-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................         * 67       ** 112          115           64     [dagger]          155
                                                                                117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 50 measurements were available for the peak upper spine (T1) acceleration.
** 66 measurements were available for the peak impactor acceleration after 5 ms.
[dagger] 61 measurements were available for the peak pelvis lateral acceleration after 6 ms.

a. Shoulder Qualification Corridors

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.194) specified a shoulder
qualification procedure where, for a specified impact velocity,
performance corridors were set for: peak shoulder rib deflection, peak
lateral acceleration of the upper spine (T1), and peak impactor
acceleration. The values are shown in Table 9.
Requested Change
    The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE DTES petitioned for changes to
these qualification corridors. The Alliance recommended a corridor that
is 2 s.d. from the mean of the data pooled from FTSS and
NHTSA. In accordance with its recommendation that the impact speed for
the test be reduced to 4.3 0.1 m/s, the Alliance excluded
tests with an impact speed greater than 4.4 m/s in their January 2007
petition, however, in their December 2007 petition, they provided data
for tests conducted with an impact velocity of 4.40.1 m/s.
FTSS created corridors based on a 4.4 0.1 m/s impact speed.
It pooled data from FTSS and NHTSA and created corridors using the
NHTSA procedure. Denton/SAE DTES created corridors based on a 4.4
0.1 m/s impact speed. It pooled data from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA
and TRC and created corridors at 3 s.d. from the mean. It
was not clear from Denton if any test data was excluded from the data
pool based on impact speed. The petitioners' recommended corridors are
set forth in Table 9.

                                           Table 9--Comparison of Petitioned Shoulder Qualification Corridors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Petitioned recommendations
                                        December 14,  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Shoulder qualification test         2006 final      Alliance--
                                        rule corridor   January 2007     Alliance--December 2007               FTSS                 Denton/ SAE DTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (m/s)................         4.3-4.5         4.2-4.4  Same as FR.................  Same as FR...............  Same as FR.
Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm)....           30-37           31-37  ...........................  Same as FR...............  29-38.
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g)..           17-19           16-22  17-22......................  17-21....................  15-23.
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g).......           14-18           14-17  ...........................  Same as FR...............  13-19.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, the agency decided to lower
the impact velocity to 4.3 0.1 m/s for the shoulder
qualification test. Therefore, only tests conducted within the energy
range corresponding to this impact velocity range were used to
establish new performance corridors. Performance corridors for the
shoulder were formed following the method described earlier, using the
mean, SD, and CV of the data set and setting bounds at a certain
distance from the mean value, depending on the CV. The report
``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD Qualification Specifications in
Response to Petitions for Reconsideration'' provides the statistics of
the data and compares the corridors established in this rule to the
petitioners' recommendations. For the peak upper spine lateral
acceleration and the peak impactor acceleration, the statistically-
derived corridors provided in Table 10 were adopted. The lower bound of
the peak shoulder rib deflection corridor was expanded by 2 mm to
account for expected lower deflections at impact velocities from 4.2-
4.3 m/s. The corridors established in this final rule are in agreement
with or slightly larger than those proposed by the Alliance (December
2007) and FTSS, and the shoulder deflection and impactor acceleration
corridors are close to those

recommended by Denton/SAE DTES. Although peak upper spine lateral
acceleration corridor is somewhat narrower than that suggested by
Denton/SAE DTES, we feel that it sufficiently includes the data and
should not be made wider. The final corridors are shown in Table 10.

                                   Table 10--Shoulder Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
            Shoulder qualification measurement                2006 corridor       corridor        rule corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm).........................             30-37             30-37             28-37
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g).......................             17-19             17-22             17-22
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)............................             14-18             13-18             13-18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Thorax with Arm Qualification Corridors

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.195) specified a thorax with
arm qualification test involving the measurement of seven dummy
responses: Peak shoulder rib deflection, peak thoracic rib deflections
for the upper, middle, and lower ribs, peak upper and lower spine
lateral accelerations, and peak impactor acceleration.
Requested Change
    The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES petitioned for changes to these
qualification corridors. As discussed earlier in this preamble, these
petitioners, as well as FTSS, had requested that the peak impactor
acceleration be taken after 5 ms to avoid measurement of an inertial
peak. The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES recommended new corridors based
on their analyses of the NHTSA final rule data set plus additional
tests conducted by FTSS, accounting for the 5 ms limit. Denton/SAE DTES
also suggested that corridors should be formed based on 3
standard deviations rather than 2 standard deviations from
the mean because, the petitioner believed, data from very few labs are
available to provide sufficient lab-to-lab variation in the data set.
Table 11 provides a summary of petitioner-recommended corridors.

                                       Table 11--Comparison of Petitioned Thorax with Arm Qualification Corridors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Petitioned recommendations
                                        December 14,  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Thorax with arm qualification test     2006 final      Alliance--
                                        rule corridor   January 2007     Alliance--December 2007               FTSS                 Denton/ SAE DTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (m/s)................         6.6-6.8      Same as FR  ...........................  Same as FR...............  Same as FR.
Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm)....           31-40           30-41  ...........................  Same as FR...............  27-44.
Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)           26-32           25-32  ...........................  Same as FR...............  24-33.
Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection               30-36           30-35  ...........................  Same as FR...............  29-36.
 (mm).
Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)           32-38      Same as FR  ...........................  Same as FR...............  31-39.
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g)..           34-43           34-44  ...........................  Same as FR...............  32-46.
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g)..           28-35           28-36  30-37......................  Same as FR...............  26-38.
Peak Impactor Acceleration after 5 ms           31-36      Same as FR  30-36 [dagger].............  Same as FR...............  30-37.
 (g).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Conditions were not provided, but it is assumed that peaks were taken after 5 ms.

Agency Response
    The mean, standard deviation, and CV of the expanded data set were
used to generate performance corridors for the thorax with arm
qualification test as described in ``Analysis and Development of SID-
IIsD Qualification Specifications in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration.'' Following statistical analysis and visual
examination of the data, only three corridors were changed from those
given in the December 2006 final rule: The peak upper thorax rib
deflection, the peak lower spine lateral acceleration, and the peak
impactor acceleration (after 5 ms). The upper thorax rib deflection and
impactor acceleration corridors were changed to agree with the
statistically-derived corridors, which are also in agreement with (or
slightly larger than) the corridors recommended by the Alliance and
FTSS. The lower spine acceleration corridor was expanded slightly from
the statistically-formed corridor to better include the spread of the
data. The rest of the performance criteria were unchanged, due to the
fact that the December 2006 final rule corridor sufficiently contained
the data and was in agreement with, or slightly larger than, the
statistically-derived corridor. The final corridors are shown in Table
12.

                                Table 12--Thorax With Arm Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's Final
         Thorax with arm qualification measurement            2006 Corridor       Corridor        Rule Corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm).........................             31-40             32-40             31-40
Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm).....................             26-32             25-32             25-32
Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)....................             30-36             30-35             30-36
Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm).....................             32-38             32-38             32-38
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g).......................             34-43             34-43             34-43
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g).......................             28-35             29-36             29-37
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)............................             31-36               N/A               N/A

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

c. Thorax without Arm Qualification Corridors

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.196) specified a thorax
without arm qualification procedure in which, for a specified impact
velocity, performance corridors were set for: peak upper thorax rib
deflection, peak middle thorax rib deflection, peak lower thorax rib
deflection, peak upper spine lateral acceleration, peak lower spine
lateral acceleration, and peak impactor acceleration.
Requested Change
    The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE DTES petitioned for changes to
these qualification corridors. The Alliance pooled data from FTSS and
NHTSA and created corridors using 2 s.d. from the mean.
FTSS pooled data from FTSS and NHTSA and created corridors using
NHTSA's procedure (based on the mean, SD, and CV of the data set),
except the method used to create the T12 corridor used 2
s.d. instead of 10%, as the petitioner believed it was more appropriate
due to the fact that this acceleration has a low magnitude in this
test. Denton/SAE DTES pooled data from FTSS, NHTSA, MGA and TRC to
create corridors using 3 s.d. from the mean. The corridor
recommendations are summarized in Table 13.

                  Table 13--Comparison of Petitioned Thorax Without Arm Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Petitioned recommendations
Thorax without arm qualification   December 14,  ---------------------------------------------------------------
              test                  2006 final      Alliance--January
                                   rule corridor          2007                  FTSS           Denton/SAE DTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (m/s)...........         4.2-4.4  Same as FR..........  Same as FR.........  Same as FR
Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection           33-40  Same as FR..........  Same as FR.........  31-41
 (mm).
Peak Middle Thorax Rib                     39-45  39-44...............  Same as FR.........  37-45
 Deflection (mm).
Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection           36-43  Same as FR..........  Same as FR.........  34-44
 (mm).
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel.            14-17  Same as FR..........  Same as FR.........  13-17
 (g).
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel.             7-10  7-11................  7-11...............  6-12
 (g).
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)..           14-18  15-18...............  Same as FR.........  Same as FR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    Based on an impact velocity of 4.30.1 m/s, the
performance corridors were formed based on the statistics of the
expanded data set (see, ``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration''). Four of the thorax without arm performance criteria
are changed in this final rule. Two of these, the peak upper thorax rib
deflection and the peak upper spine lateral acceleration, were expanded
slightly, in agreement with the statistically-derived corridor from the
new data set. The peak lower thorax rib deflection corridor was
expanded beyond the statistically-derived corridor because the
statistical corridor excluded data that met the final rule corridor. As
indicated by FTSS, the magnitude of the peak lower spine acceleration
is fairly low. Therefore, we agree with the petitioner that applying a
corridor of 10% would be inappropriate, and have instead
set this corridor to agree with the Alliance and FTSS recommendations.
The statistical and adopted qualification corridors are as shown in
Table 14.

