NHTSA’s enforcement 

program assessing vehicles’ compliance 

with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 214 (‘‘Side 

impact protection,’’ 49 CFR 571.214) 

was discussed in and made part of a 

final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214 

published on September 11, 2007.1 In 

the upgrade, NHTSA added a dynamic 

pole test to FMVSS No. 214, to 

supplement the moving deformable 

barrier (MDB) test currently in the 

standard. In the dynamic 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). 

Compliance with the pole test will be 

determined in two test configurations, 

one using the SID–IIs test dummy 

representing small adult females and the 

other using an ‘‘ES–2re’’ test dummy 

representing mid-size adult males.2 The 

final rule required vehicles to protect 

against head, thoracic and other injuries 

as measured by the two test dummies. 

The final rule also specified using the 

dummies in FMVSS No. 214’s MDB test, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29863 

3The September 11, 2007 final rule fulfilled the 

mandate of Section 10302 of the ‘‘Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,’’ (SAFETEA–LU), 

Pub.L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144). 

Section 10302(a) of SAFETEA–LU. 

4The drawings, parts list and user manual 

incorporated by reference by the December 14, 2006 

final rule were placed in NHTSA Docket No. 2006– 

25442. Materials that have been updated by today’s 

final rule are placed in the docket for today’s 

document. 

5T1–sensor location on the dummy’s thoracic 

spine equivalent to the first thoracic vertebra on the 

human spine. T12–sensor location on the dummy’s 

thoracic spine equivalent to the 12th thoracic 

vertebra on the human spine. 

6Members at the time of the petition for 

reconsideration were: BMW Group, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General 

Motors, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and 

Volkswagen. DaimlerChrysler separated subsequent 

to the petition for reconsideration, and additional 

members at the time of this final rule are Mazda and 

Mercedes-Benz USA. 

7Additionally, a letter in support of the Alliance 

and FTSS petitions was received from the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). 8OSRP is a consortium of the U.S. Council for 

Automotive Research (USCAR). USCAR was formed 

in 1992 by DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General 

Motors as a research and development organization. 

The SID–IIs was originally developed by the OSRP, 

in conjunction with FTSS. The dummy was 

extensively tested in the late 1990s and early 2000s 

by Transport Canada, and to a limited extent by 

U.S. automobile manufacturers and suppliers, and 

IIHS. Modification of and upgrades to the SID–IIs 

design ultimately lead to the development of the 

build level D version of the dummy. The December 

14, 2006 final rule adopted the SID–IIs Build Level 

D test dummy into 49 CFR part 572. 

9On December 13, 2007, the Alliance submitted 

additional SID–IIsD qualification data and 

recommended performance corridors as an 

appendix to their petition for reconsideration to the 

FMVSS No. 214 final rule published on September 

11, 2007. Because the submission was received late 

in the rulemaking process, these data were not 

incorporated into the NHTSA/FTSS data set for 

inclusion in statistical analyses. However, the new 

Alliance data were considered in the formation of 

corridors by comparing the Alliance-recommended 

corridors to those derived using the NHTSA/FTSS 

data set, and adjusting the NHTSA corridors, if 

warranted. 

which simulates a vehicle-to-vehicle, 

‘‘T-bone’’ type intersection crash.3

II. Description of SID–IIs 

a. General Description 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

incorporated specifications for the SID– 

IIs (or SID–IIsD) consisting of: (a) A 

drawing package containing all of the 

technical details of the dummy; (b) a 

parts list; and (c) a user manual 

containing procedures for inspection, 

assembly, disassembly, use, and 

adjustments of dummy components.4

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.5 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). A thin steel 

backer plate between the iliac wing and 

iliac load cell prevents the iliac wing 

material from deforming and offloading 

a portion of the iliac load cell 

measurement. 

b. Performance Characteristics 

The December 14, 2006 final rule also 

specified a qualification process for the 

SID–IIs dummy, i.e., a series of specified 

component and whole body-level tests, 

to verify that a test dummy’s response 

measurements fall within prescribed 

ranges. For any test dummy to be a 

useful test device in a compliance or 

vehicle rating setting, responses to 

controlled inputs must be reproducible 

and repeatable. The tests and response 

ranges (or performance corridors) for the 

SID–IIs, specified in 49 CFR part 572 

subpart V, ensure that the dummy’s 

responses to controlled inputs are 

reproducible and repeatable, thus 

assuring full and accurate evaluation of 

occupant injury risk in vehicle tests. 

The test procedures and performance 

specifications for qualification of the 

SID–IIs as set forth in the December 14, 

2006 final rule established performance 

levels for the dummy’s head, neck 

assembly, shoulder, thorax with arm, 

thorax without arm, abdomen, pelvis 

acetabulum, and pelvis iliac. 

III. Petitions for Reconsideration 

The Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers 6 (Alliance) and test 

dummy manufacturers First Technology 

Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD 

(Denton) petitioned for reconsideration 

of the December 14, 2006 final rule.7

The petitioners generally supported the 

incorporation of the SID–IIs into 49 CFR 

part 572, but had concerns with 

technical aspects of the Part 572 

specifications and with the drawings 

incorporated by reference into the 

regulation. The main suggestions of 

each of the petitioners are briefly 

summarized below: 

a. The Alliance suggested using a 

material to manufacture the iliac wing 

that is recommended by the Occupant 

Safety Research Partnership (OSRP) 

SID–IIs task group,8 a material that the 

Alliance believes is ‘‘more 

manufacturable and stable’’ than the 

material referenced in the final rule. 

(The petitioners refer to the 

recommended material as ‘‘Material 

#3.’’) The Alliance also petitioned to 

change aspects of the test procedures of 

the shoulder (dummy arm orientation; 

probe impact velocity), of the thorax 

with arm (time when peak acceleration 

should be measured), and of the 

abdomen (probe impact velocity) 

qualification tests, and made other 

suggestions regarding general test 

procedures. The Alliance also 

petitioned for changes to the 

performance corridors for the tests of 

the shoulder, thorax with and without 

arm, abdomen, pelvis iliac wing (based 

on the use of Material #3, or ‘‘M3’’), and 

pelvis acetabulum.9

b. FTSS petitioned to change to M3 

and a standoff design for the iliac wing, 

and suggested changes relating to the 

tests of the thorax with arm (time when 

peak acceleration should be measured) 

and pelvis acetabulum (time when peak 

acceleration should be measured). The 

29864 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

10 Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18865–36. 

11 Determination was made using data from the 

NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS 214 Upgrade, MY 

2004–2005, Docket No. NHTSA–2007–29134–0003. 

12As stated in the December 2006 final rule, this 

estimate was based on calculated adjustments of the 

total force on the pelvis by taking into account 

lower impact responses of the softer iliac wing. 

13 IIHS stated in its letter that it also supported 

the request of the petitioners for NHTSA to consider 

data from multiple laboratories when establishing 

performance criteria for dummy verification tests. 

IIHS stated that ‘‘This is necessary to account for 

normal variability among laboratories.’’ 

14We note, however, that the material 

specification on the iliac wing drawings 

(Polyurethane 85–95 Shore A or equivalent) does 

not have to be changed to permit M3, so we are not 

changing it. 

petitioner also suggested changes to the 

performance corridors for the tests of 

the shoulder, thorax without arm, 

abdomen, and pelvis iliac and 

acetabulum. The petitioner also 

identified portions of the regulatory text 

and a number of drawings incorporated 

by reference into Part 572 that the 

petitioner believed needed correction. 

c. Denton suggested that NHTSA 

adopt performance corridors 

recommended by the Society of 

Automotive Engineers Dummy Testing 

Equipment Subcommittee (SAE DTES) 

of the Human Biomechanics and 

Simulation Standards Committee. 

Denton also identified regulatory text 

and drawings that the petitioner 

suggested needed correction. 

IV. Overview of Response to the 

Petitions 

Today’s document responds to the 

following issues raised in the petitions 

for reconsideration in the following 

order: issues relating to the pelvis of the 

dummy; shoulder qualification 

procedures; thorax with arm 

qualification procedures; thorax without 

arm qualification procedures; abdomen 

qualification procedures; other testing 

issues (e.g., dummy clothing, recovery 

and soak times); qualification corridors; 

and changes to the drawing package and 

to NHTSA user’s manual for the dummy 

(Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly 

and Inspection). 

Among other things, today’s final rule 

amends iliac performance criteria to 

allow for a new material formulation to 

be used for the iliac wing of the 

dummy’s pelvis, defines a time period 

in which accelerations are measured in 

the thorax with arm and pelvis 

acetabulum tests, slightly modifies some 

of the test procedures used in the 

qualification tests (e.g., by slightly 

lowering the impact speed of the 

impactor in several tests and by 

increasing the recovery time for the 

pelvis-iliac and pelvis-acetabulum 

tests), adjusts the performance corridors 

for the various impact tests of the 

dummy, and revises parts of the 

drawing package and the user’s manual 

for the dummy. 

V. Issues Relating to the Pelvis of the 

Dummy 

a. Iliac Wing Material 

As explained in the December 2006 

final rule, during the course of NHTSA’s 

evaluation of the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the SID–IIs dummy 

eventually adopted into part 572, the 

agency observed that its set of left side 

iliac wings had been used extensively 

for several years and was showing signs 

of wear. The agency obtained new 

replacement iliac wings from the 

dummy manufacturer (FTSS) and later 

observed that the replacement wings 

produced approximately 20 percent 

lower impact responses in dynamic 

impact tests than the previously-tested 

wings. NHTSA contacted FTSS and was 

informed that formulation of the 

polyurethane material for the wings 

changed in 2004 because the raw 

material previously used was no longer 

available due to toxicity issues.10 The 

agency analyzed the post-2004 iliac 

wings and estimated that using them in 

NHTSA’s FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing 

program 11 would have had the effect of 

lowering the average driver occupant 

pelvis force approximately 8 percent 

and that of the passenger about 3 

percent, which would have amounted to 

only one instance out of 25 in which the 

pelvis force changed from just being 

above the Injury Assessment Reference 

Value (IARV) limit to just being below.12

In view of those findings and because 

the material formulation of the iliac 

wings prior to 2004 (for convenience, 

we refer to this material formulation as 

‘‘Material #1’’ or ‘‘M1’’) was no longer 

available, NHTSA decided to specify 

pendulum response data for the iliac 

wing that reflected the use of the softer 

post-2004 iliac material formulation 

(henceforth referred to as ‘‘Material #2’’ 

or ‘‘M2’’). (71 FR at 75355; December 14, 

2006.) 

Requested Change 

In response to the final rule, all the 

petitioners requested that the regulation 

specify performance characteristics 

enabling the use of a new material 

formulation, which will be referred to as 

Material #3 (M3), for the iliac wing in 

place of M2. 

FTSS stated that it began 

manufacturing wings composed of M3 

on June 1, 2006, in response to direction 

from the OSRP SID–IIs task group and 

after finding that M3 was a suitable 

replacement for M1 and M2. FTSS also 

stated that it stopped manufacturing M2 

iliac wings on May 30, 2006. According 

to FTSS, M3 iliac wings retain their 

shape better over time and are not 

subject to a warping found in M2 iliac 

wings. 

In its petition, the Alliance noted that: 

after extensive tests and evaluation, the 

OSRP SID–IIs task group recommended the 

use of material #3 for the following reasons: 

(1) it is available; (2) it is more 

manufacturable and stable than material #2; 

and (3) it has demonstrated repeatable 

performance. Material #3 is generally slightly 

stiffer than the original pre April 2004 

(material #1) and may result in higher 

recorded loads. 

Denton also supported the use of 

Material #3. The petitioner submitted 

information from SAE DTES which 

indicated there was no statistical means 

of choosing between M2 and M3, but 

that permanent deformation was 

observed in M2. The information also 

suggested that M3 will have less 

variability in manufacturing. 

In its February 8, 2007 letter 

supporting the petitions for 

reconsideration from the Alliance and 

FTSS, IIHS stated that ‘‘[t]he most 

important aspect of the petitions is the 

request to change the specification for 

the SID–IIs iliac wing to the updated 

design supported by the’’ OSRP and 

FTSS.13 IIHS stated that the updated 

iliac wing includes a material change to 

improve repeatability and durability, 

and integral metal standoffs to prevent 

interference with measurements from 

the iliac load cell that occurs over time 

due to compression of the softer 

material at the interface of the original 

design. IIHS stated that it converted all 

the SID–IIs dummies (Build Level C) 

used in its consumer information side 

impact test program to include the 

updated design. IIHS believed that it is 

important to harmonize the dummies 

used in its tests with the SID–IIs dummy 

(Build Level D) used in NHTSA’s tests, 

and that adoption of the Material #3 

iliac wing is critical to avoid differences 

in test results that could occur if 

organizations used different wing 

designs. IIHS also believed that using 

two different iliac wing designs would 

result in additional cost to laboratories 

that conduct both NHTSA-compliance 

and IIHS consumer information crash 

tests. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA is granting the petitions to 

adjust performance criteria so that 

Material #3 (M3) can be used for the 

iliac wings.14 NHTSA’s Vehicle 

Research and Test Center (VRTC) 

conducted quasi-static testing in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29865 

15M1 qualification data and plots comparing M1 

and M3 iliac force responses can be found in the 

memo ‘‘M1 qualification data and comparison to 

M3 qualification data.’’ 

evaluation of the M3 iliac, which is 

described in the report ‘‘SID–IIsD Iliac 

Wing Studies’’ placed in the docket for 

this final rule. In these quasi-static tests, 

isolated iliac wings were loaded to 

4,000 N over a period of several 

minutes. Quasi-static compression 

results from at least three tests on each 

of six new M3 iliac wings indicate that 

M3 is much closer in stiffness to M1 

than M2. The agency used SID–IIs 

dummies with iliac wings made from 

M1 in agency vehicle and sled testing, 

so there is a large body of data related 

to the M1 wings. These data were used 

in part to develop the IARV referenced 

in FMVSS No. 214 for the pelvic load 

criterion measured by the SID–IIs. 

Because M3 is a material formulation 

that is very close in stiffness to the M1 

iliac wings, NHTSA is adopting M3 

since the agency has knowledge of and 

a familiarity with the properties of M1 

wings, while NHTSA’s experience with 

the M2 wings is more limited. Further, 

we agree with IIHS that using M3 iliac 

wings would better harmonize the test 

dummies used by NHTSA, IIHS and the 

industry, and would make the test 

results obtained by the testing 

components of each organization more 

comparable and better focused on the 

development of appropriate 

countermeasures. Also, according to the 

petitioners, M3 is more stable than M2, 

demonstrates repeatable performance, is 

readily available while M2 is not, and 

does not exhibit deformation 

characteristics exhibited by M2. For 

these reasons, the petitioners’ request to 

specify characteristics that recognize the 

use of M3 in the manufacture of the iliac 

wing is granted. 

The Alliance in its petition for 

reconsideration said that Material #3 is 

generally slightly stiffer than Material 

#1 and may result in higher recorded 

loads. We agree that in quasi-static tests, 

M3 wings were shown to be slightly 

stiffer than M1 wings, as seen in the 

‘‘SID–IIsD Iliac Wing Studies’’ report, 

supra. However, the difference in 

stiffness between these wings is very 

small, so large differences in response in 

dynamic test environments are not 

expected. The similarity of response for 

the two different iliac wing material 

formulations is illustrated by the pelvisiliac qualification test results. Table 1 

shows that the average peak iliac force 

measured in qualification tests with M3 

wings was 4588 N, while the average 

force in qualification tests with M1 

wings was 167 N (3.6%) higher at 4755 

N.15

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF M1 AND M3 QUALIFICATION DATA

Probe velocity Probe energy 

Maximum 

probe acceleration 

Maximum pelvis Y acceleration 

Maximum Iliac 

force 

(m/s) (J) (g) (g) (N) 

M1 ....................................... Min ...................................... 4.21 126.02 38 29 3986 

Max ..................................... 4.43 137.02 46 45 5448 

Average .............................. 4.35 133.51 41.36 34.99 4755.26 

SD ...................................... 0.04 2.38 1.55 3.34 373.49 

CV ...................................... 1.02% 1.78% 3.76% 9.55% 7.85% 

M3 ....................................... Min ...................................... 4.21 123.67 35.55 27.24 3430 

Max ..................................... 4.34 133.44 45.98 40.93 5275.53 

Average .............................. 4.29 129.55 40.84 34.03 4588.36 

SD ...................................... 0.03 2.57 2.09 3.41 329.64 

CV ...................................... 0.69% 1.98% 5.13% 10.03% 7.18% 

In evaluating these results, we kept in 

mind that there were some factors that 

could have affected the iliac force 

measurements for each data set. First, 

when M1 was used, the design of the 

iliac wing did not incorporate two 

features that have since been added to 

prevent off-loading of the iliac load cell: 

integral metal ‘‘standoffs’’ within the 

wing; and a thin steel backer plate 

between the iliac wing and load cell (see 

Section V.b). 

Second, deformation was observed on 

the left side M1 wings after extensive 

use, as noted in the report ‘‘SID–IIs Iliac 

Certification Development,’’ which was 

placed in the docket with the December 

2006 final rule. These two issues could 

lead to an increased chance of the iliac 

wing deforming under load and shorting 

the iliac load cell, which would in turn 

result in lower measured iliac loads. 

This problem of iliac load cell shorting 

was first identified with the M2 iliac 

wings, which are much softer than the 

M1 wings. Thus, it is unknown whether 

this occurred with M1 wings. If load cell 

shorting did occur in any of the M1 

qualification tests, it would have the 

effect of lowering the average response 

somewhat. 

Second, although all M3 wings 

included the new integral metal 

‘‘standoffs,’’ a number of tests in the M3 

data set did not have a backer plate 

installed. If shorting did occur in any of 

these tests, the M3 average peak force 

may be slightly lower than it would 

have been without load cell shorting. 

However, there is no evidence that these 

M3 wings without a backer plate will 

contact the iliac load cell in 

qualification tests as illustrated in the 

‘‘SID–IIsD Iliac Wing Studies’’ report. 

Thus, we do not believe the absence of 

a backer plate affected the load cell 

responses for M3 wings in qualification 

tests (see Section V.b). 

Third, in general, the M1 tests were 

conducted at a slightly higher impact 

velocity than the M3 tests, which 

intuitively could result in higher force 

readings in M1 tests. However, when 

plotting a linear regression through M1 

iliac force responses vs. impact velocity, 

there was no strong correlation with 

impact velocity (R2 = 0.21). Therefore, 

we do not believe these slight 

differences in impact velocities had a 

significant effect on the average peak 

iliac forces. 

In view of the quasi-static and 

dynamic test results from M1 and M3 

iliac wings, we believe that their 

performance in the crash test 

environment will be very similar. Quasistatic test results show that the new M3 

wings are slightly stiffer, while dynamic 

test results indicate slightly higher 

forces in M1 wings. This seeming 

discrepancy leads us to believe that 

differences between the wings are 

29866 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

16SID–IIsD final rule drawing package, Docket 

No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0012. 

17The FTSS iliac wing design is illustrated in its 

petition, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0031. 

within the natural variation of response 

that is seen in different types of test 

environments. Because of this, we 

believe that the wings perform very 

similarly, and that the use of M3 wings 

will not result in iliac forces that are 

consistently higher than M1 iliac wings. 

Thus, allowing a change in the wing 

material formulation is not likely to 

have a significant effect on pelvis force 

measurements in FMVSS No. 214. 

b. Iliac Load Cell Stand-Off Design 

The SID–IIsD final rule adopted an 

iliac wing design that was a 

polyurethane wing (Dwgs. 180–4320–1 

and –2) with an embedded steel support 

plate (Dwg. 180–4321). Additionally, 

the final rule specified the use of a thin 

steel backer plate between the iliac wing 

and the iliac load cell to prevent the 

iliac material from off-loading force to 

the center of the load cell. Figure 1 

illustrates how the backer plate is used 

in conjunction with the iliac wing and 

load cell, as specified in the December 

2006 final rule. 

Requested Change 

In response to the final rule, FTSS 

noted that, in general, the iliac wing 

specified in the final rule has the 

propensity to cause a load path short 

due to its design. According to FTSS, 

the original iliac wing design resulted in 

1⁄8-inch polyurethane material being 

sandwiched between the embedded 

iliac wing support plate and the iliac 

load cell. It found that the amount of 

loading force the iliac is able to 

accurately measure can vary depending 

upon how much torque the iliac 

mounting screws are under, how much 

the polyurethane material creeps over 

time, and how much the iliac maintains 

its original shape. 

FTSS stated that it has designed a 

new iliac substructure (support plate) 

that has a positive bearing surface 

contact between the iliac wing and the 

load cell to create a rigid mounting 

surface between the iliac wing and load 

cell.17 Essentially, the 1⁄8-inch thick 

polyurethane material around the 

mounting screw holes was replaced 

with 1⁄8-inch thick steel ‘‘standoffs’’ that 

extend from the embedded plate to the 

edge of the wing so that the mounting 

screws would draw the iliac wing to the 

load cell through a metal contact instead 

of through polyurethane. According to 

FTSS, this design eliminated the 

potential for load path shorting since 

standard fastener torque values can now 

be specified for the iliac wing mounting 

hardware without losing the torque over 

time, and it also eliminated the material 

creep found in the original iliac design. 

FTSS recommended that NHTSA 

evaluate this new design and include it 

in the drawing package in place of the 

original. 

The Alliance and IIHS also 

recommend the use of Material #3 iliac 

wings with the standoff design. The 

Alliance ‘‘agree[d] with the observation 

that the original wing design can deform 

and off-load the loads being transferred 

to the iliac load cell resulting in 

artificially low measurements.’’ It 

stated, however, that while the use of 

the thin steel backer plate specified in 

the final rule (as shown in Figure 1) will 

reduce the likelihood of off-loading the 

load cell, it will not reduce deformation 

of the polyurethane iliac wing. It 

suggested that a more robust solution 

would be to use a rigid steel plate with 

standoffs that are embedded in the 

polyurethane iliac wing during 

manufacturing. The Alliance stated that 

‘‘this stronger plate with standoffs 

eliminates the possibility of off-axis 

loading.’’ 

The Alliance petition for 

reconsideration also included a 


ER23JN09.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29867 

18We are unsure what is meant by ‘‘mounting 

screw preload,’’ however we believe that it means 

that the mounting screws were tightened to an 

amount less than 60 in-lb. 

