Federal Register, Volume 69 Issue 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55550-55571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20715]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18864]
RIN 2127-AI89

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; ES-2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy
(ES-2 With Rib Extensions); 50th Percentile Adult Male

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In May 2004, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
that proposed to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214,
``Side Impact Protection,'' by requiring that all passenger vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds)
or less protect front seat occupants against head, thoracic, abdominal
and pelvic injuries in a vehicle-to-pole test simulating a vehicle's
crashing sideways into narrow fixed objects like telephone poles and
trees. That NPRM proposed that compliance with the pole test would be
determined in two test configurations, one using a new, second-
generation test dummy representing mid-size adult males and the other
using a new test dummy representing small adult females. The NPRM also
proposed using the new dummies in the standard's existing vehicle-to-
vehicle test that uses a moving deformable barrier to simulate a moving
vehicle being struck in the side by another moving vehicle.
Today's NPRM proposes specifications and qualification requirements
for the new mid-size adult male crash test dummy. The new 50th
percentile adult male side impact test dummy has enhanced injury
assessment capabilities compared to devices existing today, which
allows for a fuller assessment of the types and magnitudes of the
injuries occurring in side impacts and of the efficacy of
countermeasures in improving occupant protection.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than November 15, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT DMS Docket
Number) by any of the following methods:
Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket

[[Page 55551]]

number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation
heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note
that all comments received will be posted without change to http://
http://dms.dot.gov">dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see
the Privacy Act discussion under the Public Participation heading.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
a. Need for the Dummy
b. Evolution of the Dummy
c. ES-2 Rib Extensions
III. Description
IV. Biofidelity
a. ISO Technical Report 9790 Methodology
b. NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System
V. Repeatability and Reproducibility
a. Component Tests
b. Sled Tests
1. Flat Wall Test Results
2. Abdomen Offset Test Results
VI. Vehicle Tests
VII. Durability and Overload
a. Durability
b. Overload
VIII. Reversibility
IX. Directional Impact Sensitivity
X. Temperature
XI. Proposed Calibration Tests
a. Head Drop Test Specifications
b. Neck Pendulum Test
c. Thorax
d. Lumbar Spine
e. Shoulder
f. Abdomen
g. Pelvis
XII. Other Advantages
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Public Participation

I. Introduction

This NPRM proposes to amend 49 CFR part 572 by adding
specifications and calibration procedures for an advanced crash test
dummy representing a 50th percentile adult male for use in side impact
testing. This document relates to an NPRM previously issued by NHTSA
(69 FR 27990, May 17, 2004; Docket 2004-17694) that proposed to add a
vehicle-to-pole test to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 214, ``Side Impact Protection'' (49 CFR 571.214). The pole test
simulates a vehicle's crashing sideways into narrow fixed objects like
telephone poles and trees. If adopted as a final rule, the proposed
pole test is likely to result in the installation of dynamically
deploying side impact air bag systems and other measures to protect
front seat occupants against head, thoracic, abdominal and pelvic
injuries in side crashes.
In the proposed pole test, a vehicle is propelled at an angle of 75
degrees (measured from the front end of the vehicle longitudinal axis
in the counter-clockwise direction (driver's side) or clockwise
direction (front outboard passenger side)) into a 254 millimeter (10
inch) rigid pole at a speed of 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per
hour (mph)). An anthropomorphic test dummy representing a 50th
percentile adult male is in the front outboard seat on the struck side
of the vehicle. Vehicles would have to be certified as complying with
an established head injury criterion and with thoracic, abdominal and
pelvic injury criteria developed for the new dummy. The agency has also
proposed to use the advanced dummy in FMVSS No. 214's existing moving
deformable barrier (MDB) test, which simulates a vehicle-to-vehicle
``T-bone'' type intersection crash, replacing the present side impact
dummy (SID) used in the test.
Today's NPRM proposes the specifications and calibration
requirements for the 50th percentile adult male test dummy that NHTSA
has proposed to use in the upgrades to FMVSS No. 214. The dummy is a
modified version of a European side impact dummy, the ES-2 dummy. The
dummy has a weight of 72 kilograms (kg) (158.8 pounds) and seated
height of 90.9 centimeters (cm) (35.8 inches), as originally designed
by a European consortium under the guidance of EEVC (European Enhanced
Vehicle-Safety Committee) Working Group 9 (Intereurope Regulations, EEC
document 96/27/EC, July, 1996). The modifications are with regard to
thoracic rib extensions that have been added to address structural
deficiencies identified by NHTSA that could affect injury measurement
made by instruments within the chest of the dummy. The modified dummy
proposed today is hereinafter referred to as the ``ES-2re,'' the ``re''
indicating the use of the rib extensions on the dummy.
NHTSA currently specifies two 50th percentile male side impact test
dummies in part 572. A test dummy set forth in Subpart F of part 572 is
used in the agency's MDB test of FMVSS No. 214. This dummy is commonly
referred to as ``SID,'' short for the FMVSS No. 214 ``side impact
dummy.'' The other test dummy is set forth in Subpart M of part 572,
and is used in a 90-degree vehicle-to-pole test that manufacturers can
choose to use to meet the upper interior head impact protection
requirements of FMVSS No. 201, ``Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact'' (49 CFR 571.201). The Subpart M dummy is based on two existing
dummies, the Subpart F ``SID'' and a part 572, Subpart E ``Hybrid III''
test device that is used in testing under FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant
Crash Protection'' (49 CFR 571.208) The combined Subpart M side impact
dummy is commonly referred to as the ``SID/HIII'' dummy.
Overall, the ES-2re is technically an improvement over the SID and
SID/HIII test dummies, offering more human-like features for side
impact protection assessment. The ES-2re has improved biofidelity and
enhanced injury assessment capability compared to the other dummies.
The agency tentatively believes that the dummy is a sound test device
that will provide valuable data in assessing the potential for injury
in side impacts and is suitable for incorporation into part 572.

II. Background

a. Need for the Dummy

The agency evaluated the ES-2re dummy in a variety of test
exposures and found it to be more versatile for side impact injury
assessment purposes than the SID and SID/HIII dummies.
The ES-2re dummy has provisions for instrumentation that can assess
the potential for head injury (it measures the resultant head
acceleration, which is used to calculate the Head Injury Criterion
(HIC), the primary measure in the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards for head injury); neck injuries via upper and lower neck load
cells; thoracic injuries in terms of spine and rib accelerations and
rib deflections; abdominal injuries through three load cells to assess
the magnitude of lateral and oblique forces; acetabulum and pubic
symphysis injuries by way of load cell measurements, as well as pelvis
acceleration. The ES-2re can also assess

[[Page 55552]]

load transfer between the upper and the lower torso halves, torso
interaction with the vehicle seat back, and the impact severity of the
vehicle structure on the legs by way of a femur load cell. In addition,
a clavicle load cell is available to assess shoulder loading.
The ES-2re dummy has articulated half-arms, terminating at the
elbow height, that can be placed at the side of the thorax. In this
position, the impacted arm acts as an interposer between the vehicle
interior and the chest. The arms may also be swung up to several
positions, leaving the thorax and the abdomen exposed to direct contact
by the vehicle interior.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The SID dummy presently used in FMVSS No. 214 measures
accelerations of the ribs, spine and pelvis and does not have
articulating arms or shoulders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ES-2re would be representative of a major segment of the
population that is exposed to the risk of fatal and serious injuries in
side impacts. Table 1 shows the fatality and injury distribution of the
estimated target population (U.S. motor vehicle occupants) in all types
of side impact crashes between 12 and 25 mph delta V, categorized by
MAIS (maximum abbreviated injury scale) and body regions for the head,
chest, abdomen and pelvis. Of these, approximately 35 percent are small
stature occupants.\2\ The remaining occupants fall into midsize and
large segments of the population. The ES-2re dummy would address the
risk of injury of these occupants in side impacts. The agency
identified three injured occupant size categories: (a) Small (or 142
centimeters (cm) to 163 cm (or 56 to 64 inches)); (b) median (165-180
cm or 65-71 inches) (``midsize''); and large (183-229 cm or 72-90
inches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ To address this population, the FMVSS No. 214 NPRM also
proposed that a test dummy representing a 5th percentile adult
female would be used in the pole and MDB tests of FMVSS No. 214.

Table 1.--U.S. Motor Vehicle Occupant Population Injury Severity Distribution in Side Crashes
[For delta-V of 12-25 mph]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body region MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatality Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head and Face................................................ 12759 3353 287 506 476 1400 18781
Thorax....................................................... 7652 508 2408 1868 32 1147 13615
Abdomen...................................................... 509 150 62 308 77 240 1346
Pelvis....................................................... 0 0 247 0 0 14 261
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The injuries to the midsize and large occupant population,
categorized by MAIS and body regions for the head, chest, abdomen and
pelvis, are shown in Table 2, below.