                                     Table 14--Thorax Without Arm Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
       Thorax without arm qualification measurement           2006 corridor       corridor        rule corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm).....................             33-40             32-40             32-40
Peak Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)....................             39-45             37-45             39-45
Peak Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm).....................             36-43             35-42             35-43
Peak Upper Spine Lateral Accel. (g).......................             14-17             13-17             13-17
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g).......................              7-10              8-11              7-11
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)............................             14-18             14-18             14-18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Abdomen Qualification Corridors

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.197) specified an abdomen
qualification procedure in which, for a specified impact velocity,
performance corridors were set for: Peak upper abdominal rib
deflection, peak lower abdominal rib deflection, peak lower spine
lateral acceleration, and peak impactor acceleration.
Requested Change
    The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE DTES petitioned for changes to
these qualification corridors, based on their analyses of larger data
sets as described below. Table 15 presents the petitioned corridors.
    The Alliance recommended a corridor that is 2 s.d. from
the mean of pooled data from FTSS and NHTSA and excluded data from
tests conducted at speeds greater than 4.4 m/s in their January 2007
petition, but used an impact velocity range of 4.4 0.1 m/s
in

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

                                           Table 15--Comparison of Petitioned Abdomen Qualification Corridors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      December 14,                                        Petitioned recommendations
     Abdomen qualification test        2006 final   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      rule corridor   Alliance--January 2007    Alliance--December 2007            FTSS              Denton/ SAE DTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (m/s)..............         4.3-4.5  4.2-4.4.................  Same as FR...............  Same as FR............  Same as FR
Peak Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection           39-47  37-50...................  37-49....................  Same as FR............  36-51
 (mm).
Peak Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection           37-46  35-49...................  35-49....................  Same as FR............  33-53
 (mm).
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g)           11-14  9-15....................  9-14.....................  9-14..................  9-15
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g).....           12-16  Same as FR..............  Same as FR...............  Same as FR............  11-16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    As discussed previously, NHTSA is reducing the impact velocity to
4.3 0.1 m/s. Accordingly, the performance corridors were
formed using only those tests with input energies corresponding to
impact velocities of 4.3 0.1 m/s. The report ``Analysis and
Development of SID-IIsD Qualification Specifications in Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration'' describes the statistics and rationale
used for the placement of corridor bounds, and provides figures showing
the responses for each qualification measurement. In this qualification
test, both rib deflection criteria were expanded and/or shifted
downward slightly from the final rule corridors. The statistical
corridors for these measurements were formed using the NHTSA method and
the 4.3 0.1 m/s data set. However, due to low deflection
responses at impact velocities from 4.2--4.3 m/s, the lower bound of
the upper rib deflection statistical corridor was reduced 1 mm, and the
lower bound of the lower rib deflection statistical corridor was
reduced 2 mm. These corridors are narrower than those suggested by the
Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES, but we believe they contain the data
sufficiently well. The peak lower spine acceleration corridor was set
by placing the bounds at 2 s.d. from the mean, rather than
10% from the mean as specified by the NHTSA method for
corridor formation. Like in the thorax with arm test, this is because
the low magnitude of this measurement results in a narrow corridor when
its bounds are placed at 10% of the mean, so it is more
appropriate to set the corridor bounds at 2 s.d. from the
mean. The final corridors are shown in Table 16.

                                    Table 16--Abdomen Qualification Corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
             Abdomen qualification measurement                2006 corridor       corridor        rule corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (m/s).....................................           4.3-4.5  ................           4.2-4.4
Peak Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm)..................             39-47             37-47             36-47
Peak Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm)..................             37-46             35-44             33-44
Peak Lower Spine Lateral Accel. (g).......................             11-14             10-13              9-14
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)............................             12-16             12-16             12-16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification Corridors

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.198) specified a pelvis
acetabulum qualification procedure where for a given impact velocity,
performance corridors were set for: peak impactor acceleration, peak
lateral pelvis acceleration, and peak acetabulum force.
Requested Change
    The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE DTES requested changes to the
pelvis acetabulum qualification corridors with the condition that the
peak lateral pelvis acceleration be taken 5 ms or more after the
impactor contacts the dummy. The Alliance separately analyzed data from
tests with 2 mm and 3 mm pre-crushed plugs. It recommended a corridor
width of 2 s.d., regardless of which pre-crush amount is
used. FTSS pooled data from FTSS, Ford and NHTSA with 2 mm and 3 mm
pre-crushed plugs combined. It created corridors using the NHTSA
procedure described in section XI of this preamble. Denton/SAE DTES
also analyzed combined data from 2 mm and 3 mm pre-crushed plugs. It
created corridors using 3 s.d. from the mean of pooled data
from FTSS, Ford and NHTSA. The recommended qualification corridors are
set forth below in Table 17.

                                          Table 17--Comparison of Petitioned Acetabulum Qualification Corridors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       December 14,                                       Petitioned recommendations
  Pelvis-Acetabulum qualification      2006 final   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                test                  rule corridor   Alliance--January 2007    Alliance--December 2007            FTSS              Denton/ SAE DTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (m/s)..............         6.6-6.8  Same as FR..............  Same as FR...............  Same as FR............  Same as FR.

                                                                 3-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g).....           38-47  Same as FR..............                                                     ......................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g).....          41-50.                                                                               ......................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration     ..............  30-45.
 after 5 ms (g).
Peak Acetabulum Force (kN).........         3.8-4.6  3.7-4.4.                                                                     ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g).....  ..............  40-47.                                                                       ......................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g).....                                                                                ......................
Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration     ..............  31-45.
 after 5 ms (g).
Peak Acetabulum Force (kN).........  ..............  3.8-4.3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2- and 3-mm Pre-Crushed Plugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g).....  ..............  ........................  .........................  Same as FR............  38-49.
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g).....  ..............  ........................  .........................  ......................  REMOVE.
Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration     ..............  ........................  30-45*...................  34-42.................  IF KEEP, 28-48.
 after 5 ms (g).
Peak Acetabulum Force (kN).........  ..............  ........................  3.6-4.4*.................  3.6-4.4...............  3.64-4.42.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* It is unknown how the plugs were crushed for the data submitted by the Alliance in December 2007. Therefore, we have included their petitioned
  corridors in the ``2 and 3-mm pre-crushed plugs'' category.

Agency Response
    NHTSA pooled all the relevant data for 3 mm pre-crushed plugs in
the formulation of new corridors for the pelvis acetabulum
qualification test. While the petitioners provided numerous pelvis-
acetabulum qualification test results to support their recommendations
for corridor adjustment, all tests conducted by FTSS and Ford were
performed using 2 mm pre-crushed plugs. Because the plug response
characteristics cannot be determined from pre-crushing 2 mm, the
results derived from these plugs cannot be considered valid for the
agency's corridor analysis. Likewise, the petitioners' recommendations
for performance corridors based on analysis of 2 mm pre-crushed plugs
cannot be considered.
    Performance corridors for the pelvis-acetabulum were formed
following the methods described in section XI of this preamble. The
report, ``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD Qualification
Specifications in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration,''
describes the statistics and rationale used for the placement of
corridor bounds, and provides figures showing the responses for each
qualification measurement. The corridors for peak lateral pelvis
acceleration (now after 6 ms) and peak acetabulum force were revised to
reflect the statistics of the expanded data set, which includes tests
performed by NHTSA and FTSS (on dummies purchased by NHTSA). These
corridors sufficiently contained the variation in the data, and are
adopted in this final rule. The final corridors are shown in Table 18.

                               Table 18--Pelvis-Acetabulum Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
        Pelvis-Acetabulum qualification measurement           2006 corridor       corridor        rule corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)............................             38-47             39-46             38-47
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g) (over entire test period)..             41-50               N/A               N/A
Peak Lateral Pelvis Acceleration after 6 ms (g)...........               N/A             34-42             34-42
Peak Acetabulum Force (kN)................................           3.8-4.6         3.60-4.30         3.60-4.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Pelvis Iliac Qualification Corridors

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.199) specified an iliac
qualification procedure where three performance corridors were set for
a specified impact velocity: Peak impactor acceleration, peak lateral
pelvis acceleration, and peak iliac wing force.
Requested Change
    The Alliance, FTSS and Denton/SAE DTES petitioned for changes to
these qualification corridors. The Alliance pooled data from FTSS, Ford
and GM in the evaluation of M3 wings with standoffs tested to the OSRP
procedure. It also used M3 wings with standoffs data from FTSS using
the final rule iliac qualification procedure. Each set of recommended
corridors were created using 2 s.d. from the mean. FTSS
provided data for M3 wings with standoffs, but did not propose
corridors. It did propose corridors for M2, in case M3 was not adopted.
It pooled data from FTSS and NHTSA and used the NHTSA statistical
procedure for its M2 recommendation. Denton/SAE DTES used data from
FTSS to establish corridors for M3 with standoffs. It also pooled data
from FTSS and NHTSA to establish M2 corridors. Each set of recommended
corridors were created using 3 s.d. from the mean. The data
are summarized in Table 19.