19The SAE/DTES material Denton enclosed with 

its petition recommended the standoff design rather 

than the backer plate design. It stated that based 

upon mechanical principles, the standoff design 

eliminates the possibility of material creep that 

could lead to screws loosening. 

20Although the backer plate adds mass to the 

lower torso, it only adds 0.2 lb, or 0.7% of the lower 

torso weight. This small mass increase is not 

expected to appreciably increase the forces 

measured in qualification tests. 

21 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–19. 

presentation given by Denton to the 

OSRP that discussed test results 

supporting use of the standoff design. 

Although details of this presentation are 

not clear, it appears that when Denton 

loaded an iliac load cell through a 

simulated SID–IIs iliac wing without 

standoffs, it observed extrusion of the 

urethane when the mounting screws 

were tightened to 60 inch-pounds (inlb), which it said caused ‘‘shorting’’ of 

the load path. Without a mounting 

screw preload,18 the center of the iliac 

contacted the center of the load cell, 

shorting the load path at approximately 

750 lb (3,336 N). We believe the 

presentation is indicating that without 

standoffs, the mounting screws cannot 

be tightened to a degree where load 

shorting does not occur. I.e., when the 

screws were tightened to 60 in-lb, the 

load path was shorted by extrusion of 

urethane, and when the mounting 

screws were tightened to a lesser degree, 

the path was shorted by contact of the 

center of the wing to the load cell. With 

standoffs, apparently Denton found that 

shorting did not occur. With standoffs, 

when 1000 lb (4,448 N) of load was 

applied to the center and over each 

mounting screw, a worst-case difference 

of 4.3% resulted in measured versus 

applied load, which Denton stated is 

within acceptable limits. Denton did not 

report any shorting of the load path 

when the iliac plate with standoffs was 

tested, although they did observe 

extrusion of the urethane material when 

high loads were applied to the 

simulated wing outside the perimeter of 

the load cell. In its conclusion, Denton’s 

presentation stated that the iliac wings 

without standoffs should not be used.19

Agency Response 

After reviewing the data submitted by 

the petitioners, NHTSA is granting the 

request to have an iliac wing support 

plate with standoffs as part of the iliac 

design. The petitioners provided 

extensive evidence in favor of the 

standoffs. 

At the same time, we are also 

specifying use of the thin steel backer 

plate. When the agency evaluated the 

standoff design, VRTC conducted 

qualification testing of the M3 iliac with 

standoffs, with and without the backer 

plate between the wing and load cell, as 

specified by the final rule (Table 2). 

VRTC found that qualification test 

results from these two iliac 

configurations were very similar. The 

average response from wings without a 

backer plate was always lower than that 

from wings with a backer plate as seen 

in Table 2, but was also always less than 

a 2.5% reduction from the response 

with a plate.20 Thus, the influence of the 

backer plate appears to be negligible. 

However, the plate can act to prevent 

load path shorting through wing contact 

with the center of the load cell. 

Although there were no instances of 

load path shorting during qualification 

tests without a plate, two quasi-static 

tests without a backer plate were 

conducted on both the softest and 

stiffest M3 iliac wings with standoffs. In 

this set of tests, the softest iliac wing 

made contact with the center of the load 

cell at a load of about 3,700 N (831.8 lb). 

To prevent this from happening, we 

have decided to retain use of the thin 

steel backer plate between the iliac wing 

and iliac load cell. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF NHTSA M3 WITH STANDOFFS; ILIAC RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT BACKER PLATE

Pelvis skin No. Iliac wing No. Backer 

plate? 

Number of 

tests 

Peak probe 

acceleration 

Peak lateral 

pelvis acceleration 

Peak iliac 

force 

764 .................................... L–318 Yes .............. 24 AVG. ...........

S.D. .............

%CV ............

40.27 

0.55 

1.4% 

30.87 

1.04 

3.4% 

4686.76 

100.10 

2.1% 

764 .................................... L–318 No ................ 10 AVG. ...........

S.D. .............

%CV ............

39.44 

0.77 

1.9% 

30.43 

1.34 

4.4% 

4574.26 

148.69 

3.3% 

Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response ¥2.06% ¥1.43% ¥2.40% 

765 .................................... R–310 Yes .............. 6 AVG. ...........

S.D. .............

%CV ............

41.79 

0.53 

1.3% 

35.32 

1.08 

3.0% 

4930.00 

102.09 

2.1% 

765 .................................... R–310 No ................ 6 AVG. ...........

S.D. .............

%CV ............

41.50 

0.33 

0.8% 

34.62 

0.96 

2.8% 

4913.20 

70.88 

1.4% 

Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response ¥0.69% ¥1.98% ¥0.34% 

c. Iliac Qualification Procedure 

1. Use of OSRP Procedure 

The final rule established a 

qualification procedure for the pelvis 

iliac load cell, in addition to a 

procedure that assessed the performance 

of the acetabulum load cell. The pelvis 

iliac procedure checks the response 

consistency of the iliac load cell as 

installed in the dummy’s pelvis. In the 

pelvis iliac test, a 13.97 kilogram (kg) 

impactor is accelerated to 4.3 ± 0.1 

meters per second (m/s) and directed 

laterally into the pelvis of the dummy 

such that its impact surface strikes the 

centerline of the iliac access hole in the 

iliac load cell. Performance limits are 

set for peak impactor and pelvis lateral 

accelerations and peak iliac forces. The 

procedure was documented in the 

report ‘‘SID–IIs Iliac Certification 

Development,’’ (August 29, 2006).21

29868 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

22The June 21, 2006 Certification Procedures 

document is available at Docket No. NHTSA–2006– 

25442–0018. The document provides for illustration 

purposes detailed descriptions of the test 

procedures specified for the SID–IIs in 49 CFR part 

572, subpart V, and illustrates how the various tests 

are conducted by NHTSA. 

23 Dated July 1, 2008 and placed in the docket 

with this final rule. ‘‘Certification’’ was changed to 

‘‘Qualification’’ for consistency of terminology in 

NHTSA technical reports and final rules. This 2008 

report updates the 2006 document to reflect all the 

changes discussed in today’s final rule and to make 

minor corrections/clarifications of the text. 24 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0042. 

Requested Change 

In its petition for reconsideration, the 

Alliance requested that the iliac 

qualification procedure be replaced by 

an OSRP procedure since the 

petitioner’s member companies had no 

experience with the final rule test 

condition and probe. 

Agency Response 

This request is denied. The petitioner 

provided no comparative analysis of 

how the OSRP procedure differs from 

that of the final rule, how Alliance 

members would be negatively impacted 

by the final rule procedure, or how the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

OSRP procedure compares to that of the 

final rule. 

Among the differences between the 

two procedures, the OSRP procedure 

uses a calibration bench rather than a 

flat, rigid, horizontal surface; it requires 

the dummy to use the torso jacket and 

cotton underwear pants (unlike the final 

rule that requires removal of the 

clothing); it seats the dummy with the 

pelvis overhanging the seat surface by 

78 ±2 millimeters (mm); and it uses the 

impactor specified for the abdominal 

impact test. 

During NHTSA’s development of the 

iliac qualification test procedure, 

various test conditions and probe faces 

were evaluated, including use of a 

calibration bench and an abdominal 

impactor face as suggested by the OSRP. 

The agency determined that use of the 

calibration bench caused concern since 

it can be difficult to hit the target impact 

area without the pendulum, or its guide 

wires, interfering with the bench. With 

regard to the use of the abdominal 

impactor face, we found that due to the 

geometry of the pelvis, setting the 

abdominal probe face such that it 

interacted with the iliac region in a 

repeatable fashion was difficult, even 

with careful positioning. Because of 

this, a new probe face and procedure 

were developed by the agency for the 

final rule that enable certification of the 

iliac without impacting the pelvis plug. 

Use of an alignment tool was also 

recommended to aid in a repeatable 

setup. Furthermore, NHTSA is satisfied 

that the final rule qualification 

procedure works well and there are no 

identifiable shortcomings of its use by 

the petitioners. 

2. Pelvis Iliac Probe Acceleration 

In the December 14, 2006 final rule, 

§ 572.199 (c)(1) specifies a peak 

‘‘lateral’’ acceleration of the impactor of 

not less than 34 g and not more than 40 

g. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance recommended deleting 

the word ‘‘lateral’’ from the term ‘‘peak 

lateral acceleration of the impactor 

* * * ’’ Denton believes that ‘‘lateral’’ 

should be replaced with ‘‘longitudinal.’’ 

Agency Response 

The agency agrees to delete the word 

‘‘lateral’’ from § 572.199(c)(1), but does 

not agree to add the word 

‘‘longitudinal.’’ The peak impactor 

acceleration is measured on the long 

axis of the probe, so we agree that the 

term ‘‘lateral’’ is inappropriate. 

However, it is unnecessary to state that 

the acceleration is longitudinal. 

3. Specification of Tape 

In the December 14, 2006 final rule, 

the specification for use of tape is found 

in figures V9–A and V9–B of the 

regulatory text, which indicate the use 

of ‘‘masking tape as required to hold 

dummy in position.’’ The use of tape is 

also found in the supporting report, 

‘‘Certification Procedures for the SID–IIs 

Build Level D Side Impact Crash Test 

Dummy,’’ (June 21, 2006), hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘2006 certification 

procedures document.’’ 22 This report 

states for the iliac qualification 

procedure: ‘‘using masking tape from 

the top of the dummy’s head to the 

seating surface, level the shoulder rib so 

that the fore/aft plane is 0ß±1 relative to 

horizontal,’’ and later states to ‘‘adjust 

the masking tape as necessary’’ to 

ensure proper dummy positioning. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance petitioned to request 

that if NHTSA retains the pelvis-iliac 

test as specified in the final rule, then 

it recommends that the width and 

amount of tape allowed to hold the 

dummy in its initial position be 

specified. 

Agency Response 

We agree to this request. We have 

revised the 2006 certification 

procedures document, now named 

‘‘Qualification Procedures for the SID– 

IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy,’’ 23

to clarify the use of tape for dummy 

alignment, as follows: ‘‘Using 

approximately 3 feet of standard 1′′ wide 

masking tape from the top of the 

dummy’s head to the seating surface, 

level the shoulder rib so that the fore/ 

aft plane is 0°±1° relative to horizontal.’’ 

A footnote has been added that states, 

‘‘Alternatively, a material with 

maximum static breaking strength of 

311 N (70 lb) may be used to support the 

dummy in position.’’ (This specification 

was based on a similar specification in 

FMVSS No. 208, paragraph S24.4.2.4, 

which states, ‘‘If necessary, material 

with a maximum breaking strength of 

311 N (70 lb) and spacer blocks may be 

used to support the dummy in 

position.’’) We have also revised Figures 

V9–A and V9–B of the regulatory text 

for the SID–IIs dummy to add the 

footnote, to provide information about 

the characteristics of the masking tape. 

4. Corrections 

A. Specification of Load Cell in 

Regulatory Text 

FTSS informed NHTSA of an error in 

the pelvis-iliac section of the regulatory 

text, section 572.199(a).24 This error was 

also discovered by the agency. The 

section specifies the use of acetabulum 

load cell SA572–S68. We agree with 

FTSS that the section should instead 

specify the iliac wing load cell SA572– 

S66. 

B. Impactor Alignment in Regulatory 

Text 

While reviewing the SID–IIsD final 

rule regulatory text, the agency 

identified an error in the iliac 

qualification test procedures. Section 

572.199(b)(7) describes probe alignment 

prior to the pelvis iliac qualification 

test, and states that ‘‘the 88.9 mm 

dimension of the probe’s impact surface 

is aligned horizontally.’’ The 88.9 mm 

dimension of the probe’s impact surface 

should be aligned vertically, since the 

probe face is a rectangle, 50.8 × 88.9 

mm, and the shorter side of the probe 

face is oriented horizontally, as seen in 

the 2008 qualification procedures 

document. We are making this 

correction in this final rule in 

572.199(b)(8). 

d. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification 

Procedure 

1. Pelvic Plug Pre-Crush and Associated 

Variability 

In the December 14, 2006 final rule, 

NHTSA specified a compression force 

requirement that the pelvis plugs must 

exhibit when pre-crushed a depth of 

2.5–3.5 mm. The pelvis plug crush 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29869 

25NHTSA now uses the phrase ‘‘plug 

qualification’’ instead of ‘‘plug certification,’’ in 

agreement with the terminology for evaluating 

whether a dummy meets the criteria of Part 572. 

26NHTSA data presented in ‘‘Repeatability and 

Reproducibility Analysis of the SID–IIs Build Level 

D Dummy in the Certification Test Environment,’’ 

and ‘‘Repeatability, Reproducibility and Durability 

Evaluation of the SID–IIs Build Level D in the Sled 

Test Environment’’ (Docket No. NHTSA–2006– 

25442). 

27 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0024. 28FTSS addendum to their petition for 

reconsideration, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442– 

0038. We note that the figure in this petition 

incorrectly depicts the final rule loading corridor. 

29A memorandum describing this 

communication has been placed in the docket for 

this final rule. 

development was discussed in the 

technical report entitled, ‘‘SID–IIs Pelvis 

Plug Certification Development,’’ (May 

3, 2006, Docket 2006–25442–010), and 

the pre-crush procedures and plug 

qualification 25 requirements were set 

forth in the plug drawing 180–4450. 

Requested Change 

In petitions for reconsideration, 

Denton/SAE DTES agreed that a precrush depth of 3 mm should be used. 

However, the Alliance expressed 

concern about the levels of variability of 

the pelvic region that it said it observed 

in NHTSA 26 and OSRP tests. The 

Alliance also stated that it observed 

significant differences in acetabulum 

forces in three tests of identical vehicles 

where one test was conducted with a 

pelvis plug pre-crushed 3 mm and two 

tests were conducted with a pelvis plug 

pre-crush of 2 mm. The Alliance 

provided time-history plots of the 

acetabulum force, iliac wing force, 

combined pelvis force, and pelvis 

acceleration from three oblique pole 

tests conducted at three different 

laboratories. The petitioner stated that it 

is not clear whether the differences in 

the acetabulum response are due to the 

differences in the depth of pre-crush or 

due to other variables, and urged 

NHTSA to investigate this further and 

take the variability into consideration 

when developing the final rule for 

FMVSS No. 214. 

Agency Response 

We are not making any changes to the 

pelvis plug pre-crush procedure. The 

Alliance provided no discussion related 

to its concern about the variability of 

OSRP data and NHTSA data in the 

qualification and sled test 

environments. Additionally, the OSRP 

data was not submitted to the docket, so 

no comparisons could be made by the 

agency. 

In response to the three vehicle test 

results, no conclusions can be drawn 

from the figures provided by the 

Alliance because two of the pelvis plugs 

used in the tests were pre-crushed only 

2 mm. We have found that the pelvis 

response using plugs pre-crushed only 2 

mm is unpredictable. As discussed in 

the ‘‘SID–IIs Pelvis Plug Certification 

Development’’ report released with the 

December 2006 final rule,27 VRTC has 

found that the pelvis plug requires at 

least 3 (±0.5) mm of crush in order to 

characterize the plug response and 

ensure repeatable and reproducible 

pelvis responses in qualification, sled 

and vehicle tests. This is because the 

plug response does not become linear 

until after 2.5 mm of crush, as shown in 

Figure 5 of this report. It is necessary to 

reach this linear region during plug 

qualification so that plug behavior at 

higher levels of compression (e.g., in 

qualification, sled and vehicle tests) can 

be predicted. At 2 mm of crush, as was 

used in two of the vehicle tests referred 

to by the Alliance, the plug response is 

still within a transition region, where 

plug behavior at higher levels of crush 

cannot be predicted. Thus, 2 mm of plug 

pre-crush is insufficient. 

Based on the agency’s experience 

with the pelvis plugs, the Alliance’s 

finding that the acetabulum forces and 

other pelvis measurements were 

different for plugs pre-crushed 2 mm 

and plugs pre-crushed 3 mm is not 

surprising. Since the high-crush 

responses of plugs pre-crushed 2 mm 

are not predictable, the responses 

derived from these plugs are not 

comparable to those from 3 mm precrushed plugs. Differences between the 

2 mm plug traces and the 3 mm plug 

trace could have occurred because these 

two 2 mm plugs had similar properties 

that did not match those of the 3 mm 

plug, but ultimately, there is no way of 

knowing what the behavior of these two 

2 mm pre-crushed plugs was going to 

be. Furthermore, we do not know the 

extent by which the responses may have 

been affected by the variability in 

dummy set-up procedures and crash 

tests at the three different labs. 

2. Pelvic Plug Qualification Corridor 

In the December 14, 2006 final rule, 

plug qualification requirements were 

provided in the ‘‘SID–IIs Pelvis Plug 

Certification Development’’ (May 3, 

2006) report and on drawing 180–4450 

of the SID–IIsD drawing package. 

Following the final rule, FTSS 

indicated that it carried out extensive 

testing on the pelvis plug according to 

the final rule procedures and corridors, 

testing close to one thousand pelvis 

plugs. Compression force at deflections 

of 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.5 

mm and 3.0 mm were provided and 

plotted in their petition addendum.28

From this data, FTSS petitioned NHTSA 

to alter the loading portion of the pelvis 

plug qualification corridor so that it has 

the following coordinates: Lower bound 

(0.5 mm, 50 N) and (1.5 mm, 915 N); 

upper bound (0.5 mm, 850 N) and (1.5 

mm, 1715 N). The lower bound of the 

FTSS-proposed corridor is slightly 

steeper in slope, but very close to the 

lower bound of the final rule corridor, 

which has the coordinates (0.5 mm, 50 

N) and (1.5 mm, 850 N). The upper 

bound of the FTSS proposed corridor 

allows for forces 250–315 N higher than 

the upper bound of the final rule 

corridor, which has the coordinates (0.5 

mm, 600 N) and (0.5 mm, 1400 N). FTSS 

did not petition to change the 

requirements at the end of the plug 

compression, therefore, the forcedeflection ‘‘box’’ at 3 ± 0.5 mm of 

deflection would be the same. 

Agency Response 

The agency is denying this request. 

NHTSA’s concern is that it is unknown 

whether the loading portion of the plug 

force-deflection response has an effect 

on the dummy response in qualification, 

sled or vehicle tests. After receiving the 

petition, VRTC requested FTSS to 

explain its comment by providing 

pelvis-acetabulum qualification data 

that corresponded to the plug data 

provided in their petition. Such data 

could better show the agency that the 

dummy could still pass this 

qualification test using plugs that met 

the FTSS-suggested plug loading 

corridor and the force-deflection 

corridor at 3±0.5 mm.29 In response to 

this request, FTSS provided data, but 

the data were unhelpful. The passing 

test results that were provided had 

either pelvis plug traces that fell within 

the suggested loading corridor and the 

final rule loading corridor, or did not 

meet the force-deflection box at 3±0.5 

mm. Therefore, it could not be 

determined whether plugs that have 

traces that fell within the suggested 

corridor but outside the final rule 

corridor would still pass pelvisacetabulum qualification tests. NHTSA 

is denying FTSS’s petition to change the 

loading portion of the pelvis plug 

qualification corridor because it has not 

been demonstrated that the suggested 

corridor is acceptable. 

3. Pelvis Acceleration Requirement 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

specified a pelvis acetabulum 

qualification procedure and set 

performance corridors for peak pelvis 

lateral acceleration (§ 572.198). 

29870 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

30 69 FR at 70961, December 8, 2004. 

Requested Change 

Denton/SAE DTES recommended 

removing the pelvis lateral acceleration 

requirement from the test due to what 

was believed to be a large variability of 

response. An attachment to the 

petitioner’s submission stated that a 

member of the SAE DTES presented 

pelvis lateral acceleration data from 

three different laboratories where the 

data looked distinctly different. It was 

noted in the attachment that the shape 

of the pelvis lateral acceleration peak 

varied widely, even with a single 

dummy in one lab. The DTES discussed 

possible reasons for the high variability 

of the first peak, but were not able to 

discern a definite explanation for this 

behavior. Although they agreed that 

variability was reduced when the 

acceleration peak was taken after 5 ms, 

they did not think that the measurement 

was necessary for qualification of the 

dummy and therefore recommended 

that the peak pelvis lateral acceleration 

be dropped. Alternatively (as seen in the 

next section), if the pelvis lateral 

acceleration parameter were not 

dropped, Denton/SAE DTES 

recommended to take the peak after 5 

ms to eliminate the variable first peak. 

Agency Response 

We are denying the request to remove 

the peak pelvis lateral acceleration from 

the pelvis acetabulum qualification 

procedure. The petitioner’s request that 

the pelvis lateral acceleration 

measurement be removed appears to 

have originated from the 

subcommittee’s observation of 

variability in the first peak. This first 

peak is primarily dependent on the plug 

characteristics. The petitionerreferenced data was obtained from plugs 

pre-crushed to 2 mm. As discussed in 

the previous section, 2 mm of crush is 

not sufficient to assure consistent 

performance of the plug in high-crush 

environments. Therefore, it is likely that 

the variation observed by the petitioner 

was due to varying plug characteristics 

resulting from insufficient plug precrush. Because the petitioner based its 

request on pelvis plugs pre-crushed 2 

mm, there is no reasonable basis for 

removing the measurement of peak 

pelvis lateral acceleration. In addition, 

the pelvis lateral acceleration 

measurement provides additional 

information as to the whole pelvis 

response which further assesses the 

response of the parts, and its 

requirement in the final rule should be 

maintained. (However, we are limiting 

the time period during which peak 

lateral acceleration will be measured, as 

discussed in the next section.) 

4. Measuring Peak Pelvis Lateral 

Acceleration 5 ms or More After Contact 

In the NPRM proposed regulatory 

text, S572.197(c)(2) 30 specified that the 

peak lateral pelvis acceleration was to 

be taken at 5 ms or more after the 

impactor contacts the dummy. The final 

rule did not include a time specification 

for this measurement. 

Requested Change 

FTSS requested that the peak lateral 

pelvis acceleration be taken 5 ms or 

more after the impactor contacts the 

dummy. FTSS believed that the 

variation in the data was much greater 

when the overall peak was taken instead 

of the peak after 5 ms, and noted that 

the first, larger peak is an inertial peak 

due to loading of the pelvis plug. The 

Alliance referenced a recommendation 

from the SAE DTES suggesting that this 

peak be taken after 5 ms. 