Table 2.--U.S. Motor Vehicle Occupant Mid-size and Above Injury Severity Distribution in Side Crashes
[For delta-V of 12-25 mph]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body region MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatality Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head and Face................................................ 8293 2179 187 329 309 910 12208
Thorax....................................................... 4974 330 1565 1214 21 746 8850
Abdomen...................................................... 331 98 40 200 50 156 875
Pelvis....................................................... 0 0 161 0 0 9 170
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Evolution of the Dummy

The ES-2 dummy evolved from the predecessor European EuroSID and
EuroSID-1 dummies. Development of the EuroSID prototype was initiated
in Europe in the early 1980s. EuroSID-1 was introduced as the European
side impact dummy in a report published by EEVC-WG9 in 1989,
approximately one year after the agency issued an NPRM to use the SID
dummy in what was then the proposed incorporation of the MDB test into
FMVSS 214. When the agency examined EuroSID-1 during the course of that
rulemaking, it determined that the dummy had a number of technical
problems involving flat topping,'' \3\ biofidelity, reproducibility of
results, and durability. Because of these limitations, NHTSA decided
against adopting EuroSID-1 and instead adopted SID as the
anthropomorphic test device used in the FMVSS No. 214 MDB test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Flat-topping in the EuroSID dummy was described in the
preamble to NHTSA's final rule adopting SID. The agency stated,
``[o]ne of the problems discovered in NHTSA's EuroSID sled tests was
that the ribs were bottoming out, which may have invalidated the V*C
measurements being made. This condition was characterized by a flat
spot on the displacement-time history curve, while the acceleration-
time history curve showed an increase with time until the peak g was
reached. Although considerable attempts were made to correlate V*C
and TTI(d), the deflection data collected continue to be
questionable.'' 55 FR 45757, 45765 (October 30, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequent to NHTSA's adoption of the SID into FMVSS No. 214 in
1990, the European developers subjected the EuroSID-1 to further
modifications and testing. The dummy was finally incorporated in the
European Directive 96/27/EC on July 1996.
In 1996, NHTSA undertook an extensive evaluation of the EuroSID-1,
in response to a Congressional directive, to determine whether the side
impact provisions of EU 96/27/EC were at least functionally equivalent
to the requirements of FMVSS No. 214. In the evaluation, NHTSA found
that flat topping was still a problem. The data for the EuroSID-1 rib
deflections indicated the existence of mechanism within the rib
structure that would limit the ribs from full compression even under
very high load. Flat topping was a matter of concern, especially at low
levels of deflection, because it is an indication that the dummy's rib
deflection mechanism is binding, and consequently, that the dummy's
thorax is not responding correctly to the load from the intruding side
structure. With flat topping, the resulting rib deflections and the V*C
computations \4\ are suspect. As a result, NHTSA concluded that the

[[Page 55553]]

EuroSID-1 dummy was still not suitable for use in FMVSS No.
214.^{5, 6}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ V*C, viscous criterion, is another way of measuring the
potential for thoracic injury. It is based upon the product of chest
compression normalized by the chest half-width and the rate of rib
compression.
\5\ ``Report to Congress: NHTSA Plan for Achieving Harmonization
of the U.S. and European Side Impact Standards,'' April 1997;
``Report to Congress: Status of NHTSA Plan For Side Impact
Regulation Harmonization and Upgrade,'' March 1999. NHTSA Docket No.
1998-3935-1 and -10 of the DOT Docket Management System at
http://dms.dot.gov">dms.dot.gov.
\6\ In 2000, the agency granted a petition for rulemaking from
the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and the organization then
called the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, asking
NHTSA to replace the SID with the EuroSID-1 used in a European side
impact standard (EU/96/27/EC). Although the agency had concluded
that EuroSID-1 had flat topping and other problems, NHTSA granted
the petition anticipating that the problems could be cured and that
a dummy technically superior to the SID could be incorporated into
FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since that time, the EuroSID line of dummies has made steady
progress toward overcoming the concerns raised by NHTSA and other users
of the dummy. Beyond flat topping, concerns had been raised about the
projecting back plate of the dummy's upper torso grabbing into the seat
back of the vehicle, upper femur bone's contact impact with the pubic
load cell hardware, binding in the shoulder assembly resulting in
limited shoulder rotation, and data spikes in the pubic symphysis load
measurements associated with knee-to-knee contact. To address these
concerns, the dummy manufacturer installed new hardware in the dummy,
including an improved rib guide system in the thorax, a curved and
narrower back plate, a revision in the pelvis to increase the range of
upper leg abduction, the inclusion of a high mass flesh system in the
legs and beveled edges in the shoulder clavicle guide assembly. The
upgraded dummy was identified as the ES-2.

c. ES-2 Rib Extensions

The dummy manufacturer initially addressed the problem of the
EuroSID-1's back plate grabbing the seat back by reducing the size and
shape of the back plate. Nonetheless, the back plate continued to grab
the seat back in some of NHTSA's tests. To further address the problem,
the dummy manufacturer redesigned the rib module by adding rib
extensions. The extended ribs provide a continuous loading surface that
nearly encircles the thorax, and enclose the posterior gap of the ES-2
ribcage that was thought to be responsible for the ``grabbing''
effects.
The ES-2 with the rib extensions is the ES-2re dummy proposed today
for incorporation into part 572. Our test data indicate that these rib
extensions reduce the back plate grabbing force that had the effect of
lowering rib deflections to insignificant amounts in vehicle side
impact tests that had exhibited rather large back plate loads. The rib
extensions also do not appear to affect the dummy's rib deflection
responses in tests in which high back plate loads did not occur.

III. Description

A technical report and other materials describing the ES-2re in
detail have been placed in the docket for today's NPRM (see also Docket
No. 17694, supra).
The specifications for the ES-2re would consist of: (a) A drawing
package containing all of the technical details of the dummy; (b) a
parts list; and (c) a user manual containing instructions for
inspection, assembly, disassembly, use, and adjustments of dummy
components. These drawings \7\ and specifications would ensure that the
dummies would be the same in their design and construction. The
performance calibration tests proposed in this NPRM would serve to
assure that the ES-2re responses are within the established
biomechanical corridors and further assure the uniformity of dummy
assembly, structural integrity, consistency of response and adequacy of
instrumentation. As a result, the repeatability of the dummy's impact
response in vehicle certification tests would be ensured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ NHTSA notes that some of the drawings are the same as those
used to specify the Hybrid II 50th percentile male dummy (set forth
in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart B) and the Hybrid III 50th percentile
male dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart D). It is proposed that such
drawings of the ES-2re would bear two drawing numbers: a number that
identifies the drawing for purposes of the ES-2re drawing package
and a reference to the drawing of the Subparts B or D dummy that is
identical to that drawing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drawings and specifications for the ES-2re are available for
examination in the NHTSA docket section. Copies of those materials and
the user manual may also be obtained from Leet-Melbrook, Division of
New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD, 20879, tel. (301) 670-
0090.
The ES-2re consists of a ``skeleton'' which is covered by ``soft
tissue'' consisting of rubber, plastic and foam. The dummy does not
have lower arms because researchers concluded that lower arms on the
side crash test dummy could interfere with the interaction of the side
structure of a vehicle and the dummy's measurement of potential harm to
the thoracic and pelvic regions. So as to assure to the extent possible
the accuracy of the assessment of the potential for injury to these
body regions, the lower arms were thus not included on the dummy. The
ES-2re has a mass of 72 kilograms (kg) (158.8 pounds), which is the
mass of a 50th percentile adult male without the lower arms.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ A 50th percentile adult male with lower arms has a mass of
approximately 78 kg (172 pounds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 90.0 cm seated height of the ES-2re is representative of a 50th
percentile adult male. In terms of assessing the effectiveness of head-
protecting side air bags to vehicle occupants, NHTSA believes that the
height of the dummy is a determinative factor in ascertaining where an
occupant's head will impact a vehicle's interior. Since the height of
the ES-2re is representative of a 50th percentile adult male, the dummy
would provide valuable data on where mid-size occupants will impact the
vehicle's interior in the side impact test.

IV. Biofidelity

Biofidelity is a measure of how well a test device duplicates the
responses of a human being in an impact. Two methods are currently
available for assessing the biofidelity of a dummy in side impact
testing. These are: (a) An International Organization of
Standardization (ISO) procedure, referred to as ISO Technical Report
(TR) 9790, which determines the biofidelity of a dummy by how well does
the dummy's body segment and/or subsystem impact responses replicate
cadaver responses in defined impact environments; and (b) a newly
developed NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System. The latter method
determines the dummy's biofidelity based on two assessment measures:
(a) The ability of a dummy to load a vehicle or some other type of an
impact surface as a cadaver does, termed ``External Biofidelity'; and
(b) the ability of a dummy to replicate those cadaver responses that
best predict injury potential, termed ``Internal Biofidelity.'' The
NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System method was reported by Rhule H., et
al., in a technical paper in the 2002 Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46,
p. 477, ``Development of a New Biofidelity Ranking System for
Anthropomorphic Test Devices.'' The ES-2re's biofidelity was evaluated
under both of these methodologies.

a. ISO Technical Report 9790 Methodology

The Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP) and Transport
Canada conducted biomechanical testing on the ES-2 dummy using the ISO
specified methodology and test procedures. The results of these tests
have been reported by Byrnes et al. in the 2002 Stapp Car Crash
Journal, Vol.