                     Table 19--Comparison of Petitioned Pelvis-Iliac Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Petitioned recommendations
                                     December 14,  -------------------------------------------------------------
  Pelvis-iliac qualification test     2006 final                                                    Denton/ SAE
                                     rule corridor     Alliance (2 s.d.)            procedure)        minus>3 s.d.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (m/s).............         4.2-4.4  Same as FR...........  Same as FR...........      Same as FR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Material 2 w/NHTSA plate--Final Rule procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)....           34-40  .....................  33-40................           32-41
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g)....           27-33  .....................  Same as FR...........           22-37
Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN)........         3.7-4.5  .....................  3.6-4.4..............         3.2-4.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Material 3 w/standoffs--Final Rule procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)....  ..............  37-44................  .....................           35-46
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g)....  ..............  29-41................  .....................           26-44
Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN)........  ..............  3.7-5.1..............  .....................         3.3-5.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Material 3 with standoffs--OSRP procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)....  ..............  35-42................  .....................  ..............
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g)....  ..............  28-37................  .....................  ..............
Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN)........  ..............  3.6-4.8..............  .....................  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    Although the Alliance, IIHS, FTSS, and Denton/SAE DTES petitioned
for the use of the iliac wing design of M3 with standoffs and provided
an extensive amount of iliac qualification data for this wing design,
no data was provided for M3 wings with standoffs and a backer plate. In
today's final rule, NHTSA has specified use of the backer plate along
with the M3 with standoffs design because quasi-static tests showed
that it is still possible for the M3 with standoffs iliac wing to off-
load the iliac load cell when used without a backer plate. However,
because the plate has little effect on iliac response in qualification
tests (see Table 2 in section V.b of this preamble), NHTSA has decided
that the petitioners' ``M3 with standoffs'' data using the NHTSA final
rule test procedure are valid and should be considered for corridor
formation.
    In response to the petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA has
developed the iliac performance criteria based on an analysis of 83
``M3 with standoffs'' tests performed by FTSS, multiple series of
agency pelvis-iliac qualification tests using a total of four pelvis
skins and six (three right, three left) M3 iliac wings with standoffs
and a backer plate, and agency tests of two pelvis skin/iliac wing
combinations with no backer plate. In total, 123 impacts were included
from agency testing, 107 of which were with and 16 were without a
backer plate.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ In evaluating these test results, it was noticed that the
first impact in a series of impacts often had a lower response than
subsequent impacts. It was determined that this occurrence will not
be problematic in compliance environments. Our analysis of this
observation is presented in the report ``Analysis and Development of
SID-IIsD Qualification Specifications in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Performance corridors for the pelvis-iliac were formed following
the methods described above using the mean, SD, and CV of the data set
and setting bounds at a certain distance from the mean value, depending
on the CV. The report ``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration'' describes the statistics and rationale used for the
placement of corridor bounds, and provides figures showing the
responses for each qualification measurement. In general, the corridors
were shifted upward from those established in the December 2006 final
rule to account for the higher responses of M3 over M2. Final placement
of the corridors was primarily based on the responses of a subset of
the NHTSA tests (n = 53) that were conducted with a minimum two-hour
recovery time, as specified in this final rule. The peak lateral pelvis
acceleration corridor was expanded somewhat from the statistical
corridor (set at 10% from the mean) to account for the
variation in response seen for this measurement. The peak impactor
acceleration and peak iliac wing force corridors were revised based on
the statistics of the two-hour recovery time (n = 53) data set. The
final corridors are shown in Table 20.

                                 Table 20--Pelvis-Iliac Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              December 14,       Statistical      Today's final
          Pelvis-iliac qualification measurement              2006 corridor       corridor        rule corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Impactor Acceleration (g)............................             34-40             36-45             36-45
Peak Lateral Pelvis Accel. (g)............................             27-33             29-36             28-39
Peak Iliac Wing Force (kN)................................           3.7-4.5         4.10-5.10         4.10-5.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Drawing Package and PADI

    The petitions for reconsideration suggested a number of changes to
the drawing package that was incorporated by reference into the part
572 regulatory text set forth in the December 14, 2006 final rule.
These requests are discussed below, along with agency responses.
Because the drawings in the drawing

package and the PADI are being changed as discussed below, this final
rule updates the references to the drawing package, parts list, and
PADI incorporated by reference into part 572. The updated drawing
package, parts list, and PADI referenced by today's final rule are
dated July 1, 2008.
    Data submitted by FTSS and Denton relating to the drawing package
has been compiled by NHTSA and submitted to the docket in a memorandum
entitled, ``Drawing Package Petition Data.'' This section refers to
tables set forth in this memorandum. Other memorandums have been
submitted to the docket that document communications between NHTSA and
FTSS and Denton regarding the SID-IIsD drawing package.
    As a result of the changes made by today's final rule, the total
weight of the dummy is adjusted to 97.26 2.40 lb. Changes
to weights and masses discussed in the following sections are reflected
in Drawing 180-0000 Sheet 4 of 5 and in Table 20 of the PADI. For a
compilation of center of gravity (CG) and weight measurements used to
respond to these petitions for reconsideration, see Tables 1-4 in the
docket memorandum, ``Drawing Package Petition Data,'' id.

a. Issues Raised by Both FTSS and Denton

1. Referenced Drawings
    FTSS stated that the following drawings refer to Hybrid III
drawings and believed that the contents in the title blocks, such as
material and finish, should be removed: 180-1003, 180-1004, 180-1005,
180-2009, 180-3005, 180-5160-1/-2, 180-5141-1/-2, 180-5381, 180-5303,
180-5301, 180-5382, 180-5540, 180-5504, 180-5503, 180-5508, 180-5703,
180-5704, 180-5709, 180-5906-1/-2, 180-5902, 180-5905, 180-5904, and
180-5706. Denton also listed drawing 180-5903. Denton stated that all
of these prints simply provide a reference back to another print that
is the same. The petitioner believed that the drawings include a
material callout which should be removed.
    Agency Response: We agree with the petitioners and have removed the
material callouts on these drawings. Also, the note ``scale'' has been
removed, because it does not apply to a blank reference drawing.
However, the finish specification is part of the general dimension and
tolerance block and will be maintained. While reviewing the drawing
package, we found that drawing 180-5708, which is ``same as part number
A-1887,'' also has a defined scale that has been removed.
2. Drawing 180-3113, Side, Plate--Spine Box
    FTSS stated that the dimension .788 (grid reference C4) should read
(.788), a reference dimension. Denton suggested deleting this .788
dimension in the left view, as it is double dimensioned.
    Agency Response: These comments are correct. We have added
parentheses around the .788 dimension in the left view to make it a
reference dimension.
3. Drawing 180-3361, Lower Bib--Ribs
    FTSS stated that 12xR.05 (B1) should read 8xR.05. Denton stated
that the 12X radius callout should be 8X.
    Agency Response: These comments are correct. In drawing 180-3361,
we have changed 12xR.05 in grid B1 to 8xR.05.
4. Drawing 180-3343, Neck Mount Block, Machined
    FTSS stated that dimension 2.4 (B5) is not clear, and should read
2.40 (CTR OF R.25). Denton stated that the 2.40 dimension is unclear
and should be replaced with a dimension to the corner.
    Agency Response: We agree that the dimension is not clear. However,
a dimension to the corner would not describe the part as well as a
dimension to the center of the radius. The 2.4 inch (in) dimension
needs to be labeled as the center of the 0.25 in radius. Accordingly,
we have added ``(CTR OF R.25)'' to the dimension, as well as a center
of radius symbol, for clarification.
5. Drawing 180-3501, Sternum
    FTSS stated that R.500 (B2) should read 4xR.500. Denton also stated
that the R.500 should have 4X added in front of it.
    Agency Response: We agree that this radius needs to be labeled 4x
to describe all four edges. We have added ``4x'' before the R.500
dimension in grid B2 of drawing 180-3501.
6. Drawing 6000075, Bearing Spherical .500 X 1.000
    FTSS believed that dimension [Oslash].156+.002/-.000 should read 2x
[Oslash].156+.002/-.000 THRU. Denton stated that the .156 dia should
have 2X added to it since it does not go through.
    Agency Response: There are two holes, so we have added ``2x''
before the 0.156 diameter dimension in grid C3, drawing 6000075.
However, the holes do not go all the way through, so ``THRU'' was not
added.
7. Drawing 180-3363, Lower Ribs--Bending Upper Torso
    FTSS stated that the tolerance for the dimensions is too tight for
manufacturing; Hybrid III dummies use a tolerance of 0.30
for the general dimension and 0.12 for the bend radius.
FTSS recommended following Hybrid III dummy rib dimension tolerance
practice, and change the 4xR2.75 to 4xR2.750.12, change
9.450.20 to 9.450.30, and change 7.480.20 to 7.480.30.\46\ Denton also believed that the
tolerances on the rib bending are unrealistically tight. Denton
believed appropriate tolerances should match what is on the H-III50M
ribs such as 78051-31: The 2.75 radius dimension should have a
tolerance of .12 to match the radius tolerance on 78051-31.
The size dimensions 7.48, 4.03, 3.45, and 9.95 should have tolerances
of .03 to match 78051-31. Denton believed that the
dimensions 4.73 and 7.20 should be made reference because they are
almost impossible to measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ There are several typos in FTSS's comment. The tolerance
for general dimensions on the Hybrid III dummies is 0.03, not 0.30. The petitioner asks to change
``9.450.20'' to ``9.450.30''. The dimension
and tolerances are in error. The petition should ask to change
``9.950.02'' to ``9.950.03.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We have changed the tolerance of 0.02
for the 7.48 and 9.95 dimensions to 0.03 to match that of
the Hybrid III dummy ribs, and have added the tolerance of 0.12 to the bend radius dimension, as requested. In addition, we
have added a tolerance of 0.03 to the 4.03 and 3.45
dimensions. The dimensions 4.73 and 7.20 are made reference.
8. Drawing 180-3366, Shoulder Rib--Bending Upper Torso
    For the same reason as stated above for drawing 180-3363, FTSS
recommended that NHTSA follow Hybrid III dummy rib dimension practice
and change 4xR1.93 to 4xR1.930.12, change 5.88.20 to 5.88.30 and change 9.98.20 to
9.98.30. Denton believed that the tolerances on the rib
bending are unrealistically tight and that appropriate tolerances would
match what is on the HIII50M ribs, e.g., 78051-31. Denton recommended
that the 1.93 radius dimension should have a tolerance of .12 to match the radius tolerance on 78051-31, and that the size
dimensions 5.88, 3.23, 2.65, and 9.98 should have tolerances of .03 to match 78051-31. The petitioner suggested that dimensions
3.95 and 8.05 should be made reference because they are almost
impossible to measure.
    Agency Response: The same errors are present in FTSS's recommended
changes as noted in 7 above. Otherwise, the petitioners are
correct. We have changed the tolerance of 0.02

