[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29862-29898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13605]



[[Page 29861]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 572



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

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

[[Page 29862]]


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

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,

[[Page 29863]]

which simulates a vehicle-to-vehicle, ``T-bone'' type intersection 
crash.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \2\ NHTSA 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).
    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The anthropometry and mass of the SID-IIsD are based on the Hybrid 
III 5th percentile frontal female dummy and also generally match the 
size and weight of a 12- to 13-year-old child. The head and neck 
designs are based on the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. The 
legs are Hybrid III 5th percentile female design available also with 
femur load cell instrumentation. At the same time, unlike the Hybrid 
III series of dummies, the SID-IIsD's torso construction is 
particularly oriented for assessing the potential for side impact 
injury. The dummy's upper torso is made up of a rigid metallic spine to 
which six spring steel bands lined with bonded polymer damping material 
are attached to simulate the impact performance of the human shoulder 
(1 rib), thorax (3 ribs) and abdomen (2 ribs). Linear potentiometers 
are attached from the ribs to the spine for compression measurements. 
Provisions are available for mounting tri-axial accelerometer packs to 
the spine at T<INF>1</INF> and T<INF>12</INF> and at each rib.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ T<INF>1</INF>-sensor location on the dummy's thoracic spine 
equivalent to the first thoracic vertebra on the human spine. 
T<INF>12</INF>-sensor location on the dummy's thoracic spine 
equivalent to the 12th thoracic vertebra on the human spine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \6\ Members 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.
    \7\ Additionally, a letter in support of the Alliance and FTSS 
petitions was received from the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety (IIHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <greek-i>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 <greek-i>3, or ``M3''), and pelvis acetabulum.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OSRP 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.
    \9\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29864]]

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 <greek-i>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 <greek-i>2'' 
or ``M2''). (71 FR at 75355; December 14, 2006.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \12\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
<greek-i>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 <greek-i>3 for the following 
reasons: (1) it is available; (2) it is more manufacturable and 
stable than material <greek-i>2; and (3) it has demonstrated 
repeatable performance. Material <greek-i>3 is generally slightly 
stiffer than the original pre April 2004 (material <greek-i>1) and 
may result in higher recorded loads.

    Denton also supported the use of Material <greek-i>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 
<greek-i>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA is granting the petitions to adjust performance criteria so 
that Material <greek-i>3 (M3) can be used for the iliac wings.\14\ 
NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) conducted quasi-static 
testing in the

[[Page 29865]]

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

    \14\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance in its petition for reconsideration said that Material 
<greek-i>3 is generally slightly stiffer than Material <greek-i>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 pelvis-iliac 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ M1 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.''

                                                   Table 1--Comparison of M1 and M3 Qualification Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Maximum probe  Maximum pelvis   Maximum Iliac
                                                                          Probe velocity   Probe energy    acceleration   Y acceleration       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 (R\2\ = 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. Quasi-static 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

[[Page 29866]]

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

    \16\ SID-IIsD final rule drawing package, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-
25442-0012.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.000

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

    \17\ The FTSS iliac wing design is illustrated in its petition, 
Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance and IIHS also recommend the use of Material <greek-i>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

[[Page 29867]]

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 (in-lb), 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ We 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.
    \19\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \20\ Although 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.

                               Table 2--Comparison of NHTSA M3 With Standoffs; Iliac Results With and Without Backer Plate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Peak lateral
        Pelvis skin No.          Iliac wing No.     Backer plate?        Number of                          Peak probe        pelvis        Peak iliac
                                                                           tests                           acceleration    acceleration        force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
764............................           L-318  Yes................              24  AVG...............           40.27           30.87         4686.76
                                                                                      S.D...............            0.55            1.04          100.10
                                                                                      %CV...............            1.4%            3.4%            2.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
764............................           L-318  No.................              10  AVG...............           39.44           30.43         4574.26
                                                                                      S.D...............            0.77            1.34          148.69
                                                                                      %CV...............            1.9%            4.4%            3.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response                                     -2.06%          -1.43%          -2.40%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
765............................           R-310  Yes................               6  AVG...............           41.79           35.32         4930.00
                                                                                      S.D...............            0.53            1.08          102.09
                                                                                      %CV...............            1.3%            3.0%            2.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
765............................           R-310  No.................               6  AVG...............           41.50           34.62         4913.20
                                                                                      S.D...............            0.33            0.96           70.88
                                                                                      %CV...............            0.8%            2.8%            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 <plus-minus> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-19.