Agency Response 

We agree that there should be a time 

specification for the measurement of the 

peak pelvis lateral acceleration. The 

final rule preamble did not discuss why 

the proposed time specification was not 

adopted. As discussed in the previous 

section, the first peak of the pelvis 

lateral acceleration response, which 

occurs in the first 5–6 ms, is based 

primarily on the plug response. Since 

the pelvis-acetabulum test aims to verify 

the pelvis response, not the plug 

response, the acceleration during the 

first 5–6 ms should not be included. 

However, NHTSA examined pelvis 

lateral acceleration traces in 11 side 

impact crash tests conducted with the 

SID–IIs Build Level D dummy to 

determine if the first peak, which results 

from initial pelvis plug crush in 

qualification tests, was part of the 

dummy response in vehicle tests. (If the 

first peak were part of the dummy 

response, we would be disinclined to 

disregard this peak in dummy 

qualification.) Crash test results showed 

generally unimodal pelvis Y 

accelerations, indicating that in vehicle 

tests, the initial plug crush does not 

play a significant role in the results. 

To determine after what point in time 

the peak lateral pelvis acceleration 

should be taken, NHTSA analyzed 

pelvis lateral acceleration traces for 46 

pelvis-acetabulum qualification tests 

from four dummies and two labs. The 

data clearly showed multiple, distinct 

peaks as seen in Figure 2. As mentioned 

previously, the first main peak and 

second small ‘‘bump’’ in the data are 

due to the pendulum impacting the 

pelvis plug and (most likely) the pelvis 

flesh, respectively. The second major 

peak (called the ‘‘second peak’’ 

henceforth) represents the response of 

the dummy after the leg mass comes 

into play, and is the measure of interest 

for qualification of the dummy. As the 

petitioners claimed, the first peak was 

consistently higher than the second 

peak. In order to prevent measuring this 

first, less meaningful peak for 

qualification, the petitioners 

recommended that the peak pelvis 

acceleration value be taken after 5 ms 

after probe contact with the dummy. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29871 

It was not clear from the data that 5 

ms was the most appropriate time to 

begin measuring a peak value. For each 

of these 46 traces, the peak values after 

5 ms, 6 ms and 7 ms were obtained in 

order to determine how much time after 

probe impact should be disregarded to 

prevent the first peak from being 

measured. It was found that in five of 

the 46 tests, the maximum value after 5 

ms was higher than that after 6 or 7 ms, 

because the value of the decreasing 

‘‘first peak’’ response at 5 ms was higher 

than the main dummy response peak 

value. Four of these 5 instances 

occurred in Dummy S/N 20, and are 

seen in Figure 3 below. These cases led 

the agency to determine that the peak 

should be taken after 6 ms. However, in 

two tests, the peak of the main dummy 

response occurred just before 6 ms (see 

Figure 4), causing the peak after 6 ms to 

be slightly less than the actual peak. 

This occurrence was rare, though, and 

only resulted in an error of 

approximately 0.1 g for both tests. As a 

result of this evaluation, this final rule 

specifies that the peak pelvis lateral 

acceleration be taken after 6 ms. 

Currently, there is no definition for 

‘‘time zero’’ in the pelvis-acetabulum 

qualification test procedures (section 

572.198(b)). Because of this, the time 

point ‘‘6 ms’’ cannot be defined. 

Therefore, to implement measuring the 

pelvis lateral acceleration after 6 ms, the 

agency is adding a provision to 

§ 572.198(b) that defines time zero. 

Time zero was defined in the 2006 

certification procedures document that 

was released concurrently with the 

December 2006 final rule, but there was 

not a need then to include the definition 

in the regulatory text of the final rule. 

Time zero was defined in the 2006 

certification procedures document as 

follows: ‘‘Time zero is defined as the 

time of contact between the impact 

probe and the pelvis plug. All channels 

are at a zero level at this point.’’ Since 

defining time zero is now needed, this 

final rule adds a section 572.198(b)(11) 

to the regulatory text that specifies that 

time zero is defined as the time of 

contact between the impact probe and 

the pelvis plug. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


ER23JN09.001</GPH>
29872 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 


ER23JN09.002</GPH> ER23JN09.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29873 

31The document has been placed in the docket 

for this final rule. 

VI. Shoulder Qualification Procedures 

a. Impact Velocity 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

specified an impact velocity of 4.4 ±0.1 

m/s for the shoulder and abdomen 

qualification test procedures. The thorax 

without arm and pelvis iliac tests use an 

impact velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES 

recommended that the impact velocity 

of the shoulder and abdomen 

qualification procedures be consistent 

with the thorax without arm and pelvis 

iliac tests. The Alliance specifically 

recommended that all the subject tests 

use an impact velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s 

to minimize setup errors in conducting 

qualification tests. It further suggested 

that the lower speed was more 

consistent with shoulder rib deflection 

measurements from NHTSA’s FMVSS 

No. 214 fleet testing program. It found 

the following average shoulder rib 

deflections in NHTSA’s testing: 32.4 

mm for driver in pole tests; 19.3 mm for 

driver in MDB tests; and 27.9 mm for 

rear passenger in MDB tests. It also 

found that the average deflection for 

qualification tests conducted between 

4.2 and 4.4 m/s from FTSS and NHTSA 

is 33.7 mm, which is greater than 

average shoulder deflections in the fleet 

tests and which, the petitioners 

believed, further supported a reduction 

in impact velocity for the shoulder 

qualification test. 

Agency Response 

We are granting this request. We agree 

that having the same impact speed for 

all subject qualification tests would be 

more convenient than having different 

speeds. However, because the tests used 

to support the December 2006 final rule 

were conducted at 4.4±0.1 m/s, and data 

submitted in petitions for 

reconsideration contained tests 

conducted at 4.4±0.1 m/s, little data 

existed between 4.2–4.3 m/s. Therefore, 

to evaluate the petitioners’ request, 

VRTC conducted six shoulder 

qualification tests, with two tests on 

each of three dummies, at velocities 

ranging from 4.20–4.23 m/s. These tests 

were included with the existing 

shoulder qualification data, which was 

then analyzed as two separate data sets: 

one with tests conducted at impact 

velocities from 4.2–4.4 m/s and one 

with tests conducted at 4.3–4.5 m/s. The 

mean responses in each data set are very 

similar, as shown in Table 3. However, 

it is important to note that in looking at 

Figure 5, the average of the entire 

4.4±0.1 m/s data set is close to the 

average of the responses between only 

4.3–4.4 m/s, which make up the 

majority of the 4.3±0.1 m/s data set. 

Thus, similarity of means between the 

4.4±0.1 m/s and 4.3±0.1 m/s data sets 

may be partially due to the majority of 

points in the 4.3±0.1 m/s data set being 

between 4.3–4.4 m/s. 

TABLE 3—STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SHOULDER QUALIFICATION TEST RESULTS AT 4.3 VS. 4.4 M/S IMPACT VELOCITIES

Peak probe 

acceleration 

Peak T1 

acceleration 

Peak shoulder 

deflection 

4.3±0.1 m/s impact velocity ........................................................................ N ......................... 67 50 67 

Mean ................... 15.53 19.26 33.33 

SD ....................... 0.99 1.19 2.05 

CV ....................... 6.40% 6.19% 6.16% 

4.4±0.1 m/s impact velocity ........................................................................ N ......................... 120 69 120 

Mean ................... 15.79 19.43 33.50 

SD ....................... 0.93 1.10 1.61 

CV ....................... 5.90% 5.67% 4.81% 

Figure 5 shows the peak shoulder 

deflection responses with respect to the 

impact speed of the pendulum. It is 

observed that the peak deflections are 

noticeably lower at impact speeds of 

approximately 4.2 m/s. Because of this 

observation, the qualification 

performance corridors have been formed 

with the mindset that the statistical 

corridor (which is centered at the mean 

of the data set) may have to be adjusted 

to accommodate low deflections at the 

low impact velocities, since the mean of 

the 4.2–4.4 m/s data set may be slightly 

high due to the majority of tests being 

conducted between 4.3–4.4 m/s. The 

revised corridors are discussed in 

‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD 

Qualification Specifications in Response 

to Petitions for Reconsideration (July 1, 

2008),’’ 31 and in section XI.a of this 

preamble. We believe that by adjusting 

the performance corridor to reflect 

deflection responses at lower impact 

velocities, the new performance corridor 

will satisfactorily represent dummy 

responses over the full range of the 

revised specified impact velocities. 

29874 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

32Shoulder deflections in NHTSA crash tests 

ranged from 4.7–40.7 mm and 15.9–40.4 mm for the 

driver and passenger (respectively) in MDB tests, 

and from 8.6–51.2 mm for the driver in FMVSS No. 

214 pole tests (NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS 214 

Upgrade, MY 2004–2005; test data memorandum in 

NHTSA Docket No. 2007–29134–003). Additional 

32 km/h (20 mph) pole tests conducted on six 2006 

and 2007 MY vehicles produced shoulder rib 

deflections ranging from 18.9–58.4 mm, with an 

average of 38.0 mm (tests are summarized in Table 

1, 73 FR at 32477, and data are available in the 

NHTSA vehicle crash test database). 

33There is a typographical error in the final rule 

regulatory text: the arm position should be 

measured relative to the ‘‘inferior-superior’’ 

orientation of the upper torso spine box incline. We 

are correcting this error in this final rule. 

To support its petition, the Alliance 

also made the argument that the impact 

velocity should be reduced to 4.3 ±0.1 

m/s because the average shoulder 

deflections in agency crash tests are 

lower than those resulting from 

qualification tests. This is true; the 

average shoulder deflections in agency 

crash tests were somewhat lower than 

the average deflections in qualification 

tests (shown in Table 3). However, we 

do not agree that it is necessary for the 

average shoulder deflections in 

qualification tests to align precisely 

with the average deflection in crash 

tests. This is due to the large variations 

in crash test shoulder deflection 

measurements 32 as compared to the 

relative closeness of shoulder deflection 

responses at a 4.3±0.1 m/s vs. 4.4±0.1 

m/s impact velocity. Additionally, the 

agency usually establishes qualification 

tests to exercise dummy components at 

the level of the IARV, not at the level 

of the average recorded measurement in 

a crash test. Here, however, since there 

are no proposed shoulder injury criteria 

with which to establish a ‘‘target’’ 

deflection for qualification tests, we 

believe that the deflections obtained at 

either the 4.3 ±0.1 m/s or 4.4 ±0.1 m/s 

test speeds are acceptable, given that 

compared to the variation in shoulder 

deflections in crash tests, the deflections 

at 4.3 ±0.1 m/s versus 4.4 ±0.1 m/s are 

relatively close. Therefore, we are 

agreeable to reducing the test’s impact 

velocity to 4.3 ±0.1 m/s. 

b. Arm Position 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(§ 572.194(b)(7)) states, ‘‘Orient the arm 

to point forward at 90 degrees relative 

to the interior-superior orientation of 

the upper torso spine box incline.’’ 33

Requested Change 

The Alliance recommended replacing 

the sentence with, ‘‘Orient the arm 

forward into the 90 degree detent 

position.’’ 

Agency Response 

This request is denied. It is important 

for this test that the arm be oriented at 

the angle as described in the final rule 

regulatory text. We recognize that the 

arm would likely be in the same 

physical location when it is ‘‘in the 90 

degree detent position’’ as when it is 

oriented ‘‘to point forward at 90 degrees 

relative to the inferior-superior 

orientation of the upper torso spine box 

incline.’’ However, it is possible that the 

detent could become worn over time, 

resulting in an arm position that is 

somewhat off of 90 degrees. Therefore, 

the arm angle specification will remain 

as stated in the final rule. Additionally, 

to make the agency’s intent clearer, 

Figure V4–A is amended such that 

‘‘ARM IN 90° DETENT’’ is replaced with 

‘‘ARM 90° ± 2° RELATIVE TO UPPER 

TORSO’’ and a dashed line indicating 

the reference line of the upper torso is 

added. The qualification procedures 

document is also amended by adding 

the ±2° tolerance to the specified angle. 

Relatedly, we note that the thorax 

with arm, pelvis acetabulum, and pelvis 

iliac tests specify that the SID–IIs arm 

should be oriented so it is in the ‘‘lowest 

detent.’’ We believe this wording could 

cause confusion, as it may be unclear 

whether the ‘‘lowest detent’’ should 

place the arm pointing downward or in 

a direction parallel to the orientation of 

the upper torso. For this reason, and for 

consistency with the wording used in 

the shoulder test, we have made the 

following changes to the regulatory text. 

In the thorax with arm test procedure, 

section 572.195(b)(7), ‘‘Orient the arm 

downward to the lowest detent’’ is 

changed to ‘‘Orient the arm downward 

to the lowest detent such that the 

longitudinal centerline of the arm is 


ER23JN09.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29875 

34Overall and ‘‘after 5 ms’’ peak accelerations 

collected at TRC and MGA are included in an 

agency memo with SID–IIs qualification data 

(NHTSA–2006–25442–0043) and in the appendix to 

the report ‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD 

Qualification Specifications in Response to 

Petitions for Reconsideration, (July 1, 2008).’’ 

Additionally, data traces for MGA data are available 

in crash test reports for pole and MDB crash tests 

conducted at MGA in support of the FMVSS No. 

214 upgrade. Reports are available in NHTSA’s 

vehicle crash database, and test numbers are 

provided in Docket No. NHTSA–2007–29134–0003. 

35FTSS was contacted to determine whether the 

peak probe accelerations were taken after 5 ms. See 

ex parte memorandum, Docket No. NHTSA–2006– 

25442–0039. 

parallel to the inferior-superior 

orientation of the spine box.’’ Similarly, 

in the pelvis-acetabulum test procedure, 

section 572.198(b)(7), ‘‘Rotate the arm 

downward to the lowest detent’’ is 

changed to ‘‘Rotate the arm downward 

to the lowest detent such that the 

longitudinal centerline of the arm is 

parallel to the inferior-superior 

orientation of the spine box.’’ In the 

pelvis-iliac test, section 572.199 does 

not include arm positioning procedures, 

but Figure V9–A referenced in this 

section shows the arm pointing 

downward and notes that it is in the 

‘‘lowest detent.’’ For consistency with 

other test procedures and to clarify arm 

position, we have added in section 

572.199 the following text: ‘‘Orient the 

arm downward to the lowest detent 

such that the longitudinal centerline of 

the arm is parallel to the inferiorsuperior orientation of the spine box.’’ 

VII. Thorax With Arm Qualification 

Procedures 

a. Peak Impactor Acceleration 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(§ 572.195(c)(3)) specified a corridor for 

the peak acceleration of the impactor. 

Requested Change 

Petitioners FTSS, the Alliance, and 

Denton requested that the criterion for 

peak acceleration of the impactor be 

limited to all values after 5 ms after time 

zero. FTSS stated that a review of recent 

FTSS qualification data shows that 20% 

of 200 Thorax with Arm impact tests fail 

if the initial spike (within the first 5 ms) 

is measured, but only 4% of these same 

tests fail if the initial acceleration spike 

is disregarded and the peak acceleration 

is measured after 5 ms. The petitioner 

concluded that the initial spike is a 

result of the initial contact of the probe 

with the arm and is not a factor when 

assessing the performance of the ribs. 

The Alliance also stated that the first 

peak of the impactor acceleration is due 

to the inertial response of the arm, 

which, the petitioner stated, is 

demonstrated to have greater variability 

than the response of the thorax (later 

peak). The Alliance thus recommended 

a time requirement be added to the 

performance criteria for the peak 

impactor acceleration. The Alliance also 

provided example traces where the 

inertial peak was both larger and 

smaller than the peak response of the 

thorax. 

Agency Response 

The agency agrees that the peak 

impactor acceleration should be taken 

after 5 ms. Data traces from 12 tests at 

the Transportation Research Center 

(TRC) were analyzed in the same 

manner as the pelvis lateral acceleration 

traces discussed above in this preamble. 

Unlike the peak pelvis lateral 

acceleration, however, the first peak of 

the thorax with arm impactor 

acceleration is almost always lower than 

the main response. In fact, in all of these 

12 tests, as well as in an additional 11 

tests conducted at TRC, 19 at MGA,34

and in the 25 tests from FTSS that were 

included in the SAE DTES meeting 

minutes attached to the Denton 

petition,35 the overall peak was after 5 

ms. However, given that the petitioners 

provided evidence that the first peak 

can be larger than the second, taking the 

peak impactor acceleration after 5 ms 

would provide a safeguard against 

measuring the inertial response. 

Therefore, the request is granted. 

b. Time Zero 

As previously discussed for the peak 

pelvis lateral acceleration in pelvis 

acetabulum tests, it is necessary to 

define time zero in the regulatory text 

for the thorax with arm test. Time zero 

will be defined as the time of contact 

between the impact probe and the arm, 

similar to how the agency has defined 

time zero elsewhere in this regulation. 

This definition will be incorporated into 

section 572.195(b)(11) of the regulatory 

text. 

c. Reported Noise in Potentiometers 

The Alliance stated that it observed 

noise in the data from the half-inch 

servo potentiometers in the shoulder 

and thorax-with-arm qualification tests. 

The SAE DTES meeting minutes 

reported that drop testing showed clean 

signals with the potentiometers, so it 

was not known whether the noise was 

an electrical problem or a potentiometer 

problem. The Alliance stated that in 

some cases, the magnitude of the noise 

exceeded the magnitude of the primary 

response and may inadvertently be used 

as the peak value for comparison to the 

performance criteria. Data were 

provided by Denton in Attachments 4 

and 5 of the SAE DTES minutes dated 

January 19, 2007. The petitioners did 

not recommend a rulemaking action to 

be taken. The agency analyzed the 

provided data traces, as well as agency 

data from thorax-with-arm and shoulder 

qualification tests, and does not believe 

there to be a problem with the dummy 

design. This issue is discussed more 

fully in the memorandum, ‘‘Analysis of 

Reported Noise in Potentiometers,’’ 

docketed with this final rule. 

VIII. Thorax Without Arm Petitioned 

Issues 

a. Peak Impactor Acceleration 

In the December 14, 2006 final rule, 

§ 572.196(c)(3) reads, ‘‘Peak lateral 

impactor acceleration shall not be less 

than 14 g and not more than 18 g.’’ 

Requested Change 

The Alliance recommended deleting 

the word ‘‘lateral’’ from the term ‘‘peak 

lateral impactor acceleration.’’ 

Agency Response 

This request is granted. The peak 

impactor acceleration is measured on 

the long axis of the probe, thus the term 

‘‘lateral’’ is inappropriate. Section 

572.196(c)(3) is changed to state: ‘‘Peak 

impactor acceleration shall not be 

* * *,’’ as petitioned. 

b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench 

While reviewing the Part 572 

regulatory text for the SID–IIsD, the 

agency found two slight errors in 

section 572.196(b)(3). The final rule 

stated: ‘‘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 * * *.’’ However, as seen in the 

figures at the end of the subpart, the 

figure corresponding to the thorax 

without arm test is Figure V6–A, not 

V4–A, and the vertical plane for dummy 

alignment is located within 10 (not 25) 

mm of the side edge of the bench. The 

regulatory text is corrected to refer to 

Figure V6–A and to the 10 mm value. 

IX. Abdomen Qualification Procedure 

a. Impact Velocity 

As previously discussed, the 

December 14, 2006 final rule specifies 

an impact velocity of 4.4 ±0.1 m/s for 

the shoulder and abdomen qualification 

test procedures. The thorax without arm 

and pelvis iliac tests use an impact 

velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES 

recommended that the impact velocity 

of the shoulder and abdomen 

29876 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

36Results of tests conducted by VRTC between 

4.2 and 4.3 m/s can be found in an agency 

memorandum providing the revised SID–IIs 

qualification data set (NHTSA–2006–25442–0043), 

and in the report ‘‘Analysis and Development of 

SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications in Response 

to Petitions for Reconsideration,’’ July 1, 2008. 

Seven additional tests conducted after this 

memorandum was placed in the docket are 

included in the appendix of the previously 

mentioned qualification report. 

qualification procedures be consistent 

with the thorax without arm and pelvis 

iliac tests. The Alliance specifically 

recommended that all the subject tests 

use an impact velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s 

to minimize setup errors in conducting 

qualification tests. The petitioner also 

stated that the NPRM proposed an 

impact velocity of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s and the 

final rule gave no reason for the 

increase. The Alliance further stated 

that NHTSA indicated that the agency 

will be monitoring the deflections 

measured by the abdominal ribs and 

considering for future rulemaking an 

Injury Assessment Reference Value 

(IARV) of 45 mm for the ribs. The 

petitioner stated that in NHTSA’s 

abdominal qualification tests conducted 

at 4.5 m/s, half of the specimens 

exceeded 45 mm of deflection in one or 

both of the abdominal ribs. The Alliance 

believed that by lowering the impact 

velocity from 4.4 ±0.1 m/s to 4.3 ±0.1 m/ 

s, the goal of selecting an appropriate 

impact speed near the magnitude of the 

research limit is better achieved. 

Agency Response 

We agree to the petitioners’ request. 

To evaluate the request, we examined 

the results of the few abdomen tests 

conducted between 4.2–4.3 m/s prior to 

the final rule, and the results of new 

data from VRTC.36 Using the entire data 

set, NHTSA re-evaluated the impact 

velocity responses both at the 4.3±0.1 

m/s and 4.4±0.1 m/s impact velocity 

ranges. A summary of the 4.3 m/s and 

4.4 m/s data sets is provided in Table 4. 

(We must note again, however, that only 

13 tests were conducted at impact 

velocities that produced input energies 

less than those allowed for the 4.4 ± 0.1 

m/s data set. Therefore, the majority of 

the data in the 4.3 m/s data set is also 

included in the 4.4 m/s data set.) 

TABLE 4—STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF ABDOMINAL QUALIFICATION RESULTS FROM TESTS CONDUCTED AT 4.3±0.1 M/S

VS. 4.4±0.1 M/S IMPACT VELOCITY

Peak probe 

acceleration 

(g) 

Peak upper rib 

deflection 

(mm) 

Peak lower rib 

deflection 

(mm) 

Peak T12 

lateral 

acceleration 

(g) 

4.3 m/s impact velocity ......................................................... N .................... 64 64 64 64 

Mean ............. 13.97 41.99 39.78 11.71 

SD ................. 0.93 3.00 3.47 1.07 

CV ................. 6.64% 7.15% 8.72% 9.17% 

4.4 m/s impact velocity ......................................................... N .................... 115 115 115 115 

Mean ............. 13.78 43.62 42.10 11.78 

SD ................. 0.90 2.53 2.92 1.07 

CV ................. 6.57% 5.80% 6.95% 9.09% 

As shown in Table 4, the mean 

responses were somewhat lower and 

more variable at 4.3 ± 0.1 m/s for rib 

deflection measurements. However, we 

have accounted for this by lowering and 

slightly expanding the qualification 

corridor bounds, as discussed in Section 

XI.d. 