on the 9.98 and 5.88 dimensions to 0.03 to match that of
the Hybrid III dummy ribs and have added the tolerance of 0.12 to the bend radius dimension. In addition, a tolerance of
0.03 is added to the 3.23 and 2.65 dimensions, and the
dimensions 3.95 and 8.05 are made reference.
9. Drawing 180-9060, Spacer
    FTSS and Denton stated that dimension 0.194 +0.001/-0.000 (C2)
should read 0.194 +0.010/-0.000.
    Agency Response: NHTSA agrees and has changed the tolerance as
petitioned.
10. Drawing 180-5900-1/-2, Foot Assembly Molded 45[deg], Left and Right
    FTSS stated that the weight specification in note 1 should read
1.78.10 lbs to be consistent with weight table in drawing
180-0000 sheet 4 and the HIII5F specification.\47\ Denton believed that
the weight tolerance should be .10 lb, similar to the
standard HIII5F foot 880105-650/651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Agency Response: The HIII5F drawing and the SID-IIs foot weight
specification on sheet 4 of 180-0000 specify 1.75 0.10 lbs.
Drawings 180-5900-1 and -2 specify a weight of 1.75 +/- 0.08 lbs. We
agree with the petitioners and have changed the weight specification in
note 1 on 180-5900-1, -2 to read 1.75 0.10 lbs to be
consistent with weight table in drawing 180-0000 sheet 4, and the
HIII5F. In addition, Note 4 is revised such that the phrase, ``* * *
weight tolerance was 0.10 * * *'' is removed.

b. Issues Raised By FTSS

1. Drawing 180-0000, SID-IIsD Complete Assembly, Sheet 4 of 5
    A. Arm CGy: FTSS proposed to change the tolerance from 0.15 to 0.30 inch (in). In its addendum to the
petition for reconsideration, FTSS proposed to change the arm CGy from
0.500.15 to 0.490.20 in.
    Agency Response: The final rule CG location of 0.50 in should be
retained because it is very close to the FTSS recommendation and it
sufficiently represents the average of the data. However, increasing
the tolerance to 0.20 in is acceptable because measurement of the arm
CG is susceptible to error due to the pivot point of the arm. Thus, the
arm CGy is changed from 0.50 0.15 in to 0.50 0.20 in.
    B. Arm CGz: FTSS suggested changing the dimension from 3.40 to 3.56
in. In its petition addendum, item 5b, FTSS proposed to change
this value from 3.400.30 to -3.56  0.20 in.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ FTSS drawings of the SID-IIsD show CG origins and axes with
a defined positive direction, thus, CG values that fall on the
negative side of the axis are labeled as negative CG's. In contrast,
NHTSA drawings do not indicate positive/negative direction of the CG
axes, so all CG's are positive in sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We are changing the arm CGz from 3.400.30 in to 3.55 0.30 in. A dimension of 3.55 0.30 in retains the original tolerance level while still
including the FTSS recommended range. 3.55 in is the average of all arm
CGz values measured by FTSS and NHTSA, and includes all measurements
from NHTSA-owned dummies (see Table 1 of the memorandum entitled,
``Drawing Package Petition Data,'' in the docket for today's final
rule.)
    C. Upper Torso Weight: FTSS suggested changing this dimension from
24.65 to 24.26 lb.
    Agency Response: We have changed the upper torso assembly without
chest jacket weight from 24.65 0.40 lb to 24.50 0.45 lb. An average was taken of all available data (see Table 2,
``Drawing Package Petition Data,'' id.) with the lower abdominal
potentiometer (hereafter referred to as the (``5th pot'') excluded.\49\
A tolerance of 0.45 lb around a mean of 24.50 lb includes all of the
available data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The lower abdominal rib potentiometer (or 5th pot) has been
moved from the upper torso to the lower torso for purposes of
measuring the weight and cg of these dummy segments. This change is
discussed later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Upper Torso CGy: FTSS suggested changing the specification from
0.630.15 to -0.700.20 in.
    Agency Response: We agree to change the upper torso CGy to 0.70
0.20 in. An average was taken of the data provided by FTSS
(see Table 2 in ``Drawing Package Petition Data,'' id.) with the 5th
pot excluded. A specification of 0.70 0.20 in includes all
the relevant data.
    E. Upper Torso CGz: FTSS suggested changing the specification from
4.30 to 4.38 in.
    Agency Response: We agree to the suggestion to change the nominal
value of the upper torso CGz to 4.38 in. A CGz of 4.38 in is slightly
higher than that specified in the final rule, which is understandable
since FTSS did not include the 5th pot in their measurements of the
upper torso. As the location of the 5th pot is moved to the lower
torso, a higher upper torso CGz is expected. An average was taken of
the data provided by FTSS (see Table 2 in ``Drawing Package Petition
Data,'' id.) with the 5th pot excluded. A specification of 4.38 0.20 in includes all of the relevant data.
    F. Lower Torso Weight: FTSS suggested changing the specification
from 27.50 to 27.43 lb.
    Agency Response: We are denying the request to change the lower
torso weight to 27.43 lb, but we are changing the lower torso weight to
27.60 0.40 lb in accordance with FTSS and NHTSA adjusted
data. The petitioner's suggested specification for lower torso weight
included the 5th deflection potentiometer, but did not include the
iliac wing backer plates.\50\ In the revised drawing package, the lower
torso will include the 5th pot and the iliac wing backer plates. Thus,
the FTSS measurements were adjusted by adding the weight of the backer
plates, and the NHTSA measurements made per the final rule (with the
5th pot in the upper torso) were adjusted by adding the weight of the
potentiometer. Then, the mean of all NHTSA and FTSS measured weights
was calculated to be 27.61 lb (Table 3, ``Drawing Package Petition
Data,'' id.). The lower torso weight specification is centered at this
mean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    G. Lower Torso CGx: FTSS suggested changing the tolerance from 0.10
to 0.15 in.
    Agency Response: We agree to change the lower torso CGx tolerance
to 0.15 in as this tolerance is reasonable and acceptable.
    H. Jacket Weight: FTSS suggested changing the specification from
1.400.10 to 1.270.11 lb (57850
grams).
    Agency Response: FTSS suggested a large change in weight because
the jacket is being manufactured by a new supplier. We agree to
changing the weight, but we believe that a new weight specification
should include as many of the old jackets as possible. NHTSA is thus
specifying a jacket weight of 1.30 0.15 lb. This tolerance
would include all but one of the agency measurements and the whole
range suggested by FTSS (see Table 4 in ``Drawing Package Petition
Data,'' id.).
    I. Lower Torso CGy: FTSS suggested a specification of 0.080.20 in.
    Agency Response: This request is denied. No specification for lower
torso CGy was given in the final rule; this is because the lower torso
is symmetrical according to the final rule drawing package. The CG
offset amount suggested by FTSS is likely due to the asymmetry of the
5th potentiometer, which FTSS included in its lower torso measurements.
Although this final rule includes the 5th potentiometer in the lower
torso for weight and CG measurements, FTSS's suggested CG is so close
to zero that it is not deemed

necessary to specify a CG requirement in the y-direction.
    J. Lower Torso CGz: FTSS suggested a specification of 1.010.20 in.
    Agency Response: We agree with this suggestion. The proposed CGz
location is very close to the final rule specification, and FTSS based
this recommendation on measurements of 33 dummies with the 5th
potentiometer included. Although General Dynamics measured five NHTSA
lower torsos without the 5th pot and found an average CGz location of
0.88 in, the method General Dynamics used to hold the lower torso while
measuring the CG resulted in the pelvis flesh compressing and
inaccurate data may have been obtained (see note following Table 3 in
``Drawing Package Petition Data,'' id.). The data from General Dynamics
was thus disregarded in the analysis. Although FTSS did not include the
iliac wing backer plates in their lower torso measurements, this part
should not affect the CGz of the assembly because it is centered on the
CG origin.
2. Drawing 180-1000, 6 Axis Head Assembly
    FTSS requested changing the head skin thickness dimension
0.480.030 to 0.510.030 to ensure the head
performance.
    Agency Response: We agree to change the head skin thickness to
0.510 in, as petitioned, but we have increased the tolerance so that
the thickness specification will be changed as follows: From 0.480
0.030 in (0.450-0.510 in) to 0.51 0.05 in
(0.46-0.56 in).
    Prior to the final rule, FTSS provided thickness measurements for
two head skins. These measurements, as well as VRTC head skin
measurements from new dummies, were used to evaluate the FTSS
suggestion, and are shown in Tables 5 through 7 of the memorandum
``Drawing Package Petition Data,'' id.. VRTC noted that some of the
FTSS measurements would fail the thickness dimension suggested by FTSS.
When asked by VRTC why it had recommended such a large shift in head
skin thickness, FTSS replied:

    The original SID-IIs head skin mold was not symmetrical left to
right and produced head skins that required FTSS to manually trim
the head skin thickness to meet the Head Drop corridors on both
sides of the head. The original head skin mold was a legacy problem
and was a carry over from the Hybrid III 5th Female dummy. This
caused problems in manufacturing quality head skins. A new head skin
mold was manufactured about a year ago to ensure left side to right
side symmetry of the head skins. The new mold provides symmetrical
head skins, but the skin thickness needed to be increased to 0.510
inches to meet the Head Drop test corridors.