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

[[Page 29868]]

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 <plus-minus>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, Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 0[ordm]<plus-minus>1 relative to horizontal,'' 
and later states to ``adjust the masking tape as necessary'' to ensure 
proper dummy positioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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[deg]<plus-minus>1[deg] 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \24\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 x 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

[[Page 29869]]

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

    \25\ NHTSA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requested Change
    In petitions for reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES agreed that a 
pre-crush 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NHTSA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (<plus-
minus>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 pre-crushed 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 force-
deflection ``box'' at 3 <plus-minus> 0.5 mm of deflection would be the 
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ FTSS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<plus-minus>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<plus-minus>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 pelvis-acetabulum 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ A memorandum describing this communication has been placed 
in the docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (Sec.  572.198).

[[Page 29870]]

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 petitioner-
referenced 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 pre-crush. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 69 FR at 70961, December 8, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 29871]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.001

    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 Sec.  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

[[Page 29872]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.003


[[Page 29873]]



VI. Shoulder Qualification Procedures

a. Impact Velocity

    The December 14, 2006 final rule specified an impact velocity of 
4.4 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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<plus-minus>0.1 m/s, and 
data submitted in petitions for reconsideration contained tests 
conducted at 4.4<plus-minus>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<plus-minus>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<plus-minus>0.1 m/s data set. Thus, similarity 
of means between the 4.4<plus-minus>0.1 m/s and 4.3<plus-minus>0.1 m/s 
data sets may be partially due to the majority of points in the 
4.3<plus-minus>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        Peak T1      Peak shoulder
                                                                   acceleration    acceleration     deflection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3<plus-minus>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<plus-minus>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The document has been placed in the docket for this final 
rule.

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

[[Page 29874]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.004

    To support its petition, the Alliance also made the argument that 
the impact velocity should be reduced to 4.3 <plus-minus>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<plus-minus>0.1 m/s 
vs. 4.4<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s or 4.4 <plus-minus>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 <plus-
minus>0.1 m/s versus 4.4 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s are relatively close. 
Therefore, we are agreeable to reducing the test's impact velocity to 
4.3 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Shoulder 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Arm Position

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ There 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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[deg] DETENT'' is replaced with ``ARM 
90[deg] <plus-minus> 2[deg] 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 <plus-
minus>2[deg] 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

[[Page 29875]]

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 inferior-superior orientation of the spine box.''

VII. Thorax With Arm Qualification Procedures

a. Peak Impactor Acceleration

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Overall 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.
    \35\ FTSS was contacted to determine whether the peak probe 
accelerations were taken after 5 ms. See ex parte memorandum, Docket 
No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Sec.  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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s.
Requested Change
    The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES recommended that the impact 
velocity of the shoulder and abdomen

[[Page 29876]]

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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-
minus>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 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s to 4.3 <plus-minus>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<plus-minus>0.1 m/s and 4.4<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus> 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Results 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.

Table 4--Statistical Comparison of Abdominal Qualification Results From Tests Conducted at 4.3<plus-minus>0.1 m/
                                  s vs. 4.4<plus-minus>0.1 m/s Impact Velocity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Peak T12
                                                    Peak probe    Peak upper rib  Peak lower rib      lateral
                                                   acceleration     deflection      deflection     acceleration
                                                        (g)            (mm)            (mm)             (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 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s test speed is too severe. 
We reduced the velocity because the deflections obtained in the 4.3 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-
minus>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 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 full-body 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 pelvis-

[[Page 29877]]

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 <greek-i>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 pelvis-iliac 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 fully-
recovered 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Qualification 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).

