[Federal Register: June 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 119)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29861-29898]
[DOCID:fr23jn09-10]

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

Part III

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 572

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0002]
RIN 2127-AK26

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

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

ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration,
technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
December 14, 2006 final rule establishing a new small adult female side
impact crash test dummy, called the ``SID-IIs'' test dummy. The
petitions were submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
First Technology Safety Systems, and Denton ATD. In response to the
petitions, among other things today's final rule modifies the iliac
performance criteria to allow a new material formulation and design to
be used for the iliac wing of the dummy's pelvis, defines a time period
in which accelerations are measured in the thorax with arm and pelvis
acetabulum tests, slightly modifies some of the test procedures used in
the qualification tests (e.g., by slightly lowering the impact speed of
the impactor in two tests and by increasing the recovery time for the
pelvis-iliac and pelvis-acetabulum tests), adjusts the performance
corridors for the various impact tests of the dummy, and revises parts
of the drawing package and the user's manual for the dummy.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 24, 2009. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 24, 2009.
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition
must be received by August 7, 2009.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents received into any docket by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms.
Lori Summers, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202-
366-1740) (fax<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call Ms.
Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>)
(fax<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to these officials at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Description of SID-IIs
    a. General Description
    b. Performance Characteristics
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Overview of Response to the Petitions
V. Issues Relating to the Pelvis of the Dummy
    a. Iliac Wing Material
    b. Iliac Load Cell Stand-Off Design
    c. Iliac Qualification Procedure
    1. Use of OSRP Procedure
    2. Pelvic Iliac Probe Acceleration
    3. Specification of Tape
    4. Corrections
    d. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification Procedure
    1. Pelvic Plug Pre-Crush and Associated Variability
    2. Pelvic Plug Qualification Corridor
    3. Pelvis Acceleration Requirement
    4. Measuring Peak Pelvis Lateral Acceleration 5 ms or More After
Contact
VI. Shoulder Qualification Procedures
    a. Impact Velocity
    b. Arm Position
VII. Thorax with Arm Qualification Procedures
    a. Peak Impactor Acceleration
    b. Time Zero
    c. Reported Noise in Potentiometers
VIII. Thorax Without Arm Petitioned Issues
    a. Peak Impactor Acceleration
    b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench
IX. Abdomen Qualification Procedure
    a. Impact Velocity
    b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench
X. Other Testing Issues
    a. Dummy Clothing
    b. Recovery Time Between Tests
    c. Soak Time
    d. Tolerance on the Impactor Mass
    e. Neck Cable Torque in PADI
    f. Pendulum Deceleration Pulse
    g. Neck Potentiometers
XI. Qualification Performance Corridors
    a. Shoulder Qualification Corridors
    b. Thorax with Arm Qualification Corridors
    c. Thorax without Arm Qualification Corridors
    d. Abdomen Qualification Corridors
    e. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification Corridors
    f. Pelvis Iliac Qualification Corridors
XII. Drawing Package and PADI
    a. Issues Raised By Both FTSS and Denton
    b. Issues Raised By FTSS
    c. Issues Raised By Denton
    d. Agency Corrections and Clarifications
XIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Introduction

    This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
December 14, 2006 final rule (71 FR 75342; Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442)
that amended 49 CFR part 572 to add specifications and qualification
requirements for a 5th percentile adult female side impact test dummy,
called the ``SID-IIs.'' The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
preceding the December 14, 2006 final rule was published on December 8,
2004 (69 FR 70947; Docket NHTSA-2004-18865; reopening of comment
period, March 8, 2005, 70 FR 11189). The SID-IIs is used by NHTSA and
other testing organizations in side impact test programs. The use of
the SID-IIs test dummy in NHTSA's enforcement program assessing
vehicles' compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 214 (``Side impact protection,'' 49 CFR 571.214) was discussed in
and made part of a final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214 published on
September 11, 2007.\1\ In the upgrade, NHTSA added a dynamic pole test
to FMVSS No. 214, to supplement the moving deformable barrier (MDB)
test currently in the standard. In the dynamic pole test, a vehicle is
propelled sideways into a rigid pole at an angle of 75 degrees, at any
speed up to 32 km/h (20 mph). Compliance with the pole test will be
determined in two test configurations, one using the SID-IIs test dummy
representing small adult females and the other using an ``ES-2re'' test
dummy representing mid-size adult males.\2\ The final rule required
vehicles to protect against head, thoracic and other injuries as
measured by the two test dummies. The final rule also specified using
the dummies in FMVSS No. 214's MDB test,

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

    \1\ 72 FR 51908, Docket No. NHTSA-2007-29134; response to
petitions for reconsideration, June 9, 2008, 73 FR 32473; Docket No.
NHTSA-2008-0104. NHTSA will be publishing a second response to
petitions for reconsideration addressing other issues.
    \2\ NHTSA added the specifications for the ES-2re to 49 CFR part
572 (see final rule, December 14, 2006, 71 FR 75304, Docket No.
NHTSA-2004-25441; response to petitions for reconsideration, June
16, 2008, 73 FR 33903, Docket No. NHTSA 2008-0111).
    \3\ The September 11, 2007 final rule fulfilled the mandate of
Section 10302 of the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,'' (SAFETEA-LU),
Pub.L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144). Section 10302(a) of
SAFETEA-LU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of SID-IIs

a. General Description

    The December 14, 2006 final rule incorporated specifications for
the SID-IIs (or SID-IIsD) consisting of: (a) A drawing package
containing all of the technical details of the dummy; (b) a parts list;
and (c) a user manual containing procedures for inspection, assembly,
disassembly, use, and adjustments of dummy components.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The drawings, parts list and user manual incorporated by
reference by the December 14, 2006 final rule were placed in NHTSA
Docket No. 2006-25442. Materials that have been updated by today's
final rule are placed in the docket for today's document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The anthropometry and mass of the SID-IIsD are based on the Hybrid
III 5th percentile frontal female dummy and also generally match the
size and weight of a 12- to 13-year-old child. The head and neck
designs are based on the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. The
legs are Hybrid III 5th percentile female design available also with
femur load cell instrumentation. At the same time, unlike the Hybrid
III series of dummies, the SID-IIsD's torso construction is
particularly oriented for assessing the potential for side impact
injury. The dummy's upper torso is made up of a rigid metallic spine to
which six spring steel bands lined with bonded polymer damping material
are attached to simulate the impact performance of the human shoulder
(1 rib), thorax (3 ribs) and abdomen (2 ribs). Linear potentiometers
are attached from the ribs to the spine for compression measurements.
Provisions are available for mounting tri-axial accelerometer packs to
the spine at T1 and T12 and at each rib.\5\
Replaceable foam pads are secured directly to the ribs and a neoprene
jacket covers the complete chest assembly. The upper torso accommodates
the attachment of the neck at the upper end and the lumbar spine at the
lower end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ T1-sensor location on the dummy's thoracic spine
equivalent to the first thoracic vertebra on the human spine.
T12-sensor location on the dummy's thoracic spine
equivalent to the 12th thoracic vertebra on the human spine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

b. Performance Characteristics

    The December 14, 2006 final rule also specified a qualification
process for the SID-IIs dummy, i.e., a series of specified component
and whole body-level tests, to verify that a test dummy's response
measurements fall within prescribed ranges. For any test dummy to be a
useful test device in a compliance or vehicle rating setting, responses
to controlled inputs must be reproducible and repeatable. The tests and
response ranges (or performance corridors) for the SID-IIs, specified
in 49 CFR part 572 subpart V, ensure that the dummy's responses to
controlled inputs are reproducible and repeatable, thus assuring full
and accurate evaluation of occupant injury risk in vehicle tests. The
test procedures and performance specifications for qualification of the
SID-IIs as set forth in the December 14, 2006 final rule established
performance levels for the dummy's head, neck assembly, shoulder,
thorax with arm, thorax without arm, abdomen, pelvis acetabulum, and
pelvis iliac.

III. Petitions for Reconsideration

    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers \6\ (Alliance) and test
dummy manufacturers First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton
ATD (Denton) petitioned for reconsideration of the December 14, 2006
final rule.\7\ The petitioners generally supported the incorporation of
the SID-IIs into 49 CFR part 572, but had concerns with technical
aspects of the Part 572 specifications and with the drawings
incorporated by reference into the regulation. The main suggestions of
each of the petitioners are briefly summarized below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Members at the time of the petition for reconsideration
were: BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
DaimlerChrysler separated subsequent to the petition for
reconsideration, and additional members at the time of this final
rule are Mazda and Mercedes-Benz USA.
    \7\ Additionally, a letter in support of the Alliance and FTSS
petitions was received from the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. The Alliance suggested using a material to manufacture the iliac
wing that is recommended by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership
(OSRP) SID-IIs task group,\8\ a material that the Alliance believes is
``more manufacturable and stable'' than the material referenced in the
final rule. (The petitioners refer to the recommended material as
``Material 3.'') The Alliance also petitioned to change
aspects of the test procedures of the shoulder (dummy arm orientation;
probe impact velocity), of the thorax with arm (time when peak
acceleration should be measured), and of the abdomen (probe impact
velocity) qualification tests, and made other suggestions regarding
general test procedures. The Alliance also petitioned for changes to
the performance corridors for the tests of the shoulder, thorax with
and without arm, abdomen, pelvis iliac wing (based on the use of
Material 3, or ``M3''), and pelvis acetabulum.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OSRP is a consortium of the U.S. Council for Automotive
Research (USCAR). USCAR was formed in 1992 by DaimlerChrysler, Ford
and General Motors as a research and development organization. The
SID-IIs was originally developed by the OSRP, in conjunction with
FTSS. The dummy was extensively tested in the late 1990s and early
2000s by Transport Canada, and to a limited extent by U.S.
automobile manufacturers and suppliers, and IIHS. Modification of
and upgrades to the SID-IIs design ultimately lead to the
development of the build level D version of the dummy. The December
14, 2006 final rule adopted the SID-IIs Build Level D test dummy
into 49 CFR part 572.
    \9\ On December 13, 2007, the Alliance submitted additional SID-
IIsD qualification data and recommended performance corridors as an
appendix to their petition for reconsideration to the FMVSS No. 214
final rule published on September 11, 2007. Because the submission
was received late in the rulemaking process, these data were not
incorporated into the NHTSA/FTSS data set for inclusion in
statistical analyses. However, the new Alliance data were considered
in the formation of corridors by comparing the Alliance-recommended
corridors to those derived using the NHTSA/FTSS data set, and
adjusting the NHTSA corridors, if warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. FTSS petitioned to change to M3 and a standoff design for the
iliac wing, and suggested changes relating to the tests of the thorax
with arm (time when peak acceleration should be measured) and pelvis
acetabulum (time when peak acceleration should be measured). The