    Based on the head skin thicknesses provided by FTSS and obtained by
the agency, this final rule specifies a head skin thickness of 0.51
 0.05 in. This specification is met for most dummies in
critical areas (i.e., areas that receive impact in vehicle and
qualification tests). Additionally, this range includes nearly all of
the thickness values allowed by the final rule, resulting in minimal
impact on the ability of older skins or skins from different
manufacturers to pass the thickness specification. The corresponding
head drop test results for agency dummies are shown in Table 8 in the
memorandum, ``Drawing Package Petition Data,'' id. The results of these
tests indicate that the recommended head skin thickness does not
compromise the dummy's ability to pass the head drop test. However, it
is emphasized that while the head skin thickness is specified to
facilitate consistency between dummies, it is the manufacturer's
responsibility to meet all head specifications, including skin
thickness, weight, cg, and qualification specifications.
3. Drawing 180-4320-1/2, Iliac Wing
    FTSS stated that the right view of 180-4320-1 and the left view of
180-4320-2 needs to be updated to reflect the actual part.
    Agency Response: This aspect of the FTSS petition is moot, as it
refers to drawings that are replaced with drawings of the new M3 with
standoffs iliac wing.\51\ This final rule replaces drawings 180-4320-1/
2 with drawings 180-4322-1/2 of the new iliac wing design. We are also
replacing drawing 180-4321, Iliac Wing Support Plate (the steel plate
that is molded within the iliac wing), with drawing 180-4323, which has
the ``standoffs.'' Corresponding changes have also been made to Table 9
and multiple figures in the PADI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The agency had contacted FTSS to request clarification of
this aspect of the petition, and FTSS responded by providing
drawings for these parts (see ex parte communication) that showed an
additional radius in the right view of 180-4320-1 and the left view
of 180-4320-2. However, it appeared that the parts did not have this
additional radius and that the original iliac wing drawings reflect
the parts as they were.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Drawing 180-3000, Upper Torso Assembly
    The petitioner believes that the orientation of Item 34 is not
correct and that it needs to be rotated 180 degrees.
    Agency Response: The orientation of Item 34 is correct as is and
will not be changed. However, the view in sheet 1 shows the rear of the
dummy thorax while sheet 2 shows the front view, which may have caused
confusion. Thus, we are adding a note to sheet 2 that indicates the
view shown in the drawing.
5. Drawing 180-3623, Lower Rib Pad--Upper Torso
    FTSS believed that fastening the lower rib pad to the spine box can
result in conditions of over-tightening and/or under-tightening the pad
fasteners during the installation process, due to the elasticity of the
part. Over-tightening the pad can cause interference with another
fastener in the spine box. FTSS redesigned the lower rib pad to include
an aluminum insert at the site of attachment to the spine box, and
requested the following changes:
    Obsolete drawing 180-3623, Lower Rib Pad--Upper Torso;
    Add drawing 180-3628, Lower Rib Pad Assembly, Upper Torso;
    Add drawing 180-3627, Lower Rib Pad Insert.
    An addendum to the petition (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0040.1)
requested a change to the rib pad inserts. Originally, the inserts were
rectangular, but FTSS found that this design could possibly tear the
rib pad during handling of the parts. Thus, FTSS suggested that the
inserts should be of a circular design.
    Agency Response: The agency is granting the request to include
circular aluminum inserts within the rib pad, and has incorporated the
suggested drawings into the SID-IIsD drawing package with the following
part descriptions: Drawing 180-3628, Rib Pad Assembly--Upper Torso;
Drawing 180-3627, Rib Pad Insert--Upper Torso. The circular inserts are
not expected to have any effect on the performance of the part. VRTC
purchased and evaluated two rib pads with the original rectangular
inserts, and found that the proposed rib pads are acceptable and will
cause no foreseeable detriment. Because the inserts have only been
added to provide a non-deformable material within the rib pad for
attachment to the spine box, there is no foreseeable problem with this
design change. Additionally, VRTC purchased and evaluated a rib pad
with the circular inserts, and found that the inserts have no effect on
proper installation of the rib pad. Thus, it was concluded that this
was an acceptable design change. Table 7 and Figure 58 of the PADI have
also been amended to reflect this change.

6. Drawing 180-3450, Jacket
    In its addendum, FTSS suggested a material thickness specification
of 0.286 0.030 in (7.26 0.76 mm). FTSS
requested this change in jacket thickness to reflect a change in jacket
characteristics due to a change in the jacket supplier.
    Agency Response: We are amenable to including FTSS's suggested
thickness range for currently-manufactured jackets while also including
specifications that would accommodate jackets made to the December 14,
2006 final rule specifications. The final rule specified a neoprene
thickness of \1/4\ in 3/64 in (a range of 0.203-0.297 in),
laminated on both sides with lightweight circular jersey-net nylon
fabric of thickness .020 .005 in. FTSS requested a
thickness ranging from 0.256-0.316 in. Based on comparisons of the
final rule and FTSS-recommended thickness ranges, the agency is
adopting a thickness specification of 0.26 0.05 in, which
would include nearly all of both ranges, while only slightly increasing
the tolerance from that specified in the final rule. This specification
is for the overall thickness of the jacket (Neoprene and laminated
fabric). However, the fabric thickness specification will remain on the
drawing to ensure that the fabric and Neoprene thicknesses (and thus,
dummy thorax performance) will be consistent among different
manufacturers. Accordingly, note 2 in drawing 180-3450 is changed to
read: ``Material: 100% neoprene material, laminated on both sides with
lightweight circular jersey-net nylon fabric, 0.20  .005;
overall thickness 0.26  0.05.''
7. Drawings 180-6011-1/2, Arm Flesh, Molded Left/Right
    FTSS asked for changes to the drawing package specifications
regarding the test dummy's overall arm length, arm depth, arm width,
and also with regard to additional NHTSA dimensions specified in the
drawings. The petitioner requested the changes to reflect what FTSS
believed are improvements made to the SID-IIs left arm and the right
arm molds to eliminate left side to right side variations between the
two previous arm molds and to improve the overall quality of the dummy.
The petitioner believed that the changes bring consistency to the dummy
with respect to the Thorax Impact With Arm test when impacting the
dummy on either the left side or right side.
    FTSS submitted arm dimension data to support its petition for
reconsideration.\52\ The data were measured and collected on nine SID-
IIs arms manufactured by FTSS. All arms are from FTSS's new SID-IIs arm
molds, varying in production dates ranging from October 2006 through
March 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FTSS did not request a change to the overall arm length, but
petitioned for the following corrections or clarifications to drawings
180-6011-1 and 180-6011-2 based on the data provided: (A) Overall arm
depth--change the arm depth dimensional tolerance from +0/-0.10 in to
0.10 in; (B) overall arm width--correct tolerance to be +0/
-0.10 in; and (C) drawing clarity--FTSS believed that several
dimensions that NHTSA had on these drawings are not adequately defined
to produce consistent measured values.