[[Page 29878]]



  Table 5--Average Pelvis-Iliac Qualification Measurements for Fully, 30 Minutes, 1 Hour, and 2 Hour Recovered
                                                  Dummy Pelves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average peak    Average peak
                                                                       probe         pelvis Y      Average peak
                                                                   acceleration    acceleration     iliac force
                                                                        (g)             (g)             (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 Sec.  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 <plus-minus> 0.23 kg (30.8 <plus-minus>0.05 
lbs).'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ There was an incorrect conversion in Sec.  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<plus-minus>0.23 kg (6.6<plus-minus>0.5 lbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <plus-minus>0.023 kg, rather than <plus-minus>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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Tolerance
                                                                        Probe metric/english      percentage of
    Part 572 subpart & dummy name              Probe type           specification and tolerance  specified probe
                                                                                                   mass/weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart N, Six-year-old Child Test    Thorax......................  2.86<plus-minus>0.02 kg....            0.70
 Dummy, Beta Version.                                               (6.3<plus-minus>0.05 lb)...            (.79)
Subpart N, Six-year-old Child Test    Knee........................  0.82<plus-minus>0.02 kg....            2.44
 Dummy, Beta Version.                                               (1.8<plus-minus>0.05 lb)...           (2.78)
Subpart P, HIII 3-Year-Old Child      Thorax......................  1.70<plus-minus>0.02 kg....            1.18
 Crash Test Dummy, Alpha Version.                                   (3.75<plus-minus>0.05 lb)..           (1.33)
Subpart V, SID-IIs Side Impact Crash  Thorax/Abdomen/Iliac (for     13.97<plus-minus>0.23 kg...            1.65
 Test Dummy (refers to Subpart O,      HIII5F, Thorax).             (30.8<plus-minus>0.05 lb)..          (0.162)
 HIII5F).                                                           *tolerances not equivalent.
Petitioned SID-IIs/HIII5F probe mass  Thorax/Abdomen/Iliac (for     13.97<plus-minus>0.023 kg..           0.164
 tolerance.                            HIII5F, Thorax).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29879]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Meets 0.23 kg          Meets 0.023 kg
                Lab                           Probe mass                tolerance?              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);    YES...................  NO.
                                      14.1014 kg (abd); 14.1558
                                      kg (iliac).
FTSS...............................  13.950 kg (sh/thx/acet);     YES...................  YES.
                                      13.972 kg (abd); 13.955 kg
                                      (iliac).
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ NHTSA Docket NHTSA-2006-25442-14, page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<plus-minus>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 in-lb 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 Delta-V 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 neck-headform 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 translation-rotation 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.

[[Page 29880]]

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

    \40\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 = \1/2\mv\2\). 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 <plus-minus>3 
standard deviations (SD) from the mean; for CV between 3% and 5%, 
<plus-minus>2 SD from the mean; for CV greater than 5%, <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>3 standard deviations (such that ~99% of 
the available data would be included) be used to create corridors 
instead of <plus-minus>2 standard deviations (which includes only ~95% 
of the available data) because, the petitioner believed, there was 
limited data accounting for lab-to-lab 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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \42\ Available in Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29881]]

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

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

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

    \44\ For 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.

                Table 8--Total Number of Qualification Tests Used To Form Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Shoulder    Thorax w/    Thorax w/o    Abdomen      Pelvis-      Pelvis-
          Test performer             (4.3 m/s)       arm          arm       (4.3 m/s)    Acetabulum     Iliac
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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               14           28           28            7           56  ...........
 dummies..........................
FTSS--petition for reconsideration           12           25           25           16  ...........           83
GM--Denton/SAE DTES petition for    ...........  ...........  ...........            2  ...........          206
 reconsideration..................
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................         * 67       ** 112          115           64     [dagger]          155
                                                                                                117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 50 measurements were available for the peak upper spine (T1) acceleration.
** 66 measurements were available for the peak impactor acceleration after 5 ms.
[dagger] 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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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<plus-minus>0.1 m/s. 
FTSS created corridors based on a 4.4 <plus-minus>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 
<plus-minus>0.1 m/s impact speed. It pooled data from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA 
and TRC and created corridors at <plus-minus>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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Petitioned recommendations
                                        December 14,  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Shoulder qualification test         2006 final      Alliance--
                                        rule corridor   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 <plus-minus>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 statistically-
derived 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

[[Page 29882]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
            Shoulder qualification measurement                2006 corridor       corridor        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 <plus-minus>3 
standard deviations rather than <plus-minus>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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Petitioned recommendations
                                        December 14,  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Thorax with arm qualification test     2006 final      Alliance--
                                        rule corridor   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               30-36           30-35  ...........................  Same as FR...............  29-36.
 (mm).
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           31-36      Same as FR  30-36 [dagger].............  Same as FR...............  30-37.
 (g).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's Final
         Thorax with arm qualification measurement            2006 Corridor       Corridor        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

[[Page 29883]]

 
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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>3 s.d. from the mean. The corridor 
recommendations are summarized in Table 13.