petitioner also suggested changes to the performance corridors for the
tests of the shoulder, thorax without arm, abdomen, and pelvis iliac
and acetabulum. The petitioner also identified portions of the
regulatory text and a number of drawings incorporated by reference into
Part 572 that the petitioner believed needed correction.
    c. Denton suggested that NHTSA adopt performance corridors
recommended by the Society of Automotive Engineers Dummy Testing
Equipment Subcommittee (SAE DTES) of the Human Biomechanics and
Simulation Standards Committee. Denton also identified regulatory text
and drawings that the petitioner suggested needed correction.

IV. Overview of Response to the Petitions

    Today's document responds to the following issues raised in the
petitions for reconsideration in the following order: issues relating
to the pelvis of the dummy; shoulder qualification procedures; thorax
with arm qualification procedures; thorax without arm qualification
procedures; abdomen qualification procedures; other testing issues
(e.g., dummy clothing, recovery and soak times); qualification
corridors; and changes to the drawing package and to NHTSA user's
manual for the dummy (Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and
Inspection).
    Among other things, today's final rule amends iliac performance
criteria to allow for a new material formulation to be used for the
iliac wing of the dummy's pelvis, defines a time period in which
accelerations are measured in the thorax with arm and pelvis acetabulum
tests, slightly modifies some of the test procedures used in the
qualification tests (e.g., by slightly lowering the impact speed of the
impactor in several tests and by increasing the recovery time for the
pelvis-iliac and pelvis-acetabulum tests), adjusts the performance
corridors for the various impact tests of the dummy, and revises parts
of the drawing package and the user's manual for the dummy.

V. Issues Relating to the Pelvis of the Dummy

a. Iliac Wing Material

    As explained in the December 2006 final rule, during the course of
NHTSA's evaluation of the repeatability and reproducibility of the SID-
IIs dummy eventually adopted into part 572, the agency observed that
its set of left side iliac wings had been used extensively for several
years and was showing signs of wear. The agency obtained new
replacement iliac wings from the dummy manufacturer (FTSS) and later
observed that the replacement wings produced approximately 20 percent
lower impact responses in dynamic impact tests than the previously-
tested wings. NHTSA contacted FTSS and was informed that formulation of
the polyurethane material for the wings changed in 2004 because the raw
material previously used was no longer available due to toxicity
issues.\10\ The agency analyzed the post-2004 iliac wings and estimated
that using them in NHTSA's FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program \11\
would have had the effect of lowering the average driver occupant
pelvis force approximately 8 percent and that of the passenger about 3
percent, which would have amounted to only one instance out of 25 in
which the pelvis force changed from just being above the Injury
Assessment Reference Value (IARV) limit to just being below.\12\ In
view of those findings and because the material formulation of the
iliac wings prior to 2004 (for convenience, we refer to this material
formulation as ``Material 1'' or ``M1'') was no longer
available, NHTSA decided to specify pendulum response data for the
iliac wing that reflected the use of the softer post-2004 iliac
material formulation (henceforth referred to as ``Material 2''
or ``M2''). (71 FR at 75355; December 14, 2006.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18865-36.
    \11\ Determination was made using data from the NHTSA Fleet
Testing for FMVSS 214 Upgrade, MY 2004-2005, Docket No. NHTSA-2007-
29134-0003.
    \12\ As stated in the December 2006 final rule, this estimate
was based on calculated adjustments of the total force on the pelvis
by taking into account lower impact responses of the softer iliac
wing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requested Change
    In response to the final rule, all the petitioners requested that
the regulation specify performance characteristics enabling the use of
a new material formulation, which will be referred to as Material
3 (M3), for the iliac wing in place of M2.
    FTSS stated that it began manufacturing wings composed of M3 on
June 1, 2006, in response to direction from the OSRP SID-IIs task group
and after finding that M3 was a suitable replacement for M1 and M2.
FTSS also stated that it stopped manufacturing M2 iliac wings on May
30, 2006. According to FTSS, M3 iliac wings retain their shape better
over time and are not subject to a warping found in M2 iliac wings.
    In its petition, the Alliance noted that:

after extensive tests and evaluation, the OSRP SID-IIs task group
recommended the use of material 3 for the following
reasons: (1) it is available; (2) it is more manufacturable and
stable than material 2; and (3) it has demonstrated
repeatable performance. Material 3 is generally slightly
stiffer than the original pre April 2004 (material 1) and
may result in higher recorded loads.

    Denton also supported the use of Material 3. The
petitioner submitted information from SAE DTES which indicated there
was no statistical means of choosing between M2 and M3, but that
permanent deformation was observed in M2. The information also
suggested that M3 will have less variability in manufacturing.
    In its February 8, 2007 letter supporting the petitions for
reconsideration from the Alliance and FTSS, IIHS stated that ``[t]he
most important aspect of the petitions is the request to change the
specification for the SID-IIs iliac wing to the updated design
supported by the'' OSRP and FTSS.\13\ IIHS stated that the updated
iliac wing includes a material change to improve repeatability and
durability, and integral metal standoffs to prevent interference with
measurements from the iliac load cell that occurs over time due to
compression of the softer material at the interface of the original
design. IIHS stated that it converted all the SID-IIs dummies (Build
Level C) used in its consumer information side impact test program to
include the updated design. IIHS believed that it is important to
harmonize the dummies used in its tests with the SID-IIs dummy (Build
Level D) used in NHTSA's tests, and that adoption of the Material
3 iliac wing is critical to avoid differences in test results
that could occur if organizations used different wing designs. IIHS
also believed that using two different iliac wing designs would result
in additional cost to laboratories that conduct both NHTSA-compliance
and IIHS consumer information crash tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ IIHS stated in its letter that it also supported the
request of the petitioners for NHTSA to consider data from multiple
laboratories when establishing performance criteria for dummy
verification tests. IIHS stated that ``This is necessary to account
for normal variability among laboratories.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

evaluation of the M3 iliac, which is described in the report ``SID-IIsD
Iliac Wing Studies'' placed in the docket for this final rule. In these
quasi-static tests, isolated iliac wings were loaded to 4,000 N over a
period of several minutes. Quasi-static compression results from at
least three tests on each of six new M3 iliac wings indicate that M3 is
much closer in stiffness to M1 than M2. The agency used SID-IIs dummies
with iliac wings made from M1 in agency vehicle and sled testing, so
there is a large body of data related to the M1 wings. These data were
used in part to develop the IARV referenced in FMVSS No. 214 for the
pelvic load criterion measured by the SID-IIs. Because M3 is a material
formulation that is very close in stiffness to the M1 iliac wings,
NHTSA is adopting M3 since the agency has knowledge of and a
familiarity with the properties of M1 wings, while NHTSA's experience
with the M2 wings is more limited. Further, we agree with IIHS that
using M3 iliac wings would better harmonize the test dummies used by
NHTSA, IIHS and the industry, and would make the test results obtained
by the testing components of each organization more comparable and
better focused on the development of appropriate countermeasures. Also,
according to the petitioners, M3 is more stable than M2, demonstrates
repeatable performance, is readily available while M2 is not, and does
not exhibit deformation characteristics exhibited by M2. For these
reasons, the petitioners' request to specify characteristics that
recognize the use of M3 in the manufacture of the iliac wing is
granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We note, however, that the material specification on the
iliac wing drawings (Polyurethane 85-95 Shore A or equivalent) does
not have to be changed to permit M3, so we are not changing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance in its petition for reconsideration said that Material
3 is generally slightly stiffer than Material 1 and
may result in higher recorded loads. We agree that in quasi-static
tests, M3 wings were shown to be slightly stiffer than M1 wings, as
seen in the ``SID-IIsD Iliac Wing Studies'' report, supra. However, the
difference in stiffness between these wings is very small, so large
differences in response in dynamic test environments are not expected.
The similarity of response for the two different iliac wing material
formulations is illustrated by the pelvis-iliac qualification test
results. Table 1 shows that the average peak iliac force measured in
qualification tests with M3 wings was 4588 N, while the average force
in qualification tests with M1 wings was 167 N (3.6%) higher at 4755
N.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ M1 qualification data and plots comparing M1 and M3 iliac
force responses can be found in the memo ``M1 qualification data and
comparison to M3 qualification data.''