Agency Response

    A. Overall arm depth: The agency believes that a tolerance of
0.10 in is too large, since the arm depth must be fairly
well controlled to ensure good responses in the crash environment. Arm
depths measured by FTSS and VRTC (see Table 9 of the memorandum,
``Drawing Package Petition Data'' for VRTC data) were compared to
obtain a specification that would include as many dummies as possible.
We determined that a dimension of 2.30  0.06 in (2.24-2.36
inches) includes all NHTSA and FTSS dummies and increases the overall
tolerance only by 0.02 in from the final rule. Accordingly, we are
changing the specification for arm depth to 2.30 0.06 in.
    B. Overall arm width: FTSS observed that the NHTSA drawing
specifies the arm width dimension to be 3.47 +0/-0.01 in. It stated
that the tolerance of +0/-0.01 in is not attainable for this dimension
and was specified in error, and that when the SID-IIs Build Level D
drawings were under development for NHTSA, they specified an arm width
tolerance of +0/-0.10 in, which is an achievable tolerance for vinyl
and foam dimensions. In response, we note that drawing 180-6011-1
incorrectly specifies the arm width dimension tolerance as +0/-0.01 in,
as noted by the petitioner, but that drawing 180-6011-2 correctly
specifies a tolerance of +0/-0.10 in. Therefore, we agree with the
petitioner regarding drawing 180-6011-1 and are correcting the
tolerance on drawing 180-6011-1 to be +0/-0.10 in.
    C. Drawing clarity:
    FTSS stated that certain dimensional measurements specified in
Revision B of drawings 180-6011-1 and 180-6011-2 ``are not adequately
defined to produce consistent measured values.''
    (i) 1.75 0.05 inch dimension. FTSS stated that ``it is
unclear where this dimension is to be measured from,'' and further
suggested that ``this dimension should be a reference dimension given
that the material being measured is made of vinyl and foam, which can
vary due to aging.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ It appears that due to confusion about where the 1.75 in
dimension should be measured from, FTSS's measurements of this
dimension were taken incorrectly. Accordingly, their measurements do
not indicate a problem with the value of the 1.75 inch dimension.
(See next section of this preamble.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) 2.90 inch reference dimension, 2.18 inch reference dimension,
and 1.000.05 inch dimension. FTSS stated that ``it is
unclear where [these dimensions are] to be measured from,'' and that
the 1.00 dimension ``should be a reference dimension since the bottom
surface is vinyl. FTSS notes that a tolerance of 0.05 in
for vinyl and foam material is not achievable.'' The petitioner
submitted a figure that FTSS believed should be made part of the
drawing package, depicting the arm in side view.
    Agency Response: The four dimensions addressed by the petitioner
were not shown well on the December 2006 final rule arm drawings, and
are confusing. They were meant to locate points to define the curvature
of the arm. NHTSA has removed these dimensions from the end view and
has created two sections (one at 0.19 in from the elbow end, and one at
6.5 in from the elbow end, just below the shoulder portion) with
dimensions shown clearly. A note has been added to clarify that the
dimensions locate points to define the curvature of the arm. In
addition, we have added to the section views a dimension indicating the
height of the section so that the taper of the outside surface of the
arm is somewhat defined.
    (iii) Tolerance values. FTSS also commented generally on tolerance
values established for drawings. The petitioner stated:

    On drawings 180-6011-1 and 180-6011-2, note 4 states:
Tolerance 0.05 apply to all dimensions unless otherwise
specified. FTSS does not believe this tolerance is achievable for
vinyl and foam parts. We base this statement on our many years of
experience in manufacturing dummy parts. Vinyl and foam shrinks at
varying rates and dimension tolerances must reflect these
characteristics. FTSS recommends that NHTSA avoid using any vinyl or
foam tolerance smaller than 0.10 in.

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

and the only tolerances smaller than 0.10 in were on 180-
6011-1 and -2. These tolerances were 0.05 in. The agency
agrees that these tolerances should be changed to 0.10 in
for practicability reasons. Accordingly, note 4 in drawings
180-6011-1/2 is changed to read ``Tolerance .10 apply to
all dimensions unless otherwise specified.''

c. Issues Raised By Denton

1. Drawings 180-1007, 180-4701, 180-5302, 180-5360, 180-5340, 180-5505,
180-5509, 180-5501, 180-5700, 180-5701, 180-5702, 180-5707, 180-5900-1,
180-5900-2, 180-5901-1, 180-5901-2, 180-5705
    Denton stated, ``the last note on each of these drawings says that
it is the same as some other drawing for a different dummy except for a
change described in this note. We request that this last note be
deleted from each drawing. We think that keeping these notes will cause
confusion.''
    Agency Response: NHTSA disagrees. We asked Denton to elaborate on
the reason for the confusion.\54\ Denton responded that the notes are
difficult to explain to customers, because it is expected that
identical parts will be referenced to each other, while different parts
will not be. We do not believe this reason warrants deleting the notes.
These notes clarify how the SID-IIsD drawing is different from another
very similar drawing and facilitates easy identification of those
differences. Accordingly, we are denying this request and will keep
clarification notes on these drawings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. Drawing 180-4212, Flange, Lower
    Denton stated that ``the material should be 1018 or equivalent.''
Denton informed NHTSA that it believes ``there is no reason for 1117
steel to be called out for this part. 1018 steel is used on many parts
in the dummy and meets all of the requirements for this part. Calling
out a special steel for one part simply adds cost to the part for no
reason since a special material must be ordered in small quantities and
handled just for this part.
    Agency Response: We agree to change the material for drawing 180-
4212 to CRS 1018. We investigated specifications for flange material in
the HIII5F dummy drawing and compared those to the SID-IIsD package.
The HIII5F drawings for the lumbar flanges<PHONE_NUMBER> & -1097) call
for SAE 1117 steel; the SID-IIs upper lumbar flange (180-4211) calls
for 1018 CRS; and the SID-IIs lower lumbar flange (180-4212) calls for
SAE 1117 steel. FTSS, the dummy manufacturer initially involved with
development of the SID-IIsD, indicated that SAE 1117 and CRS 1018 have
similar yield strength. The agency has determined that specifying CRS
1018 is appropriate for the reasons provided by Denton and FTSS.
However, the agency is not adding ``or equivalent.'' This allowance
``or equivalent,'' is given for non-metal materials in the SID-IIs
because plastics, rubbers, and other non-metals do not have well-
defined material properties. With the exception of the ES-2re, other
dummy drawing packages do not generally allow equivalent metal
materials.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The ES-2re allows equivalent materials, including metals,
as indicated by the ``Material Ref.'' label in the title block. We
believe this is due to the fact that the ES-2re is a modification of
the EuroSID, which was originally developed in Europe, and the
original materials were defined by European material standards.
Thus, by defining a reference material, equivalent American
materials could be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Drawing 180-1000, 6 Axis Head Assembly
    Denton stated that ``the skin thickness should be defined over a
region of at least 20 degrees on each side of each plane A
to cover a region in the back view. Also, the thickness should be
confined to a region in the side view. This would define an impact
region on each side of the head that must meet the thickness
requirements.''
    Agency Response: The petitioner provided no head skin thickness
data with which to make a specification in these regions. The agency
declines to expend resources at this time to develop further
specifications in this area.
4. Drawing 180-2006, Upper Neck Bracket
    Denton noted that ``this drawing appears identical to 880105-207,
and should therefore be treated like other identical drawings, such as
180-2009 where there is simply a reference to the identical drawing.
Also, if this is done the material callout should be removed.''
    Agency Response: The request is granted. VRTC has examined the
differences between the drawing for the HIII5F upper neck bracket part
(880105-207) and that for the SID-IIsD (180-2006) and has determined
small differences between them will not affect part functionality or
interchangeability. FTSS, the dummy manufacturer originally involved
with development of the SID-IIsD, confirmed that the ``minor
differences [between the two drawings] are on tolerance level, and
would not affect the interchangeability between the two parts.''
Accordingly, we have removed the schematic, material specification, and
scale from the drawing and added a note stating, ``Same as 880105-207
rev I.''
5. Drawings SA572-S62, 3 Axis Shoulder Load Cell, and 180-3330,
Shoulder Loadcell Simulator, Assembly
    Denton stated that: ``the center hole in the load cell for mounting
the arm is incorrect. The structural replacement (180-3330) calls out a
hole of .391 diameter x .230 .001 deep. The Load Cell
(SA572-S62) calls out .375 diameter x .220 deep. These two drawings
should match each other. Both drawings should be changed to .375 .001 diameter x .230 .002 deep. This will provide a
precision fit for the shoulder screw that mounts into this hole.''
    Agency Response: To assess this aspect of the petition, the agency
evaluated the load cells from both FTSS and Denton, as well as the
structural replacements. FTSS load cells measure 0.375 x 0.232 deep.
The Denton load cell could not be located, but as this is Denton's
comment, it is assumed that the petitioner's load cells match its
recommendation. Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that Denton is
correct. The load cell drawing SA572-S62 is corrected so that it
matches the physical load cells, specifying .375 .001
diameter x .230 .002 deep. The structural replacement
drawing 180-3330 is also modified to specify .375 .001
diameter x .230 .002 deep, so that it matches the load
cell.
6. Drawing SA572-S64, 6-Axis Lumbar Spine Load Cell
    With respect to the 6-axis lumbar spine load cell, Denton stated
that ``the side view of the load cell in the drawing shows a neutral
axis .900 in from the top of the load cell. Denton has manufactured
this load cell since 1995 with a neutral axis .875 in from the top face
of the load cell. Either the dimension is in error or it must be noted
to consult the load cell manufacturer for the correct dimension.''
    Agency Response: We agree that a dimension defining the neutral
axis of the load cell is not appropriate in this case as FTSS and
Denton produce load cells with different neutral axes. (The neutral
axis distance for the FTSS load cell is 0.900 in.) \56\ Accordingly, we
have removed the .900 dimension and have added a note in its place that
states to