                  Table 13--Comparison of Petitioned Thorax Without Arm Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Petitioned recommendations
Thorax without arm qualification   December 14,  ---------------------------------------------------------------
              test                  2006 final      Alliance--January
                                   rule corridor          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           33-40  Same as FR..........  Same as FR.........  31-41
 (mm).
Peak Middle Thorax Rib                     39-45  39-44...............  Same as FR.........  37-45
 Deflection (mm).
Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection           36-43  Same as FR..........  Same as FR.........  34-44
 (mm).
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel.            14-17  Same as FR..........  Same as FR.........  13-17
 (g).
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel.             7-10  7-11................  7-11...............  6-12
 (g).
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)..           14-18  15-18...............  Same as FR.........  Same as FR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    Based on an impact velocity of 4.3<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
       Thorax without arm qualification measurement           2006 corridor       corridor        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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s 
in

[[Page 29884]]

their December 2007 petition. FTSS pooled data from FTSS, NHTSA and GM, 
based on 4.4 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s impact speed. It created corridors 
using the NHTSA procedure, except the T12 corridor was created using 
<plus-minus>2 s.d. instead of 10%. Denton/SAE DTES created corridors 
using <plus-minus>3 s.d. from the mean of 4.4 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s 
impact data pooled from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA and TRC.

                                           Table 15--Comparison of Petitioned Abdomen Qualification Corridors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      December 14,                                        Petitioned recommendations
     Abdomen qualification test        2006 final   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      rule corridor   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           39-47  37-50...................  37-49....................  Same as FR............  36-51
 (mm).
Peak Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection           37-46  35-49...................  35-49....................  Same as FR............  33-53
 (mm).
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 <plus-minus>0.1 m/s. Accordingly, the performance corridors were 
formed using only those tests with input energies corresponding to 
impact velocities of 4.3 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>2 s.d. from the mean, rather than 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>10% of the mean, so it is more 
appropriate to set the corridor bounds at <plus-minus>2 s.d. from the 
mean. The final corridors are shown in Table 16.

                                    Table 16--Abdomen Qualification Corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
             Abdomen qualification measurement                2006 corridor       corridor        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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       December 14,                                       Petitioned recommendations
  Pelvis-Acetabulum qualification      2006 final   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                test                  rule corridor   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.

[[Page 29885]]

 
                                                                 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     ..............  30-45.
 after 5 ms (g).
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     ..............  31-45.
 after 5 ms (g).
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     ..............  ........................  30-45*...................  34-42.................  IF KEEP, 28-48.
 after 5 ms (g).
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 pelvis-acetabulum 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
        Pelvis-Acetabulum qualification measurement           2006 corridor       corridor        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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>3 s.d. from the mean. The data 
are summarized in Table 19.

[[Page 29886]]



                     Table 19--Comparison of Petitioned Pelvis-Iliac Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Petitioned recommendations
                                     December 14,  -------------------------------------------------------------
  Pelvis-iliac qualification test     2006 final                                                    Denton/ SAE
                                     rule corridor     Alliance (<plus-         FTSS (NHTSA        DTES (<plus-
                                                        minus>2 s.d.)            procedure)        minus>3 s.d.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (m/s).............         4.2-4.4  Same as FR...........  Same as FR...........      Same as FR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Material <dbl-dagger>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 <dbl-dagger>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 <dbl-dagger>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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Performance corridors for the pelvis-iliac 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 two-hour 
recovery time, as specified in this final rule. The peak lateral pelvis 
acceleration corridor was expanded somewhat from the statistical 
corridor (set at <plus-minus>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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
          Pelvis-iliac qualification measurement              2006 corridor       corridor        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

[[Page 29887]]