                                                   Table 1--Comparison of M1 and M3 Qualification Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maximum probe  Maximum pelvis   Maximum Iliac
                                                                          Probe velocity   Probe energy    acceleration   Y acceleration       force
                                            ............................           (m/s)             (J)             (g)             (g)             (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M1........................................  Min.........................            4.21          126.02              38              29            3986
                                            Max.........................            4.43          137.02              46              45            5448
                                            Average.....................            4.35          133.51           41.36           34.99         4755.26
                                            SD..........................            0.04            2.38            1.55            3.34          373.49
                                            CV..........................           1.02%           1.78%           3.76%           9.55%           7.85%
M3........................................  Min.........................            4.21          123.67           35.55           27.24            3430
                                            Max.........................            4.34          133.44           45.98           40.93         5275.53
                                            Average.....................            4.29          129.55           40.84           34.03         4588.36
                                            SD..........................            0.03            2.57            2.09            3.41          329.64
                                            CV..........................           0.69%           1.98%           5.13%          10.03%           7.18%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating these results, we kept in mind that there were some
factors that could have affected the iliac force measurements for each
data set. First, when M1 was used, the design of the iliac wing did not
incorporate two features that have since been added to prevent off-
loading of the iliac load cell: integral metal ``standoffs'' within the
wing; and a thin steel backer plate between the iliac wing and load
cell (see Section V.b).
    Second, deformation was observed on the left side M1 wings after
extensive use, as noted in the report ``SID-IIs Iliac Certification
Development,'' which was placed in the docket with the December 2006
final rule. These two issues could lead to an increased chance of the
iliac wing deforming under load and shorting the iliac load cell, which
would in turn result in lower measured iliac loads. This problem of
iliac load cell shorting was first identified with the M2 iliac wings,
which are much softer than the M1 wings. Thus, it is unknown whether
this occurred with M1 wings. If load cell shorting did occur in any of
the M1 qualification tests, it would have the effect of lowering the
average response somewhat.
    Second, although all M3 wings included the new integral metal
``standoffs,'' a number of tests in the M3 data set did not have a
backer plate installed. If shorting did occur in any of these tests,
the M3 average peak force may be slightly lower than it would have been
without load cell shorting. However, there is no evidence that these M3
wings without a backer plate will contact the iliac load cell in
qualification tests as illustrated in the ``SID-IIsD Iliac Wing
Studies'' report. Thus, we do not believe the absence of a backer plate
affected the load cell responses for M3 wings in qualification tests
(see Section V.b).
    Third, in general, the M1 tests were conducted at a slightly higher
impact velocity than the M3 tests, which intuitively could result in
higher force readings in M1 tests. However, when plotting a linear
regression through M1 iliac force responses vs. impact velocity, there
was no strong correlation with impact velocity (R\2\ = 0.21).
Therefore, we do not believe these slight differences in impact
velocities had a significant effect on the average peak iliac forces.
    In view of the quasi-static and dynamic test results from M1 and M3
iliac wings, we believe that their performance in the crash test
environment will be very similar. Quasi-static test results show that
the new M3 wings are slightly stiffer, while dynamic test results
indicate slightly higher forces in M1 wings. This seeming discrepancy
leads us to believe that differences between the wings are

within the natural variation of response that is seen in different
types of test environments. Because of this, we believe that the wings
perform very similarly, and that the use of M3 wings will not result in
iliac forces that are consistently higher than M1 iliac wings. Thus,
allowing a change in the wing material formulation is not likely to
have a significant effect on pelvis force measurements in FMVSS No.
214.

b. Iliac Load Cell Stand-Off Design

    The SID-IIsD final rule adopted an iliac wing design that was a
polyurethane wing (Dwgs. 180-4320-1 and -2) with an embedded steel
support plate (Dwg. 180-4321). Additionally, the final rule specified
the use of a thin steel backer plate between the iliac wing and the
iliac load cell to prevent the iliac material from off-loading force to
the center of the load cell. Figure 1 illustrates how the backer plate
is used in conjunction with the iliac wing and load cell, as specified
in the December 2006 final rule.
Requested Change
    In response to the final rule, FTSS noted that, in general, the
iliac wing specified in the final rule has the propensity to cause a
load path short due to its design. According to FTSS, the original
iliac wing design resulted in \1/8\-inch polyurethane material being
sandwiched between the embedded iliac wing support plate and the iliac
load cell. It found that the amount of loading force the iliac is able
to accurately measure can vary depending upon how much torque the iliac
mounting screws are under, how much the polyurethane material creeps
over time, and how much the iliac maintains its original shape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FTSS stated that it has designed a new iliac substructure (support
plate) that has a positive bearing surface contact between the iliac
wing and the load cell to create a rigid mounting surface between the
iliac wing and load cell.\17\ Essentially, the \1/8\-inch thick
polyurethane material around the mounting screw holes was replaced with
\1/8\-inch thick steel ``standoffs'' that extend from the embedded
plate to the edge of the wing so that the mounting screws would draw
the iliac wing to the load cell through a metal contact instead of
through polyurethane. According to FTSS, this design eliminated the
potential for load path shorting since standard fastener torque values
can now be specified for the iliac wing mounting hardware without
losing the torque over time, and it also eliminated the material creep
found in the original iliac design. FTSS recommended that NHTSA
evaluate this new design and include it in the drawing package in place
of the original.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Alliance and IIHS also recommend the use of Material 3
iliac wings with the standoff design. The Alliance ``agree[d] with the
observation that the original wing design can deform and off-load the
loads being transferred to the iliac load cell resulting in
artificially low measurements.'' It stated, however, that while the use
of the thin steel backer plate specified in the final rule (as shown in
Figure 1) will reduce the likelihood of off-loading the load cell, it
will not reduce deformation of the polyurethane iliac wing. It
suggested that a more robust solution would be to use a rigid steel
plate with standoffs that are embedded in the polyurethane iliac wing
during manufacturing. The Alliance stated that ``this stronger plate
with standoffs eliminates the possibility of off-axis loading.''
    The Alliance petition for reconsideration also included a

presentation given by Denton to the OSRP that discussed test results
supporting use of the standoff design. Although details of this
presentation are not clear, it appears that when Denton loaded an iliac
load cell through a simulated SID-IIs iliac wing without standoffs, it
observed extrusion of the urethane when the mounting screws were
tightened to 60 inch-pounds (in-lb), which it said caused ``shorting''
of the load path. Without a mounting screw preload,\18\ the center of
the iliac contacted the center of the load cell, shorting the load path
at approximately 750 lb (3,336 N). We believe the presentation is
indicating that without standoffs, the mounting screws cannot be
tightened to a degree where load shorting does not occur. I.e., when
the screws were tightened to 60 in-lb, the load path was shorted by
extrusion of urethane, and when the mounting screws were tightened to a
lesser degree, the path was shorted by contact of the center of the
wing to the load cell. With standoffs, apparently Denton found that
shorting did not occur. With standoffs, when 1000 lb (4,448 N) of load
was applied to the center and over each mounting screw, a worst-case
difference of 4.3% resulted in measured versus applied load, which
Denton stated is within acceptable limits. Denton did not report any
shorting of the load path when the iliac plate with standoffs was
tested, although they did observe extrusion of the urethane material
when high loads were applied to the simulated wing outside the
perimeter of the load cell. In its conclusion, Denton's presentation
stated that the iliac wings without standoffs should not be used.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ We are unsure what is meant by ``mounting screw preload,''
however we believe that it means that the mounting screws were
tightened to an amount less than 60 in-lb.
    \19\ The SAE/DTES material Denton enclosed with its petition
recommended the standoff design rather than the backer plate design.
It stated that based upon mechanical principles, the standoff design
eliminates the possibility of material creep that could lead to
screws loosening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    After reviewing the data submitted by the petitioners, NHTSA is
granting the request to have an iliac wing support plate with standoffs
as part of the iliac design. The petitioners provided extensive
evidence in favor of the standoffs.
    At the same time, we are also specifying use of the thin steel
backer plate. When the agency evaluated the standoff design, VRTC
conducted qualification testing of the M3 iliac with standoffs, with
and without the backer plate between the wing and load cell, as
specified by the final rule (Table 2). VRTC found that qualification
test results from these two iliac configurations were very similar. The
average response from wings without a backer plate was always lower
than that from wings with a backer plate as seen in Table 2, but was
also always less than a 2.5% reduction from the response with a
plate.\20\ Thus, the influence of the backer plate appears to be
negligible. However, the plate can act to prevent load path shorting
through wing contact with the center of the load cell. Although there
were no instances of load path shorting during qualification tests
without a plate, two quasi-static tests without a backer plate were
conducted on both the softest and stiffest M3 iliac wings with
standoffs. In this set of tests, the softest iliac wing made contact
with the center of the load cell at a load of about 3,700 N (831.8 lb).
To prevent this from happening, we have decided to retain use of the
thin steel backer plate between the iliac wing and iliac load cell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Although the backer plate adds mass to the lower torso, it
only adds 0.2 lb, or 0.7% of the lower torso weight. This small mass
increase is not expected to appreciably increase the forces measured
in qualification tests.