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

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

d. Agency Corrections and Clarifications

    In this section, the agency makes further corrections and
clarifications of the drawings and PADI.
1. Drawing 180-0000 (sheet 4 of 5), SID-IIsD Complete Assembly CG
Location
    In the final rule drawing package, CG locations were specified as
negative values for the Neck CGx, Upper Leg CGx, Lower Leg CGz, and
Foot CGz. However, assembly drawings for these components illustrating
the CG location do not denote positive or negative axis directions.
Thus, the agency believes that CG locations are clearer if all CG
locations are specified as positive values, located at the locations
shown in the drawing package. Accordingly, we have changed the Neck CGx
from -0.30 to 0.30, the Upper Leg CGx from -5.01 to 5.01, the Lower Leg
CGz from -5.94 to 5.94, and the Foot CGz from -2.00 to 2.00. Also on
this drawing, an asterisk was added after the quantity of ``Arm
Assembly, Molded'' to clarify that only one arm is installed on the
complete dummy. This clarification is also found in Table 26 of the
PADI. Finally, in the upper torso parts table, in the note (without
chest jacket),* the asterisk was moved inside the parentheses to
clarify that this line refers to the upper torso assembly drawing
without the chest jacket.
2. Drawing 180-1000, Head Assembly
    In drawing 180-1000, items 13-17 were labeled as reference. Items
13, 14, 16 and 17 are called out on drawing 180-0000, sheet 2 of 5, and
thus are referenced on this drawing. However, item 15 is not called out
on another drawing, thus it should not be labeled as reference. We have
thus removed ``REF'' from the description for item 15, ``Screw, SHCS
10-24 X 7/16.'' Also on this drawing, the description for item 9 was
changed to agree with the part's drawing.
3. Drawing 180-2000, Neck Assembly
    The description of Item 12, ``Washer, 3/8[dprime][Oslash]
Flat,'' needed correction. This washer is placed around the threaded
portion of the neck cable to prevent the lower neck bushing from damage
due to tightening of the nut to the neck cable. However, this portion
of the neck cable has a diameter of \1/2\ in (thus, it is physically
impossible for a \3/8\ in washer to fit around it). A washer is also
used on the HIII5F neck, but in the HIII5F neck assembly drawing
(880105-250), the description for the same part number is ``Washer,
1.06 OD. X .53 ID. X .06 CAD Plate.'' The correct description for Item
12 on drawing 180-2000 is ``1.06 OD X .53 ID X .06 WASHER.''
Drawing 180-2000 and Table 6 of the PADI have been amended to reflect
this correction.
4. Drawing 180-4000, Lower Torso Assembly; and drawing 180-3000, Upper
Torso Assembly
    For the purposes of CG and weight measurements, the location of the
lower abdominal rib potentiometer is changed from the upper torso to
the lower torso.
    The final rule drawing package indicates that this potentiometer
assembly is considered part of the upper torso (180-3000). During
communication with FTSS regarding clarification of the petitioner's
various requests,\57\ we found that FTSS was including the lower
abdominal rib potentiometer in the lower torso for weight and CG
measurement, because the potentiometer is mounted in the lower torso.
NHTSA believes it is reasonable to consider the potentiometer assembly
as part of the lower torso for weight and CG measurements because,
while the end of the potentiometer assembly is mounted to the lower
abdominal rib (upper torso), the potentiometer housing, which is the
heaviest portion of the assembly, is mounted in the lower torso. As a
practical matter, this change in where the lower abdominal rib pot is
located for purposes of CG and weight measurement does not change in
any manner the fully assembled dummy, but it does harmonize the
specification with industry practice. Thus, we are amending the
drawings to show the lower abdominal rib potentiometer in the lower
torso assembly as follows: we have changed the quantity of \1/2\ inch
potentiometers (item 42, 180-3881) from 6 to 5 in the upper torso
assembly (180-3000 sheet 1 of 2); removed ``REF'' from \1/2\ inch
potentiometer assembly (item 21, 180-3881) in the lower torso assembly
drawing (180-4000 sheet 1 of 2); added the potentiometer assembly
schematic to the lower torso CG drawing (180-4000 sheet 2 of 2); and
updated complete assembly drawing 180-0000, sheet 4 of 5 with new CG
and weight values. Additionally, we have modified Table 7 (Upper Torso
Assembly Components), Table 9 (Lower Torso Assembly Components) and
Table 20 (SID-IIsD Total and Segment Masses) of the PADI to reflect
these changes in the drawing package. We have also made modifications
to Section 5.3.1 (instructions for removal of the upper torso), Section
5.5.1 (disassembly of the lower torso), Section <IP_ADDRESS> (installation
of the lower abdominal displacement potentiometer), and Section 8.1
(Thoracic and Abdominal Rib Structure), and related figures to account
for the 5th pot being part of the lower torso assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

5. Drawing 180-4000, Lower Torso Assembly, Sheet 1 of 2
    The description of item 18 is changed from ``HEX NUT, JAM \5/8\-
18'' TO ``NUT, HEX JAM \5/8\-18 LOCK NUT'' to reflect the actual part.
A lock nut ensures that the parts do not become loose.
6. Drawing 180-4000, Lower Torso Assembly, Sheet 2 of 2
    The orientation of the CG x-axis needed clarification as it is not
clear in this drawing. We have added a second note to this drawing that
states, ``The X axis is parallel to the top surface of the lumbar spine
load cell simulator.''
7. Drawing 180-4402, Femur Holding Shaft--Pelvis
    The diameter of the shaft (0.49 +.000/-.002 in) needed correction.
This shaft passes through a spherical bearing (9002608) with ID 0.5000
+.0025/-.0005 in, contained within the femur assembly (180-4423-1/-2).
However, if the shaft were made to the existing final rule
specification, ``slop'' between the bearing and shaft would result
because of too much space between them. Physical measurements of
multiple shafts indicate that it has a diameter of 0.498 in, which is
0.008 in out of specification. We have changed the femur holding shaft
diameter to .498 .001 in to reflect currently manufactured
parts and to ensure good fit between the shaft and bearing.
8. Drawing 180-9000, SID-IIsD Headform Assembly, Sheet 1 of 2
    The orientation of the nodding blocks on the neck did not represent
their orientation in the physical neck/headform assembly. Their
orientation on the drawing is corrected to reflect the physical
assembly.
9. Drawing Package Changes for Consistency of Part Names
    Corrections were made to the part descriptions in the following
assembly drawings to match the part names on individual drawings:
Drawing 180-0000 sheet 1 of 5, Item 3; Drawing 180-3881, Item 4;
Drawing 180-5000-1/2, Item 7; Drawing 180-5501, Item 2; Drawing 180-
5901-2, Item 5; Drawing 180-9000, Item 10; and Drawing 180-9002, Items
3 and 7.

10. Other Changes to PADI and to Parts/Drawings List
     PADI Section 6.5.2, Installation of Rib Accelerometers:
Instruction number 2 in this section, stating that accelerometer
configuration for each rib is identical, is incorrect. The
accelerometers mounted in thoracic ribs 1 and 2 and abdominal rib 1 are
configured differently than those mounted in thoracic rib 3 and
abdominal rib 2. This instruction has been corrected and a new figure
added to illustrate the difference in configuration.
     PADI page 2: the website to find docket materials was
changed from http://dms.dot.gov to www.regulations.gov
     Some PADI figures were updated to improve clarity of
instructions.
     The Parts/Drawings List was updated to reflect changes
made to the drawing package in this final rule.
     The part names for drawings 180-1005 and 180-3005 were
changed in the PADI to agree with the part name in the drawing package.
     The Parts/Drawings List was updated to reflect changes
made to the drawing package in this final rule. In addition to the
changes previously discussed in this preamble, the following part
descriptions in the parts/drawings list were changed for consistency
with part names in the drawing package: 180-1005, 180-3005, 6000075,
180-5504, 180-5508, 180-5708, 180-5900-1/2, and 180-5905.

XII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' provides
for making determinations whether a regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order.
This rulemaking action was not considered a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking action was also
determined not to be significant under the Department of
Transportation's (DOT's) regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
11034, February 26, 1979).
    NHTSA's specifications in 49 CFR part 572 for a 5th percentile
adult female side impact dummy that the agency will use in research,
compliance tests of the Federal side impact protection safety
standards, and consumer information programs do not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses would be affected only if they
choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. The cost of an
uninstrumented SID-IIsD is approximately $47,000. Instrumentation adds
approximately $24,000 for minimum requirements. The total cost of a
minimally-instrumented compliance dummy is approximately $71,000. The
amendments made in today's document will not affect the cost of the
dummy. Because the economic impacts of this final rule are minimal, no
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rulemaking
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
rule does not impose or rescind any requirements for anyone. The
amendments made in this document will not affect the cost of the dummy.
NHTSA does not require anyone to manufacture the dummy or to test
vehicles with it.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop a process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with
Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with
State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and
local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Moreover, the amendments made in this document will not
affect the cost of the dummy.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an

explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
    This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rule does not meet the definition of
a Federal mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone.
Further, it will not result in costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. The amendments made in this document will not affect
the cost of the dummy. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Civil Justice Reform

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this rule will have any retroactive effect.
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. A petition for
reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will not be a
prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this rule. This
rule does not preempt the states from adopting laws or regulations on
the same subject, except that it does preempt a state regulation that
is in actual conflict with the Federal regulation or makes compliance
with the Federal regulation impossible or interferes with the
implementation of the Federal statute.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule does not have any
requirements that are considered to be information collection
requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
    The following voluntary consensus standards have been used in
developing the SID-IIsD dummy:
     SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar95
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests''; and
     SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash
Testing''.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us about
them.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety.