While we have reduced the test’s 

impact velocity, we do not agree with 

the petitioner’s argument that the 

impact velocity should be reduced 

because the 4.4 ±0.1 m/s test speed is 

too severe. We reduced the velocity 

because the deflections obtained in the 

4.3 ±0.1 m/s data set are also close to the 

proposed IARV, and because we do not 

anticipate any problems from 

conducting the test at a slightly lower 

speed. When looking at abdomen 

qualification tests with input energies 

corresponding to impact velocities of 

4.4 ±0.1 m/s, approximately 20% of 

abdominal rib deflections are greater 

than 45 mm. This percentage drops to 

about 10.5% for the 4.3 ±0.1 m/s data 

set. Based on these percentages, we 

believe that either impact speed would 

be acceptable in terms of the test’s 

severity compared to the IARV. But, 

because the test was proposed to be 

conducted at 4.3 ±0.1 m/s in the NPRM, 

and because we do not anticipate any 

problems with reducing the test speed, 

we are granting the petitioner’s request. 

Details about the qualification data and 

performance corridors are provided in 

the report ‘‘Analysis and Development 

of SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications 

in Response to Petitions for 

Reconsideration,’’ supra, and in section 

XI of this preamble. 

b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench 

In section 572.197(b)(3), the December 

14, 2006 final rule stated: ‘‘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 * * *.’’ 

However, as seen in the figure at the end 

of the subpart, the vertical plane for 

dummy alignment is located within 10 

(not 25) mm of the side edge of the 

bench. The regulatory text is corrected 

to refer to the 10 mm value. 

X. Other Testing Issues 

a. Dummy Clothing 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

specified that the shoulder, thorax with 

arm, thorax without arm and abdomen 

qualification tests be conducted with 

the dummy wearing its torso jacket 

(180–3450) and cotton underwear pants. 

The pelvis-acetabulum and pelvis-iliac 

tests, however, were to be conducted 

without the torso jacket and without the 

cotton underwear pants. The dummy 

was not to wear shoes for any of the 

above qualification tests. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance petitioned that all fullbody qualification impact tests be 

conducted with the torso jacket, cotton 

underwear pants and shoes installed 

due to time and effort involved in 

removing and replacing the dummy’s 

clothes and shoes. 

Agency Response 

The request is denied. The clothing 

specifications were put in place to better 

ensure that accurate and repeatable test 

measurements could be obtained during 

dummy qualification. For the pelvisVerDate Nov<24>2008 16:17 Jun 22, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR3.SGM 23JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29877 

37Qualification corridors for the pelvis iliac and 

acetabulum tests were determined with data 

collected after 30 minute recovery times. However, 

we do not expect this to have an effect on the 

placement of the corridors for the following 

reasons. In the pelvis-iliac test, peak impactor 

acceleration and peak iliac force data from FTSS 

were generally lower than NHTSA data, resulting in 

corridors that would easily include lower NHTSA 

responses, if a longer recovery period would have 

produced somewhat lower measurements. For the 

pelvis acceleration performance criterion, some of 

the NHTSA data is on the low side of corridor; 

however, the established corridor is already very 

wide to account for the wide range of responses 

from NHTSA and FTSS, and it would not be 

desirable to widen it any further, even if some 

NHTSA responses would fall slightly below the 

corridor if a two hour recovery time was 

implemented. In the pelvis acetabulum test, many 

of the data came from tests where dummies were 

impacted once or twice per day, meaning that any 

rise in response due to repeat tests would probably 

have a minimal impact on the data set as a whole 

(and therefore, have a minimal impact on the 

corridor placement). 

iliac and pelvis-acetabulum tests, the 

cotton underwear pants are removed to 

eliminate the effect that the clothing 

could have on the measured response. 

Additionally, removal of the pants 

simplifies alignment of the probe and 

better ensures that probe interaction 

with the dummy is consistent from test 

to test. The chest jacket must be 

removed because the ‘‘crotch strip’’ 

(drawing 180–3450, sheet 2 of 3), which 

is guided through the dummy’s legs to 

attach the front of the jacket to the back 

of the jacket, can cause the dummy to 

rock slightly on the test surface. This 

‘‘rocking’’ can also lead to problems 

with misalignment of the probe or 

inconsistent probe interaction with the 

dummy. Further, removal of the chest 

jacket is very easy and not burdensome. 

The agency considered whether 

removing or adjusting the crotch strip, 

while keeping the chest jacket on the 

dummy, would simplify the test 

procedure. The agency determined that 

although it would be possible to 

conduct the pelvis tests with only the 

crotch strip removed or adjusted, 

keeping the jacket on the dummy for the 

pelvis acetabulum test would make 

positioning the dummy against the seat 

back more difficult. 

Accordingly, for the reasons provided, 

the dummy clothing specifications will 

remain as specified in the final rule. 

b. Recovery Time Between Tests 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

specified a minimum recovery time of 

30 minutes between repeat tests of the 

same qualification test for the neck 

qualification test. A recovery time of 30 

minutes is also given for the shoulder, 

thorax, abdomen and pelvis-acetabulum 

qualification tests in the 2006 

certification procedures document. The 

head, which references the procedure 

given in 49 CFR 572.112(a), is given a 

recovery time of 2 hours between repeat 

tests in the December 2006 final rule. 

The pelvis-iliac test procedure provided 

in the 2006 certification procedures 

document specifies a recovery time of 1 

hour. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance petitioned for a 

minimum recovery time of 30 minutes 

between repeat tests of the same 

qualification test for all tests, except for 

the lateral head drop test, which the 

petitioner recommended should have a 

recovery time of 2 hours between 

repeats of the same qualification test. 

Agency Response 

The petitioner suggested a change to 

the final rule’s specification of the 

pelvis-iliac recovery time but did not 

provide any data or rationale in support 

of its request. VRTC first conducted 

quasi-static tests to determine if a 30 

minute recovery time, which is common 

in Hybrid III dummy qualification test 

procedures, would be sufficient for full 

recovery of the iliac wing. Because these 

tests are more controlled than dynamic 

tests, it is easier to determine if 

variability in iliac wing response is due 

to the recovery time, rather than some 

other factor. 

As shown in the report ‘‘SID–IIsD 

Iliac Wing Studies’’ docketed with this 

final rule, results from quasi-static tests 

indicated that reducing the iliac 

recovery time to 30 minutes from 1 hour 

did not affect the iliac wing responses. 

However, because quasi-static tests only 

account for the response of the iliac 

wing and not the entire pelvis assembly, 

VRTC also conducted dynamic tests to 

determine if the pelvis assembly will 

perform consistently with a recovery 

time of only 30 minutes. VRTC 

performed a series of ten iliac 

qualification tests (using the Material #3 

with standoffs wing and a backer plate), 

where one test was performed on a fully 

recovered pelvis to serve as a baseline, 

four tests were conducted after a 

recovery time of 30 minutes, and five 

tests were conducted after a recovery 

time of one hour. 

Results from the iliac qualification 

tests are shown in the ‘‘SID–IIsD Iliac 

Wing Studies’’ report. The results 

indicated that after successive impacts 

with 30 minutes or one hour recovery 

time, the iliac responses from each 

recovery time showed a trend of slight 

increase in magnitude. In addition, tests 

performed with 30 minutes of recovery 

time between tests showed overall larger 

magnitude responses than tests with one 

hour recovery time. Because the iliac 

wing did not require more than 30 

minutes of recovery time according to 

the quasi-static data, NHTSA 

determined that this rise in response is 

probably attributable to the pelvis flesh 

needing more time for recovery, as the 

flesh part is a major component of the 

pelvis that is directly impacted. Since a 

major element of the pelvis flesh is 

foam, it appears that the foam needs 

more than one hour to fully recover 

from impact. To determine what 

recovery time would be appropriate, the 

agency conducted six additional pelvisiliac qualification tests, with one test 

conducted as another baseline response 

from a fully recovered pelvis, and five 

tests performed with two hours of 

recovery time between each test. The 

results of this series did not show a 

trend of increase in response with 

successive tests, as shown in the ‘‘SID– 

IIsD Iliac Wing Studies’’ report. 

Additionally, when comparing the 

average responses of tests for all 

recovery times, the responses after two 

hour recovery times were most similar 

to those of fully recovered dummy 

pelves, indicating that after two hours, 

the pelves have returned to a fullyrecovered state (Table 5). 

Since the dynamic test results 

indicate that a 30 minute recovery time 

is not long enough to ensure full 

recovery of the dummy’s pelvis, and no 

supporting data were provided by the 

petitioner, we are denying the Alliance 

petition. Furthermore, since 

investigation of this issue revealed that 

two hours between tests is necessary to 

ensure the dummy pelvis is fully 

recovered, we are implementing a two 

hour recovery time for the pelvis-iliac 

test. Also, given that the pelvis flesh is 

also impacted in the pelvis-acetabulum 

test, the agency believes it is logical to 

assign a recovery time of two hours for 

the pelvis-acetabulum test as well.37

These recovery times, as well as 30 

minute recovery times for the shoulder, 

thorax with arm, thorax without arm 

and abdomen qualification tests are 

added to their respective sections in the 

Part 572 regulatory text. 

29878 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

38There was an incorrect conversion in 

§ 572.137(a) between the metric and English 

tolerance. The ‘‘0.05 lbs’’ should read ‘‘0.5 lbs.’’ 

This error is corrected by today’s final rule. We 

have also corrected the tolerance for the HIII–5F 

knee probe in 572.137(b) to be 2.99±0.23 kg (6.6±0.5 

lbs). 

TABLE 5—AVERAGE PELVIS-ILIAC QUALIFICATION MEASUREMENTS FOR FULLY, 30 MINUTES, 1 HOUR, AND 2 HOUR

RECOVERED DUMMY PELVES

Average 

peak probe 

acceleration 

(g) 

Average 

peak pelvis 

Y acceleration 

(g) 

Average 

peak iliac 

force 

(N) 

Fully Recovered ........................................................................................................................... 43 38 4942 1⁄2 hr recovery .............................................................................................................................. 45 40 5163 

1 hr recovery ................................................................................................................................ 44 39 5044 

2 hr recovery ................................................................................................................................ 43 37 4934 

c. Soak Time 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.200) provides the requirements for 

instrumentation and test conditions and 

states at 572.200(j) that ‘‘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.’’ 

Requested Change 

Denton ATD/SAE DTES stated that 

the final rule requires a 3 hour soak time 

instead of the normal 4 hour soak time 

for all other dummies. It noted that prior 

temperature studies have shown that 

even 4 hours might be insufficient. It 

recommended that NHTSA make the 

soak time 4 hours to match all other 

dummies. 

Agency Response 

This request is granted. This final rule 

amends 572.200(j) to require a 4 hour 

soak time to match the requirements of 

other dummies. We do not believe that 

requiring an additional hour of soak 

time will have any negative effect on the 

dummy’s responses. Further, a 4 hour 

soak time for all test components was 

specified in the FTSS SID–IIs User 

Manual (December 4, 2003). The revised 

qualification procedures document has 

also been updated to reflect this change. 

d. Tolerance on the Impactor Mass 

The impactor mass tolerance for the 

SID–IIsD shoulder, thorax with arm, 

thorax without arm, abdomen, pelvis 

acetabulum and pelvis iliac 

qualification tests is specified in 

§ 572.137(a) in Subpart O of 49 CFR part 

572, which sets forth specifications for 

the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult 

female test dummy (HIII5F). The 

impactor mass is specified as ‘‘13.97 ± 

0.23 kg (30.8 ±0.05 lbs).’’ 38

Requested Change 

The Alliance recommended that the 

tolerance on the impactor mass for 

shoulder, thorax with arm, thorax 

without arm, abdomen, pelvis 

acetabulum and pelvis iliac 

qualification tests for the SID–IIs be 

changed to ±0.023 kg, rather than ±0.23 

kg. The SAE DTES supported this 

requested change. 

Agency Response 

The request is denied. The agency has 

evaluated the probe mass tolerances 

specified for other Part 572 crash test 

dummies. Table 6 displays the results of 

this evaluation. 

TABLE 6—IMPACT PROBE MASSES AND TOLERANCES FOR DUMMIES SPECIFIED IN 49 CFR PART 572 

Part 572 subpart & dummy name Probe type Probe metric/english specification and 

tolerance 

Tolerance 

percentage of 

specified probe 

mass/weight 

Subpart N, Six-year-old Child Test 

Dummy, Beta Version.

Thorax .................................................... 2.86±0.02 kg ..........................................

(6.3±0.05 lb) ...........................................

0.70 

(.79 ) 

Subpart N, Six-year-old Child Test 

Dummy, Beta Version.

Knee ....................................................... 0.82±0.02 kg ..........................................

(1.8±0.05 lb) ...........................................

2.44 

(2.78 ) 

Subpart P, HIII 3-Year-Old Child Crash 

Test Dummy, Alpha Version.

Thorax .................................................... 1.70±0.02 kg ..........................................

(3.75±0.05 lb) .........................................

1.18 

(1.33 ) 

Subpart V, SID–IIs Side Impact Crash 

Test Dummy (refers to Subpart O, 

HIII5F).

Thorax/Abdomen/Iliac (for HIII5F, Thorax).13.97±0.23 kg ........................................

(30.8±0.05 lb) .........................................

*tolerances not equivalent 

1.65 

(0.162 ) 

Petitioned SID–IIs/HIII5F probe mass tolerance.Thorax/Abdomen/Iliac (for HIII5F, Thorax).13.97±0.023 kg ...................................... 0.164 

The petitioner’s request to change the 

mass tolerance to 0.023 kg would result 

in a tolerance that is similar to the 3- 

year-old and 6-year-old dummy probe 

tolerances (0.02 kg). However, 0.02 kg is 

0.70% to 2.44% of the mass of the child 

dummy probes. Because the SID–IIs/ 

HIII5F probe mass is larger than those 

for the child dummies, the requested 

0.023 kg tolerance is only 0.16% of the 

probe mass for the 5th percentile adult 

female dummies, which is a very tight 

tolerance for the larger probe. The 

current mass tolerance of 0.23 kg is 

more consistent with child dummy 

probe mass tolerances in terms of the 

percentage of the probe mass (0.23 kg is 

1.65% of the SID–IIs/HIII5F probe 

mass). Further, although it is possible 

for the probes to be produced to a tight 

tolerance of 0.16%, several labs, 

including those at VRTC, TRC, MGA 

and GM, would not meet the mass 

specification with this lower tolerance 

for all probes (Table 7). Under a 0.23 kg 

tolerance, the VRTC and TRC probe 

masses would meet specifications and 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29879 

39NHTSA Docket NHTSA–2006–25442–14, page 

19. 

the MGA probes would be only slightly 

outside the allowable range. Because 

data showing a need to change the 

tolerance of 0.23 kg to 0.023 kg has not 

been shown, the agency is denying the 

request. 

TABLE 7—SID–IISD IMPACT PROBE MASSES AT VARIOUS LABORATORIES

Lab Probe mass Meets 0.23 kg 

tolerance? 

Meets 0.023 kg 

tolerance? 

MGA ................................................................. 14.22 kg (all) ................................................... NO .............................. NO. 

TRC (before 5/4/07) ......................................... 13.97 kg (all) ................................................... YES ............................ YES. 

TRC (5/4/07–present) ....................................... 13.94 kg (sh/thx/acet) ..................................... YES ............................ NO. 

13.96 kg (abd and iliac) .................................. YES ............................ YES. 

VRTC ................................................................ 14.1195 kg (sh/thx/acet); 14.1014 kg (abd); 

14.1558 kg (iliac).

YES ............................ NO. 

FTSS ................................................................ 13.950 kg (sh/thx/acet); 13.972 kg (abd); 

13.955 kg (iliac).

YES ............................ YES. 

GM .................................................................... 14.302 kg (abdomen) ...................................... NO .............................. NO. 

e. Neck Cable Torque in PADI 

In the ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of 

the SID–IIsD Side Impact Crash Test 

Dummy’’ 39 incorporated by reference 

by the December 14, 2006 final rule, a 

torque of 10–12 in-lb is required for the 

neck cable jam nut. 

Requested Change 

Denton/SAE DTES suggested that 

since the SID–IIs neck is the same as 

that of the HIII5F, the neck cable jam 

nut torque specification should be 

changed to 12±2 in-lb to match the 

HIII5F. 

Agency Response 

This request is denied. The petitioner 

did not provide any neck qualification 

data to support its recommendation. To 

evaluate the request, VRTC conducted 

neck qualification tests with neck cable 

torques of 12 and 14 in-lb to determine 

the effect of increased cable torque on 

neck response. The results of these tests 

are presented and explained in a 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Results of Neck 

Cable Torque Investigation,’’ which has 

been placed in the agency’s docket for 

today’s final rule. The results indicated 

that one out of three tests on one neck 

and two out of three tests on a second 

neck tested with a cable torque of 14 inlb failed the neck qualification test 

(specifically, the peak OC moment was 

higher than allowed by the performance 

criteria). In contrast, all six tests with a 

neck cable torque of 12 in-lb and 

meeting pendulum deceleration 

requirements passed the neck 

qualification test. Data from the forward 

and headform potentiometers indicated 

that the tests conducted with a cable 

torque of 14 in-lb produced a lower 

peak rotation than those conducted at 

12 in-lb., i.e., the higher cable torque 

appears to cause a slightly stiffer neck 

response. Although the difference in 

response is small, at this higher torque 

laboratories may experience difficulty in 

passing the neck qualification test 

performance criteria, especially if the 

neck is somewhat stiff, as the 

performance corridors were formed 

using necks with cable torques of 10–12 

in-lb. Accordingly, the agency has 

decided against changing the neck cable 

torque specification in the PADI. 

f. Pendulum Deceleration Pulse 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.193(c)) specifies that the pendulum 

deceleration pulse is characterized in 

terms of decrease in velocity as obtained 

by integrating the pendulum 

acceleration output from time zero. In 

an interpretation request received by 

NHTSA on May 21, 2008, FTSS asked 

about the time measurement at >25.0 

and <100 milliseconds (ms). FTSS asked 

whether the requirement is to record the 

singular peak value of the Pendulum 

Delta-V, or whether the Pendulum 

Delta-V must fall between ¥5.50 to 

¥6.20 meters per second throughout the 

time period. 

Agency Response 

We have clarified the table in 

572.193(c)(1) such that the specified 

pendulum delta V for 25–100 ms 

applies to the peak velocity in that time 

period. We believe that there is no need 

to record the pendulum Delta-V over the 

range, as once the pendulum 

acceleration stops, the pendulum DeltaV becomes relatively constant, reaching 

an overall peak just after 25 ms and 

slightly decreasing in magnitude after 

that. Further, the peak may be easier to 

tune than the whole range. 

g. Neck Potentiometers 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.193) specifies the neck assembly 

qualification tests. The test procedure 

calls for the attachment of the neckheadform assembly in accordance with 

Figure V2–A or V2–B (depending on the 

direction of impact) of the Appendix of 

the subpart. These figures show the use 

of three angle potentiometer assemblies 

for measuring the maximum translationrotation of the midsagittal plane of the 

headform disk. 

Requested Change 

Since only two potentiometers 

(‘‘pots’’) are used for the measurement 

requirements of the neck qualification 

test, Denton/SAE DTES inquired about 

either eliminating the third pot (the aft/ 

inner angle pot assembly shown in 

Figures V2–A, –B, –C) or making it 

optional, and including a spacer mass in 

its place. 

Agency Response 

We do not agree to this change. 

Denton/SAE DTES is correct that only 

the fore/outer angle potentiometer 

assembly and the headform angle 

potentiometer assembly are used to 

calculate the maximum translation/ 

rotation of the headform. However, the 

aft/inner potentiometer assembly has 

been installed throughout the 

development of the dummy and neck 

performance corridors, as use of this 

assembly was originally specified in the 

FTSS SID–IIs user’s manual. The agency 

has not conducted any tests without this 

potentiometer assembly, and no data of 

this kind were provided to support 

removing the third pot. Therefore, it is 

unknown how removal of this assembly 

will affect the overall response 

characteristics of the neck during this 

test. In order to obtain neck 

qualification results consistent with 

those that have been derived using all 

three potentiometers, the aft/inner angle 

pot assembly cannot be eliminated 

without compensating for the absent 

part. The petitioner has not provided a 

replacement part that can achieve this 

end result. 

29880 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

40As noted earlier, the Alliance data provided as 

part of their petition for reconsideration was 

considered in the formation of recommended 

corridors but was not incorporated into the NHTSA 

data set for inclusion in the statistical analyses. 

41The shoulder test had samples of 13 different 

dummies; the thorax with and without arm tests 

had samples of at least 29–30 different dummies; 

the abdomen test had samples of 10 different 

dummies; the pelvis acetabulum test had a sample 

of 18 different dummies; and the pelvis iliac test 

used 48 different iliac wings and 6 pelvis skins. 

42Available in Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442– 

16. 

43 Data were obtained from the following reports: 

(a)‘‘Certification and Maintenance Records of the 

SID–IIs Build Level D Dummies Used in NHTSA 

Rulemaking Support Tests, May 2005 through 

November 2005,’’ NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety 

Research, February 2006, Docket No. 25442–5; (b) 

‘‘Repeatability and Reproducibility Analysis of the 

SID–IIs Build Level D Dummy in the Certification 

Test Environment,’’ Jessica Gall, MGA Research 

Corporation, September 2005, Docket No. 25442–6. 

XI. Qualification Performance Corridors 

In response to the final rule, the 

petitioners provided additional 

qualification data and recommendations 

for revised performance corridors. To 

the extent possible, NHTSA 

incorporated the data that had been 

acquired in tests conducted according to 

the final rule test procedures, or to the 

procedures amended today, as 

appropriate, into the NHTSA data set.40

To provide as extensive and variable a 

data set as possible, the agency also 

added to this data set tests performed at 

TRC that had been overlooked at the 

time of the final rule, tests conducted at 

TRC following the publication of the 

final rule, and shoulder, abdomen, and 

pelvis iliac qualification tests conducted 

at VRTC in support of the agency’s 

evaluation of the petitions for 

reconsideration. Additionally, the 

‘‘time-of-purchase’’ qualification test 

results performed at FTSS on dummies 

purchased by the agency for research or 

compliance purposes were added. 