                               Table 2--Comparison of NHTSA M3 With Standoffs; Iliac Results With and Without Backer Plate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Peak lateral
        Pelvis skin No.          Iliac wing No.     Backer plate?        Number of                          Peak probe        pelvis        Peak iliac
                                                                           tests                           acceleration    acceleration        force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
764............................           L-318  Yes................              24  AVG...............           40.27           30.87         4686.76
                                                                                S.D...............            0.55            1.04          100.10
                                                                                %CV...............            1.4%            3.4%            2.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
764............................           L-318  No.................              10  AVG...............           39.44           30.43         4574.26
                                                                                S.D...............            0.77            1.34          148.69
                                                                                %CV...............            1.9%            4.4%            3.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response                                     -2.06%          -1.43%          -2.40%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
765............................           R-310  Yes................               6  AVG...............           41.79           35.32         4930.00
                                                                                S.D...............            0.53            1.08          102.09
                                                                                %CV...............            1.3%            3.0%            2.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
765............................           R-310  No.................               6  AVG...............           41.50           34.62         4913.20
                                                                                S.D...............            0.33            0.96           70.88
                                                                                %CV...............            0.8%            2.8%            1.4%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Percent Change Plate to No Plate Average Response                                     -0.69%          -1.98%          -0.34%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Iliac Qualification Procedure

1. Use of OSRP Procedure
    The final rule established a qualification procedure for the pelvis
iliac load cell, in addition to a procedure that assessed the
performance of the acetabulum load cell. The pelvis iliac procedure
checks the response consistency of the iliac load cell as installed in
the dummy's pelvis. In the pelvis iliac test, a 13.97 kilogram (kg)
impactor is accelerated to 4.3  0.1 meters per second (m/s)
and directed laterally into the pelvis of the dummy such that its
impact surface strikes the centerline of the iliac access hole in the
iliac load cell. Performance limits are set for peak impactor and
pelvis lateral accelerations and peak iliac forces. The procedure was
documented in the report ``SID-IIs Iliac Certification Development,''
(August 29, 2006).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Requested Change
    In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance requested that
the iliac qualification procedure be replaced by an OSRP procedure
since the petitioner's member companies had no experience with the
final rule test condition and probe.
Agency Response
    This request is denied. The petitioner provided no comparative
analysis of how the OSRP procedure differs from that of the final rule,
how Alliance members would be negatively impacted by the final rule
procedure, or how the repeatability and reproducibility of the OSRP
procedure compares to that of the final rule.
    Among the differences between the two procedures, the OSRP
procedure uses a calibration bench rather than a flat, rigid,
horizontal surface; it requires the dummy to use the torso jacket and
cotton underwear pants (unlike the final rule that requires removal of
the clothing); it seats the dummy with the pelvis overhanging the seat
surface by 78 2 millimeters (mm); and it uses the impactor
specified for the abdominal impact test.
    During NHTSA's development of the iliac qualification test
procedure, various test conditions and probe faces were evaluated,
including use of a calibration bench and an abdominal impactor face as
suggested by the OSRP. The agency determined that use of the
calibration bench caused concern since it can be difficult to hit the
target impact area without the pendulum, or its guide wires,
interfering with the bench. With regard to the use of the abdominal
impactor face, we found that due to the geometry of the pelvis, setting
the abdominal probe face such that it interacted with the iliac region
in a repeatable fashion was difficult, even with careful positioning.
Because of this, a new probe face and procedure were developed by the
agency for the final rule that enable certification of the iliac
without impacting the pelvis plug. Use of an alignment tool was also
recommended to aid in a repeatable setup. Furthermore, NHTSA is
satisfied that the final rule qualification procedure works well and
there are no identifiable shortcomings of its use by the petitioners.
2. Pelvis Iliac Probe Acceleration
    In the December 14, 2006 final rule, Sec.  572.199 (c)(1) specifies
a peak ``lateral'' acceleration of the impactor of not less than 34 g
and not more than 40 g.
Requested Change
    The Alliance recommended deleting the word ``lateral'' from the
term ``peak lateral acceleration of the impactor * * * '' Denton
believes that ``lateral'' should be replaced with ``longitudinal.''
Agency Response
    The agency agrees to delete the word ``lateral'' from Sec.
572.199(c)(1), but does not agree to add the word ``longitudinal.'' The
peak impactor acceleration is measured on the long axis of the probe,
so we agree that the term ``lateral'' is inappropriate. However, it is
unnecessary to state that the acceleration is longitudinal.
3. Specification of Tape
    In the December 14, 2006 final rule, the specification for use of
tape is found in figures V9-A and V9-B of the regulatory text, which
indicate the use of ``masking tape as required to hold dummy in
position.'' The use of tape is also found in the supporting report,
``Certification Procedures for the SID-IIs Build Level D Side Impact
Crash Test Dummy,'' (June 21, 2006), hereinafter referred to as the
``2006 certification procedures document.'' \22\ This report states for
the iliac qualification procedure: ``using masking tape from the top of
the dummy's head to the seating surface, level the shoulder rib so that
the fore/aft plane is 0[ordm]1 relative to horizontal,''
and later states to ``adjust the masking tape as necessary'' to ensure
proper dummy positioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The June 21, 2006 Certification Procedures document is
available at Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0018. The document provides
for illustration purposes detailed descriptions of the test
procedures specified for the SID-IIs in 49 CFR part 572, subpart V,
and illustrates how the various tests are conducted by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requested Change
    The Alliance petitioned to request that if NHTSA retains the
pelvis-iliac test as specified in the final rule, then it recommends
that the width and amount of tape allowed to hold the dummy in its
initial position be specified.
Agency Response
    We agree to this request. We have revised the 2006 certification
procedures document, now named ``Qualification Procedures for the SID-
IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy,'' \23\ to clarify the use of tape
for dummy alignment, as follows: ``Using approximately 3 feet of
standard 1'' wide masking tape from the top of the dummy's head to the
seating surface, level the shoulder rib so that the fore/aft plane is
0[deg]1[deg] relative to horizontal.'' A footnote has been
added that states, ``Alternatively, a material with maximum static
breaking strength of 311 N (70 lb) may be used to support the dummy in
position.'' (This specification was based on a similar specification in
FMVSS No. 208, paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, which states, ``If necessary,
material with a maximum breaking strength of 311 N (70 lb) and spacer
blocks may be used to support the dummy in position.'') We have also
revised Figures V9-A and V9-B of the regulatory text for the SID-IIs
dummy to add the footnote, to provide information about the
characteristics of the masking tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Dated July 1, 2008 and placed in the docket with this final
rule. ``Certification'' was changed to ``Qualification'' for
consistency of terminology in NHTSA technical reports and final
rules. This 2008 report updates the 2006 document to reflect all the
changes discussed in today's final rule and to make minor
corrections/clarifications of the text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Corrections
A. Specification of Load Cell in Regulatory Text
    FTSS informed NHTSA of an error in the pelvis-iliac section of the
regulatory text, section 572.199(a).\24\ This error was also discovered
by the agency. The section specifies the use of acetabulum load cell
SA572-S68. We agree with FTSS that the section should instead specify
the iliac wing load cell SA572-S66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Impactor Alignment in Regulatory Text
    While reviewing the SID-IIsD final rule regulatory text, the agency
identified an error in the iliac qualification test procedures. Section
572.199(b)(7) describes probe alignment prior to the pelvis iliac
qualification test, and states that ``the 88.9 mm dimension of the
probe's impact surface is aligned horizontally.'' The 88.9 mm dimension
of the probe's impact surface should be aligned vertically, since the
probe face is a rectangle, 50.8 x 88.9 mm, and the shorter side of the
probe face is oriented horizontally, as seen in the 2008 qualification
procedures document. We are making this correction in this final rule
in 572.199(b)(8).

d. Pelvis Acetabulum Qualification Procedure

1. Pelvic Plug Pre-Crush and Associated Variability
    In the December 14, 2006 final rule, NHTSA specified a compression
force requirement that the pelvis plugs must exhibit when pre-crushed a
depth of 2.5-3.5 mm. The pelvis plug crush