[[Page 55554]]

46, paper No. 2002-22-0014. The ES-2re dummy's backplate modifications
were performed with the express objective not to alter in any way the
ES-2 dummy's impact response. Inasmuch as in subsequent tests it was
shown that the new ES-2re conformed to the same calibration levels, it
was assumed that the rib extension modifications to the ES-2 had no
effect on its ISO based biofidelity assessment. (The validity of the
assumption has been confirmed in the NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System
tests in which it was established that both the ES-2 and the ES-2re
dummies had nearly identical biofidelity levels.) The ISO rating system
is based on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 signifying total lack of
biofidelity and 10 signifying that the body segment has the same
biofidelic response as a human subject. Once the ratings are
established for each body segment, the overall dummy's biofidelity is
calculated and its ranking determined using the classification scale
shown in Table 3.

Table 3.--ISO Biofidelity Classifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent............................... >8.6 to 10.
Good.................................... >6.5 to 8.6.
Fair.................................... >4.4 to 6.5.
Marginal................................ >2.6 to 4.4.
Unacceptable............................ 0 to 2.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The overall ES-2re dummy's biofidelity rating was determined to be
``fair,'' at 4.6, an improvement over the SID and EuroSID-1, which
received ratings of 2.3 and 4.4, respectively (Byrnes, et al., ``ES-2
Dummy Biomechanical Responses,'' 2002, Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol.
46, 2002-22-0014, p. 353).
The ES-2 (ES-2re) ISO biofidelity rating also compares favorably to
that of the SID/HIII, which, on account of its new special purpose side
impact head and neck, received an overall rating of 3.8.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The biofidelity rating for the SID dummy used in FMVSS No.
214 is 2.3. The rating for the SID/HIII of 3.8, using the ISO
method, reflects use of the special purpose side impact HIII head
and neck as noted in 63 FR 41468, August 4, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System

The biofidelity ranking system developed by Rhule, H., et al.,
supra, includes an assessment of the dummy's External Biofidelity and
Internal Biofidelity. The Overall External and Internal Biofidelity
ranks are an average of each of the external and internal body region
ranks, respectively. In contrast to the ISO classification method, a
lower biofidelity rank indicates a more biofidelic dummy by this NHTSA
ranking method. A dummy with an External and/or Internal Biofidelity
rank of less than 2.0 is considered to respond much like a human
subject.
The NHTSA ranking system is based on a variety of cadaver and dummy
exposures, such as head drop tests, thorax and shoulder drop tests,
thorax and shoulder pendulum tests, and whole body sled tests. The
NHTSA ranking system also includes the abdominal and pelvic offset sled
test conditions. Each test condition is assigned a weight factor, based
on the number of human subjects tested, to form a biomechanical
response corridor. For each response requirement, the cumulative
variance of the dummy response relative to the mean cadaver response
(DCV) and the cumulative variance of the mean cadaver response relative
to the mean plus one standard deviation (CCV) are calculated. The ratio
of DCV/CCV expresses how well the dummy response duplicates the mean
cadaver response: a smaller ratio indicating better biofidelity.
Although this method does not establish an ``absolute'' ranking
scale, the ranks provide a relative sense of the ``number of standard
deviations away'' the dummy's responses are from the mean human
response. Rhule conducted an analysis and found that if the dummy's
biofidelity ranking is below two, then the dummy is behaving similar to
the human cadaver. The evaluation methodology provides a comparison of
both dummy response to cadaver response as well as a comparison of two
or more dummies.
Rhule et al., supra, determined external and internal biofidelity
rankings for the ES-2 dummy. NHTSA later repeated the tests for the ES-
2re to determine that dummy's biofidelity rankings. Tables 4 and 5,
below, provide a summary of External Biofidelity and Internal
Biofidelity rankings, respectively, for the ES-2 and the ES-2re. The
results of NHTSA's Biofidelity Ranking System tests indicate that the
ES-2 and ES-2re dummies have essentially the same external and internal
biofidelity assessment values, and that the rib extensions have thus
had no effect on the biofidelity of the ES-2. The ES-2re dummy had an
Overall External Biofidelity rank of 2.6, compared to 2.7 for the ES-2.
Its Overall Internal Biofidelity rank was 1.6.

Table 4.--External Biofidelity Rankings of the ES-2 and ES-2re
------------------------------------------------------------------------
External biofidelity rank ES-2 ES-2re
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall........................................... 2.7 2.6
Head/Neck......................................... 3.7 3.7
Shoulder.......................................... 1.4 1.4
Thorax............................................ 3.2 2.9
Abdomen........................................... 2.5 2.6
Pelvis............................................ 2.7 2.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5.--Internal Biofidelity Rankings of the ES-2 and ES-2re
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal biofidelity rank ES-2 ES-2re
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall with T1 (w/o abdomen)..................... 1.5
Overall with Defl. (w/o abdomen).................. 1.6 1.6
Overall with TTI (w/o abdomen).................... n/a 1.6
Head.............................................. 1.6 1.0
Thorax-T1......................................... n/a 1.5
Thorax-Delft...................................... 1.7 1.8
Thorax-TTI........................................ 1.8
Abdomen........................................... n/a n/a
Pelvis............................................ 2.1 2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on all of the testing, the agency tentatively concludes that
the ES-2re has sufficient biofidelity for use in FMVSS No. 214's side
impact injury assessment tests. According to both the ISO and NHTSA
biofidelity ranking systems, the ES-2 and the ES-2re dummies have
nearly identical biofidelity rankings. While a more biofidelic test
device than the ES-2re may be developed in the future, the agency
tentatively concludes that the ES-2re is a suitable and valuable test
device for use in side impact testing today.

V. Repeatability and Reproducibility

A dummy's repeatability \10\ and reproducibility \11\ is typically
based on the results of component tests and sled tests. In the tests,
the impact input as well as the test equipment are carefully controlled
to minimize external effects on the dummy's response. Component tests
are typically better controlled and thus produce more reliable
estimates of the dummy's repeatability and reproducibility than is
possible in sled and vehicle tests. Sled tests, on the other hand,
offer a method of efficiently evaluating the dummy as a complete system
in an environment much like a vehicle test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Repeatability is defined as a similarity of responses of a
single dummy measured under identical test conditions.
\11\ Reproducibility is defined as the smallness of response
variability between different dummies of the same design under
identical test conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Component tests are needed to establish the dummy's component
performance relative to the

[[Page 55555]]

biomechanical corridors to which each major body segment must correctly
respond. That is, if the dummy's component is or becomes deficient, the
component test will identify to the user that the component will not
respond properly in impact tests. Sled tests in turn are needed to
establish the consistency of the dummy's kinematics, its impact
response as an assembly, and the integrity of the dummy's structure and
instrumentation under controlled and representative crash environment
test conditions.
The agency's component and sled repeatability and reproducibility
tests were based on two dummies. (See ``Technical Report--Design,
Development and Evaluation of the ES-2re Side Crash Test Dummy,''
supra.)

a. Component Tests

The component tests were conducted on head, neck, shoulder, upper
rib, middle rib, lower rib, abdomen, lumbar spine and pelvis body
regions. The repeatability assessment was made in terms of percent CV
(Coefficient of Variance). A CV value of less than 5 percent is
considered excellent, 5-8 percent good, 8-10 percent acceptable, and
above 10 percent poor.\12\ The repeatability of the dummies was
assessed in two separate series of tests. In the first series, the
dummy calibrations were performed between sled or vehicle crash tests.
In the second series, the calibration tests were performed
consecutively without any other intermittent tests. In the first
series, nine tests were performed with one of the dummies, and seven
tests with the other. In the second series, two newly acquired dummies
were exposed to five sets of calibration tests each. Reproducibility
was assessed by comparing the average responses of both dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results of the component repeatability tests indicate
``excellent'' and good repeatability for the ES-2re dummy for all
components except for the pelvis, which has a rating classification of
``good,'' and the shoulder with a rating of ``acceptable.''
The reproducibility assessment was made in terms of response
differences between each of the two sets of dummies with respect to the
mean. The rating for reproducibility takes into account the cumulative
variabilities of two or more dummies and is primarily indicative of the
repeatability of the manufacturing process of the same type of dummy
and to some extent the repeatability of design specifications,
inspection, and test methodology. The reproducibility assessment does
not serve the purposes of accepting or rejecting the dummy; rather it
is an indication of how far the responses of different dummies could
vary under identical test conditions. The results of the pooled
component tests indicate that the neck, thorax lumbar spine and pelvis
responses are well below the 5% level and the head, shoulder and
abdomen response below the 7% level.