However, some data from these 

sources were not used because the 

agency was not confident that the tests 

were conducted under the appropriate 

test procedures and conditions. The 

details of test removal are described in 

the report, ‘‘Analysis and Development 

of SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications 

in Response to Petitions for 

Reconsideration,’’ supra. As discussed 

in that document, qualification tests 

were removed for the following reasons: 

Impact energy did not fall within the 

allowable range (see discussion below); 

the time history trace showed unusual 

behavior; or the test was improperly 

conducted. 

With regard to impact energy, during 

NHTSA’s examination of the December 

2006 final rule data set, the agency 

found that many of the probe 

acceleration values were calculated 

from probe force values using an 

assumed probe mass of 13.97 kg. To 

obtain more precise acceleration values 

with which to form performance 

corridors, the agency requested 

information about probe masses from 

the test labs that had provided probe 

force rather than acceleration data. We 

found that the probe masses used at 

some test laboratories were greater than 

allowed by the probe mass tolerance 

specified in 572.137(a). To account for 

these higher probe masses, we 

calculated the allowable impact energy 

range using the specified tolerances for 

mass and velocity and the impact 

energy of each individual test (where 

Energy = 1⁄2mv2). We removed from the 

data set tests with impact energies that 

did not meet the allowable range. This 

process of ‘‘filtering’’ tests by impact 

energy rather than impact velocity was 

performed only for the purpose of 

evaluating the performance criteria. 

When a test lab conducts the Part 572 

tests specified in subpart V, we expect 

them to ensure that the probe mass and 

impact velocity requirements specified 

in subpart V are met. 

We considered several other factors in 

responding to the petitions pertaining to 

the revision of the performance 

corridors. Performance corridors are 

generally based on the mean, standard 

deviation (SD), and coefficient of 

variation (CV) of the data set. Bounds 

are preliminarily set at a certain 

distance from the mean value, 

depending on the CV. Corridor bounds 

are initially set based on the CV of the 

data set as follows: for CV less than 3%, 

the bounds are set at ±3 standard 

deviations (SD) from the mean; for CV 

between 3% and 5%, ±2 SD from the 

mean; for CV greater than 5%, ±10% 

from the mean. After setting a 

preliminary corridor based on the CV, 

the bounds are rounded to the next 

whole number away from the mean to 

obtain the ‘‘statistically-derived’’ 

corridor. Either bound could then be 

adjusted slightly to account for outside 

data points, if warranted (71 FR at 

75360). In its petition for 

reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES 

recommended that ±3 standard 

deviations (such that ∼99% of the 

available data would be included) be 

used to create corridors instead of ±2 

standard deviations (which includes 

only ∼95% of the available data) 

because, the petitioner believed, there 

was limited data accounting for lab-tolab and technician-to-technician 

variability to create acceptable corridors 

that would accommodate this expected 

level of variation. 

We have considered Denton’s request 

but have decided against its 

recommendation. Use of the NHTSA 

guidelines for setting performance 

corridors better ensures that the corridor 

width is appropriate for the variation in 

the data set, because the width of each 

corridor is based on the CV of the data. 

Forming corridors according to ±3 

standard deviations from the mean can 

result in corridors that provide an 

unnecessary ‘‘buffer zone’’ around the 

data, and allow for too large a range of 

responses. Performance corridors must 

be constrictive enough to identify and 

disqualify dummies whose responses 

fall significantly away from the mean. 

Further, the petitioner made the 

suggestion about using a corridor width 

of ±3 standard deviations out of concern 

about the limited variability in the data. 

The revised data set adopted today in 

response to the petitions for 

reconsideration incorporates all the 

relevant test results that have been made 

available and represents five 

laboratories and a much larger sample of 

dummies than the December 2006 final 

rule data set, which represented two 

laboratories and four dummies for all 

tests but the iliac test (which 

represented four dummies and one 

laboratory).41 We believe this expanded 

data source is sufficient to capture the 

behavior of the majority of dummies 

tested at different labs. 

Another factor we considered in 

responding to the petitions pertaining to 

the performance corridors related to the 

use of rounded integers by NHTSA in 

developing the corridors of the 

December 14, 2006 final rule. NHTSA 

published a final report ‘‘Development 

of Certification Performance 

Specifications for the SID–IIsD Crash 

Test Dummy,’’ 42 in the establishment 

of qualification corridors. The report 

included tabulated data, as well as plots 

of the adopted corridors. In its petition 

for reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES 

noted that many of the data presented 

in this report appear to be rounded to 

even integers for the T1 acceleration in 

the thorax without arm test. 

We reviewed the data in response to 

the petition and have observed that 

rounded integers were used. To improve 

the data tables, we have replaced the 

rounded values for T1 acceleration and 

other thorax without arm qualification 

test measurements, as well as 

measurements in other tests such as 

shoulder, abdomen, etc., with more 

precise values obtained from NHTSA 

crash test reports, supporting reports for 

the SID–IIsD final rule,43 and electronic 

data (as available). The improved data 

were used to evaluate the performance 

criteria for the thorax without arm and 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29881 

44For each test, multiple dummy measurements 

are taken to check whether the dummy meets the 

performance criteria. But, in some tests, one or 

more measurements might not have been collected, 

or might have been removed. For example, in the 

table there are 120 shoulder tests, but as indicated 

in the footnote to the table, there were only 69 T1 

acceleration measurements. Sometimes there is 

only one measurement missing, e.g., one of the 

upper rib deflection values was deleted from the 

thorax with arm data set because the recorded value 

was a late spike. So, even though the table indicates 

that there are 112 thorax with arm tests, there are 

not 112 upper rib deflection measurements. The 

number of measurements used for forming each 

performance corridor are provided in the report 

‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD 

Qualification Specifications in Response to 

Petitions for Reconsideration,’’ July 1, 2008. 

all other qualification tests. The revised 

tables are shown in the report, 

‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD 

Qualification Specifications in Response 

to Petitions for Reconsideration,’’ supra. 

Table 8 shows the whole-body 

qualification tests conducted in each 

body region that are available for 

corridor formation. However, note that 

for some measurements within each 

test, responses are not present or not 

applicable.44

TABLE 8—TOTAL NUMBER OF QUALIFICATION TESTS USED TO FORM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Test performer Shoulder 

(4.3 m/s) 

Thorax 

w/ arm 

Thorax 

w/o arm 

Abdomen 

(4.3 m/s) 

PelvisAcetabulum PelvisIliac 

NHTSA—final rule data set ............................................. 26 48 51 23 46 ....................

NHTSA—newly added data ............................................. 15 11 11 16 15 123 

FTSS with NHTSA R&D/Compliance dummies .............. 14 28 28 7 56 ....................

FTSS—petition for reconsideration .................................. 12 25 25 16 .................... 83 

GM—Denton/SAE DTES petition for reconsideration ..... .................... .................... .................... 2 .................... 206 

Total ................................................................................. * 67 ** 112 115 64 † 117 155 

* 50 measurements were available for the peak upper spine (T1) acceleration. 

** 66 measurements were available for the peak impactor acceleration after 5 ms. 

† 61 measurements were available for the peak pelvis lateral acceleration after 6 ms. 

a. Shoulder Qualification Corridors 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.194) specified a shoulder 

qualification procedure where, for a 

specified impact velocity, performance 

corridors were set for: peak shoulder rib 

deflection, peak lateral acceleration of 

the upper spine (T1), and peak impactor 

acceleration. The values are shown in 

Table 9. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE 

DTES petitioned for changes to these 

qualification corridors. The Alliance 

recommended a corridor that is ±2 s.d. 

from the mean of the data pooled from 

FTSS and NHTSA. In accordance with 

its recommendation that the impact 

speed for the test be reduced to 4.3 ±0.1 

m/s, the Alliance excluded tests with an 

impact speed greater than 4.4 m/s in 

their January 2007 petition, however, in 

their December 2007 petition, they 

provided data for tests conducted with 

an impact velocity of 4.4±0.1 m/s. FTSS 

created corridors based on a 4.4 ±0.1 m/ 

s impact speed. It pooled data from 

FTSS and NHTSA and created corridors 

using the NHTSA procedure. Denton/ 

SAE DTES created corridors based on a 

4.4 ±0.1 m/s impact speed. It pooled 

data from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA and TRC 

and created corridors at ±3 s.d. from the 

mean. It was not clear from Denton if 

any test data was excluded from the 

data pool based on impact speed. The 

petitioners’ recommended corridors are 

set forth in Table 9. 

TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED SHOULDER QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Shoulder qualification test 

December 14, 

2006 final rule 

corridor 

Petitioned recommendations 

Alliance— 

January 2007 

Alliance— 

December 

2007 

FTSS Denton/ 

SAE DTES 

Impact Velocity (m/s) .................................................................. 4.3–4.5 4.2–4.4 Same as FR Same as FR Same as FR. 

Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................... 30–37 31–37 ..................... Same as FR 29–38. 

Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) .......................................... 17–19 16–22 17–22 .......... 17–21 .......... 15–23. 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) .................................................. 14–18 14–17 ..................... Same as FR 13–19. 

Agency Response 

As discussed earlier in this preamble, 

the agency decided to lower the impact 

velocity to 4.3 ±0.1 m/s for the shoulder 

qualification test. Therefore, only tests 

conducted within the energy range 

corresponding to this impact velocity 

range were used to establish new 

performance corridors. Performance 

corridors for the shoulder were formed 

following the method described earlier, 

using the mean, SD, and CV of the data 

set and setting bounds at a certain 

distance from the mean value, 

depending on the CV. The report 

‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD 

Qualification Specifications in Response 

to Petitions for Reconsideration’’ 

provides the statistics of the data and 

compares the corridors established in 

this rule to the petitioners’ 

recommendations. For the peak upper 

spine lateral acceleration and the peak 

impactor acceleration, the statisticallyderived corridors provided in Table 10 

were adopted. The lower bound of the 

peak shoulder rib deflection corridor 

was expanded by 2 mm to account for 

expected lower deflections at impact 

velocities from 4.2–4.3 m/s. The 

corridors established in this final rule 

are in agreement with or slightly larger 

than those proposed by the Alliance 

(December 2007) and FTSS, and the 

shoulder deflection and impactor 

acceleration corridors are close to those 

29882 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

recommended by Denton/SAE DTES. 

Although peak upper spine lateral 

acceleration corridor is somewhat 

narrower than that suggested by Denton/ 

SAE DTES, we feel that it sufficiently 

includes the data and should not be 

made wider. The final corridors are 

shown in Table 10. 

TABLE 10—SHOULDER QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Shoulder qualification measurement December 14, 

2006 corridor 

Statistical 

corridor 

Today’s final rule 

corridor 

Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm) ................................................................................ 30–37 30–37 28–37 

Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ............................................................................... 17–19 17–22 17–22 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ....................................................................................... 14–18 13–18 13–18 

b. Thorax with Arm Qualification 

Corridors 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.195) specified a thorax with arm 

qualification test involving the 

measurement of seven dummy 

responses: Peak shoulder rib deflection, 

peak thoracic rib deflections for the 

upper, middle, and lower ribs, peak 

upper and lower spine lateral 

accelerations, and peak impactor 

acceleration. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES 

petitioned for changes to these 

qualification corridors. As discussed 

earlier in this preamble, these 

petitioners, as well as FTSS, had 

requested that the peak impactor 

acceleration be taken after 5 ms to avoid 

measurement of an inertial peak. The 

Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES 

recommended new corridors based on 

their analyses of the NHTSA final rule 

data set plus additional tests conducted 

by FTSS, accounting for the 5 ms limit. 

Denton/SAE DTES also suggested that 

corridors should be formed based on ±3 

standard deviations rather than ±2 

standard deviations from the mean 

because, the petitioner believed, data 

from very few labs are available to 

provide sufficient lab-to-lab variation in 

the data set. Table 11 provides a 

summary of petitioner-recommended 

corridors. 

TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED THORAX WITH ARM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Thorax with arm qualification test 

December 14, 

2006 final rule 

corridor 

Petitioned recommendations 

Alliance— 

January 2007 

Alliance— 

December 

2007 

FTSS Denton/ 

SAE DTES 

Impact Velocity (m/s) .................................................................. 6.6–6.8 Same as FR ..................... Same as FR Same as FR. 

Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................... 31–40 30–41 ..................... Same as FR 27–44. 

Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ................................... 26–32 25–32 ..................... Same as FR 24–33. 

Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ................................... 30–36 30–35 ..................... Same as FR 29–36. 

Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ................................... 32–38 Same as FR ..................... Same as FR 31–39.

Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) .......................................... 34–43 34–44 ..................... Same as FR 32–46.

Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) .......................................... 28–35 28–36 30–37 .......... Same as FR 26–38. 

Peak Impactor Acceleration after 5 ms (g) ................................. 31–36 Same as FR 30–36 † ........ Same as FR 30–37. 

† Conditions were not provided, but it is assumed that peaks were taken after 5 ms. 

Agency Response 

The mean, standard deviation, and CV 

of the expanded data set were used to 

generate performance corridors for the 

thorax with arm qualification test as 

described in ‘‘Analysis and 

Development of SID–IIsD Qualification 

Specifications in Response to Petitions 

for Reconsideration.’’ Following 

statistical analysis and visual 

examination of the data, only three 

corridors were changed from those 

given in the December 2006 final rule: 

The peak upper thorax rib deflection, 

the peak lower spine lateral 

acceleration, and the peak impactor 

acceleration (after 5 ms). The upper 

thorax rib deflection and impactor 

acceleration corridors were changed to 

agree with the statistically-derived 

corridors, which are also in agreement 

with (or slightly larger than) the 

corridors recommended by the Alliance 

and FTSS. The lower spine acceleration 

corridor was expanded slightly from the 

statistically-formed corridor to better 

include the spread of the data. The rest 

of the performance criteria were 

unchanged, due to the fact that the 

December 2006 final rule corridor 

sufficiently contained the data and was 

in agreement with, or slightly larger 

than, the statistically-derived corridor. 

The final corridors are shown in Table 

12. 

TABLE 12—THORAX WITH ARM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Thorax with arm 

qualification measurement 

December 14, 

2006 Corridor 

Statistical 

Corridor 

Today’s Final 

Rule Corridor 

Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm) ................................................................................ 31–40 32–40 31–40 

Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................................................ 26–32 25–32 25–32 

Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ....................................................................... 30–36 30–35 30–36 

Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................................................ 32–38 32–38 32–38 

Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ............................................................................... 34–43 34–43 34–43 

Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ............................................................................... 28–35 29–36 29–37 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ....................................................................................... 31–36 N/A N/A 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29883 

TABLE 12—THORAX WITH ARM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS—Continued 

Thorax with arm 

qualification measurement 

December 14, 

2006 Corridor 

Statistical 

Corridor 

Today’s Final 

Rule Corridor 

Peak Impactor Acceleration after 5 ms (g) ..................................................................... N/A 30–36 30–36 

c. Thorax without Arm Qualification 

Corridors 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.196) specified a thorax without arm 

qualification procedure in which, for a 

specified impact velocity, performance 

corridors were set for: peak upper 

thorax rib deflection, peak middle 

thorax rib deflection, peak lower thorax 

rib deflection, peak upper spine lateral 

acceleration, peak lower spine lateral 

acceleration, and peak impactor 

acceleration. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE 

DTES petitioned for changes to these 

qualification corridors. The Alliance 

pooled data from FTSS and NHTSA and 

created corridors using ±2 s.d. from the 

mean. FTSS pooled data from FTSS and 

NHTSA and created corridors using 

NHTSA’s procedure (based on the 

mean, SD, and CV of the data set), 

except the method used to create the 

T12 corridor used ±2 s.d. instead of 

10%, as the petitioner believed it was 

more appropriate due to the fact that 

this acceleration has a low magnitude in 

this test. Denton/SAE DTES pooled data 

from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA and TRC to 

create corridors using ±3 s.d. from the 

mean. The corridor recommendations 

are summarized in Table 13. 

TABLE 13—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED THORAX WITHOUT ARM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Thorax without arm qualification test 

December 14, 

2006 final rule 

corridor 

Petitioned recommendations 

Alliance— 

January 

2007 

FTSS Denton/SAE 

DTES 

Impact Velocity (m/s) .............................................................................................. 4.2–4.4 Same as FR Same as FR Same as FR 

Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ............................................................... 33–40 Same as FR Same as FR 31–41 

Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ............................................................... 39–45 39–44 .......... Same as FR 37–45 

Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ............................................................... 36–43 Same as FR Same as FR 34–44 

Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ...................................................................... 14–17 Same as FR Same as FR 13–17 

Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ...................................................................... 7–10 7–11 ............ 7–11 ............ 6–12 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) .............................................................................. 14–18 15–18 .......... Same as FR Same as FR 

Agency Response 

Based on an impact velocity of 

4.3±0.1 m/s, the performance corridors 

were formed based on the statistics of 

the expanded data set (see, ‘‘Analysis 

and Development of SID–IIsD 

Qualification Specifications in Response 

to Petitions for Reconsideration’’). Four 

of the thorax without arm performance 

criteria are changed in this final rule. 

Two of these, the peak upper thorax rib 

deflection and the peak upper spine 

lateral acceleration, were expanded 

slightly, in agreement with the 

statistically-derived corridor from the 

new data set. The peak lower thorax rib 

deflection corridor was expanded 

beyond the statistically-derived corridor 

because the statistical corridor excluded 

data that met the final rule corridor. As 

indicated by FTSS, the magnitude of the 

peak lower spine acceleration is fairly 

low. Therefore, we agree with the 

petitioner that applying a corridor of 

±10% would be inappropriate, and have 

instead set this corridor to agree with 

the Alliance and FTSS 

recommendations. The statistical and 

adopted qualification corridors are as 

shown in Table 14. 

TABLE 14—THORAX WITHOUT ARM CORRIDORS

Thorax without arm qualification measurement December 14, 

2006 corridor 

Statistical 

corridor 

Today’s final rule 

corridor 

Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................................................ 33–40 32–40 32–40 

Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ....................................................................... 39–45 37–45 39–45 

Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) ........................................................................ 36–43 35–42 35–43 

Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ............................................................................... 14–17 13–17 13–17 

Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ............................................................................... 7–10 8–11 7–11 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ....................................................................................... 14–18 14–18 14–18 

d. Abdomen Qualification Corridors 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.197) specified an abdomen 

qualification procedure in which, for a 

specified impact velocity, performance 

corridors were set for: Peak upper 

abdominal rib deflection, peak lower 

abdominal rib deflection, peak lower 

spine lateral acceleration, and peak 

impactor acceleration. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE 

DTES petitioned for changes to these 

qualification corridors, based on their 

analyses of larger data sets as described 

below. Table 15 presents the petitioned 

corridors. 

The Alliance recommended a corridor 

that is ±2 s.d. from the mean of pooled 

data from FTSS and NHTSA and 

excluded data from tests conducted at 

speeds greater than 4.4 m/s in their 

January 2007 petition, but used an 

impact velocity range of 4.4 ±0.1 m/s in 

29884 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

their December 2007 petition. FTSS 

pooled data from FTSS, NHTSA and 

GM, based on 4.4 ±0.1 m/s impact 

speed. It created corridors using the 

NHTSA procedure, except the T12 

corridor was created using ±2 s.d. 

instead of 10%. Denton/SAE DTES 

created corridors using ±3 s.d. from the 

mean of 4.4 ±0.1 m/s impact data pooled 

from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA and TRC. 

TABLE 15—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED ABDOMEN QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Abdomen qualification test 

December 14, 

2006 final rule 

corridor 

Petitioned recommendations 

Alliance— 

January 

2007 

Alliance— 

December 

2007 

FTSS Denton/ 

SAE DTES 

Impact Velocity (m/s) ..................................................................... 4.3–4.5 4.2–4.4 ........ Same as FR Same as FR Same as FR 

Peak Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm) ................................ 39–47 37–50 .......... 37–49 .......... Same as FR 36–51 

Peak Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm) ................................ 37–46 35–49 .......... 35–49 .......... Same as FR 33–53 

Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ............................................ 11–14 9–15 ............ 9–14 ............ 9–14 ............ 9–15 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ..................................................... 12–16 Same as FR Same as FR Same as FR 11–16

Agency Response 

As discussed previously, NHTSA is 

reducing the impact velocity to 4.3 ±0.1 

m/s. Accordingly, the performance 

corridors were formed using only those 

tests with input energies corresponding 

to impact velocities of 4.3 ±0.1 m/s. The 

report ‘‘Analysis and Development of 

SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications in 

Response to Petitions for 

Reconsideration’’ describes the statistics 

and rationale used for the placement of 

corridor bounds, and provides figures 

showing the responses for each 

qualification measurement. In this 

qualification test, both rib deflection 

criteria were expanded and/or shifted 

downward slightly from the final rule 

corridors. The statistical corridors for 

these measurements were formed using 

the NHTSA method and the 4.3 ±0.1 

m/s data set. However, due to low 

deflection responses at impact velocities 

from 4.2—4.3 m/s, the lower bound of 

the upper rib deflection statistical 

corridor was reduced 1 mm, and the 

lower bound of the lower rib deflection 

statistical corridor was reduced 2 mm. 

These corridors are narrower than those 

suggested by the Alliance and Denton/ 

SAE DTES, but we believe they contain 

the data sufficiently well. The peak 

lower spine acceleration corridor was 

set by placing the bounds at ±2 s.d. from 

the mean, rather than ±10% from the 

mean as specified by the NHTSA 

method for corridor formation. Like in 

the thorax with arm test, this is because 

the low magnitude of this measurement 

results in a narrow corridor when its 

bounds are placed at ±10% of the mean, 

so it is more appropriate to set the 

corridor bounds at ±2 s.d. from the 

mean. The final corridors are shown in 

Table 16. 