development was discussed in the technical report entitled, ``SID-IIs
Pelvis Plug Certification Development,'' (May 3, 2006, Docket 2006-
25442-010), and the pre-crush procedures and plug qualification \25\
requirements were set forth in the plug drawing 180-4450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NHTSA now uses the phrase ``plug qualification'' instead of
``plug certification,'' in agreement with the terminology for
evaluating whether a dummy meets the criteria of Part 572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requested Change
    In petitions for reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES agreed that a
pre-crush depth of 3 mm should be used. However, the Alliance expressed
concern about the levels of variability of the pelvic region that it
said it observed in NHTSA \26\ and OSRP tests. The Alliance also stated
that it observed significant differences in acetabulum forces in three
tests of identical vehicles where one test was conducted with a pelvis
plug pre-crushed 3 mm and two tests were conducted with a pelvis plug
pre-crush of 2 mm. The Alliance provided time-history plots of the
acetabulum force, iliac wing force, combined pelvis force, and pelvis
acceleration from three oblique pole tests conducted at three different
laboratories. The petitioner stated that it is not clear whether the
differences in the acetabulum response are due to the differences in
the depth of pre-crush or due to other variables, and urged NHTSA to
investigate this further and take the variability into consideration
when developing the final rule for FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NHTSA data presented in ``Repeatability and Reproducibility
Analysis of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the Certification
Test Environment,'' and ``Repeatability, Reproducibility and
Durability Evaluation of the SID-IIs Build Level D in the Sled Test
Environment'' (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25442).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    We are not making any changes to the pelvis plug pre-crush
procedure. The Alliance provided no discussion related to its concern
about the variability of OSRP data and NHTSA data in the qualification
and sled test environments. Additionally, the OSRP data was not
submitted to the docket, so no comparisons could be made by the agency.
    In response to the three vehicle test results, no conclusions can
be drawn from the figures provided by the Alliance because two of the
pelvis plugs used in the tests were pre-crushed only 2 mm. We have
found that the pelvis response using plugs pre-crushed only 2 mm is
unpredictable. As discussed in the ``SID-IIs Pelvis Plug Certification
Development'' report released with the December 2006 final rule,\27\
VRTC has found that the pelvis plug requires at least 3 (0.5) mm of crush in order to characterize the plug response and
ensure repeatable and reproducible pelvis responses in qualification,
sled and vehicle tests. This is because the plug response does not
become linear until after 2.5 mm of crush, as shown in Figure 5 of this
report. It is necessary to reach this linear region during plug
qualification so that plug behavior at higher levels of compression
(e.g., in qualification, sled and vehicle tests) can be predicted. At 2
mm of crush, as was used in two of the vehicle tests referred to by the
Alliance, the plug response is still within a transition region, where
plug behavior at higher levels of crush cannot be predicted. Thus, 2 mm
of plug pre-crush is insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Based on the agency's experience with the pelvis plugs, the
Alliance's finding that the acetabulum forces and other pelvis
measurements were different for plugs pre-crushed 2 mm and plugs pre-
crushed 3 mm is not surprising. Since the high-crush responses of plugs
pre-crushed 2 mm are not predictable, the responses derived from these
plugs are not comparable to those from 3 mm pre-crushed plugs.
Differences between the 2 mm plug traces and the 3 mm plug trace could
have occurred because these two 2 mm plugs had similar properties that
did not match those of the 3 mm plug, but ultimately, there is no way
of knowing what the behavior of these two 2 mm pre-crushed plugs was
going to be. Furthermore, we do not know the extent by which the
responses may have been affected by the variability in dummy set-up
procedures and crash tests at the three different labs.
2. Pelvic Plug Qualification Corridor
    In the December 14, 2006 final rule, plug qualification
requirements were provided in the ``SID-IIs Pelvis Plug Certification
Development'' (May 3, 2006) report and on drawing 180-4450 of the SID-
IIsD drawing package.
    Following the final rule, FTSS indicated that it carried out
extensive testing on the pelvis plug according to the final rule
procedures and corridors, testing close to one thousand pelvis plugs.
Compression force at deflections of 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.5
mm and 3.0 mm were provided and plotted in their petition addendum.\28\
From this data, FTSS petitioned NHTSA to alter the loading portion of
the pelvis plug qualification corridor so that it has the following
coordinates: Lower bound (0.5 mm, 50 N) and (1.5 mm, 915 N); upper
bound (0.5 mm, 850 N) and (1.5 mm, 1715 N). The lower bound of the
FTSS-proposed corridor is slightly steeper in slope, but very close to
the lower bound of the final rule corridor, which has the coordinates
(0.5 mm, 50 N) and (1.5 mm, 850 N). The upper bound of the FTSS
proposed corridor allows for forces 250-315 N higher than the upper
bound of the final rule corridor, which has the coordinates (0.5 mm,
600 N) and (0.5 mm, 1400 N). FTSS did not petition to change the
requirements at the end of the plug compression, therefore, the force-
deflection ``box'' at 3  0.5 mm of deflection would be the
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ FTSS addendum to their petition for reconsideration, Docket
No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0038. We note that the figure in this petition
incorrectly depicts the final rule loading corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    The agency is denying this request. NHTSA's concern is that it is
unknown whether the loading portion of the plug force-deflection
response has an effect on the dummy response in qualification, sled or
vehicle tests. After receiving the petition, VRTC requested FTSS to
explain its comment by providing pelvis-acetabulum qualification data
that corresponded to the plug data provided in their petition. Such
data could better show the agency that the dummy could still pass this
qualification test using plugs that met the FTSS-suggested plug loading
corridor and the force-deflection corridor at 30.5 mm.\29\
In response to this request, FTSS provided data, but the data were
unhelpful. The passing test results that were provided had either
pelvis plug traces that fell within the suggested loading corridor and
the final rule loading corridor, or did not meet the force-deflection
box at 30.5 mm. Therefore, it could not be determined
whether plugs that have traces that fell within the suggested corridor
but outside the final rule corridor would still pass pelvis-acetabulum
qualification tests. NHTSA is denying FTSS's petition to change the
loading portion of the pelvis plug qualification corridor because it
has not been demonstrated that the suggested corridor is acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

3. Pelvis Acceleration Requirement
    The December 14, 2006 final rule specified a pelvis acetabulum
qualification procedure and set performance corridors for peak pelvis
lateral acceleration (Sec.  572.198).

Requested Change
    Denton/SAE DTES recommended removing the pelvis lateral
acceleration requirement from the test due to what was believed to be a
large variability of response. An attachment to the petitioner's
submission stated that a member of the SAE DTES presented pelvis
lateral acceleration data from three different laboratories where the
data looked distinctly different. It was noted in the attachment that
the shape of the pelvis lateral acceleration peak varied widely, even
with a single dummy in one lab. The DTES discussed possible reasons for
the high variability of the first peak, but were not able to discern a
definite explanation for this behavior. Although they agreed that
variability was reduced when the acceleration peak was taken after 5
ms, they did not think that the measurement was necessary for
qualification of the dummy and therefore recommended that the peak
pelvis lateral acceleration be dropped. Alternatively (as seen in the
next section), if the pelvis lateral acceleration parameter were not
dropped, Denton/SAE DTES recommended to take the peak after 5 ms to
eliminate the variable first peak.
Agency Response
    We are denying the request to remove the peak pelvis lateral
acceleration from the pelvis acetabulum qualification procedure. The
petitioner's request that the pelvis lateral acceleration measurement
be removed appears to have originated from the subcommittee's
observation of variability in the first peak. This first peak is
primarily dependent on the plug characteristics. The petitioner-
referenced data was obtained from plugs pre-crushed to 2 mm. As
discussed in the previous section, 2 mm of crush is not sufficient to
assure consistent performance of the plug in high-crush environments.
Therefore, it is likely that the variation observed by the petitioner
was due to varying plug characteristics resulting from insufficient
plug pre-crush. Because the petitioner based its request on pelvis
plugs pre-crushed 2 mm, there is no reasonable basis for removing the
measurement of peak pelvis lateral acceleration. In addition, the
pelvis lateral acceleration measurement provides additional information
as to the whole pelvis response which further assesses the response of
the parts, and its requirement in the final rule should be maintained.
(However, we are limiting the time period during which peak lateral
acceleration will be measured, as discussed in the next section.)
4. Measuring Peak Pelvis Lateral Acceleration 5 ms or More After
Contact
    In the NPRM proposed regulatory text, S572.197(c)(2) \30\ specified
that the peak lateral pelvis acceleration was to be taken at 5 ms or
more after the impactor contacts the dummy. The final rule did not
include a time specification for this measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Requested Change
    FTSS requested that the peak lateral pelvis acceleration be taken 5
ms or more after the impactor contacts the dummy. FTSS believed that
the variation in the data was much greater when the overall peak was
taken instead of the peak after 5 ms, and noted that the first, larger
peak is an inertial peak due to loading of the pelvis plug. The
Alliance referenced a recommendation from the SAE DTES suggesting that
this peak be taken after 5 ms.
Agency Response
    We agree that there should be a time specification for the
measurement of the peak pelvis lateral acceleration. The final rule
preamble did not discuss why the proposed time specification was not
adopted. As discussed in the previous section, the first peak of the
pelvis lateral acceleration response, which occurs in the first 5-6 ms,
is based primarily on the plug response. Since the pelvis-acetabulum
test aims to verify the pelvis response, not the plug response, the
acceleration during the first 5-6 ms should not be included. However,
NHTSA examined pelvis lateral acceleration traces in 11 side impact
crash tests conducted with the SID-IIs Build Level D dummy to determine
if the first peak, which results from initial pelvis plug crush in
qualification tests, was part of the dummy response in vehicle tests.
(If the first peak were part of the dummy response, we would be
disinclined to disregard this peak in dummy qualification.) Crash test
results showed generally unimodal pelvis Y accelerations, indicating
that in vehicle tests, the initial plug crush does not play a
significant role in the results.
    To determine after what point in time the peak lateral pelvis
acceleration should be taken, NHTSA analyzed pelvis lateral
acceleration traces for 46 pelvis-acetabulum qualification tests from
four dummies and two labs. The data clearly showed multiple, distinct
peaks as seen in Figure 2. As mentioned previously, the first main peak
and second small ``bump'' in the data are due to the pendulum impacting
the pelvis plug and (most likely) the pelvis flesh, respectively. The
second major peak (called the ``second peak'' henceforth) represents
the response of the dummy after the leg mass comes into play, and is
the measure of interest for qualification of the dummy. As the
petitioners claimed, the first peak was consistently higher than the
second peak. In order to prevent measuring this first, less meaningful
peak for qualification, the petitioners recommended that the peak
pelvis acceleration value be taken after 5 ms after probe contact with
the dummy.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.001

    It was not clear from the data that 5 ms was the most appropriate
time to begin measuring a peak value. For each of these 46 traces, the
peak values after 5 ms, 6 ms and 7 ms were obtained in order to
determine how much time after probe impact should be disregarded to
prevent the first peak from being measured. It was found that in five
of the 46 tests, the maximum value after 5 ms was higher than that
after 6 or 7 ms, because the value of the decreasing ``first peak''
response at 5 ms was higher than the main dummy response peak value.
Four of these 5 instances occurred in Dummy S/N 20, and are seen in
Figure 3 below. These cases led the agency to determine that the peak
should be taken after 6 ms. However, in two tests, the peak of the main
dummy response occurred just before 6 ms (see Figure 4), causing the
peak after 6 ms to be slightly less than the actual peak. This
occurrence was rare, though, and only resulted in an error of
approximately 0.1 g for both tests. As a result of this evaluation,
this final rule specifies that the peak pelvis lateral acceleration be
taken after 6 ms.
    Currently, there is no definition for ``time zero'' in the pelvis-
acetabulum qualification test procedures (section 572.198(b)). Because
of this, the time point ``6 ms'' cannot be defined. Therefore, to
implement measuring the pelvis lateral acceleration after 6 ms, the
agency is adding a provision to Sec.  572.198(b) that defines time
zero. Time zero was defined in the 2006 certification procedures
document that was released concurrently with the December 2006 final
rule, but there was not a need then to include the definition in the
regulatory text of the final rule. Time zero was defined in the 2006
certification procedures document as follows: ``Time zero is defined as
the time of contact between the impact probe and the pelvis plug. All
channels are at a zero level at this point.'' Since defining time zero
is now needed, this final rule adds a section 572.198(b)(11) to the
regulatory text that specifies that time zero is defined as the time of
contact between the impact probe and the pelvis plug.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.003