b. Sled Tests

To reduce test-to-test variation of sled pulse parameters, NHTSA
tested two ES-2re dummies (designated ``dummy 070'' and
``dummy 071'') simultaneously on a dual occupant side impact
Hyge sled buck developed by the agency. The sled pulse was an
approximate half-sine wave, with the peak acceleration of 12.7 g's and
duration of approximately 80 ms. The impact speed was 6.7 meters per
second (m/s) (22 ft/s). Two test conditions were used for the
repeatability and reproducibility assessment: a flat rigid wall; and a
rigid wall with abdomen offset (simulating a vehicle armrest). The two
ES-2re dummies were exposed to two series of five Hyge sled tests, for
a total of 10 test exposures per dummy.
For the flat wall test condition, the wall was 374 mm (14.7 in)
high from the front edge of the seat, and 368 mm (14.5 in) long from
the back of the seat. For the abdomen offset test condition, the same
flat wall was used, with a protruding 305 mm (12 in) long, 76 mm (3 in)
thick and 83 mm (3.3 in) wide wooden offset block attached to the wall.
The offset block, simulating an armrest, was oriented such that it
would impact the abdomen only, above the pelvis and below the lower
rib. The objective of the abdomen offset tests was to provide a test
environment with severe loading of the abdominal region.
The sled buck incorporated a Teflon-covered bench seat with two
Teflon-covered rails to support the seated dummies from behind. As the
sled buck was accelerated, the buck slid beneath the dummies until the
dummies' left side impacted the rigid wall.
High-speed digital video cameras were positioned in front of each
dummy in order to capture head motion for use in performing motion
analysis of the head translation. The dummies were instrumented with
sensors to record principal injury indicators such as head, resultant
lower spine (T12) and pelvis accelerations, rib deflections, abdominal,
lumbar and pubic symphysis loads, and other parameters. A contact
switch was positioned on the side of each dummy and on the load wall at
the location of first contact to indicate the precise instant of dummy
contact with the wall.
1. Flat Wall Test Results
Using the dummy rating practice set forth in ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5,
generally the responses in the flat wall tests displayed either
excellent or good repeatability, except for the lumbar Y (shear) force
repeatability of dummy Serial Number (S/N) 070 falling outside
the CV acceptability boundary at 14.8%. This elevated CV value for
dummy 070 also was responsible for a reproducibility
assessment at 17.5%. While these CV values are relatively high, the
agency is not considering an injury assessment associated with this
response. Moreover, this response is not considered to be of importance
since it did not have an effect on either the magnitude of the loading
or the variability of the adjacent structure responses, such as pubic
symphysis, the abdomen and the T12. HIC responses exhibited excellent
repeatability of each dummy and reproducibility of both dummies. In all
tests, the rib displacement time history provided a smooth response,
with no indications of the flat topping phenomena that had been a
shortcoming of previous versions of the EuroSID, EuroSID-1, and the
prototype ES-2 dummies.
2. Abdomen Offset Test Results
Upon thorough review of the response traces after the test series
was completed, it was noted that the first test in the series with
dummy S/N 070, exhibited responses that were somewhat
different from the responses observed in the remaining four tests. When
compared to the subsequent four tests, the first test had significantly
lower abdominal and lumbar loads and larger rib displacements (See
Appendix C, Figures C.10 through .18 of the Technical Report, supra).
Upon review, the data for that test indicated that impact contact with
the abdominal offset block appear to have slightly favored the
proximity of the lower rib rather than the middle of the abdomen, as
had been the case in the subsequent four tests. This could have been
caused either by a slight variation in the set-up of the dummy for the
test or a slight posture realignment during the dummy's movement while
approaching the impact surface. Inasmuch as the seating procedure was
not varied and this aberration did not reoccur in the four subsequent
tests, this test was considered to be a legitimate outlier. Therefore,
that test was excluded from the analysis.
The remaining responses for the abdomen offset sled tests provided

[[Page 55556]]

either excellent or good repeatability and reproducibility, except for
one test in which the lumbar moment reproducibility response had a CV
value of 16.7, which is only by 1.7% into the poor range. While this CV
value is high, this measurement is not considered for injury assessment
with the EuroSID, EuroSID-1 and ES-2re dummies. Furthermore, this
slightly elevated response appears not to affect either the magnitude
of the loading or the variability of the adjacent structure responses,
such as pubic symphysis, the abdomen, the T12 moment and the rib
displacement time history, without any indications of flat topping.
Based on the above, the agency tentatively concludes that the
repeatability and reproducibility of the ES-2re responses in flat wall
and abdominal offset impacts are acceptable (generally in the order of
``excellent'').

VI. Vehicle Tests

The agency performed an extensive set of vehicle crash tests with
the ES-2 and ES-2re dummies to compare their responses, to determine
the levels of dummy responses at different loading conditions, to
determine the integrity of the measurements, and the dummies'
structural durability. The testing consisted of:
(a) FMVSS No. 214 tests with a higher and heavier moving deformable
barrier;
(b) Fleet performance testing to FMVSS No. 214 and NHTSA New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) side impact test protocols; and
(c) FMVSS No. 201 type and oblique side impact pole testing.
The tests were also designed to compare the ES-2 and ES-2re dummies
for the effectiveness of the rib extension backplate fix. The test
matrix included 14 MDB-to-vehicle and/or vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests
with the ES-2 dummy and 6 crash tests with the ES-2re dummy, and 8
vehicle-to-pole crashes with the ES-2 and 4 with the ES-2re dummies.

Findings of Testing the ES-2 with Rib Extension Fix (ES-2re)

The findings of the crash tests were as follows:
In comparable full scale crash tests with the ES-2, the
ES-2re dummy demonstrates nearly identical performance in which seat
back ``grabbing'' was not evident;
Full scale crash tests of vehicles in the FMVSS Nos. 201,
214, and NCAP tests, and those tested with an MDB of the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), indicate that the ES-2re has
resolved the back plate ``grabbing'' problem. (In the NCAP tests, the
FMVSS No. 214 moving deformable barrier impacted the vehicle at 62 km/h
(38.5 mph). In the IIHS test, a high-profile and relatively stiff MDB
was used to impact the target test vehicle.)
While in some vehicles the back plate still senses loading
from the seat back structure, the loading is caused primarily by a
protruding seat frame geometry which interacts with the dummy's ribcage
structure rather than by back plate grabbing;
In those vehicles in which the localized back plate load
path was in evidence and now has been mostly eliminated, the momentum
transfer, that was originally passed through the back plate with the
ES-2, is now being directed mainly through the ribs and partly through
the shoulder of the ES-2re. As a result, rib deflections, in which
``grabbing'' was in evidence, are expected to increase;
In oblique side impact pole tests and additional FMVSS No.
214 and NHTSA side NCAP tests, the durability of ES-2re, and the good
mechanical performance of the rib deflection system and back plate
loading, were further verified; and
The ES-2re demonstrated consistent performance and the
ability to perform useful measurements under the most severe loading
conditions.

VI. Durability and High Severity Loading

a. Durability

No durability problems arose with the ES-2re dummies in any of the
full scale vehicle crash tests and sled tests. The majority of the rib
deflections, although close to the maximum available deflection range,
did not bottom out against the deflection stop. The only new parts
required after the full series of full scale crash tests were shoulder
foams, pelvis foam plugs, and one set of ribs. It was also observed
that sharp edges on socket head screws attached to the clavicle load
cell were causing the shoulder foam cap to tear. The screws were later
modified by rounding off their sharp edges to avoid tearing of the
shoulder foam cap. Also, there was a tear in one of the dummies'
abdomen, but the abdomen passed the impact calibration requirements.

b. High Severity Loading

The ES-2re performed well without producing distorted or truncated
measurements in higher severity overload tests, such as the IIHS MDB
and the side NCAP tests as well as rigid wall and abdominal offset sled
impact tests. In these tests, the majority of the rib deflections were
also within the maximum available compression range. Only in two
instances did the dummy's ribs deflect to their maximum range. However,
even under these circumstances none of the measurements indicated data
discontinuities and/or signal distortions in spite of the very rigorous
impact exposures of the side NCAP test and the IIHS MDB test. Given
that the measurements were neither distorted, nor discontinuous, the
ES-2re responses appear to be satisfactory even in high severity
loading conditions.

VIII. Reversibility

The design of the original EuroSID incorporated reversibility
features to accommodate the dummy's use for both left and right side
impacts. Although test literature related to the EuroSID, EuroSID-1 and
ES-2 dummies specifications do not indicate which side of the dummy was
tested, to our knowledge all of the EuroSID, EuroSID-1 and ES-2
dummies' tests were evaluated in left side impact applications. In
turn, the agency is aware that the EuroSID-1 has been and still is
being used in England, Japan and Australia for right side impacts.
Accordingly, we believe that the ES-2re dummy--which has the same left
to right side impact conversion provisions as the ES-2 and its
predecessor the EuroSID-1 dummy--will perform equally well, upon
appropriate conversion when struck on either side, i.e., in both driver
(left) side and passenger (right) side crash tests. For right side
impacts, the dummy must be reconfigured and instrumented to the right
side by: (a) Inverting the three rib modules and installing them for
right side impact; (b) moving the load cell on the left clavicle to the
right side and the shoulder load cell structural replacement to the
left side; (c) moving the abdomen load cells to the right side and the
load cell structural replacements to the left side; (d) moving the
femur load cells to the right side of the dummy, if only the left femur
is instrumented; and (e) reconfiguring the polarities of all sensors of
the reverse installed parts, in accordance with the SAE J211
Recommended Practice. The agency Manual for Users (the Procedures for
Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection) (PADI) describes in more detail
the steps that need to be taken to convert the dummy for use from the
left to the right side of the vehicle.