TABLE 16—ABDOMEN QUALIFICATION CORRIDOR

Abdomen qualification measurement December 14, 

2006 corridor 

Statistical 

corridor 

Today’s final rule 

corridor 

Impact Velocity (m/s) ....................................................................................................... 4.3–4.5 ............................ 4.2–4.4 

Peak Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm) .................................................................. 39–47 37–47 36–47 

Peak Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm) .................................................................. 37–46 35–44 33–44 

Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g) ............................................................................... 11–14 10–13 9–14 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ....................................................................................... 12–16 12–16 12–16 

e. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification 

Corridors 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.198) specified a pelvis acetabulum 

qualification procedure where for a 

given impact velocity, performance 

corridors were set for: peak impactor 

acceleration, peak lateral pelvis 

acceleration, and peak acetabulum 

force. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE 

DTES requested changes to the pelvis 

acetabulum qualification corridors with 

the condition that the peak lateral pelvis 

acceleration be taken 5 ms or more after 

the impactor contacts the dummy. The 

Alliance separately analyzed data from 

tests with 2 mm and 3 mm pre-crushed 

plugs. It recommended a corridor width 

of ±2 s.d., regardless of which pre-crush 

amount is used. FTSS pooled data from 

FTSS, Ford and NHTSA with 2 mm and 

3 mm pre-crushed plugs combined. It 

created corridors using the NHTSA 

procedure described in section XI of this 

preamble. Denton/SAE DTES also 

analyzed combined data from 2 mm and 

3 mm pre-crushed plugs. It created 

corridors using ±3 s.d. from the mean of 

pooled data from FTSS, Ford and 

NHTSA. The recommended 

qualification corridors are set forth 

below in Table 17. 

TABLE 17—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED ACETABULUM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Pelvis-Acetabulum qualification test 

December 14, 

2006 final rule 

corridor 

Petitioned recommendations 

Alliance— 

January 

2007 

Alliance— 

December 

2007 

FTSS Denton/ 

SAE DTES 

Impact Velocity (m/s) ..................................................................... 6.6–6.8 Same as FR Same as FR Same as FR Same as FR. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29885 

TABLE 17—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED ACETABULUM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS—Continued 

Pelvis-Acetabulum qualification test 

December 14, 

2006 final rule 

corridor 

Petitioned recommendations 

Alliance— 

January 

2007 

Alliance— 

December 

2007 

FTSS Denton/ 

SAE DTES 

3-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ..................................................... 38–47 Same as FR. 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) ....................................................... 41–50. 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 5 ms (g) ........................... ........................ 30–45. 

Peak Acetabulum Force (kN) ........................................................ 3.8–4.6 3.7–4.4. 

2-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ..................................................... ........................ 40–47. 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) .......................................................

Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 5 ms (g) ........................... ........................ 31–45. 

Peak Acetabulum Force (kN) ........................................................ ........................ 3.8–4.3. 

2- and 3-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ..................................................... ........................ ..................... ..................... Same as FR 38–49. 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) ....................................................... ........................ ..................... ..................... ..................... REMOVE. 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 5 ms (g) ........................... ........................ ..................... 30–45* ......... 34–42 .......... IF KEEP, 

28–48. 

Peak Acetabulum Force (kN) ........................................................ ........................ ..................... 3.6–4.4* ....... 3.6–4.4 ........ 3.64–4.42. 

* It is unknown how the plugs were crushed for the data submitted by the Alliance in December 2007. Therefore, we have included their petitioned corridors in the ‘‘2 and 3-mm pre-crushed plugs’’ category. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA pooled all the relevant data 

for 3 mm pre-crushed plugs in the 

formulation of new corridors for the 

pelvis acetabulum qualification test. 

While the petitioners provided 

numerous pelvis-acetabulum 

qualification test results to support their 

recommendations for corridor 

adjustment, all tests conducted by FTSS 

and Ford were performed using 2 mm 

pre-crushed plugs. Because the plug 

response characteristics cannot be 

determined from pre-crushing 2 mm, 

the results derived from these plugs 

cannot be considered valid for the 

agency’s corridor analysis. Likewise, the 

petitioners’ recommendations for 

performance corridors based on analysis 

of 2 mm pre-crushed plugs cannot be 

considered. 

Performance corridors for the pelvisacetabulum were formed following the 

methods described in section XI of this 

preamble. The report, ‘‘Analysis and 

Development of SID–IIsD Qualification 

Specifications in Response to Petitions 

for Reconsideration,’’ describes the 

statistics and rationale used for the 

placement of corridor bounds, and 

provides figures showing the responses 

for each qualification measurement. The 

corridors for peak lateral pelvis 

acceleration (now after 6 ms) and peak 

acetabulum force were revised to reflect 

the statistics of the expanded data set, 

which includes tests performed by 

NHTSA and FTSS (on dummies 

purchased by NHTSA). These corridors 

sufficiently contained the variation in 

the data, and are adopted in this final 

rule. The final corridors are shown in 

Table 18. 

TABLE 18—PELVIS-ACETABULUM QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Pelvis-Acetabulum 

qualification measurement 

December 14, 

2006 corridor 

Statistical 

corridor 

Today’s final rule 

corridor 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ....................................................................................... 38–47 39–46 38–47 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) (over entire test period) .................................................. 41–50 N/A N/A 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 6 ms (g) .............................................................. N/A 34–42 34–42 

Peak Acetabulum Force (kN) .......................................................................................... 3.8–4.6 3.60–4.30 3.60–4.30 

f. Pelvis Iliac Qualification Corridors 

The December 14, 2006 final rule 

(572.199) specified an iliac qualification 

procedure where three performance 

corridors were set for a specified impact 

velocity: Peak impactor acceleration, 

peak lateral pelvis acceleration, and 

peak iliac wing force. 

Requested Change 

The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE 

DTES petitioned for changes to these 

qualification corridors. The Alliance 

pooled data from FTSS, Ford and GM in 

the evaluation of M3 wings with 

standoffs tested to the OSRP procedure. 

It also used M3 wings with standoffs 

data from FTSS using the final rule iliac 

qualification procedure. Each set of 

recommended corridors were created 

using ±2 s.d. from the mean. FTSS 

provided data for M3 wings with 

standoffs, but did not propose corridors. 

It did propose corridors for M2, in case 

M3 was not adopted. It pooled data from 

FTSS and NHTSA and used the NHTSA 

statistical procedure for its M2 

recommendation. Denton/SAE DTES 

used data from FTSS to establish 

corridors for M3 with standoffs. It also 

pooled data from FTSS and NHTSA to 

establish M2 corridors. Each set of 

recommended corridors were created 

using ±3 s.d. from the mean. The data 

are summarized in Table 19. 

29886 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

45 In evaluating these test results, it was noticed 

that the first impact in a series of impacts often had 

a lower response than subsequent impacts. It was 

determined that this occurrence will not be 

problematic in compliance environments. Our 

analysis of this observation is presented in the 

report ‘‘Analysis and Development of SID–IIsD 

Qualification Specifications in Response to 

Petitions for Reconsideration.’’ 

TABLE 19—COMPARISON OF PETITIONED PELVIS-ILIAC QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Pelvis-iliac 

qualification test 

December 14, 

2006 final rule 

corridor 

Petitioned recommendations 

Alliance (±2 

s.d.) 

FTSS 

(NHTSA 

procedure) 

Denton/ 

SAE DTES 

(±3 s.d.) 

Impact Velocity (m/s) ............................................................................................ 4.2–4.4 Same as FR Same as FR Same as FR 

Material #2 w/NHTSA plate—Final Rule procedure 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ............................................................................ 34–40 ..................... 33–40 .......... 32–41 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) .............................................................................. 27–33 ..................... Same as FR 22–37 

Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN) .................................................................................. 3.7–4.5 ..................... 3.6–4.4 ........ 3.2–4.8 

Material #3 w/standoffs—Final Rule procedure 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ............................................................................ ........................ 37–44 .......... ..................... 35–46 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) .............................................................................. ........................ 29–41 .......... ..................... 26–44 

Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN) .................................................................................. ........................ 3.7–5.1 ........ ..................... 3.3–5.5 

Material #3 with standoffs—OSRP procedure 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ............................................................................ ........................ 35–42 .......... ..................... ........................

Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) .............................................................................. ........................ 28–37 .......... ..................... ........................

Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN) .................................................................................. ........................ 3.6–4.8 ........ ..................... ........................

Agency Response 

Although the Alliance, IIHS, FTSS, 

and Denton/SAE DTES petitioned for 

the use of the iliac wing design of M3 

with standoffs and provided an 

extensive amount of iliac qualification 

data for this wing design, no data was 

provided for M3 wings with standoffs 

and a backer plate. In today’s final rule, 

NHTSA has specified use of the backer 

plate along with the M3 with standoffs 

design because quasi-static tests showed 

that it is still possible for the M3 with 

standoffs iliac wing to off-load the iliac 

load cell when used without a backer 

plate. However, because the plate has 

little effect on iliac response in 

qualification tests (see Table 2 in section 

V.b of this preamble), NHTSA has 

decided that the petitioners’ ‘‘M3 with 

standoffs’’ data using the NHTSA final 

rule test procedure are valid and should 

be considered for corridor formation. 

In response to the petitions for 

reconsideration, NHTSA has developed 

the iliac performance criteria based on 

an analysis of 83 ‘‘M3 with standoffs’’ 

tests performed by FTSS, multiple series 

of agency pelvis-iliac qualification tests 

using a total of four pelvis skins and six 

(three right, three left) M3 iliac wings 

with standoffs and a backer plate, and 

agency tests of two pelvis skin/iliac 

wing combinations with no backer 

plate. In total, 123 impacts were 

included from agency testing, 107 of 

which were with and 16 were without 

a backer plate.45

Performance corridors for the pelvisiliac were formed following the methods 

described above using the mean, SD, 

and CV of the data set and setting 

bounds at a certain distance from the 

mean value, depending on the CV. The 

report ‘‘Analysis and Development of 

SID–IIsD Qualification Specifications in 

Response to Petitions for 

Reconsideration’’ describes the statistics 

and rationale used for the placement of 

corridor bounds, and provides figures 

showing the responses for each 

qualification measurement. In general, 

the corridors were shifted upward from 

those established in the December 2006 

final rule to account for the higher 

responses of M3 over M2. Final 

placement of the corridors was 

primarily based on the responses of a 

subset of the NHTSA tests (n = 53) that 

were conducted with a minimum twohour recovery time, as specified in this 

final rule. The peak lateral pelvis 

acceleration corridor was expanded 

somewhat from the statistical corridor 

(set at ±10% from the mean) to account 

for the variation in response seen for 

this measurement. The peak impactor 

acceleration and peak iliac wing force 

corridors were revised based on the 

statistics of the two-hour recovery time 

(n = 53) data set. The final corridors are 

shown in Table 20. 

TABLE 20—PELVIS-ILIAC QUALIFICATION CORRIDORS

Pelvis-iliac 

qualification measurement 

December 14, 

2006 corridor 

Statistical 

corridor 

Today’s final rule 

corridor 

Peak Impactor Acceleration (g) ....................................................................................... 34–40 36–45 36–45 

Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) ......................................................................................... 27–33 29–36 28–39 

Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN) ............................................................................................. 3.7–4.5 4.10–5.10 4.10–5.10 

XI. Drawing Package and PADI 

The petitions for reconsideration 

suggested a number of changes to the 

drawing package that was incorporated 

by reference into the part 572 regulatory 

text set forth in the December 14, 2006 

final rule. These requests are discussed 

below, along with agency responses. 

Because the drawings in the drawing 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29887 

46There are several typos in FTSS’s comment. 

The tolerance for general dimensions on the Hybrid 

III dummies is ±0.03, not ±0.30. The petitioner asks 

to change ‘‘9.45±0.20’’ to ‘‘9.45±0.30’’. The 

dimension and tolerances are in error. The petition 

should ask to change ‘‘9.95±0.02’’ to ‘‘9.95±0.03.’’ 

package and the PADI are being changed 

as discussed below, this final rule 

updates the references to the drawing 

package, parts list, and PADI 

incorporated by reference into part 572. 

The updated drawing package, parts list, 

and PADI referenced by today’s final 

rule are dated July 1, 2008. 

Data submitted by FTSS and Denton 

relating to the drawing package has been 

compiled by NHTSA and submitted to 

the docket in a memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data.’’ This 

section refers to tables set forth in this 

memorandum. Other memorandums 

have been submitted to the docket that 

document communications between 

NHTSA and FTSS and Denton regarding 

the SID–IIsD drawing package. 

As a result of the changes made by 

today’s final rule, the total weight of the 

dummy is adjusted to 97.26 ±2.40 lb. 

Changes to weights and masses 

discussed in the following sections are 

reflected in Drawing 180–0000 Sheet 4 

of 5 and in Table 20 of the PADI. For 

a compilation of center of gravity (CG) 

and weight measurements used to 

respond to these petitions for 

reconsideration, see Tables 1–4 in the 

docket memorandum, ‘‘Drawing 

Package Petition Data,’’ id. 

a. Issues Raised by Both FTSS and 

Denton 

1. Referenced Drawings 

FTSS stated that the following 

drawings refer to Hybrid III drawings 

and believed that the contents in the 

title blocks, such as material and finish, 

should be removed: 180–1003, 180– 

1004, 180–1005, 180–2009, 180–3005, 

180–5160–1/–2, 180–5141–1/–2, 180– 

5381, 180–5303, 180–5301, 180–5382, 

180–5540, 180–5504, 180–5503, 180– 

5508, 180–5703, 180–5704, 180–5709, 

180–5906–1/–2, 180–5902, 180–5905, 

180–5904, and 180–5706. Denton also 

listed drawing 180–5903. Denton stated 

that all of these prints simply provide a 

reference back to another print that is 

the same. The petitioner believed that 

the drawings include a material callout 

which should be removed. 

Agency Response: We agree with the 

petitioners and have removed the 

material callouts on these drawings. 

Also, the note ‘‘scale’’ has been 

removed, because it does not apply to a 

blank reference drawing. However, the 

finish specification is part of the general 

dimension and tolerance block and will 

be maintained. While reviewing the 

drawing package, we found that 

drawing 180–5708, which is ‘‘same as 

part number A–1887,’’ also has a 

defined scale that has been removed. 

2. Drawing 180–3113, Side, Plate— 

Spine Box 

FTSS stated that the dimension .788 

(grid reference C4) should read (.788), a 

reference dimension. Denton suggested 

deleting this .788 dimension in the left 

view, as it is double dimensioned. 

Agency Response: These comments 

are correct. We have added parentheses 

around the .788 dimension in the left 

view to make it a reference dimension. 

3. Drawing 180–3361, Lower Bib—Ribs 

FTSS stated that 12xR.05 (B1) should 

read 8xR.05. Denton stated that the 12X 

radius callout should be 8X. 

Agency Response: These comments 

are correct. In drawing 180–3361, we 

have changed 12xR.05 in grid B1 to 

8xR.05. 

4. Drawing 180–3343, Neck Mount 

Block, Machined 

FTSS stated that dimension 2.4 (B5) is 

not clear, and should read 2.40 (CTR OF 

R.25). Denton stated that the 2.40 

dimension is unclear and should be 

replaced with a dimension to the corner. 

Agency Response: We agree that the 

dimension is not clear. However, a 

dimension to the corner would not 

describe the part as well as a dimension 

to the center of the radius. The 2.4 inch 

(in) dimension needs to be labeled as 

the center of the 0.25 in radius. 

Accordingly, we have added ‘‘(CTR OF 

R.25)’’ to the dimension, as well as a 

center of radius symbol, for 

clarification. 

5. Drawing 180–3501, Sternum 

FTSS stated that R.500 (B2) should 

read 4xR.500. Denton also stated that 

the R.500 should have 4X added in front 

of it. 

Agency Response: We agree that this 

radius needs to be labeled 4x to describe 

all four edges. We have added ‘‘4x’’ 

before the R.500 dimension in grid B2 

of drawing 180–3501. 

6. Drawing 6000075, Bearing Spherical 

.500 X 1.000 

FTSS believed that dimension 

;.156+.002/¥.000 should read 2x 

;.156+.002/¥.000 THRU. Denton stated 

that the .156 dia should have 2X added 

to it since it does not go through. 

Agency Response: There are two 

holes, so we have added ‘‘2x’’ before the 

0.156 diameter dimension in grid C3, 

drawing 6000075. However, the holes 

do not go all the way through, so 

‘‘THRU’’ was not added. 

7. Drawing 180–3363, Lower Ribs— 

Bending Upper Torso 

FTSS stated that the tolerance for the 

dimensions is too tight for 

manufacturing; Hybrid III dummies use 

a tolerance of ±0.30 for the general 

dimension and ±0.12 for the bend 

radius. FTSS recommended following 

Hybrid III dummy rib dimension 

tolerance practice, and change the 

4xR2.75 to 4xR2.75±0.12, change 

9.45±0.20 to 9.45±0.30, and change 

7.48±0.20 to 7.48±0.30.46 Denton also 

believed that the tolerances on the rib 

bending are unrealistically tight. Denton 

believed appropriate tolerances should 

match what is on the H–III50M ribs 

such as 78051–31: The 2.75 radius 

dimension should have a tolerance of 

±.12 to match the radius tolerance on 

78051–31. The size dimensions 7.48, 

4.03, 3.45, and 9.95 should have 

tolerances of ±.03 to match 78051–31. 

Denton believed that the dimensions 

4.73 and 7.20 should be made reference 

because they are almost impossible to 

measure. 

Agency Response: We have changed 

the tolerance of ±0.02 for the 7.48 and 

9.95 dimensions to ±0.03 to match that 

of the Hybrid III dummy ribs, and have 

added the tolerance of ±0.12 to the bend 

radius dimension, as requested. In 

addition, we have added a tolerance of 

±0.03 to the 4.03 and 3.45 dimensions. 

The dimensions 4.73 and 7.20 are made 

reference. 

8. Drawing 180–3366, Shoulder Rib— 

Bending Upper Torso 

For the same reason as stated above 

for drawing 180–3363, FTSS 

recommended that NHTSA follow 

Hybrid III dummy rib dimension 

practice and change 4xR1.93 to 

4xR1.93±0.12, change 5.88±.20 to 

5.88±.30 and change 9.98±.20 to 

9.98±.30. Denton believed that the 

tolerances on the rib bending are 

unrealistically tight and that appropriate 

tolerances would match what is on the 

HIII50M ribs, e.g., 78051–31. Denton 

recommended that the 1.93 radius 

dimension should have a tolerance of 

±.12 to match the radius tolerance on 

78051–31, and that the size dimensions 

5.88, 3.23, 2.65, and 9.98 should have 

tolerances of ±.03 to match 78051–31. 

The petitioner suggested that 

dimensions 3.95 and 8.05 should be 

made reference because they are almost 

impossible to measure. 

Agency Response: The same errors are 

present in FTSS’s recommended 

changes as noted in #7 above. 

Otherwise, the petitioners are correct. 

We have changed the tolerance of ±0.02 

29888 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

47 It is believed that the FTSS petitioned weight 

specification had a typographic error and was 

meant to read 1.75± 0.10 lbs since that is what was 

specified on drawing 180–0000 sheet 4 and on the 

HIII5F drawings 880105–650/651. 

48FTSS drawings of the SID–IIsD show CG 

origins and axes with a defined positive direction, 

thus, CG values that fall on the negative side of the 

axis are labeled as negative CG’s. In contrast, 

NHTSA drawings do not indicate positive/negative 

direction of the CG axes, so all CG’s are positive in 

sign. 

49The lower abdominal rib potentiometer (or 5th 

pot) has been moved from the upper torso to the 

lower torso for purposes of measuring the weight 

and cg of these dummy segments. This change is 

discussed later in this preamble. 50See ex parte memorandum in the docket. 

on the 9.98 and 5.88 dimensions to 

±0.03 to match that of the Hybrid III 

dummy ribs and have added the 

tolerance of ±0.12 to the bend radius 

dimension. In addition, a tolerance of 

±0.03 is added to the 3.23 and 2.65 

dimensions, and the dimensions 3.95 

and 8.05 are made reference. 

9. Drawing 180–9060, Spacer 

FTSS and Denton stated that 

dimension 0.194 +0.001/-0.000 (C2) 

should read 0.194 +0.010/-0.000. 

Agency Response: NHTSA agrees and 

has changed the tolerance as petitioned. 

10. Drawing 180–5900–1/–2, Foot 

Assembly Molded 45°, Left and Right 

FTSS stated that the weight 

specification in note 1 should read 

1.78±.10 lbs to be consistent with 

weight table in drawing 180–0000 sheet 

4 and the HIII5F specification.47 Denton 

believed that the weight tolerance 

should be ±.10 lb, similar to the 

standard HIII5F foot 880105–650/651. 

Agency Response: The HIII5F drawing 

and the SID–IIs foot weight specification 

on sheet 4 of 180–0000 specify 1.75 

±0.10 lbs. Drawings 180–5900–1 and –2 

specify a weight of 1.75 +/- 0.08 lbs. We 

agree with the petitioners and have 

changed the weight specification in note 

1 on 180–5900–1, –2 to read 1.75 ±0.10 

lbs to be consistent with weight table in 

drawing 180–0000 sheet 4, and the 

HIII5F. In addition, Note 4 is revised 

such that the phrase, ‘‘* * * weight 

tolerance was 0.10 * * *’’ is removed. 

b. Issues Raised By FTSS 

1. Drawing 180–0000, SID–IIsD 

Complete Assembly, Sheet 4 of 5 

A. Arm CGy: FTSS proposed to 

change the tolerance from ±0.15 to ±0.30 

inch (in). In its addendum to the 

petition for reconsideration, FTSS 

proposed to change the arm CGy from 

0.50±0.15 to 0.49±0.20 in. 

Agency Response: The final rule CG 

location of 0.50 in should be retained 

because it is very close to the FTSS 

recommendation and it sufficiently 

represents the average of the data. 

However, increasing the tolerance to 

0.20 in is acceptable because 

measurement of the arm CG is 

susceptible to error due to the pivot 

point of the arm. Thus, the arm CGy is 

changed from 0.50 ±0.15 in to 0.50 ±0.20 

in. 

B. Arm CGz: FTSS suggested changing 

the dimension from 3.40 to 3.56 in. In 

its petition addendum, item #5b, FTSS 

proposed to change this value from 

3.40±0.30 to ¥3.56 ± 0.20 in.48

Agency Response: We are changing 

the arm CGz from 3.40±0.30 in to 3.55 

±0.30 in. A dimension of 3.55 ±0.30 in 

retains the original tolerance level while 

still including the FTSS recommended 

range. 3.55 in is the average of all arm 

CGz values measured by FTSS and 

NHTSA, and includes all measurements 

from NHTSA-owned dummies (see 

Table 1 of the memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ in the 

docket for today’s final rule.) 