VI. Shoulder Qualification Procedures

a. Impact Velocity

    The December 14, 2006 final rule specified an impact velocity of
4.4 0.1 m/s for the shoulder and abdomen qualification test
procedures. The thorax without arm and pelvis iliac tests use an impact
velocity of 4.3 0.1 m/s.
Requested Change
    The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES recommended that the impact
velocity of the shoulder and abdomen qualification procedures be
consistent with the thorax without arm and pelvis iliac tests. The
Alliance specifically recommended that all the subject tests use an
impact velocity of 4.3 0.1 m/s to minimize setup errors in
conducting qualification tests. It further suggested that the lower
speed was more consistent with shoulder rib deflection measurements
from NHTSA's FMVSS No. 214 fleet testing program. It found the
following average shoulder rib deflections in NHTSA's testing: 32.4 mm
for driver in pole tests; 19.3 mm for driver in MDB tests; and 27.9 mm
for rear passenger in MDB tests. It also found that the average
deflection for qualification tests conducted between 4.2 and 4.4 m/s
from FTSS and NHTSA is 33.7 mm, which is greater than average shoulder
deflections in the fleet tests and which, the petitioners believed,
further supported a reduction in impact velocity for the shoulder
qualification test.
Agency Response
    We are granting this request. We agree that having the same impact
speed for all subject qualification tests would be more convenient than
having different speeds. However, because the tests used to support the
December 2006 final rule were conducted at 4.40.1 m/s, and
data submitted in petitions for reconsideration contained tests
conducted at 4.40.1 m/s, little data existed between 4.2-
4.3 m/s. Therefore, to evaluate the petitioners' request, VRTC
conducted six shoulder qualification tests, with two tests on each of
three dummies, at velocities ranging from 4.20-4.23 m/s. These tests
were included with the existing shoulder qualification data, which was
then analyzed as two separate data sets: one with tests conducted at
impact velocities from 4.2-4.4 m/s and one with tests conducted at 4.3-
4.5 m/s. The mean responses in each data set are very similar, as shown
in Table 3. However, it is important to note that in looking at Figure
5, the average of the entire 4.40.1 m/s data set is close
to the average of the responses between only 4.3-4.4 m/s, which make up
the majority of the 4.30.1 m/s data set. Thus, similarity
of means between the 4.40.1 m/s and 4.30.1 m/s
data sets may be partially due to the majority of points in the
4.30.1 m/s data set being between 4.3-4.4 m/s.

    Table 3--Statistical Summary of Shoulder Qualification Test Results at 4.3 vs. 4.4 m/s Impact Velocities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Peak probe        Peak T1      Peak shoulder
                                                                   acceleration    acceleration     deflection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.30.1 m/s impact velocity  N.......................              67              50              67
                                        Mean....................           15.53           19.26           33.33
                                        SD......................            0.99            1.19            2.05
                                        CV......................           6.40%           6.19%           6.16%
4.40.1 m/s impact velocity  N.......................             120              69             120
                                        Mean....................           15.79           19.43           33.50
                                        SD......................            0.93            1.10            1.61
                                        CV......................           5.90%           5.67%           4.81%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 5 shows the peak shoulder deflection responses with respect
to the impact speed of the pendulum. It is observed that the peak
deflections are noticeably lower at impact speeds of approximately 4.2
m/s. Because of this observation, the qualification performance
corridors have been formed with the mindset that the statistical
corridor (which is centered at the mean of the data set) may have to be
adjusted to accommodate low deflections at the low impact velocities,
since the mean of the 4.2-4.4 m/s data set may be slightly high due to
the majority of tests being conducted between 4.3-4.4 m/s. The revised
corridors are discussed in ``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration (July 1, 2008),'' \31\ and in section XI.a of this
preamble. We believe that by adjusting the performance corridor to
reflect deflection responses at lower impact velocities, the new
performance corridor will satisfactorily represent dummy responses over
the full range of the revised specified impact velocities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN09.004

    To support its petition, the Alliance also made the argument that
the impact velocity should be reduced to 4.3 0.1 m/s
because the average shoulder deflections in agency crash tests are
lower than those resulting from qualification tests. This is true; the
average shoulder deflections in agency crash tests were somewhat lower
than the average deflections in qualification tests (shown in Table 3).
However, we do not agree that it is necessary for the average shoulder
deflections in qualification tests to align precisely with the average
deflection in crash tests. This is due to the large variations in crash
test shoulder deflection measurements \32\ as compared to the relative
closeness of shoulder deflection responses at a 4.30.1 m/s
vs. 4.40.1 m/s impact velocity. Additionally, the agency
usually establishes qualification tests to exercise dummy components at
the level of the IARV, not at the level of the average recorded
measurement in a crash test. Here, however, since there are no proposed
shoulder injury criteria with which to establish a ``target''
deflection for qualification tests, we believe that the deflections
obtained at either the 4.3 0.1 m/s or 4.4 0.1
m/s test speeds are acceptable, given that compared to the variation in
shoulder deflections in crash tests, the deflections at 4.3 0.1 m/s versus 4.4 0.1 m/s are relatively close.
Therefore, we are agreeable to reducing the test's impact velocity to
4.3 0.1 m/s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Shoulder deflections in NHTSA crash tests ranged from 4.7-
40.7 mm and 15.9-40.4 mm for the driver and passenger (respectively)
in MDB tests, and from 8.6-51.2 mm for the driver in FMVSS No. 214
pole tests (NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS 214 Upgrade, MY 2004-2005;
test data memorandum in NHTSA Docket No. 2007-29134-003). Additional
32 km/h (20 mph) pole tests conducted on six 2006 and 2007 MY
vehicles produced shoulder rib deflections ranging from 18.9-58.4
mm, with an average of 38.0 mm (tests are summarized in Table 1, 73
FR at 32477, and data are available in the NHTSA vehicle crash test
database).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Arm Position

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (Sec.  572.194(b)(7)) states,
``Orient the arm to point forward at 90 degrees relative to the
interior-superior orientation of the upper torso spine box incline.''
\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ There is a typographical error in the final rule regulatory
text: the arm position should be measured relative to the
``inferior-superior'' orientation of the upper torso spine box
incline. We are correcting this error in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requested Change
    The Alliance recommended replacing the sentence with, ``Orient the
arm forward into the 90 degree detent position.''
Agency Response
    This request is denied. It is important for this test that the arm
be oriented at the angle as described in the final rule regulatory
text. We recognize that the arm would likely be in the same physical
location when it is ``in the 90 degree detent position'' as when it is
oriented ``to point forward at 90 degrees relative to the inferior-
superior orientation of the upper torso spine box incline.'' However,
it is possible that the detent could become worn over time, resulting
in an arm position that is somewhat off of 90 degrees. Therefore, the
arm angle specification will remain as stated in the final rule.
Additionally, to make the agency's intent clearer, Figure V4-A is
amended such that ``ARM IN 90[deg] DETENT'' is replaced with ``ARM
90[deg]  2[deg] RELATIVE TO UPPER TORSO'' and a dashed line
indicating the reference line of the upper torso is added. The
qualification procedures document is also amended by adding the 2[deg] tolerance to the specified angle.
    Relatedly, we note that the thorax with arm, pelvis acetabulum, and
pelvis iliac tests specify that the SID-IIs arm should be oriented so
it is in the ``lowest detent.'' We believe this wording could cause
confusion, as it may be unclear whether the ``lowest detent'' should
place the arm pointing downward or in a direction parallel to the
orientation of the upper torso. For this reason, and for consistency
with the wording used in the shoulder test, we have made the following
changes to the regulatory text. In the thorax with arm test procedure,
section 572.195(b)(7), ``Orient the arm downward to the lowest detent''
is changed to ``Orient the arm downward to the lowest detent such that
the longitudinal centerline of the arm is

parallel to the inferior-superior orientation of the spine box.''
Similarly, in the pelvis-acetabulum test procedure, section
572.198(b)(7), ``Rotate the arm downward to the lowest detent'' is
changed to ``Rotate the arm downward to the lowest detent such that the
longitudinal centerline of the arm is parallel to the inferior-superior
orientation of the spine box.'' In the pelvis-iliac test, section
572.199 does not include arm positioning procedures, but Figure V9-A
referenced in this section shows the arm pointing downward and notes
that it is in the ``lowest detent.'' For consistency with other test
procedures and to clarify arm position, we have added in section
572.199 the following text: ``Orient the arm downward to the lowest
detent such that the longitudinal centerline of the arm is parallel to
the inferior-superior orientation of the spine box.''