IX. Directional Impact Sensitivity

Limited agency testing of the dummy's thorax in oblique pendulum
impacts indicates some directional

[[Page 55557]]

sensitivity in the rib deflection and spine acceleration responses.
Literature published by EEVC suggests similar sensitivity in the ES-2
dummy's thorax ribs compression measurements in oblique pendulum impact
tests. This is indicated by increased rib deflections when the ribcage
is obliquely impacted from the rear and by reduced deflections when
impact occurs from the front. Similar sensitivity, but of a lower
magnitude, is in evidence for the upper spine acceleration. In
contrast, there is less sensitivity in the abdominal force measurement
and lower spine accelerometer output.
While the EEVC acknowledges the existence of some sensitivity of
the ES-2 dummy to oblique impacts, it believes that the dummy offers
increased injury assessment and measurement capabilities to meet the
needs of legislative authorities worldwide. The EEVC states further
that the ES-2 dummy forms a solid basis for interim harmonization and
will further support activities to help realize this objectives (EEVC
WG12 Report, August 12, 2001). The EuroNCAP program has used the
EuroSID-1 for several years and lately, the ES-2 for the same purpose.
While our own evaluation of the ES-2re dummy in oblique pendulum tests
confirms the EEVC-noted sensitivity, we do not believe the pendulum
test is necessarily reflective of the dynamic interaction between
impacted door and occupant during the crash event. In the pendulum
test, the loading is imposed on the dummy's ribcage in a fixed, large
oblique impact angle throughout the entire loading period as well as by
an impactor that produces a very concentrated, localized loading to the
ribcage. Review of our full scale test data do not indicate evidence of
the magnitude of sensitivity produced in pendulum type impacts.
Accordingly, the agency believes that while there is some evidence of
response sensitivity to pendulum type oblique impacts, it is not of
concern for MDB and pole type full scale crash tests. Comments are
requested on whether ES-2 and ES-2re dummy users have seen such effects
in measured responses during full scale crash tests. If so, please
provide details on the loading conditions and vehicle design
configuration (e.g., test speed, impact orientation, side air bag,
etc.).

X. Temperature

While the 18[deg] C to 26[deg] C (64.4[deg] F to 71.6[deg] F)
temperature range is specified for the EuroSID-1 by EU in 96/27/EC and
for the ES-2 by EEVC in EuroNCAP side impact tests, NHTSA proposes that
the ES-2re's temperature at the time of calibration, sled and full
scale crash tests be in the range of 20.6[deg] C to 22.2[deg] C
(69[deg] F to 72[deg] F). This temperature range is specified for all
NHTSA Hybrid III series and SID/HIII dummies. This temperature range is
proposed to reduce the variability of the dummy's impact response due
to temperature sensitivity of damping and rubber and plastic materials
used within the dummy. The agency believes that the proposed range is
also practical for the ES-2re dummy.

XI. Proposed Calibration Tests

The agency proposes the following calibration test specifications
and procedures for the ES-2re dummy. There would be qualification tests
for components of the dummy (the head; neck; thorax; and lumbar spine),
and impact tests performed on local areas (the shoulder, abdomen; and
pelvis) of a fully assembled seated dummy. The agency is also exploring
the possibility of replacing the individual rib module tests by a
single pendulum test to the side of the rib cage of the seated dummy,
and to relegate the rib module specification to the drawing level and
its assembly-disassembly procedures to the user manual.

a. Head Drop Test Specifications

The head is dropped from 200 mm onto a flat, steel plate such that
its midsagittal plane makes a 35 degree angle with respect to the
impact surface and its anterior-posterior axis is horizontal. When the
dummy head is dropped in accordance with the above test procedure, the
agency proposes the following certification specifications:
1. When the head assembly is dropped in accordance with 49 CFR
572.112(a), the measured peak resultant acceleration must be between
125 g's and 155 g's;
2. The resultant acceleration-time curve must be unimodal to the
extent that oscillations occurring after the main acceleration pulse
must not exceed 15% (zero to peak) of the main pulse;
3. The fore-and-aft acceleration vector must not exceed 15 g's.

b. Neck Pendulum Test

The proposed test procedure involves attaching the neck to a
EuroSID-1 headform, and attaching the assembly to the bottom of the
pendulum specified in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572, Figure 22. The
pendulum is raised to a height from which it would achieve an impact
velocity of 3.4 0.1 meters per seconds (m/s) in free fall.
Lateral flexion, as well as rotation and translation of the headform
would be measured.
When the ES-2re neck is tested in accordance with the proposed test
procedure, the following specifications would have to be met:
1. The pendulum deceleration pulse is to be characterized in terms
of its change (decrease) in velocity as shown in Table 5 with the
velocity profile obtained by integrating the pendulum accelerometer
output.

Table 5.--ES-2re Neck Certification Pendulum Velocity Corridor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity
Time (ms) (m/s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper boundary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0....................................................... 0.0
3.0....................................................... -0.25
14.0....................................................... -3.2
------------------------------------------------------------
Lower boundary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0....................................................... -0.05
2.5....................................................... -0.375
13.5....................................................... -3.7
17.0....................................................... -3.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The neck must have the following performance characteristics:
(a) the maximum headform flexion angle relative to time zero is 52
to 57 degrees and occurs within 54 to 64 ms.
(b) The maximum neck orientations at fore (A) \13\ pendulum base
angle is 32.0 to 37.0 degrees occurring between 53 and 63 ms, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The fore (A) and aft (B) base angles and the headform angle
(C) are directly measured during the test. The headform flexion
angle is calculated by summing the fore (A) and headform (C) angles.
After the calculations, all rotations are digitally filtered using
the SAE J211 CFC180 and the pendulum acceleration is digitally
filtered using the SAE J211 CFC 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) The maximum neck orientations at the fore (B) pendulum base
angle is 0.81*(A)+3.0+/-1.25 degrees respectively occurring between 54
and 64 ms.
Items (b) and (c) are shown for this NPRM in Figure U-2b. In view
of the maximum flexion angle specification in (a), above, to avoid
over-specification of the required performance, comments are requested
on whether (b) and (c), above, are necessary for evaluating the
adequacy of the neck.

c. Thorax

The dummy's thoracic response is evaluated by testing each
individual rib module mounted in a drop test fixture. Upon disassembly
from the dummy, each rib module is rigidly mounted in the drop rig
fixture and the rib is impacted at 4.0 0.1 m/s in free
fall by an impactor with a mass of 7.78 kg. Each rib module is tested
individually in the drop test rig by an impactor to impact the rib at
3.0 m/s and 4.0 m/s.

[[Page 55558]]

The response criteria are based on the minimum and maximum deflection
of the rib. For each rib (upper, middle, and lower rib), the proposed
rib deflection for the 3.0 m/s impact would be 36 to 40 mm, and for the
4.0 m/s impact 46.0 to 51.0 mm.
While the EEVC rib module test also specifies impacts at a lower
speed (2 m/s), the agency data indicate that the same rib modules
tested at all of the three speeds are consistent in the responses to
the their respective performance corridors. Inasmuch as door velocities
into dummies at FMVSS No. 214 and NCAP test speeds are never below 4.0
m/s impact speed, it is our tentative view that there is no need or
value in evaluating the rib modules at 2 m/s. Furthermore, the rib
modules are tightly controlled by design specifications. The agency
tentatively concludes that the 3.0 m/s and 4.0 m/s impact tests provide
a reasonably good assurance that any other rib module would respond
consistently at any other impact speed. Accordingly, the agency is
proposing to limit the calibration requirement to the 3.0 and 4.0 m/s
impact speeds. Comments are requested on this issue.
As an alternative or addition to the individual rib tests, NHTSA is
considering a certification procedure and response corridors that would
address the performance of the thorax of the dummy as a complete
system. It is anticipated that the thorax of a seated dummy would be
impacted by a pendulum at a specified impact speed in the procedure
described in a report entitled, ``Development of a Full-Body Thorax
Certification Procedure and Preliminary Response Requirements for the
ES-2re Dummy'' (see docket 18864). A rib deflection range would be
specified. Advantages to this approach are that it would require no
disassembly and re-assembly of the dummy, as opposed to the approach
used by the EU that requires the dummy's partial disassembly and tests
of each rib individually. The agency is considering using the thorax
impactor currently specified in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572 to
calibrate the thorax performance of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male
frontal test dummy. If that impact procedure were to be specified, it
is possible that neither new drop test equipment nor multiple rib
module tests would be needed. A ``systems'' test of the thorax is used
in calibration tests of all frontal impact and side impact dummies
currently specified. Comments are requested on a systems test for
calibration of the ES-2re thorax.