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 <plus-minus>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 [Oslash].156+.002/-.000 should read 2x 
[Oslash].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 <plus-minus>0.30 
for the general dimension and <plus-minus>0.12 for the bend radius. 
FTSS recommended following Hybrid III dummy rib dimension tolerance 
practice, and change the 4xR2.75 to 4xR2.75<plus-minus>0.12, change 
9.45<plus-minus>0.20 to 9.45<plus-minus>0.30, and change 7.48<plus-
minus>0.20 to 7.48<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>.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 <plus-minus>.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ There are several typos in FTSS's comment. The tolerance 
for general dimensions on the Hybrid III dummies is <plus-
minus>0.03, not <plus-minus>0.30. The petitioner asks to change 
``9.45<plus-minus>0.20'' to ``9.45<plus-minus>0.30''. The dimension 
and tolerances are in error. The petition should ask to change 
``9.95<plus-minus>0.02'' to ``9.95<plus-minus>0.03.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We have changed the tolerance of <plus-minus>0.02 
for the 7.48 and 9.95 dimensions to <plus-minus>0.03 to match that of 
the Hybrid III dummy ribs, and have added the tolerance of <plus-
minus>0.12 to the bend radius dimension, as requested. In addition, we 
have added a tolerance of <plus-minus>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<plus-minus>0.12, change 5.88<plus-
minus>.20 to 5.88<plus-minus>.30 and change 9.98<plus-minus>.20 to 
9.98<plus-minus>.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 <plus-
minus>.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 <plus-
minus>.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 <greek-i>7 above. Otherwise, the petitioners are 
correct. We have changed the tolerance of <plus-minus>0.02

[[Page 29888]]

on the 9.98 and 5.88 dimensions to <plus-minus>0.03 to match that of 
the Hybrid III dummy ribs and have added the tolerance of <plus-
minus>0.12 to the bend radius dimension. In addition, a tolerance of 
<plus-minus>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[deg], Left and Right
    FTSS stated that the weight specification in note 1 should read 
1.78<plus-minus>.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 <plus-minus>.10 lb, similar to the 
standard HIII5F foot 880105-650/651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ It is believed that the FTSS petitioned weight 
specification had a typographic error and was meant to read 
1.75<plus-minus> 0.10 lbs since that is what was specified on 
drawing 180-0000 sheet 4 and on the HIII5F drawings 880105-650/651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: The HIII5F drawing and the SID-IIs foot weight 
specification on sheet 4 of 180-0000 specify 1.75 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-
minus>0.15 to <plus-minus>0.30 inch (in). In its addendum to the 
petition for reconsideration, FTSS proposed to change the arm CGy from 
0.50<plus-minus>0.15 to 0.49<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>0.15 in to 0.50 <plus-
minus>0.20 in.
    B. Arm CGz: FTSS suggested changing the dimension from 3.40 to 3.56 
in. In its petition addendum, item <greek-i>5b, FTSS proposed to change 
this value from 3.40<plus-minus>0.30 to -3.56 <plus-minus> 0.20 in.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ FTSS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We are changing the arm CGz from 3.40<plus-
minus>0.30 in to 3.55 <plus-minus>0.30 in. A dimension of 3.55 <plus-
minus>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 <plus-minus>0.40 lb to 24.50 <plus-
minus>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Upper Torso CGy: FTSS suggested changing the specification from 
0.63<plus-minus>0.15 to -0.70<plus-minus>0.20 in.
    Agency Response: We agree to change the upper torso CGy to 0.70 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-
minus>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 <plus-minus>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See ex parte memorandum in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <plus-minus>0.15 in as this tolerance is reasonable and acceptable.
    H. Jacket Weight: FTSS suggested changing the specification from 
1.40<plus-minus>0.10 to 1.27<plus-minus>0.11 lb (578<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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<plus-
minus>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

[[Page 29889]]

necessary to specify a CG requirement in the y-direction.
    J. Lower Torso CGz: FTSS suggested a specification of 1.01<plus-
minus>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<plus-minus>.030 to 0.510<plus-minus>.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 
<plus-minus>0.030 in (0.450-0.510 in) to 0.51 <plus-minus>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 
<plus-minus> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 29890]]

6. Drawing 180-3450, Jacket
    In its addendum, FTSS suggested a material thickness specification 
of 0.286 <plus-minus>0.030 in (7.26 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>.005 in. FTSS requested a 
thickness ranging from 0.256-0.316 in. Based on comparisons of the 
final rule and FTSS-recommended thickness ranges, the agency is 
adopting a thickness specification of 0.26 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus> .005; 
overall thickness 0.26 <plus-minus> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ FTSS Report re: Drawing of Arm for SID-IIs Dummy. Submitted 
following their petition for reconsideration, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-
25442-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
<plus-minus>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 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) 2.90 inch reference dimension, 2.18 inch reference dimension, 
and 1.00<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <greek-i>4 states: 
Tolerance <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>0.10 in.