C. Upper Torso Weight: FTSS 

suggested changing this dimension from 

24.65 to 24.26 lb. 

Agency Response: We have changed 

the upper torso assembly without chest 

jacket weight from 24.65 ±0.40 lb to 

24.50 ±0.45 lb. An average was taken of 

all available data (see Table 2, ‘‘Drawing 

Package Petition Data,’’ id.) with the 

lower abdominal potentiometer 

(hereafter referred to as the (‘‘5th pot’’) 

excluded.49 A tolerance of 0.45 lb 

around a mean of 24.50 lb includes all 

of the available data. 

D. Upper Torso CGy: FTSS suggested 

changing the specification from 

0.63±0.15 to ¥0.70±0.20 in. 

Agency Response: We agree to change 

the upper torso CGy to 0.70 ±0.20 in. An 

average was taken of the data provided 

by FTSS (see Table 2 in ‘‘Drawing 

Package Petition Data,’’ id.) with the 5th 

pot excluded. A specification of 0.70 

±0.20 in includes all the relevant data. 

E. Upper Torso CGz: FTSS suggested 

changing the specification from 4.30 to 

4.38 in. 

Agency Response: We agree to the 

suggestion to change the nominal value 

of the upper torso CGz to 4.38 in. A CGz 

of 4.38 in is slightly higher than that 

specified in the final rule, which is 

understandable since FTSS did not 

include the 5th pot in their 

measurements of the upper torso. As the 

location of the 5th pot is moved to the 

lower torso, a higher upper torso CGz is 

expected. An average was taken of the 

data provided by FTSS (see Table 2 in 

‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id.) 

with the 5th pot excluded. A 

specification of 4.38 ±0.20 in includes 

all of the relevant data. 

F. Lower Torso Weight: FTSS 

suggested changing the specification 

from 27.50 to 27.43 lb. 

Agency Response: We are denying the 

request to change the lower torso weight 

to 27.43 lb, but we are changing the 

lower torso weight to 27.60 ±0.40 lb in 

accordance with FTSS and NHTSA 

adjusted data. The petitioner’s suggested 

specification for lower torso weight 

included the 5th deflection 

potentiometer, but did not include the 

iliac wing backer plates.50 In the revised 

drawing package, the lower torso will 

include the 5th pot and the iliac wing 

backer plates. Thus, the FTSS 

measurements were adjusted by adding 

the weight of the backer plates, and the 

NHTSA measurements made per the 

final rule (with the 5th pot in the upper 

torso) were adjusted by adding the 

weight of the potentiometer. Then, the 

mean of all NHTSA and FTSS measured 

weights was calculated to be 27.61 lb 

(Table 3, ‘‘Drawing Package Petition 

Data,’’ id.). The lower torso weight 

specification is centered at this mean. 

G. Lower Torso CGx: FTSS suggested 

changing the tolerance from 0.10 to 0.15 

in. 

Agency Response: We agree to change 

the lower torso CGx tolerance to ±0.15 

in as this tolerance is reasonable and 

acceptable. 

H. Jacket Weight: FTSS suggested 

changing the specification from 

1.40±0.10 to 1.27±0.11 lb (578±50 

grams). 

Agency Response: FTSS suggested a 

large change in weight because the 

jacket is being manufactured by a new 

supplier. We agree to changing the 

weight, but we believe that a new 

weight specification should include as 

many of the old jackets as possible. 

NHTSA is thus specifying a jacket 

weight of 1.30 ±0.15 lb. This tolerance 

would include all but one of the agency 

measurements and the whole range 

suggested by FTSS (see Table 4 in 

‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id.). 

I. Lower Torso CGy: FTSS suggested a 

specification of 0.08±0.20 in. 

Agency Response: This request is 

denied. No specification for lower torso 

CGy was given in the final rule; this is 

because the lower torso is symmetrical 

according to the final rule drawing 

package. The CG offset amount 

suggested by FTSS is likely due to the 

asymmetry of the 5th potentiometer, 

which FTSS included in its lower torso 

measurements. Although this final rule 

includes the 5th potentiometer in the 

lower torso for weight and CG 

measurements, FTSS’s suggested CG is 

so close to zero that it is not deemed 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29889 

51The agency had contacted FTSS to request 

clarification of this aspect of the petition, and FTSS 

responded by providing drawings for these parts 

(see ex parte communication) that showed an 

additional radius in the right view of 180–4320–1 

and the left view of 180–4320–2. However, it 

appeared that the parts did not have this additional 

radius and that the original iliac wing drawings 

reflect the parts as they were. 

necessary to specify a CG requirement 

in the y-direction. 

J. Lower Torso CGz: FTSS suggested a 

specification of 1.01±0.20 in. 

Agency Response: We agree with this 

suggestion. The proposed CGz location 

is very close to the final rule 

specification, and FTSS based this 

recommendation on measurements of 33 

dummies with the 5th potentiometer 

included. Although General Dynamics 

measured five NHTSA lower torsos 

without the 5th pot and found an 

average CGz location of 0.88 in, the 

method General Dynamics used to hold 

the lower torso while measuring the CG 

resulted in the pelvis flesh compressing 

and inaccurate data may have been 

obtained (see note following Table 3 in 

‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id.). 

The data from General Dynamics was 

thus disregarded in the analysis. 

Although FTSS did not include the iliac 

wing backer plates in their lower torso 

measurements, this part should not 

affect the CGz of the assembly because 

it is centered on the CG origin. 

2. Drawing 180–1000, 6 Axis Head 

Assembly 

FTSS requested changing the head 

skin thickness dimension 0.480±.030 to 

0.510±.030 to ensure the head 

performance. 

Agency Response: We agree to change 

the head skin thickness to 0.510 in, as 

petitioned, but we have increased the 

tolerance so that the thickness 

specification will be changed as follows: 

From 0.480 ±0.030 in (0.450–0.510 in) to 

0.51 ±0.05 in (0.46–0.56 in). 

Prior to the final rule, FTSS provided 

thickness measurements for two head 

skins. These measurements, as well as 

VRTC head skin measurements from 

new dummies, were used to evaluate 

the FTSS suggestion, and are shown in 

Tables 5 through 7 of the memorandum 

‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id.. 

VRTC noted that some of the FTSS 

measurements would fail the thickness 

dimension suggested by FTSS. When 

asked by VRTC why it had 

recommended such a large shift in head 

skin thickness, FTSS replied: 

The original SID–IIs head skin mold was 

not symmetrical left to right and produced 

head skins that required FTSS to manually 

trim the head skin thickness to meet the 

Head Drop corridors on both sides of the 

head. The original head skin mold was a 

legacy problem and was a carry over from the 

Hybrid III 5th Female dummy. This caused 

problems in manufacturing quality head 

skins. A new head skin mold was 

manufactured about a year ago to ensure left 

side to right side symmetry of the head skins. 

The new mold provides symmetrical head 

skins, but the skin thickness needed to be 

increased to 0.510 inches to meet the Head 

Drop test corridors. 

Based on the head skin thicknesses 

provided by FTSS and obtained by the 

agency, this final rule specifies a head 

skin thickness of 0.51 ± 0.05 in. This 

specification is met for most dummies 

in critical areas (i.e., areas that receive 

impact in vehicle and qualification 

tests). Additionally, this range includes 

nearly all of the thickness values 

allowed by the final rule, resulting in 

minimal impact on the ability of older 

skins or skins from different 

manufacturers to pass the thickness 

specification. The corresponding head 

drop test results for agency dummies are 

shown in Table 8 in the memorandum, 

‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data,’’ id. 

The results of these tests indicate that 

the recommended head skin thickness 

does not compromise the dummy’s 

ability to pass the head drop test. 

However, it is emphasized that while 

the head skin thickness is specified to 

facilitate consistency between dummies, 

it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to 

meet all head specifications, including 

skin thickness, weight, cg, and 

qualification specifications. 

3. Drawing 180–4320–1/2, Iliac Wing 

FTSS stated that the right view of 

180–4320–1 and the left view of 180– 

4320–2 needs to be updated to reflect 

the actual part. 

Agency Response: This aspect of the 

FTSS petition is moot, as it refers to 

drawings that are replaced with 

drawings of the new M3 with standoffs 

iliac wing.51 This final rule replaces 

drawings 180–4320–1/2 with drawings 

180–4322–1/2 of the new iliac wing 

design. We are also replacing drawing 

180–4321, Iliac Wing Support Plate (the 

steel plate that is molded within the 

iliac wing), with drawing 180–4323, 

which has the ‘‘standoffs.’’ 

Corresponding changes have also been 

made to Table 9 and multiple figures in 

the PADI. 

4. Drawing 180–3000, Upper Torso 

Assembly 

The petitioner believes that the 

orientation of Item 34 is not correct and 

that it needs to be rotated 180 degrees. 

Agency Response: The orientation of 

Item 34 is correct as is and will not be 

changed. However, the view in sheet 1 

shows the rear of the dummy thorax 

while sheet 2 shows the front view, 

which may have caused confusion. 

Thus, we are adding a note to sheet 2 

that indicates the view shown in the 

drawing. 

5. Drawing 180–3623, Lower Rib Pad— 

Upper Torso 

FTSS believed that fastening the 

lower rib pad to the spine box can result 

in conditions of over-tightening and/or 

under-tightening the pad fasteners 

during the installation process, due to 

the elasticity of the part. Over-tightening 

the pad can cause interference with 

another fastener in the spine box. FTSS 

redesigned the lower rib pad to include 

an aluminum insert at the site of 

attachment to the spine box, and 

requested the following changes: 

Obsolete drawing 180–3623, Lower 

Rib Pad—Upper Torso; 

Add drawing 180–3628, Lower Rib 

Pad Assembly, Upper Torso; 

Add drawing 180–3627, Lower Rib 

Pad Insert. 

An addendum to the petition (Docket 

No. NHTSA–2006–25442–0040.1) 

requested a change to the rib pad 

inserts. Originally, the inserts were 

rectangular, but FTSS found that this 

design could possibly tear the rib pad 

during handling of the parts. Thus, 

FTSS suggested that the inserts should 

be of a circular design. 

Agency Response: The agency is 

granting the request to include circular 

aluminum inserts within the rib pad, 

and has incorporated the suggested 

drawings into the SID–IIsD drawing 

package with the following part 

descriptions: Drawing 180–3628, Rib 

Pad Assembly—Upper Torso; Drawing 

180–3627, Rib Pad Insert—Upper Torso. 

The circular inserts are not expected to 

have any effect on the performance of 

the part. VRTC purchased and evaluated 

two rib pads with the original 

rectangular inserts, and found that the 

proposed rib pads are acceptable and 

will cause no foreseeable detriment. 

Because the inserts have only been 

added to provide a non-deformable 

material within the rib pad for 

attachment to the spine box, there is no 

foreseeable problem with this design 

change. Additionally, VRTC purchased 

and evaluated a rib pad with the 

circular inserts, and found that the 

inserts have no effect on proper 

installation of the rib pad. Thus, it was 

concluded that this was an acceptable 

design change. Table 7 and Figure 58 of 

the PADI have also been amended to 

reflect this change. 

29890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

52FTSS Report re: Drawing of Arm for SID–IIs 

Dummy. Submitted following their petition for 

reconsideration, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25442– 

37. 

53 It appears that due to confusion about where 

the 1.75 in dimension should be measured from, 

FTSS’s measurements of this dimension were taken 

incorrectly. Accordingly, their measurements do 

not indicate a problem with the value of the 1.75 

inch dimension. (See next section of this preamble.) 

6. Drawing 180–3450, Jacket 

In its addendum, FTSS suggested a 

material thickness specification of 0.286 

±0.030 in (7.26 ±0.76 mm). FTSS 

requested this change in jacket 

thickness to reflect a change in jacket 

characteristics due to a change in the 

jacket supplier. 

Agency Response: We are amenable to 

including FTSS’s suggested thickness 

range for currently-manufactured jackets 

while also including specifications that 

would accommodate jackets made to the 

December 14, 2006 final rule 

specifications. The final rule specified a 

neoprene thickness of 1⁄4 in ±3/64 in (a 

range of 0.203–0.297 in), laminated on 

both sides with lightweight circular 

jersey-net nylon fabric of thickness .020 

±.005 in. FTSS requested a thickness 

ranging from 0.256–0.316 in. Based on 

comparisons of the final rule and FTSSrecommended thickness ranges, the 

agency is adopting a thickness 

specification of 0.26 ±0.05 in, which 

would include nearly all of both ranges, 

while only slightly increasing the 

tolerance from that specified in the final 

rule. This specification is for the overall 

thickness of the jacket (Neoprene and 

laminated fabric). However, the fabric 

thickness specification will remain on 

the drawing to ensure that the fabric and 

Neoprene thicknesses (and thus, 

dummy thorax performance) will be 

consistent among different 

manufacturers. Accordingly, note 2 in 

drawing 180–3450 is changed to read: 

‘‘Material: 100% neoprene material, 

laminated on both sides with 

lightweight circular jersey-net nylon 

fabric, 0.20 ± .005; overall thickness 

0.26 ± 0.05.’’ 

7. Drawings 180–6011–1/2, Arm Flesh, 

Molded Left/Right 

FTSS asked for changes to the 

drawing package specifications 

regarding the test dummy’s overall arm 

length, arm depth, arm width, and also 

with regard to additional NHTSA 

dimensions specified in the drawings. 

The petitioner requested the changes to 

reflect what FTSS believed are 

improvements made to the SID–IIs left 

arm and the right arm molds to 

eliminate left side to right side 

variations between the two previous 

arm molds and to improve the overall 

quality of the dummy. The petitioner 

believed that the changes bring 

consistency to the dummy with respect 

to the Thorax Impact With Arm test 

when impacting the dummy on either 

the left side or right side. 

FTSS submitted arm dimension data 

to support its petition for 

reconsideration.52 The data were 

measured and collected on nine SID–IIs 

arms manufactured by FTSS. All arms 

are from FTSS’s new SID–IIs arm molds, 

varying in production dates ranging 

from October 2006 through March 2007. 

FTSS did not request a change to the 

overall arm length, but petitioned for 

the following corrections or 

clarifications to drawings 180–6011–1 

and 180–6011–2 based on the data 

provided: (A) Overall arm depth— 

change the arm depth dimensional 

tolerance from +0/-0.10 in to ±0.10 in; 

(B) overall arm width—correct tolerance 

to be +0/-0.10 in; and (C) drawing 

clarity—FTSS believed that several 

dimensions that NHTSA had on these 

drawings are not adequately defined to 

produce consistent measured values. 

Agency Response 

A. Overall arm depth: The agency 

believes that a tolerance of ±0.10 in is 

too large, since the arm depth must be 

fairly well controlled to ensure good 

responses in the crash environment. 

Arm depths measured by FTSS and 

VRTC (see Table 9 of the memorandum, 

‘‘Drawing Package Petition Data’’ for 

VRTC data) were compared to obtain a 

specification that would include as 

many dummies as possible. We 

determined that a dimension of 2.30 ± 

0.06 in (2.24–2.36 inches) includes all 

NHTSA and FTSS dummies and 

increases the overall tolerance only by 

0.02 in from the final rule. Accordingly, 

we are changing the specification for 

arm depth to 2.30 ±0.06 in. 

B. Overall arm width: FTSS observed 

that the NHTSA drawing specifies the 

arm width dimension to be 3.47 +0/ 

¥0.01 in. It stated that the tolerance of 

+0/¥0.01 in is not attainable for this 

dimension and was specified in error, 

and that when the SID–IIs Build Level 

D drawings were under development for 

NHTSA, they specified an arm width 

tolerance of +0/¥0.10 in, which is an 

achievable tolerance for vinyl and foam 

dimensions. In response, we note that 

drawing 180–6011–1 incorrectly 

specifies the arm width dimension 

tolerance as +0/¥0.01 in, as noted by 

the petitioner, but that drawing 180– 

6011–2 correctly specifies a tolerance of 

+0/¥0.10 in. Therefore, we agree with 

the petitioner regarding drawing 180– 

6011–1 and are correcting the tolerance 

on drawing 180–6011–1 to be +0/¥0.10 

in. 

C. Drawing clarity: 

FTSS stated that certain dimensional 

measurements specified in Revision B of 

drawings 180–6011–1 and 180–6011–2 

‘‘are not adequately defined to produce 

consistent measured values.’’ 

(i) 1.75 ±0.05 inch dimension. FTSS 

stated that ‘‘it is unclear where this 

dimension is to be measured from,’’ and 

further suggested that ‘‘this dimension 

should be a reference dimension given 

that the material being measured is 

made of vinyl and foam, which can vary 

due to aging.’’ 53

(ii) 2.90 inch reference dimension, 

2.18 inch reference dimension, and 

1.00±0.05 inch dimension. FTSS stated 

that ‘‘it is unclear where [these 

dimensions are] to be measured from,’’ 

and that the 1.00 dimension ‘‘should be 

a reference dimension since the bottom 

surface is vinyl. FTSS notes that a 

tolerance of ±0.05 in for vinyl and foam 

material is not achievable.’’ The 

petitioner submitted a figure that FTSS 

believed should be made part of the 

drawing package, depicting the arm in 

side view. 

Agency Response: The four 

dimensions addressed by the petitioner 

were not shown well on the December 

2006 final rule arm drawings, and are 

confusing. They were meant to locate 

points to define the curvature of the 

arm. NHTSA has removed these 

dimensions from the end view and has 

created two sections (one at 0.19 in from 

the elbow end, and one at 6.5 in from 

the elbow end, just below the shoulder 

portion) with dimensions shown 

clearly. A note has been added to clarify 

that the dimensions locate points to 

define the curvature of the arm. In 

addition, we have added to the section 

views a dimension indicating the height 

of the section so that the taper of the 

outside surface of the arm is somewhat 

defined. 

(iii) Tolerance values. FTSS also 

commented generally on tolerance 

values established for drawings. The 

petitioner stated: 

On drawings 180–6011–1 and 180–6011–2, 

note #4 states: Tolerance ±0.05 apply to all 

dimensions unless otherwise specified. FTSS 

does not believe this tolerance is achievable 

for vinyl and foam parts. We base this 

statement on our many years of experience in 

manufacturing dummy parts. Vinyl and foam 

shrinks at varying rates and dimension 

tolerances must reflect these characteristics. 

FTSS recommends that NHTSA avoid using 

any vinyl or foam tolerance smaller than 

±0.10 in. 

Agency Response: VRTC checked all 

vinyl/foam parts in the drawing package 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29891 

54See ex parte memorandum in the docket. 

55The ES–2re allows equivalent materials, 

including metals, as indicated by the ‘‘Material 

Ref.’’ label in the title block. We believe this is due 

to the fact that the ES–2re is a modification of the 

EuroSID, which was originally developed in 

Europe, and the original materials were defined by 

European material standards. Thus, by defining a 

reference material, equivalent American materials 

could be used. 56See ex parte memorandum in docket. 

and the only tolerances smaller than 

±0.10 in were on 180–6011–1 and –2. 

These tolerances were ±0.05 in. The 

agency agrees that these tolerances 

should be changed to ±0.10 in for 

practicability reasons. Accordingly, note 

#4 in drawings 180–6011–1/2 is 

changed to read ‘‘Tolerance ±.10 apply 

to all dimensions unless otherwise 

specified.’’ 

c. Issues Raised By Denton 

1. Drawings 180–1007, 180–4701, 180– 

5302, 180–5360, 180–5340, 180–5505, 

180–5509, 180–5501, 180–5700, 180– 

5701, 180–5702, 180–5707, 180–5900–1, 

180–5900–2, 180–5901–1, 180–5901–2, 

180–5705 

Denton stated, ‘‘the last note on each 

of these drawings says that it is the same 

as some other drawing for a different 

dummy except for a change described in 

this note. We request that this last note 

be deleted from each drawing. We think 

that keeping these notes will cause 

confusion.’’ 

Agency Response: NHTSA disagrees. 

We asked Denton to elaborate on the 

reason for the confusion.54 Denton 

responded that the notes are difficult to 

explain to customers, because it is 

expected that identical parts will be 

referenced to each other, while different 

parts will not be. We do not believe this 

reason warrants deleting the notes. 

These notes clarify how the SID–IIsD 

drawing is different from another very 

similar drawing and facilitates easy 

identification of those differences. 

Accordingly, we are denying this 

request and will keep clarification notes 

on these drawings. 

2. Drawing 180–4212, Flange, Lower 

Denton stated that ‘‘the material 

should be 1018 or equivalent.’’ Denton 

informed NHTSA that it believes ‘‘there 

is no reason for 1117 steel to be called 

out for this part. 1018 steel is used on 

many parts in the dummy and meets all 

of the requirements for this part. Calling 

out a special steel for one part simply 

adds cost to the part for no reason since 

a special material must be ordered in 

small quantities and handled just for 

this part. 

Agency Response: We agree to change 

the material for drawing 180–4212 to 

CRS 1018. We investigated 

specifications for flange material in the 

HIII5F dummy drawing and compared 

those to the SID–IIsD package. The 

HIII5F drawings for the lumbar flanges 

(880105–1093 & –1097) call for SAE 

1117 steel; the SID–IIs upper lumbar 

flange (180–4211) calls for 1018 CRS; 

and the SID–IIs lower lumbar flange 

(180–4212) calls for SAE 1117 steel. 

FTSS, the dummy manufacturer 

initially involved with development of 

the SID–IIsD, indicated that SAE 1117 

and CRS 1018 have similar yield 

strength. The agency has determined 

that specifying CRS 1018 is appropriate 

for the reasons provided by Denton and 

FTSS. However, the agency is not 

adding ‘‘or equivalent.’’ This allowance 

‘‘or equivalent,’’ is given for non-metal 

materials in the SID–IIs because 

plastics, rubbers, and other non-metals 

do not have well-defined material 

properties. With the exception of the 

ES–2re, other dummy drawing packages 

do not generally allow equivalent metal 

materials.55

3. Drawing 180–1000, 6 Axis Head 

Assembly 

Denton stated that ‘‘the skin thickness 

should be defined over a region of at 

least ±20 degrees on each side of each 

plane A to cover a region in the back 

view. Also, the thickness should be 

confined to a region in the side view. 

This would define an impact region on 

each side of the head that must meet the 

thickness requirements.’’ 

Agency Response: The petitioner 

provided no head skin thickness data 

with which to make a specification in 

these regions. The agency declines to 

expend resources at this time to develop 

further specifications in this area. 