d. Lumbar Spine

This test would be similar to the neck calibration procedure,
involving an impact test with a Subpart E, 49 CFR Part 572 neck test
pendulum at 6.05 0.10 m/s using the EuroSID-1 headform and
interface.
When the lumbar spine is tested in accordance with the proposed
test procedure, the following specification would have to be met:
1. The pendulum deceleration pulse is to be characterized in terms
of its change (decrease) in velocity as obtained by integrating the
pendulum accelerometer output as shown in Table 6.
2. The lumbar spine must have the following performance
characteristics:
(a) The maximum lumbar spine flexion angle (relative to time zero)
is 45-55 degrees occurring between 39 to 53 ms;
(b) The maximum lumbar orientation at fore (A) \14\ pendulum base
angle is 31 to 35 degrees occurring between 44 and 52 ms; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ The fore (A) and aft (B) base angles and the head form
angle (C) are directly measured during the test. The head form
flexion angle is calculated by summing the fore (A) and head Form
(C) angles. After the calculations, all rotations are digitally
filtered using the SAE J211 CFC180 and the pendulum acceleration is
digitally filtered using the SAE J211 CFC 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) The maximum lumbar orientation at the fore (B) pendulum base
angle is 0.8*(A)+3.25 +/-1.25 degrees respectively occurring between 44
and 62 ms.
Items (b) and (c) are shown in this preamble in Figure U-2b. In
view of the maximum flexion angle specification in (a), above, to avoid
over-specification of the required performance, comments are requested
on whether (b) and (c), above, are necessary for evaluating the
adequacy of the lumbar spine.

e. Shoulder

The calibration test would be an impact test performed on the
shoulder area of a fully assembled, seated dummy. A 49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart E pendulum (23.4 kg) would impact the dummy laterally (the
dummy's midsagittal plane is perpendicular to the direction of impact).
The impactor would swing freely to impact the dummy's upper arm pivot
at a velocity of 4.3 m/s. The shoulder would pass the test if the peak
acceleration of the impactor were between 7.5 and 10.5 g.

f. Abdomen

Table 6.--Lumbar Pendulum Reduction in Impact Velocity From Time of
Contact With the Deceleration Block
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time (ms) Pendulum Delta V (m/s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00-1.00................................. 0.00 to -0.05.
2.70-3.70................................. -0.24 to -0.425.
24.50-27.0................................ -5.80 to -6.50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This calibration test is performed on a fully assembled, seated
dummy. The abdomen would be impacted laterally at 4.0 m/s by a 49 CFR
Part 572, Subpart E, 23.4 kg pendulum that has an impact face
configured to replicate a horizontally-oriented 70 mm high, 150 mm
wide, and 60-80 mm deep rigid block simulating a vehicle armrest. The
midsaggital plane of the dummy is perpendicular to the direction of
impact. The following requirements would have to be met:
1. The maximum pendulum impact force measured by the pendulum-
mounted accelerometer must be between 4,000 N and 4,800 N, between
10.60 to 13.00 ms from time zero,
2. The sum of the forces of the three abdominal load sensors must
be not less than 2,200 N and not more than 2,700 N at any time between
10.0 ms and 12.3 ms from time zero.

g. Pelvis

This calibration test would be performed on a fully assembled,
seated dummy. The dummy pelvis would be impacted by the 49 CFR Part
572, Subpart E, 23.4 kg pendulum at a velocity of 4.3 m/s. The
midsagittal plane of the dummy is perpendicular to the direction of
impact and the centerline of the impactor is aligned within 5 mm of the
center of the H point.
1. The maximum impact force measured by the pendulum accelerometer
would be not less than 4800 N and not more than 5500 N, occurring
between 10.3 and 15.5 ms from time zero.
2. Maximum pubic force would have to be 1310 N and not more than
1490 N occurring between 9.90 and 15.9 ms from time zero.

XII. Other Advantages

The agency tentatively concludes that the improved biofidelity and
additional injury assessment capability of the ES-2re compared to the
other commercially available mid-size male side impact test dummies
supports a decision to adopt the ES-2re into 49 CFR Part 572. The

[[Page 55559]]

dummy would allow for a better assessment of the risk of injury to
human occupants than the currently-specified SID crash test dummy used
in side impact testing. The availability of these additional features
also are of crucial importance to the design, development and
evaluation of the development of occupant protection systems in side
impacts, particularly those involving inflatable air bag systems, as
noted in the May 17, 2004 NPRM proposing to amend FMVSS No. 214, supra.
The ES-2re test dummy is available today, and has been thoroughly
evaluated for suitable reproducibility and repeatability of results.
Further, incorporation of the ES-2re test dummy into 49 CFR Part
572 would be a step toward harmonizing our regulations with non-U.S.
regulations. The ES-2 dummy has not yet supplanted the EuroSID-1 dummy
in Europe or elsewhere for use in regulations as of this time. However,
based on a proposal from the Netherlands, the UN/ECE's Working Party on
Passive Safety (GRSP) has recommended to the WP.29 that ECE Regulation
No. 95 be amended to use the ES-2 dummy in place of the EuroSID-1.\15\
The GRSP's proposal takes into account the modifications that NHTSA has
done to ES-2 to fix the back plate problem, as well as other minor
outstanding technical problems raised by other participants. If this is
adopted, the European Union is expected to also amend its Directive 96/
27/EC to use the ES-2 dummy. Adopting the ES-2re into part 572 would
also accord with the practices of the European New Car Assessment
Program (EuroNCAP) on side impact. EuroNCAP began using the ES-2 dummy
with the injury criteria specified in EU 96/27/EC in February 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The UN/ECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations (WP.29) administers several agreements relating to the
global adoption of uniform technical regulations. An agreement,
known as the 1958 Agreement, concerns the adoption of uniform
technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts
and the development of motor vehicle safety regulations for
application primarily in Europe. UN-member countries and regional
economic integration organizations set up by UN country members may
participate in a full substantive capacity in the activities of
WP.29 by becoming a Contracting Party to the Agreement. Various
expert groups (e.g., the GRSP) within WP.29 make recommendations to
WP.29 as to whether regulations should be adopted by the Contracting
Parties to the 1958 Agreement. Under the 1958 Agreement, new
Regulations and amendments to existing Regulations are established
by a vote of two-thirds majority of Contracting Parties. The new
Regulation or amendment becomes effective for all Contracting
Parties that have not noticed the Secretary-General of their
objection within six months after notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. This rulemaking action was not considered a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This
rulemaking action was also determined not to be significant under the
Department of Transportation's (DOT's) regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). The cost of an
uninstrumented ES-2re is in the range of $54-57,000. Instrumentation
would add approx. $43-47,000 for minimum requirements and approximately
$80-84,000 for maximum instrumentation to the cost of the dummy.
This document proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design
and performance specifications for a 50th percentile adult male side
impact dummy that the agency may use in research and in compliance
tests of the Federal side impact protection safety standards. If this
proposed Part 572 rule becomes final, it would not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses would be affected only if they
choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. Because the economic
impacts of this proposal 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 the proposed
rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the addition of the test dummy to Part 572 would not impose any
requirements on anyone. NHTSA would not require anyone to manufacture
the dummy or to test vehicles with it.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal 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 agencies to develop an accountable
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.''
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. The agency
has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation and the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.

[[Page 55560]]

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 proposed rule would 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. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. NHTSA
searched for but did not find voluntary consensus standards relevant to
this proposed rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Pub. L. 104-4, Federal requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the
UMRA. This proposed rule would not meet the definition of a Federal
mandate because it would not impose requirements on anyone. It would
amend 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and performance specifications
for a side impact dummy that the agency may use in the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. If this proposed rule becomes final, it would
affect only those businesses that choose to manufacture or test with
the dummy. It would not result in costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector.

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 rulemaking easier to
understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this NPRM.

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.

Public Participation

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://
http://dms.dot.gov">dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If
Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency to
consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued),
the agency will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The

[[Page 55561]]

hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
2. On that page, click on ``search.''
3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example:
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.''
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents,
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the
documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new
material.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR Part 572 as follows:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

1. The authority citation for Part 572 would continue to read as
follows:

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

2. 49 CFR part 572 would be amended by adding and reserving a new
subpart T.
3. 49 CFR part 572 would be amended by adding a new subpart U,
consisting of Sec. Sec. 572.180 through 572.189.
The added subparts would read as follows:
Subpart T--[Reserved]
Subpart U--ES-2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult
Male
Sec.
572.180 Incorporated materials.
572.181 General description.
572.182 Head assembly.
572.183 Neck assembly.
572.184 Shoulder assembly.
572.185 Thorax assembly.
572.186 Abdomen.
572.187 Lumbar spine.
572.188 Pelvis assembly.
572.189 Instrumentation and test conditions.
Appendix A to Subpart U of Part 572--Figures

Subpart U, ES-2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 50th Percentile
Adult Male

Sec. 572.180 Incorporated materials.

(a) The following materials are hereby incorporated into this
Subpart by reference:
(1) A drawings and inspection package entitled ``Drawings and
Specifications for the ES-2re Side Impact Test Dummy, 50th percentile,
August 2004'', consisting of:
(i) Drawing No. 175-0000 ES-2re Dummy Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec. 572.xxx;
(ii) Drawing No. 175-1000 Head Assembly, incorporated by reference
in Sec. 572.182;
(iii) Drawing No. 175-2000, Neck Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec. 572.183;
(iv) Drawing No. 175-3000, Shoulder Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec. 572.184;
(v) Drawing No. 175-4000, Upper Torso Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec. 572.185;
(vi) Drawing No. 175-5000, Abdomen Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec. 572.186;
(vii) Drawing No. 175-5500 Lumbar Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec. 572.187;
(viii) Drawing No. 175-6000 Pelvis Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec. 572.188;
(ix) Drawing No. 175-7000-1, Complete Leg Assembly--left,
incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.181;
(x) Drawing No. 175-7000-2, Complete Leg Assembly--right,
incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.181;
(xi) Drawing No. 175-3500 Complete Arm Assembly--left, incorporated
by reference in Sec. 572.181; and
(xii) Drawing No. 175-3800 Complete Arm Assembly--right,
incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.181.
(2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of the ES-2re Side Impact Test Dummy,
August 2004'', incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.181;
(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar 95 ``Instrumentation
for Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation'';
(4) SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash
Testing.''
(b) The Director of the Federal Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at NHTSA's Technical
Reference Library, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 5109, Washington, DC,
or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability 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.
(c) The incorporated materials are available as follows:
(1) The Drawings and Specifications for the ES-2re Side Impact
Crash Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult Male, August xx, 2004,''
referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are available in
electronic format through the DOT docket management system and in paper
format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road,
Gaithersburg, MD 20879, (301) 670-0090.
(2) The SAE materials referred to in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)
of this section are available from the Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.