    Agency Response: VRTC checked all vinyl/foam parts in the drawing 
package

[[Page 29891]]

and the only tolerances smaller than <plus-minus>0.10 in were on 180-
6011-1 and -2. These tolerances were <plus-minus>0.05 in. The agency 
agrees that these tolerances should be changed to <plus-minus>0.10 in 
for practicability reasons. Accordingly, note <greek-i>4 in drawings 
180-6011-1/2 is changed to read ``Tolerance <plus-minus>.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See ex parte memorandum in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \55\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Drawing 180-1000, 6 Axis Head Assembly
    Denton stated that ``the skin thickness should be defined over a 
region of at least <plus-minus>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 x .230 <plus-minus>.001 deep. The Load Cell 
(SA572-S62) calls out .375 diameter x .220 deep. These two drawings 
should match each other. Both drawings should be changed to .375 <plus-
minus>.001 diameter x .230 <plus-minus>.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 x 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 <plus-minus>.001 
diameter x .230 <plus-minus>.002 deep. The structural replacement 
drawing 180-3330 is also modified to specify .375 <plus-minus>.001 
diameter x .230 <plus-minus>.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

[[Page 29892]]

consult with the load cell manufacturer for the neutral axis dimension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See ex parte memorandum in docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <greek-i>12, ``Washer, 3/8[dprime][Oslash] 
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 
<greek-i>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See ex parte memorandum in docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <plus-minus>.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.

[[Page 29893]]

10. Other Changes to PADI and to Parts/Drawings List
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> PADI page 2: the website to find docket materials was 
changed from http://dms.dot.gov to www.regulations.gov
    <bullet> Some PADI figures were updated to improve clarity of 
instructions.
    <bullet> The Parts/Drawings List was updated to reflect changes 
made to the drawing package in this final rule.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 29894]]

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:
    <bullet> SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar95 
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests''; and
    <bullet> 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.

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

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 572 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy, Alpha 
Version

0
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:


Sec.  572.137  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    (a) * * * The impactor shall have a mass of 13.97 <plus-minus>0.23 
kg (30.8 <plus-minus>0.5 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 
3646 kg-cm\2\ (3.22 lbs-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG of the 
probe. * * *
    (b) * * * The impactor shall have a mass of 2.99<plus-minus>0.23 kg 
(6.6<plus-minus>0.5 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 209 
kg-cm\2\ (0.177 lb-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG of the 
probe. * * *
* * * * *

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

0
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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.
0
4. Section 572.191 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), 
to read as follows:


Sec.  572.191  General Description.

    (a) The SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, small adult female, 
is defined by:
    (1) The drawings and specifications contained in the ``Drawings and 
Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572 
Subpart V, 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 transducers-crash test sensors for the 
SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 5th percentile adult female, is 
shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 2 of 5, dated 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 Sec.  
572.200(k).
    (b) Exterior dimensions of the SID-IIsD Small Adult Female Side 
Impact Crash Test Dummy are shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 3 of 5, 
dated 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.
* * * * *


0
5. Section 572.193 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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
 

* * * * *

0
6. Section 572.194 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(10), 
and (c) adding paragraph (b)(11), to read as follows:


Sec.  572.194  Shoulder.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) Orient the arm to point forward at 90 <plus-minus>2 degrees 
relative to the inferior-superior orientation of the upper torso spine 
box incline.
* * * * *
    (10) The dummy's arm-shoulder is impacted at 4.3 <plus-minus> 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.


0
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:


Sec.  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.


0
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:


Sec.  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.


[[Page 29896]]



0
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:


Sec.  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 <plus-minus> 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;
* * * * *
0
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:


Sec.  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.


0
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:


Sec.  572.199  Pelvis iliac.

    (a) The iliac is part of the lower torso assembly shown in drawing 
180-4000. The iliac test is conducted by impacting the side of the 
lower torso of the assembled dummy (drawing 180-0000). The dummy is 
equipped with a laterally oriented pelvis accelerometer as specified in 
49 CFR 572.200(d), and 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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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<plus-minus>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:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
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

[[Page 29897]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.006


[[Page 29898]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.007


    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