VII. Thorax With Arm Qualification Procedures

a. Peak Impactor Acceleration

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (Sec.  572.195(c)(3)) specified a
corridor for the peak acceleration of the impactor.
Requested Change
    Petitioners FTSS, the Alliance, and Denton requested that the
criterion for peak acceleration of the impactor be limited to all
values after 5 ms after time zero. FTSS stated that a review of recent
FTSS qualification data shows that 20% of 200 Thorax with Arm impact
tests fail if the initial spike (within the first 5 ms) is measured,
but only 4% of these same tests fail if the initial acceleration spike
is disregarded and the peak acceleration is measured after 5 ms. The
petitioner concluded that the initial spike is a result of the initial
contact of the probe with the arm and is not a factor when assessing
the performance of the ribs. The Alliance also stated that the first
peak of the impactor acceleration is due to the inertial response of
the arm, which, the petitioner stated, is demonstrated to have greater
variability than the response of the thorax (later peak). The Alliance
thus recommended a time requirement be added to the performance
criteria for the peak impactor acceleration. The Alliance also provided
example traces where the inertial peak was both larger and smaller than
the peak response of the thorax.
Agency Response
    The agency agrees that the peak impactor acceleration should be
taken after 5 ms. Data traces from 12 tests at the Transportation
Research Center (TRC) were analyzed in the same manner as the pelvis
lateral acceleration traces discussed above in this preamble. Unlike
the peak pelvis lateral acceleration, however, the first peak of the
thorax with arm impactor acceleration is almost always lower than the
main response. In fact, in all of these 12 tests, as well as in an
additional 11 tests conducted at TRC, 19 at MGA,\34\ and in the 25
tests from FTSS that were included in the SAE DTES meeting minutes
attached to the Denton petition,\35\ the overall peak was after 5 ms.
However, given that the petitioners provided evidence that the first
peak can be larger than the second, taking the peak impactor
acceleration after 5 ms would provide a safeguard against measuring the
inertial response. Therefore, the request is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Overall and ``after 5 ms'' peak accelerations collected at
TRC and MGA are included in an agency memo with SID-IIs
qualification data (NHTSA-2006-25442-0043) and in the appendix to
the report ``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD Qualification
Specifications in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration, (July
1, 2008).'' Additionally, data traces for MGA data are available in
crash test reports for pole and MDB crash tests conducted at MGA in
support of the FMVSS No. 214 upgrade. Reports are available in
NHTSA's vehicle crash database, and test numbers are provided in
Docket No. NHTSA-2007-29134-0003.
    \35\ FTSS was contacted to determine whether the peak probe
accelerations were taken after 5 ms. See ex parte memorandum, Docket
No. NHTSA-2006-25442-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Time Zero

    As previously discussed for the peak pelvis lateral acceleration in
pelvis acetabulum tests, it is necessary to define time zero in the
regulatory text for the thorax with arm test. Time zero will be defined
as the time of contact between the impact probe and the arm, similar to
how the agency has defined time zero elsewhere in this regulation. This
definition will be incorporated into section 572.195(b)(11) of the
regulatory text.

c. Reported Noise in Potentiometers

    The Alliance stated that it observed noise in the data from the
half-inch servo potentiometers in the shoulder and thorax-with-arm
qualification tests. The SAE DTES meeting minutes reported that drop
testing showed clean signals with the potentiometers, so it was not
known whether the noise was an electrical problem or a potentiometer
problem. The Alliance stated that in some cases, the magnitude of the
noise exceeded the magnitude of the primary response and may
inadvertently be used as the peak value for comparison to the
performance criteria. Data were provided by Denton in Attachments 4 and
5 of the SAE DTES minutes dated January 19, 2007. The petitioners did
not recommend a rulemaking action to be taken. The agency analyzed the
provided data traces, as well as agency data from thorax-with-arm and
shoulder qualification tests, and does not believe there to be a
problem with the dummy design. This issue is discussed more fully in
the memorandum, ``Analysis of Reported Noise in Potentiometers,''
docketed with this final rule.

VIII. Thorax Without Arm Petitioned Issues

a. Peak Impactor Acceleration

    In the December 14, 2006 final rule, Sec.  572.196(c)(3) reads,
``Peak lateral impactor acceleration shall not be less than 14 g and
not more than 18 g.''
Requested Change
    The Alliance recommended deleting the word ``lateral'' from the
term ``peak lateral impactor acceleration.''
Agency Response
    This request is granted. The peak impactor acceleration is measured
on the long axis of the probe, thus the term ``lateral'' is
inappropriate. Section 572.196(c)(3) is changed to state: ``Peak
impactor acceleration shall not be * * *,'' as petitioned.

b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench

    While reviewing the Part 572 regulatory text for the SID-IIsD, the
agency found two slight errors in section 572.196(b)(3). The final rule
stated: ``Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the
impacted side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located
within 25 mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V4-A * *
*.'' However, as seen in the figures at the end of the subpart, the
figure corresponding to the thorax without arm test is Figure V6-A, not
V4-A, and the vertical plane for dummy alignment is located within 10
(not 25) mm of the side edge of the bench. The regulatory text is
corrected to refer to Figure V6-A and to the 10 mm value.

IX. Abdomen Qualification Procedure

a. Impact Velocity

    As previously discussed, the December 14, 2006 final rule specifies
an impact velocity of 4.4 0.1 m/s for the shoulder and
abdomen qualification test procedures. The thorax without arm and
pelvis iliac tests use an impact velocity of 4.3 0.1 m/s.
Requested Change
    The Alliance and Denton/SAE DTES recommended that the impact
velocity of the shoulder and abdomen

qualification procedures be consistent with the thorax without arm and
pelvis iliac tests. The Alliance specifically recommended that all the
subject tests use an impact velocity of 4.3 0.1 m/s to
minimize setup errors in conducting qualification tests. The petitioner
also stated that the NPRM proposed an impact velocity of 4.3 0.1 m/s and the final rule gave no reason for the increase. The
Alliance further stated that NHTSA indicated that the agency will be
monitoring the deflections measured by the abdominal ribs and
considering for future rulemaking an Injury Assessment Reference Value
(IARV) of 45 mm for the ribs. The petitioner stated that in NHTSA's
abdominal qualification tests conducted at 4.5 m/s, half of the
specimens exceeded 45 mm of deflection in one or both of the abdominal
ribs. The Alliance believed that by lowering the impact velocity from
4.4 0.1 m/s to 4.3 0.1 m/s, the goal of
selecting an appropriate impact speed near the magnitude of the
research limit is better achieved.
Agency Response
    We agree to the petitioners' request. To evaluate the request, we
examined the results of the few abdomen tests conducted between 4.2-4.3
m/s prior to the final rule, and the results of new data from VRTC.\36\
Using the entire data set, NHTSA re-evaluated the impact velocity
responses both at the 4.30.1 m/s and 4.40.1 m/s
impact velocity ranges. A summary of the 4.3 m/s and 4.4 m/s data sets
is provided in Table 4. (We must note again, however, that only 13
tests were conducted at impact velocities that produced input energies
less than those allowed for the 4.4  0.1 m/s data set.
Therefore, the majority of the data in the 4.3 m/s data set is also
included in the 4.4 m/s data set.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Results of tests conducted by VRTC between 4.2 and 4.3 m/s
can be found in an agency memorandum providing the revised SID-IIs
qualification data set (NHTSA-2006-25442-0043), and in the report
``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD Qualification Specifications
in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration,'' July 1, 2008. Seven
additional tests conducted after this memorandum was placed in the
docket are included in the appendix of the previously mentioned
qualification report.

Table 4--Statistical Comparison of Abdominal Qualification Results From Tests Conducted at 4.30.1 m/
                                  s vs. 4.40.1 m/s Impact Velocity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Peak T12
                                                    Peak probe    Peak upper rib  Peak lower rib      lateral
                                                   acceleration     deflection      deflection     acceleration
                                                        (g)            (mm)            (mm)             (g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 m/s impact velocity.......  N...............              64              64              64              64
                                Mean............           13.97           41.99           39.78           11.71
                                SD..............            0.93            3.00            3.47            1.07
                                CV..............           6.64%           7.15%           8.72%           9.17%
4.4 m/s impact velocity.......  N...............             115             115             115             115
                                Mean............           13.78           43.62           42.10           11.78
                                SD..............            0.90            2.53            2.92            1.07
                                CV..............           6.57%           5.80%           6.95%           9.09%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 4, the mean responses were somewhat lower and
more variable at 4.3  0.1 m/s for rib deflection
measurements. However, we have accounted for this by lowering and
slightly expanding the qualification corridor bounds, as discussed in
Section XI.d.
    While we have reduced the test's impact velocity, we do not agree
with the petitioner's argument that the impact velocity should be
reduced because the 4.4 0.1 m/s test speed is too severe.
We reduced the velocity because the deflections obtained in the 4.3
0.1 m/s data set are also close to the proposed IARV, and
because we do not anticipate any problems from conducting the test at a
slightly lower speed. When looking at abdomen qualification tests with
input energies corresponding to impact velocities of 4.4 0.1 m/s, approximately 20% of abdominal rib deflections are
greater than 45 mm. This percentage drops to about 10.5% for the 4.3
0.1 m/s data set. Based on these percentages, we believe
that either impact speed would be acceptable in terms of the test's
severity compared to the IARV. But, because the test was proposed to be
conducted at 4.3 0.1 m/s in the NPRM, and because we do not
anticipate any problems with reducing the test speed, we are granting
the petitioner's request. Details about the qualification data and
performance corridors are provided in the report ``Analysis and
Development of SID-IIsD Qualification Specifications in Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration,'' supra, and in section XI of this
preamble.

b. Dummy Alignment on the Test Bench

    In section 572.197(b)(3), the December 14, 2006 final rule stated:
``Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted side
of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 25 mm of
the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V7-A * * *.'' However, as
seen in the figure at the end of the subpart, the vertical plane for
dummy alignment is located within 10 (not 25) mm of the side edge of
the bench. The regulatory text is corrected to refer to the 10 mm
value.