Sec. 572.181 General Description.

(a) The ES-2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 50th Percentile Adult
Male, is defined by drawings and specifications containing the
following materials:
(1) Technical drawings and specifications package P/N 175-0000,
dated August 2004, the titles of which are listed in Table A;

[[Page 55562]]

Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component assembly Drawing No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Assembly........................................... 175-1000
Neck Assembly........................................... 175-2000
Shoulder Assembly....................................... 175-3000
Upper Torso Assembly.................................... 175-4000
Abdomen................................................. 175-5000
Pelvis Assembly......................................... 175-6000
Lumbar Spine Assembly................................... 175-5500
Complete Leg Assembly--left............................. 175-7000-1
Complete Leg Assembly--right............................ 175-7000-2
Complete Arm Assembly--left............................. 175-3500
Complete Arm Assembly--right............................ 175-3800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The ES-2re Crash Test Dummy Parts List, dated August 2004, and
containing 8 pages, incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.180;
(3) A listing of available transducers-crash test sensors for the
ES-2re Crash Test Dummy is shown in drawing 175-0000 sheet 4 of 4,
dated August 2004, incorporated by reference in Sec. 572.180;
(4) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of
the ES-2re Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, August 2004, incorporated by
reference in Sec. 572.180,
(5) Sign convention for signal outputs reference document SAE 1733
Information Report, titled ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash
Testing'' dated July 15, 1986.
(b) Exterior dimensions of ES-2re test dummy are shown in drawing
175-0000 sheet 3 of 4, dated August 2004.
(c) Weights and center of gravity locations of body segments (head,
neck, upper and lower torso, arms and upper and lower segments) are
shown in drawing 175-0000 sheet 2 of 4, dated August 2004.
(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such that, except for
contacts existing under static conditions, there is no additional
contact between metallic elements of adjacent body segments throughout
the range of motion.
(e) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy
conforms to this subpart in every respect before use in any test
similar to those proposed in Standard 214, Side Impact Protection and
Standard 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Sec. 572.182 Head assembly.

(a) The head assembly consists of the head (drawing 175-1000), the
neck upper transducer structural replacement (drawing 175-1010), and a
set of three (3) accelerometers in conformance with specifications in
Sec. 572.189(b) and mounted as shown in drawing 175-0000 (sheet 4 of
4). When tested to the test procedure specified in paragraph (b) of
this section, the head assembly shall meet performance requirements
specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. The head shall be tested per procedure
specified in 49 CFR 572.112(a).
(c) Performance criteria. (1) When the head assembly is dropped in
accordance with Sec. 572.112(a), the measured peak resultant
acceleration shall be between 125 g's and 155 g's;
(2) The resultant acceleration-time curve shall be unimodal to the
extent that oscillations occurring after the main acceleration pulse
shall not exceed 15% (zero to peak) of the main pulse;
(3) The fore-and-aft acceleration vector shall not exceed 15 g's.

Sec. 572.183 Neck assembly.

(a) The neck assembly consists of parts shown in drawing 175-2000.
For purposes of this test, the neck is mounted within the headform
assembly 175-9000 as shown in Figure U1 in Appendix A to this subpart.
When subjected to test procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, the neck-headform assembly shall meet performance requirements
specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the neck-headform-flexion transducer
assembly in a test environment as specified in Sec. 572.189(n);
(2) Attach the neck-headform assembly to the Part 572 subpart E
pendulum test fixture as shown in Figure U2-A in Appendix A to this
subpart, so that the midsagittal plane of the neck-headform assembly is
vertical and perpendicular to the plane of motion of the pendulum
longitudinal centerline shown in Figure U2-A;
(3) Release the pendulum from a height sufficient to allow it to
fall freely to achieve an impact velocity of 3.4+/-0.1 m/s measured at
the center of the pendulum accelerometer (Figure 15 of Part 572) at the
time the pendulum makes contact with the decelerating mechanism;
(4) Allow the neck to flex without the neck-headform assembly
making contact with any object;
(5) Time zero is defined in Sec. 572.189(j);
(6) Allow a period of at least thirty (30) minutes between
successive tests on the same neck assembly.
(c) Performance criteria. (1) The pendulum deceleration pulse is to
be characterized in terms of decrease in velocity as determined by
integrating the filtered pendulum acceleration response from time-zero.
The velocity-time history of the pendulum falls inside the corridor
determined by the upper and lower boundaries specified in Table A1;

Table A1.--ES-2re Neck Certification Pendulum Velocity Corridor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity
Time (ms) (m/s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper boundary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0....................................................... 0.00
3.0....................................................... -0.25
14.0....................................................... -3.20
------------------------------------------------------------
Lower boundary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0....................................................... -0.05
2.5....................................................... -0.38
13.5....................................................... -3.7
17.0....................................................... -3.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The maximum translation-rotation in the lateral direction of
the reference plane of the headform (175-9000) as shown in Figure U2-B
in Appendix A to this suppart, shall be 52 to 57 degrees with respect
to the longitudinal axis of the pendulum occurring between 54 and 64 ms
from time zero. Translation-rotation of the headform-neck assembly and
the neck angle with respect to the pendulum shall be measured with
potentiometers specified in Sec. 572.189(c), installed as shown in
drawing 175-9000, and calculated per procedure specified in Figure U2-
B;

[[Page 55563]]

(3) The decaying headform translation-rotation vs. time curve shall
cross the zero angle with respect to its initial position at time of
impact relative to the pendulum centerline between 55 ms to 75 ms after
the time the peak translation-rotation value is reached.

Sec. 572.184 Shoulder assembly.

(a) The shoulder (175-3000) is part of the upper torso assembly
shown in drawing 175-4000. When subjected to impact tests specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, the shoulder assembly shall meet
performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly, without suit and
shoulder foam cap (175-010), in a test environment as specified in
Sec. 572.189(n);
(2) The dummy is seated, as shown in Figure U3 in Appendix A to
this subpart on a flat, horizontal, rigid surface covered by two
overlaid teflon 2 mm thick sheets and with no back support of the
dummy's torso. The dummy's torso spine backplate is vertical within +/-
2 degrees and the midsagittal plane of thorax is positioned
perpendicular to the direction of the plane of motion of the impactor
at contact with the shoulder. The arms are oriented forward at 40+/-2
degrees to the vertical, pointing downward. The dummy's legs are
horizontal and symmetrical about the midsagittal plane with the
distance between the innermost point on the opposite ankle at 100 +/-5
mm;
(3) The impactor is the same as defined in Sec. th 572.189(a);
(4) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
shoulder, its longitudinal axis is within +/-0.5 degrees of a
horizontal plane and perpendicular (+/-0.5 degrees) to the midsagittal
plane of the dummy and the centerpoint on the impactor's face is within
5 mm of the center of the upper arm pivot bolt (5000040) at contact
with the test dummy, as shown in Figure U3;
(5) The impactor impacts the dummy's shoulder at 4.3+/-0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria. The peak acceleration of the impactor is
between 7.5 g's and 10.5 g's during the pendulum's contact with the
dummy.

Sec. 572.185 Thorax (upper torso) assembly.

(a) For purposes of this test, the rib modules (175-4002), which
are part of the thorax assembly (175-4000), are tested as individual
units. When subjected to test procedures specified in paragraph (b) of
this section, the rib modules shall meet performance requirements
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Each rib is tested to both
the 3.0 m/s and the 4.0 m/s tests described in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the rib modules (175-4002) in a test
environment as specified in Sec. 572.189(n);
(2) Mount the rib module rigidly in a drop test fixture as shown in
Figure U6 in Appendix A to this subpart with the impacted side of the
rib facing up;
(3) The drop test fixture contains a free fall guided mass of
7.78+/-0.01 kg that is of rigid construction and with a flat impact
face 150+/-1.0 mm in diameter;
(4) Align the vertical longitudinal centerline of the drop mass so
that the centerpoint of the downward-facing flat surface is aligned to
impact the centerline of the rib rail guide system within
2.5 mm.
(5) The impacting mass is dropped from a height to impact the rib
at:
(i) 3.0 0.1 m/s and
(ii) 4.0 0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria. (1) Each of the rib modules shall deflect
as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, with the
deflection measurements made with the internal rib module position
transducer specified in Sec. 572.189(d):
(i) Not less than 36 mm and not more than 40 mm when impacted by
the dropped mass at 3 m/s; and
(ii) Not less than 46 mm and not more than 51 mm when impacted by
the dropped mass at 4 m/s.
(2) [Reserved]

Sec. 572.186 Abdomen assembly.