4. Drawing 180–2006, Upper Neck 

Bracket 

Denton noted that ‘‘this drawing 

appears identical to 880105–207, and 

should therefore be treated like other 

identical drawings, such as 180–2009 

where there is simply a reference to the 

identical drawing. Also, if this is done 

the material callout should be 

removed.’’ 

Agency Response: The request is 

granted. VRTC has examined the 

differences between the drawing for the 

HIII5F upper neck bracket part (880105– 

207) and that for the SID–IIsD (180– 

2006) and has determined small 

differences between them will not affect 

part functionality or interchangeability. 

FTSS, the dummy manufacturer 

originally involved with development of 

the SID–IIsD, confirmed that the ‘‘minor 

differences [between the two drawings] 

are on tolerance level, and would not 

affect the interchangeability between the 

two parts.’’ Accordingly, we have 

removed the schematic, material 

specification, and scale from the 

drawing and added a note stating, 

‘‘Same as 880105–207 rev I.’’ 

5. Drawings SA572–S62, 3 Axis 

Shoulder Load Cell, and 180–3330, 

Shoulder Loadcell Simulator, Assembly 

Denton stated that: ‘‘the center hole in 

the load cell for mounting the arm is 

incorrect. The structural replacement 

(180–3330) calls out a hole of .391 

diameter × .230 ±.001 deep. The Load 

Cell (SA572–S62) calls out .375 

diameter × .220 deep. These two 

drawings should match each other. Both 

drawings should be changed to .375 

±.001 diameter × .230 ±.002 deep. This 

will provide a precision fit for the 

shoulder screw that mounts into this 

hole.’’ 

Agency Response: To assess this 

aspect of the petition, the agency 

evaluated the load cells from both FTSS 

and Denton, as well as the structural 

replacements. FTSS load cells measure 

0.375 × 0.232 deep. The Denton load 

cell could not be located, but as this is 

Denton’s comment, it is assumed that 

the petitioner’s load cells match its 

recommendation. Accordingly, NHTSA 

has determined that Denton is correct. 

The load cell drawing SA572–S62 is 

corrected so that it matches the physical 

load cells, specifying .375 ±.001 

diameter × .230 ±.002 deep. The 

structural replacement drawing 180– 

3330 is also modified to specify .375 

±.001 diameter × .230 ±.002 deep, so 

that it matches the load cell. 

6. Drawing SA572–S64, 6–Axis Lumbar 

Spine Load Cell 

With respect to the 6-axis lumbar 

spine load cell, Denton stated that ‘‘the 

side view of the load cell in the drawing 

shows a neutral axis .900 in from the 

top of the load cell. Denton has 

manufactured this load cell since 1995 

with a neutral axis .875 in from the top 

face of the load cell. Either the 

dimension is in error or it must be noted 

to consult the load cell manufacturer for 

the correct dimension.’’ 

Agency Response: We agree that a 

dimension defining the neutral axis of 

the load cell is not appropriate in this 

case as FTSS and Denton produce load 

cells with different neutral axes. (The 

neutral axis distance for the FTSS load 

cell is 0.900 in.) 56 Accordingly, we have 

removed the .900 dimension and have 

added a note in its place that states to 

29892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

57See ex parte memorandum in docket. 

consult with the load cell manufacturer 

for the neutral axis dimension. 

d. Agency Corrections and Clarifications 

In this section, the agency makes 

further corrections and clarifications of 

the drawings and PADI. 

1. Drawing 180–0000 (sheet 4 of 5), SID– 

IIsD Complete Assembly CG Location 

In the final rule drawing package, CG 

locations were specified as negative 

values for the Neck CGx, Upper Leg 

CGx, Lower Leg CGz, and Foot CGz. 

However, assembly drawings for these 

components illustrating the CG location 

do not denote positive or negative axis 

directions. Thus, the agency believes 

that CG locations are clearer if all CG 

locations are specified as positive 

values, located at the locations shown in 

the drawing package. Accordingly, we 

have changed the Neck CGx from ¥0.30 

to 0.30, the Upper Leg CGx from ¥5.01 

to 5.01, the Lower Leg CGz from ¥5.94 

to 5.94, and the Foot CGz from ¥2.00 

to 2.00. Also on this drawing, an 

asterisk was added after the quantity of 

‘‘Arm Assembly, Molded’’ to clarify that 

only one arm is installed on the 

complete dummy. This clarification is 

also found in Table 26 of the PADI. 

Finally, in the upper torso parts table, 

in the note (without chest jacket),* the 

asterisk was moved inside the 

parentheses to clarify that this line 

refers to the upper torso assembly 

drawing without the chest jacket. 

2. Drawing 180–1000, Head Assembly 

In drawing 180–1000, items 13–17 

were labeled as reference. Items 13, 14, 

16 and 17 are called out on drawing 

180–0000, sheet 2 of 5, and thus are 

referenced on this drawing. However, 

item 15 is not called out on another 

drawing, thus it should not be labeled 

as reference. We have thus removed 

‘‘REF’’ from the description for item 15, 

‘‘Screw, SHCS 10–24 X 7/16.’’ Also on 

this drawing, the description for item 9 

was changed to agree with the part’s 

drawing. 

3. Drawing 180–2000, Neck Assembly 

The description of Item #12, ‘‘Washer, 

3/8′′; Flat,’’ needed correction. This 

washer is placed around the threaded 

portion of the neck cable to prevent the 

lower neck bushing from damage due to 

tightening of the nut to the neck cable. 

However, this portion of the neck cable 

has a diameter of 1⁄2 in (thus, it is 

physically impossible for a 3⁄8 in washer 

to fit around it). A washer is also used 

on the HIII5F neck, but in the HIII5F 

neck assembly drawing (880105–250), 

the description for the same part 

number is ‘‘Washer, 1.06 OD. X .53 ID. 

X .06 CAD Plate.’’ The correct 

description for Item #12 on drawing 

180–2000 is ‘‘1.06 OD X .53 ID X .06 

WASHER.’’ Drawing 180–2000 and 

Table 6 of the PADI have been amended 

to reflect this correction. 

4. Drawing 180–4000, Lower Torso 

Assembly; and drawing 180–3000, 

Upper Torso Assembly 

For the purposes of CG and weight 

measurements, the location of the lower 

abdominal rib potentiometer is changed 

from the upper torso to the lower torso. 

The final rule drawing package 

indicates that this potentiometer 

assembly is considered part of the upper 

torso (180–3000). During 

communication with FTSS regarding 

clarification of the petitioner’s various 

requests,57 we found that FTSS was 

including the lower abdominal rib 

potentiometer in the lower torso for 

weight and CG measurement, because 

the potentiometer is mounted in the 

lower torso. NHTSA believes it is 

reasonable to consider the 

potentiometer assembly as part of the 

lower torso for weight and CG 

measurements because, while the end of 

the potentiometer assembly is mounted 

to the lower abdominal rib (upper 

torso), the potentiometer housing, 

which is the heaviest portion of the 

assembly, is mounted in the lower torso. 

As a practical matter, this change in 

where the lower abdominal rib pot is 

located for purposes of CG and weight 

measurement does not change in any 

manner the fully assembled dummy, but 

it does harmonize the specification with 

industry practice. Thus, we are 

amending the drawings to show the 

lower abdominal rib potentiometer in 

the lower torso assembly as follows: we 

have changed the quantity of 1⁄2 inch 

potentiometers (item 42, 180–3881) 

from 6 to 5 in the upper torso assembly 

(180–3000 sheet 1 of 2); removed ‘‘REF’’ 

from 1⁄2 inch potentiometer assembly 

(item 21, 180–3881) in the lower torso 

assembly drawing (180–4000 sheet 1 of 

2); added the potentiometer assembly 

schematic to the lower torso CG drawing 

(180–4000 sheet 2 of 2); and updated 

complete assembly drawing 180–0000, 

sheet 4 of 5 with new CG and weight 

values. Additionally, we have modified 

Table 7 (Upper Torso Assembly 

Components), Table 9 (Lower Torso 

Assembly Components) and Table 20 

(SID–IIsD Total and Segment Masses) of 

the PADI to reflect these changes in the 

drawing package. We have also made 

modifications to Section 5.3.1 

(instructions for removal of the upper 

torso), Section 5.5.1 (disassembly of the 

lower torso), Section 6.5.4.2 (installation 

of the lower abdominal displacement 

potentiometer), and Section 8.1 

(Thoracic and Abdominal Rib 

Structure), and related figures to 

account for the 5th pot being part of the 

lower torso assembly. 

5. Drawing 180–4000, Lower Torso 

Assembly, Sheet 1 of 2 

The description of item 18 is changed 

from ‘‘HEX NUT, JAM 5⁄8–18’’ TO 

‘‘NUT, HEX JAM 5⁄8–18 LOCK NUT’’ to 

reflect the actual part. A lock nut 

ensures that the parts do not become 

loose. 

6. Drawing 180–4000, Lower Torso 

Assembly, Sheet 2 of 2 

The orientation of the CG x-axis 

needed clarification as it is not clear in 

this drawing. We have added a second 

note to this drawing that states, ‘‘The X 

axis is parallel to the top surface of the 

lumbar spine load cell simulator.’’ 

7. Drawing 180–4402, Femur Holding 

Shaft—Pelvis 

The diameter of the shaft (0.49 +.000/ 

¥.002 in) needed correction. This shaft 

passes through a spherical bearing 

(9002608) with ID 0.5000 +.0025/ 

¥.0005 in, contained within the femur 

assembly (180–4423–1/–2). However, if 

the shaft were made to the existing final 

rule specification, ‘‘slop’’ between the 

bearing and shaft would result because 

of too much space between them. 

Physical measurements of multiple 

shafts indicate that it has a diameter of 

0.498 in, which is 0.008 in out of 

specification. We have changed the 

femur holding shaft diameter to .498 

±.001 in to reflect currently 

manufactured parts and to ensure good 

fit between the shaft and bearing. 

8. Drawing 180–9000, SID–IIsD 

Headform Assembly, Sheet 1 of 2 

The orientation of the nodding blocks 

on the neck did not represent their 

orientation in the physical neck/ 

headform assembly. Their orientation 

on the drawing is corrected to reflect the 

physical assembly. 

9. Drawing Package Changes for 

Consistency of Part Names 

Corrections were made to the part 

descriptions in the following assembly 

drawings to match the part names on 

individual drawings: Drawing 180–0000 

sheet 1 of 5, Item 3; Drawing 180–3881, 

Item 4; Drawing 180–5000–1/2, Item 7; 

Drawing 180–5501, Item 2; Drawing 

180–5901–2, Item 5; Drawing 180–9000, 

Item 10; and Drawing 180–9002, Items 

3 and 7. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29893 

10. Other Changes to PADI and to Parts/ 

Drawings List 

• PADI Section 6.5.2, Installation of 

Rib Accelerometers: Instruction number 

2 in this section, stating that 

accelerometer configuration for each rib 

is identical, is incorrect. The 

accelerometers mounted in thoracic ribs 

1 and 2 and abdominal rib 1 are 

configured differently than those 

mounted in thoracic rib 3 and 

abdominal rib 2. This instruction has 

been corrected and a new figure added 

to illustrate the difference in 

configuration. 

• PADI page 2: the website to find 

docket materials was changed from 

http://dms.dot.gov to 

www.regulations.gov 

• Some PADI figures were updated to 

improve clarity of instructions. 

• The Parts/Drawings List was 

updated to reflect changes made to the 

drawing package in this final rule. 

• The part names for drawings 180– 

1005 and 180–3005 were changed in the 

PADI to agree with the part name in the 

drawing package. 

• The Parts/Drawings List was 

updated to reflect changes made to the 

drawing package in this final rule. In 

addition to the changes previously 

discussed in this preamble, the 

following part descriptions in the parts/ 

drawings list were changed for 

consistency with part names in the 

drawing package: 180–1005, 180–3005, 

6000075, 180–5504, 180–5508, 180– 

5708, 180–5900–1/2, and 180–5905. 

XII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ 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). 

NHTSA’s specifications in 49 CFR 

part 572 for a 5th percentile adult 

female side impact dummy that the 

agency will use in research, compliance 

tests of the Federal side impact 

protection safety standards, and 

consumer information programs do not 

impose any requirements on anyone. 

Businesses would be affected only if 

they choose to manufacture or test with 

the dummy. 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. The amendments made in 

today’s document will not affect the cost 

of 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 

rule does not impose or rescind any 

requirements for anyone. The 

amendments made in this document 

will not affect the cost of the dummy. 

NHTSA 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) 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

NHTSA to develop a process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rule does not have federalism 

implications because the rule does not 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Moreover, the 

amendments made in this document 

will not affect the cost of the dummy. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal 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 in any one year 

(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 us 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. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows us to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if we 

publish with the final rule an 

29894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. 

This rule does not impose any 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. This rule does not meet the 

definition of a Federal mandate because 

it does not impose requirements on 

anyone. Further, it will not result in 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. The 

amendments made in this document 

will not affect the cost of the dummy. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

Civil Justice Reform 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ we have 

considered whether this rule will have 

any retroactive effect. This rule does not 

have any retroactive effect. A petition 

for reconsideration or other 

administrative proceeding will not be a 

prerequisite to an action seeking judicial 

review of this rule. This rule does not 

preempt the states from adopting laws 

or regulations on the same subject, 

except that it does preempt a state 

regulation that is in actual conflict with 

the Federal regulation or makes 

compliance with the Federal regulation 

impossible or interferes with the 

implementation of the Federal statute. 

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’’. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

—Has the agency organized the material 

to suit the public’s needs? 

—Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

—Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

—Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of 

headings, paragraphing) make the 

rule easier to understand? 

—Would more (but shorter) sections be 

better? 

—Could the agency improve clarity by 

adding tables, lists, or diagrams? 

—What else could the agency do to 

make this rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us about 

them. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

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 DEVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 572 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th Percentile 

Female Test Dummy, Alpha Version 

■ 2. Section 572.137 is amended by 

revising the third sentence in paragraph 

(a) and the third sentence in paragraph 

(b), to read as follows: 

§ 572.137 Test conditions and 

instrumentation. 

(a) * * * The impactor shall have a 

mass of 13.97 ±0.23 kg (30.8 ±0.5 lbs) 

and a minimum mass moment of inertia 

of 3646 kg-cm2 (3.22 lbs-in-sec2) in yaw 

and pitch about the CG of the probe. 

* * * 

(b) * * * The impactor shall have a 

mass of 2.99±0.23 kg (6.6±0.5 lbs) and a 

minimum mass moment of inertia of 

209 kg-cm2 (0.177 lb-in-sec2) in yaw and 

pitch about the CG of the probe. * * * 

* * * * * 

Subpart V, SID–IIsD Side Impact Crash 

Test Dummy, Small Adult Female 

■ 3. Section 572.190 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1), the 

introductory text of paragraph (a)(2), 

paragraphs (a)(3), (b), and (c)(1), to read 

as follows: 

§ 572.190 Incorporated materials. 

(a) * * * 

(1) A parts/drawing list entitled, 

‘‘Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart 

V, SID–IIsD, July 1, 2008,’’ 

(2) A drawings and inspection 

package entitled ‘‘Drawings and 

Specifications for the SID–IIsD Small 

Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572 

Subpart V, July 1, 2008,’’ consisting of: 

* * * * * 

(3) A procedures manual entitled, 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, 

and Inspection (PADI) of the SID–IIsD 

Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, July 1, 

2008,’’ incorporated by reference in 

§ 572.191; 

* * * * * 

(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 Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

telephone (202) 366–9826, and at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), and in 

electronic format through 

Regulations.gov. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29895 

information on the availability and 

inspection of this material at 

Regulations.gov, call 1–877–378–5457, 

or go to: http://www.regulations.gov. 

(c) * * * 

(1) The Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 

Subpart V, SID–IIsD, July 1, 2008, 

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, July 1, 2008, 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 

www.Regulations.gov and in paper 

format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of 

New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20879, (301) 670– 

0090. 

■ 4. Section 572.191 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), to 

read as follows: 

§ 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, July 1, 2008,’’ 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 

number 

6 Axis Head Assembly ......... 180–1000 

Neck Assembly ..................... 180–2000 

Upper Torso Assembly ......... 180–3000 

Clamping Washer ................. 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 July 1, 2008 

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 

July 1, 2008, 

(4) ‘‘Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of 

the SID–IIsD Side Impact Crash Test 

Dummy, July 1, 2008,’’ 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 

July 1, 2008. 

(c) Weights and center of gravity 

locations of body segments are shown in 

drawing 180–0000 sheet 4 of 5, dated 

July 1, 2008. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 572.193 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 572.193 Neck assembly. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * *. 

(1) The pendulum deceleration pulse 

is characterized in terms of decrease in 

velocity as obtained by integrating the 

pendulum acceleration output from 

time zero: 

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 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 572.194 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(10), and 

(c) adding paragraph (b)(11), to read as 

follows: 

§ 572.194 Shoulder. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * *

(7) Orient the arm to point forward at 

90 ±2 degrees relative to the inferiorsuperior orientation of the upper torso 

spine box incline. 

* * * * * 

(10) The dummy’s arm-shoulder is 

impacted at 4.3 ± 0.1 m/s with the 

impactor meeting the alignment and 

contact point requirements of paragraph 

(b)(9) of this section. 

(11) Allow a period of at least thirty 

(30) minutes between successive tests of 

the same shoulder assembly. 

* * * * * 

(c) Performance criteria. 

(1) While the impactor is in contact 

with the dummy’s arm, the shoulder 

shall compress not less than 28 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 22 g; 

(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall 

be not less than 13 g and not more than 

18 g. 

■ 7. Section 572.195 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(7), adding 

paragraphs (b)(11) and (b)(12), revising 

paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) and (c)(3), to 

read as follows: 

§ 572.195 Thorax with arm. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(7) Orient the arm downward to the 

lowest detent such that the longitudinal 

centerline of the arm is parallel to the 

inferior-superior orientation of the spine 

box. 

* * * * * 

(11) Time zero is defined as the time 

of contact between the impact probe and 

the arm. 

(12) Allow a period of at least thirty 

(30) minutes between successive tests of 

the same thorax assembly. 

(c) * * *

(1) * * * 

(ii) Upper thorax rib not less than 25 

mm and not more than 32 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 29 g and 

not more than 37 g; 

(3) Peak impactor acceleration after 5 

ms after time zero shall be not less than 

30 g and not more than 36 g. 

■ 8. Section 572.196 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(1)(i), 

(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2), and (c)(3), and by 

adding paragraph (b)(10), to read as 

follows: 

§ 572.196 Thorax without arm. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * *

(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 

V6–A, while the midsagittal plane of the 

dummy is in vertical orientation. 

* * * * * 

(10) Allow a period of at least thirty 

(30) minutes between successive tests of 

the same thorax assembly. 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Upper thorax rib not less than 32 

mm and not more than 40 mm; 

* * * * * 

(iii) Lower thorax rib not less than 35 

mm and not more than 43 mm; 

(2) Peak acceleration of the upper 

spine (T1) shall not be less than 13 g 

and not more than 17 g and the lower 

spine (T12) not less than 7 g and not 

more than 11 g; 

(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall 

not be less than 14 g and not more than 

18 g. 

29896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 9. Section 572.197 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(9), (c)(1), 

and (c)(2), and by adding paragraph 

(b)(10), to read as follows: 

§ 572.197 Abdomen. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(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 

V7–A in Appendix A to this subpart, 

while the midsagittal plane of the 

dummy is in vertical orientation. 

* * * * * 

(9) The dummy’s abdomen is 

impacted at 4.3 ± 0.1 m/s. 

(10) Allow a period of at least thirty 

(30) minutes between successive tests of 

the same abdomen assembly. 

(c) * * * 

(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 36 mm and not 

more than 47 mm, and the lower 

abdominal rib not less than 33 mm and 

not more than 44 mm. 

(2) Peak acceleration of the lower 

spine (T12) laterally oriented 

accelerometer shall be not less than 9 g 

and not more than 14 g; 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 572.198 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(7), adding 

paragraphs (b)(11) and (b)(12) and by 

revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3), and 

to read as follows: 

§ 572.198 Pelvis acetabulum. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(7) Rotate the arm downward to the 

lowest detent such that the longitudinal 

centerline of the arm is parallel to the 

inferior-superior orientation of the spine 

box. 

* * * * * 

(11) Time zero is defined as the time 

of contact between the impact probe and 

the pelvis plug. 

(12) Allow a period of at least 120 

minutes between successive tests of the 

same pelvis assembly. 

(c) * * * * * 

(2) Peak lateral acceleration of the 

pelvis after 6 ms after time zero is not 

less than 34 g and not more than 42 g; 

(3) Peak acetabulum force is not less 

than 3.60 kN and not more than 4.30 

kN. 

■ 11. Section 572.199 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(4) through 

(b)(9), by adding paragraphs (b)(10) and 

(b)(11), and by revising paragraphs 

(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3), to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

iliac wing load cell SA572–S66, 

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) * * * * * 

(4) Orient the arm downward to the 

lowest detent such that the longitudinal 

centerline of the arm is parallel to the 

inferior-superior orientation of the spine 

box. 

(5) 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. 

(6) While maintaining the dummy’s 

position as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3), (4) and (5) of this section, the top 

of the shoulder rib mount (180–3352) 

orientation in the fore-and-aft direction 

is within ±1.0 degree relative to 

horizontal as shown in Figure V9–B in 

Appendix A to this subpart. 

(7) The pelvis impactor is specified in 

49 CFR 572.200(c). 

(8) 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. 

(9) 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. 

(10) The dummy’s pelvis is impacted 

at the iliac location at 4.3±0.1 m/s. 

(11) Allow a period of at least 120 

minutes between successive tests of the 

same pelvis assembly. 

(c) * * * * * 

(1) Peak acceleration of the impactor 

is not less than 36 g and not more than 

45 g; 

(2) Peak acceleration of the pelvis is 

not less than 28 g and not more than 39 

g; 

(3) Peak iliac force is not less than 

4.10 kN and not more than 5.10 kN. 

12. Section 572.200 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 572.200 Instrumentation and test 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

(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 4 hours. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Figures V4–A, V9–A and V9–B in 

‘‘Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572– 

Figures’’ are revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572— 

Figures 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 29897 


ER23JN09.005</GPH> ER23JN09.006</GPH>
29898 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued: June 5, 2009. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–13605 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 


ER23JN09.007</GPH>