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

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES

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

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

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

0
2. Section 572.137 is amended by revising the third sentence in
paragraph (a) and the third sentence in paragraph (b), to read as
follows:

Sec.  572.137  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    (a) * * * The impactor shall have a mass of 13.97 0.23
kg (30.8 0.5 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of
3646 kg-cm\2\ (3.22 lbs-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG of the
probe. * * *
    (b) * * * The impactor shall have a mass of 2.990.23 kg
(6.60.5 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 209
kg-cm\2\ (0.177 lb-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG of the
probe. * * *
* * * * *

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

0
3. Section 572.190 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), the
introductory text of paragraph (a)(2), paragraphs (a)(3), (b), and
(c)(1), to read as follows:

Sec.  572.190  Incorporated materials.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A parts/drawing list entitled, ``Parts/Drawings List, Part 572
Subpart V, SID-IIsD, July 1, 2008,''
    (2) A drawings and inspection package entitled ``Drawings and
Specifications for the SID-IIsD Small Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572
Subpart V, July 1, 2008,'' consisting of:
* * * * *
    (3) A procedures manual entitled, ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash
Test Dummy, July 1, 2008,'' incorporated by reference in Sec.  572.191;
* * * * *
    (b) The Director of the Federal Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at the Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and in electronic
format through Regulations.gov. For information on the availability and
inspection of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html. For

information on the availability and inspection of this material at
Regulations.gov, call 1-877-378-5457, or go to: http://
www.regulations.gov.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart V, SID-IIsD, July 1,
2008, referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the package
entitled Drawings and Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female Crash
Test Dummy, Part 572 Subpart V, July 1, 2008, referred to in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, and the PADI document referred to in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, are available in electronic format through
www.Regulations.gov and in paper format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of
New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20879,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
0
4. Section 572.191 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c),
to read as follows:

Sec.  572.191  General Description.

    (a) The SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, small adult female,
is defined by:
    (1) The drawings and specifications contained in the ``Drawings and
Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572
Subpart V, July 1, 2008,'' which includes the technical drawings and
specifications described in Drawing 180-0000, the titles of which are
listed in Table A;

                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Component assembly                     Drawing number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Axis Head Assembly....................................        180-1000
Neck Assembly...........................................        180-2000
Upper Torso Assembly....................................        180-3000
Clamping Washer.........................................        180-3005
Lower Torso Assembly Complete...........................        180-4000
Complete Leg Assembly, Left.............................      180-5000-1
Complete Leg Assembly, Right............................      180-5000-2
Arm Assembly Left Molded................................      180-6000-1
Arm Assembly Right Molded...............................      180-6000-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) The ``Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart V, SID-IIsD,''
dated July 1, 2008 and containing 7 pages,
    (3) A listing of available transducers-crash test sensors for the
SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 5th percentile adult female, is
shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 2 of 5, dated July 1, 2008,
    (4) ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI)
of the SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, July 1, 2008,'' and,
    (5) Sign convention for signal outputs reference document SAE J1733
Information Report, titled ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash
Testing,'' dated July 12, 1994, incorporated by reference in Sec.
572.200(k).
    (b) Exterior dimensions of the SID-IIsD Small Adult Female Side
Impact Crash Test Dummy are shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 3 of 5,
dated July 1, 2008.
    (c) Weights and center of gravity locations of body segments are
shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 4 of 5, dated July 1, 2008.
* * * * *

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

Sec.  572.193  Neck assembly.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *.
    (1) The pendulum deceleration pulse is characterized in terms of
decrease in velocity as obtained by integrating the pendulum
acceleration output from time zero:

10.0....................................  -2.20 to -2.80
15.0....................................  -3.30 to -4.10
20.0....................................  -4.40 to -5.40
25.0....................................  -5.40 to -6.10
>25.0 < 100.............................  -5.50 to -6.20

* * * * *

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

Sec.  572.194  Shoulder.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) Orient the arm to point forward at 90 2 degrees
relative to the inferior-superior orientation of the upper torso spine
box incline.
* * * * *
    (10) The dummy's arm-shoulder is impacted at 4.3  0.1
m/s with the impactor meeting the alignment and contact point
requirements of paragraph (b)(9) of this section.
    (11) Allow a period of at least thirty (30) minutes between
successive tests of the same shoulder assembly.
* * * * *
    (c) Performance criteria.
    (1) While the impactor is in contact with the dummy's arm, the
shoulder shall compress not less than 28 mm and not more than 37 mm
measured by the potentiometer specified in (a);
    (2) Peak lateral acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be
less than 17 g and not more than 22 g;
    (3) Peak impactor acceleration shall be not less than 13 g and not
more than 18 g.

0
7. Section 572.195 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7), adding
paragraphs (b)(11) and (b)(12), revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)
and (c)(3), to read as follows:

Sec.  572.195  Thorax with arm.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) Orient the arm downward to the lowest detent such that the
longitudinal centerline of the arm is parallel to the inferior-superior
orientation of the spine box.
* * * * *
    (11) Time zero is defined as the time of contact between the impact
probe and the arm.
    (12) Allow a period of at least thirty (30) minutes between
successive tests of the same thorax assembly.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Upper thorax rib not less than 25 mm and not more than 32 mm;
* * * * *
    (2) Peak lateral acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be
less than 34 g and not more than 43 g, and the lower spine (T12) not
less than 29 g and not more than 37 g;
    (3) Peak impactor acceleration after 5 ms after time zero shall be
not less than 30 g and not more than 36 g.

0
8. Section 572.196 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(1)(i),
(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2), and (c)(3), and by adding paragraph (b)(10), to
read as follows:

Sec.  572.196  Thorax without arm.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 10
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V6-A, while the
midsagittal plane of the dummy is in vertical orientation.
* * * * *
    (10) Allow a period of at least thirty (30) minutes between
successive tests of the same thorax assembly.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Upper thorax rib not less than 32 mm and not more than 40 mm;
* * * * *
    (iii) Lower thorax rib not less than 35 mm and not more than 43 mm;
    (2) Peak acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be less
than 13 g and not more than 17 g and the lower spine (T12) not less
than 7 g and not more than 11 g;
    (3) Peak impactor acceleration shall not be less than 14 g and not
more than 18 g.

0
9. Section 572.197 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(9),
(c)(1), and (c)(2), and by adding paragraph (b)(10), to read as
follows:

Sec.  572.197  Abdomen.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 10
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V7-A in Appendix A
to this subpart, while the midsagittal plane of the dummy is in
vertical orientation.
* * * * *
    (9) The dummy's abdomen is impacted at 4.3  0.1 m/s.
    (10) Allow a period of at least thirty (30) minutes between
successive tests of the same abdomen assembly.
    (c) * * *
    (1) While the impact probe is in contact with the dummy's abdomen,
the deflection of the upper abdominal rib shall be not less than 36 mm
and not more than 47 mm, and the lower abdominal rib not less than 33
mm and not more than 44 mm.
    (2) Peak acceleration of the lower spine (T12) laterally oriented
accelerometer shall be not less than 9 g and not more than 14 g;
* * * * *
0
10. Section 572.198 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7), adding
paragraphs (b)(11) and (b)(12) and by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3), and to read as follows:

Sec.  572.198  Pelvis acetabulum.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) Rotate the arm downward to the lowest detent such that the
longitudinal centerline of the arm is parallel to the inferior-superior
orientation of the spine box.
* * * * *
    (11) Time zero is defined as the time of contact between the impact
probe and the pelvis plug.
    (12) Allow a period of at least 120 minutes between successive
tests of the same pelvis assembly.
    (c) * * * * *
    (2) Peak lateral acceleration of the pelvis after 6 ms after time
zero is not less than 34 g and not more than 42 g;
    (3) Peak acetabulum force is not less than 3.60 kN and not more
than 4.30 kN.

0
11. Section 572.199 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(4)
through (b)(9), by adding paragraphs (b)(10) and (b)(11), and by
revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3), to read as follows:

Sec.  572.199  Pelvis iliac.

    (a) The iliac is part of the lower torso assembly shown in drawing
180-4000. The iliac test is conducted by impacting the side of the
lower torso of the assembled dummy (drawing 180-0000). The dummy is
equipped with a laterally oriented pelvis accelerometer as specified in
49 CFR 572.200(d), and iliac wing load cell SA572-S66, mounted as shown
in sheet 2 of 5 of drawing 180-0000. When subjected to the test
procedure as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the pelvis
shall meet performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) * * * * *
    (4) Orient the arm downward to the lowest detent such that the
longitudinal centerline of the arm is parallel to the inferior-superior
orientation of the spine box.
    (5) The midsagittal plane of the dummy is vertical, and superior
surface of the lower half neck assembly load cell replacement (180-
3815) in the lateral direction is within 1 degree relative
to the horizontal as shown in Figure V9-A.
    (6) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3), (4) and (5) of this section, the top of the shoulder
rib mount (180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is
within 1.0 degree relative to horizontal as shown in Figure
V9-B in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (7) The pelvis impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(c).
    (8) The dummy is positioned with respect to the impactor such that
the longitudinal centerline of the impact probe is in line with the
longitudinal centerline of the iliac load cell access hole, and the
88.9 mm dimension of the probe's impact surface is aligned
horizontally.
    (9) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
pelvis, the longitudinal axis of the impactor is within 1
degree of a horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane
of the dummy.
    (10) The dummy's pelvis is impacted at the iliac location at
4.30.1 m/s.
    (11) Allow a period of at least 120 minutes between successive
tests of the same pelvis assembly.
    (c) * * * * *
    (1) Peak acceleration of the impactor is not less than 36 g and not
more than 45 g;
    (2) Peak acceleration of the pelvis is not less than 28 g and not
more than 39 g;
    (3) Peak iliac force is not less than 4.10 kN and not more than
5.10 kN.

    12. Section 572.200 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

Sec.  572.200   Instrumentation and test conditions.

* * * * *
    (j) Performance tests are conducted, unless specified otherwise, at
any temperature from 20.6 to 22.2 degrees C. (69 to 72 degrees F.) and
at any relative humidity from 10% to 70% after exposure of the dummy to
those conditions for a period of 4 hours.
* * * * *

0
13. Figures V4-A, V9-A and V9-B in ``Appendix A to Subpart V of Part
572-Figures'' are revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572--Figures

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.007

    Issued: June 5, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-13605 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C