(a) The abdomen assembly (175-5000) is part of the dummy assembly
shown in drawing 175-0000 including load sensors specified in Sec.
572.189(e). When subjected to tests procedures specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, the abdomen assembly shall meet performance
requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (175-0000), without
suit, as specified in Sec. 572.189(n);
(2) The dummy is seated as shown in Figure U4 in Appendix A to this
subpart;
(3) The abdomen impactor is the same as specified in Sec.
572.189(a) except that on its impact surface is affixed a special
purpose rigid block whose weight is 1.0 0.01 kg. The block
is 70 mm high, 150 mm wide and 60 to 80 mm deep. The impact surface is
flat with an edge radius of 4 to 5 mm. The block's wide surface is
horizontally oriented and centered on the longitudinal axis of the
probe's impact face as shown in Figure U4-A in Appendix A to this
subpart;
(4) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
abdomen its longitudinal axis is within 0.5 degrees of a
horizontal plane and perpendicular 0.5 degrees to the
midsagittal plane of the dummy and the centerpoint on the impactor's
face is within 5 mm of the center point of the middle load measuring
sensor in the abdomen as shown in Figure U4;
(5) The impactor impacts the dummy's abdomen at 4.0 m/s 0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria. (1) The sum of the forces of the three
abdominal load sensors, specified in Sec. 572.189(e), shall be not
less than 2200 N and not more than 2700 N at any time between 10 ms and
12.3 ms from time zero as defined in Sec. 572.189(k). The calculated
sum of the three load cell forces must be concurrent in time.
(2) Maximum impactor force (impact probe acceleration multiplied by
its mass) is not less than 4000 N and not more than 4800 N occurring
between 10.6 ms and 13.0 ms from time zero.

Sec. 572.187 Lumbar spine.

(a) The lumbar spine assembly consists of parts shown in drawing
175-5500. For purposes of this test, the lumbar spine is mounted within
the headform assembly 175-9000 as shown in Figure U1 in Appendix A to
this subpart. When subjected to tests procedures specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, the lumbar spine-headform assembly shall meet
performance requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the lumbar spine-headform assembly in
a test environment as specified in Sec. 572.189(n);
(2) Attach the lumbar spine-headform assembly to the Part 572
pendulum test fixture per procedure in Sec. 572.183(b)(2) and as shown
in Figure U2-A in Appendix A to this subpart;
(3) Release the pendulum from a height sufficient to allow it to
fall freely to achieve an impact velocity of 6.05 +/-0.1 m/s measured
at the center of the pendulum accelerometer (Figure 15 of Part 572) at
the time the pendulum makes contact with its decelerating mechanism;
(4) Allow the lumbar spine to flex without the lumbar spine or the
headform making contact with any object;
(5) Time zero is defined in Sec. 572.189(j);
(6) Allow a period of at least thirty (30) minutes between
successive tests on the same lumbar spine assembly.
(c) Performance criteria. (1) The pendulum deceleration pulse is to
be characterized in terms of decrease in velocity as determined by
integrating

[[Page 55564]]

the filtered pendulum acceleration response from time-zero. The
velocity-time history of the pendulum falls inside the corridor
determined by the upper and lower boundaries specified in Table B1.

Table B1.--ES-2re Lumbar Spine Certification Pendulum Velocity Corridor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity
Time (ms) (m/s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper boundary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0........................................................ 0.00
3.7........................................................ -0.24
27.0........................................................ -5.80
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lower boundary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0........................................................ -0.05
2.7........................................................ -0.43
24.5........................................................ -6.50
30.0........................................................ -6.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The maximum translation-rotation in the lateral direction of
the reference plane of the headform (175-9000) as shown in Figure U2-B
in Appendix A to this subpart, shall be 45 to 55 degrees with respect
to the longitudinal axis of the pendulum occurring between 39 and 53 ms
from time zero. Translation-rotation of the headform-neck assembly
shall be measured with potentiometers specified in Sec. 572.189(c),
installed as shown in drawing 175-9000, and calculated per procedure
specified in Figure U2-B.
(3) The decaying headform translation-rotation vs. time curve shall
cross the zero angle with respect to its initial position at impact
relative to the pendulum centerline between 40 ms to 65 ms after the
time the peak translation-rotation value is reached.

Sec. 572.188 Pelvis.

(a) The pelvis (175-6000) is part of the torso assembly shown in
drawing 175-0000. The pelvis is equipped with a set of three (3)
accelerometers and a pubic symphysis load sensor in conformance with
specifications in Sec. 572.189(b) and Sec. 572.189(f) respectively
and mounted as shown in drawing (175-0000 sheet 4). When subjected to
tests procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the pelvis
assembly shall meet performance requirements specified in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (175-0000) without
suit as specified in Sec. 572.189(n);
(2) The dummy is seated as specified in Figure U5 in Appendix A to
this subpart;
(3) The pelvis impactor is the same as specified in Sec.
572.189(a);
(4) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
pelvis its longitudinal axis is within 0.5 degrees of a
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the
dummy and the centerpoint on the impactor's face is within 5 mm of the
center of the H-point in the pelvis, as shown in Figure U5;
(5) The impactor impacts the dummy's pelvis at 4.3 +/-0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria. (1) The impactor force (probe
acceleration multiplied by its mass) shall be not less than 4,800 N and
not more than 5,500 N, occurring between 10.3 ms and 15.5 ms from time
zero as defined in Sec. 572.189(k);
(2) The pubic symphysis load, measured with load cell specified in
Sec. 572.189(f) shall be not less than 1,310 N and not more than 1,490
N occurring between 9.9 ms and 15.9 ms from time zero as defined in
Sec. 572.189(k).

Sec. 572.189 Instrumentation and test conditions.

(a) The test probe for lateral shoulder, abdomen, and pelvis impact
tests is the same as that specified in Sec. 572.36(a) and the impact
probe has a minimum mass moment of inertia in yaw of 9,000 kg-cm\2\, a
free air resonant frequency not less than 1,000 Hz and the probe's end
opposite to the impact face has provisions to mount an accelerometer
with its sensitive axis collinear with the longitudinal axis of the
probe.
(b) Accelerometers for the head, the thoracic spine, and the pelvis
conform to specifications of SA572-S4.
(c) Rotary potentiometer for the neck and lumbar spin conforms to
SA572-53.
(d) Linear position transducer for the thoracic rib conforms to
SA572-S54.
(e) Load sensors for the abdomen conform to specifications of
SA572-S75.
(f) Load sensor for the pubic symphysis conforms to specifications
of SA572-77.
(g) Load sensor for the lumbar spine conforms to specifications of
SA572-76.
(h) Instrumentation and sensors conform to the Recommended Practice
SAE J-211 (Mar, 1995)--Instrumentation for Impact Test unless noted
otherwise.
(i) All instrumented response signal measurements shall be treated
to the following specifications:
(1) Head acceleration--Digitally filtered CFC 1000;
(2) Neck and lumbar spine translation-rotations--Digitally filtered
CFC 180;
(3)--Neck and lumbar spine pendulum accelerations--Digitally
filtered CFC 60;
(4) Pelvis, shoulder and abdomen impactor accelerations--Digitally
filtered CFC--180;
(5) Abdominal and pubic symphysis force--Digitally filtered at CFC
600;
(6) Thorax deflection-Digitally filtered CFC 180.
(j)(1) Filter the pendulum acceleration data using a SAE J211 CFC
60 filter.
(2) Determine the time when the filtered pendulum accelerometer
data first crosses the -10 g level (T10).
(3) Calculate time-zero:

T0 = T10 -Tm.,

Where:

Tm = 1.417 ms for the Neck Test

= 1.588 ms for the Lumbar Spine Test

(4) Set the data time-zero to the sample number nearest to the
calculated T0.
(k)(1) Filter the pendulum acceleration data using a SAE J211 CFC
60 filter.
(2) Determine the time when the filtered pendulum accelerometer
data first crosses the -1.0 m/s² (-.102 g) acceleration
level (T0).
(3) Set the data time-zero to the sample number of the new T0.
(l) Mountings for the head, spine and pelvis accelerometers shall
have no resonance frequency within a range of 3 times the frequency
range of the applicable channel class.
(m) Limb joints of the test dummy are set at the force between 1 to
2 G's, which just supports the limb's weight when the limbs are
extended horizontally forward. The force required to move a limb
segment does not exceed 2 G's throughout the range of the limb motion.
(n) 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 percent to 70 percent after exposure
of the dummy to those conditions for a period of not less than 4 hours.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 55565]]

Appendix A to Subpart U of Part 572--Figures
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE04.012

[[Page 55566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE04.013

[[Page 55567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE04.014

[[Page 55568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE04.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE04.016

[[Page 55569]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE04.017

[[Page 55570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE04.018

[[Page 55571]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE04.019

Issued: September 8, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-20715 Filed 9-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C