[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