X. Other Testing Issues

a. Dummy Clothing

    The December 14, 2006 final rule specified that the shoulder,
thorax with arm, thorax without arm and abdomen qualification tests be
conducted with the dummy wearing its torso jacket (180-3450) and cotton
underwear pants. The pelvis-acetabulum and pelvis-iliac tests, however,
were to be conducted without the torso jacket and without the cotton
underwear pants. The dummy was not to wear shoes for any of the above
qualification tests.
Requested Change
    The Alliance petitioned that all full-body qualification impact
tests be conducted with the torso jacket, cotton underwear pants and
shoes installed due to time and effort involved in removing and
replacing the dummy's clothes and shoes.
Agency Response
    The request is denied. The clothing specifications were put in
place to better ensure that accurate and repeatable test measurements
could be obtained during dummy qualification. For the pelvis-

iliac and pelvis-acetabulum tests, the cotton underwear pants are
removed to eliminate the effect that the clothing could have on the
measured response. Additionally, removal of the pants simplifies
alignment of the probe and better ensures that probe interaction with
the dummy is consistent from test to test. The chest jacket must be
removed because the ``crotch strip'' (drawing 180-3450, sheet 2 of 3),
which is guided through the dummy's legs to attach the front of the
jacket to the back of the jacket, can cause the dummy to rock slightly
on the test surface. This ``rocking'' can also lead to problems with
misalignment of the probe or inconsistent probe interaction with the
dummy. Further, removal of the chest jacket is very easy and not
burdensome.
    The agency considered whether removing or adjusting the crotch
strip, while keeping the chest jacket on the dummy, would simplify the
test procedure. The agency determined that although it would be
possible to conduct the pelvis tests with only the crotch strip removed
or adjusted, keeping the jacket on the dummy for the pelvis acetabulum
test would make positioning the dummy against the seat back more
difficult.
    Accordingly, for the reasons provided, the dummy clothing
specifications will remain as specified in the final rule.

b. Recovery Time Between Tests

    The December 14, 2006 final rule specified a minimum recovery time
of 30 minutes between repeat tests of the same qualification test for
the neck qualification test. A recovery time of 30 minutes is also
given for the shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvis-acetabulum
qualification tests in the 2006 certification procedures document. The
head, which references the procedure given in 49 CFR 572.112(a), is
given a recovery time of 2 hours between repeat tests in the December
2006 final rule. The pelvis-iliac test procedure provided in the 2006
certification procedures document specifies a recovery time of 1 hour.
Requested Change
    The Alliance petitioned for a minimum recovery time of 30 minutes
between repeat tests of the same qualification test for all tests,
except for the lateral head drop test, which the petitioner recommended
should have a recovery time of 2 hours between repeats of the same
qualification test.
Agency Response
    The petitioner suggested a change to the final rule's specification
of the pelvis-iliac recovery time but did not provide any data or
rationale in support of its request. VRTC first conducted quasi-static
tests to determine if a 30 minute recovery time, which is common in
Hybrid III dummy qualification test procedures, would be sufficient for
full recovery of the iliac wing. Because these tests are more
controlled than dynamic tests, it is easier to determine if variability
in iliac wing response is due to the recovery time, rather than some
other factor.
    As shown in the report ``SID-IIsD Iliac Wing Studies'' docketed
with this final rule, results from quasi-static tests indicated that
reducing the iliac recovery time to 30 minutes from 1 hour did not
affect the iliac wing responses. However, because quasi-static tests
only account for the response of the iliac wing and not the entire
pelvis assembly, VRTC also conducted dynamic tests to determine if the
pelvis assembly will perform consistently with a recovery time of only
30 minutes. VRTC performed a series of ten iliac qualification tests
(using the Material 3 with standoffs wing and a backer plate),
where one test was performed on a fully recovered pelvis to serve as a
baseline, four tests were conducted after a recovery time of 30
minutes, and five tests were conducted after a recovery time of one
hour.
    Results from the iliac qualification tests are shown in the ``SID-
IIsD Iliac Wing Studies'' report. The results indicated that after
successive impacts with 30 minutes or one hour recovery time, the iliac
responses from each recovery time showed a trend of slight increase in
magnitude. In addition, tests performed with 30 minutes of recovery
time between tests showed overall larger magnitude responses than tests
with one hour recovery time. Because the iliac wing did not require
more than 30 minutes of recovery time according to the quasi-static
data, NHTSA determined that this rise in response is probably
attributable to the pelvis flesh needing more time for recovery, as the
flesh part is a major component of the pelvis that is directly
impacted. Since a major element of the pelvis flesh is foam, it appears
that the foam needs more than one hour to fully recover from impact. To
determine what recovery time would be appropriate, the agency conducted
six additional pelvis-iliac qualification tests, with one test
conducted as another baseline response from a fully recovered pelvis,
and five tests performed with two hours of recovery time between each
test. The results of this series did not show a trend of increase in
response with successive tests, as shown in the ``SID-IIsD Iliac Wing
Studies'' report. Additionally, when comparing the average responses of
tests for all recovery times, the responses after two hour recovery
times were most similar to those of fully recovered dummy pelves,
indicating that after two hours, the pelves have returned to a fully-
recovered state (Table 5).
    Since the dynamic test results indicate that a 30 minute recovery
time is not long enough to ensure full recovery of the dummy's pelvis,
and no supporting data were provided by the petitioner, we are denying
the Alliance petition. Furthermore, since investigation of this issue
revealed that two hours between tests is necessary to ensure the dummy
pelvis is fully recovered, we are implementing a two hour recovery time
for the pelvis-iliac test. Also, given that the pelvis flesh is also
impacted in the pelvis-acetabulum test, the agency believes it is
logical to assign a recovery time of two hours for the pelvis-
acetabulum test as well.\37\ These recovery times, as well as 30 minute
recovery times for the shoulder, thorax with arm, thorax without arm
and abdomen qualification tests are added to their respective sections
in the Part 572 regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Qualification corridors for the pelvis iliac and acetabulum
tests were determined with data collected after 30 minute recovery
times. However, we do not expect this to have an effect on the
placement of the corridors for the following reasons. In the pelvis-
iliac test, peak impactor acceleration and peak iliac force data
from FTSS were generally lower than NHTSA data, resulting in
corridors that would easily include lower NHTSA responses, if a
longer recovery period would have produced somewhat lower
measurements. For the pelvis acceleration performance criterion,
some of the NHTSA data is on the low side of corridor; however, the
established corridor is already very wide to account for the wide
range of responses from NHTSA and FTSS, and it would not be
desirable to widen it any further, even if some NHTSA responses
would fall slightly below the corridor if a two hour recovery time
was implemented. In the pelvis acetabulum test, many of the data
came from tests where dummies were impacted once or twice per day,
meaning that any rise in response due to repeat tests would probably
have a minimal impact on the data set as a whole (and therefore,
have a minimal impact on the corridor placement).

  Table 5--Average Pelvis-Iliac Qualification Measurements for Fully, 30 Minutes, 1 Hour, and 2 Hour Recovered
                                                  Dummy Pelves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average peak    Average peak
                                                                       probe         pelvis Y      Average peak
                                                                   acceleration    acceleration     iliac force
                                                                        (g)             (g)             (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully Recovered.................................................              43              38            4942
\1/2\ hr recovery...............................................              45              40            5163
1 hr recovery...................................................              44              39            5044
2 hr recovery...................................................              43              37            4934
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Soak Time

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.200) provides the
requirements for instrumentation and test conditions and states at
572.200(j) that ``Performance tests are conducted unless specified
otherwise, at any temperature from 20.6 to 22.2 degrees C (69 to 72
degrees F) and at any relative humidity from 10% to 70% after exposure
of the dummy to those conditions for a period of 3 hours.''
Requested Change
    Denton ATD/SAE DTES stated that the final rule requires a 3 hour
soak time instead of the normal 4 hour soak time for all other dummies.
It noted that prior temperature studies have shown that even 4 hours
might be insufficient. It recommended that NHTSA make the soak time 4
hours to match all other dummies.
Agency Response
    This request is granted. This final rule amends 572.200(j) to
require a 4 hour soak time to match the requirements of other dummies.
We do not believe that requiring an additional hour of soak time will
have any negative effect on the dummy's responses. Further, a 4 hour
soak time for all test components was specified in the FTSS SID-IIs
User Manual (December 4, 2003). The revised qualification procedures
document has also been updated to reflect this change.

d. Tolerance on the Impactor Mass

    The impactor mass tolerance for the SID-IIsD shoulder, thorax with
arm, thorax without arm, abdomen, pelvis acetabulum and pelvis iliac
qualification tests is specified in Sec.  572.137(a) in Subpart O of 49
CFR part 572, which sets forth specifications for the Hybrid III 5th
percentile adult female test dummy (HIII5F). The impactor mass is
specified as ``13.97  0.23 kg (30.8 0.05
lbs).'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ There was an incorrect conversion in Sec.  572.137(a)
between the metric and English tolerance. The ``0.05 lbs'' should
read ``0.5 lbs.'' This error is corrected by today's final rule. We
have also corrected the tolerance for the HIII-5F knee probe in
572.137(b) to be 2.990.23 kg (6.60.5 lbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requested Change
    The Alliance recommended that the tolerance on the impactor mass
for shoulder, thorax with arm, thorax without arm, abdomen, pelvis
acetabulum and pelvis iliac qualification tests for the SID-IIs be
changed to 0.023 kg, rather than 0.23 kg. The
SAE DTES supported this requested change.
Agency Response
    The request is denied. The agency has evaluated the probe mass
tolerances specified for other Part 572 crash test dummies. Table 6
displays the results of this evaluation.

              Table 6--Impact Probe Masses and Tolerances for Dummies Specified in 49 CFR Part 572
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Tolerance
                                                                        Probe metric/english      percentage of
    Part 572 subpart & dummy name              Probe type           specification and tolerance  specified probe
                                                                                mass/weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart N, Six-year-old Child Test    Thorax......................  2.860.02 kg....            0.70
 Dummy, Beta Version.                                               (6.30.05 lb)...            (.79)
Subpart N, Six-year-old Child Test    Knee........................  0.820.02 kg....            2.44
 Dummy, Beta Version.                                               (1.80.05 lb)...           (2.78)
Subpart P, HIII 3-Year-Old Child      Thorax......................  1.700.02 kg....            1.18
 Crash Test Dummy, Alpha Version.                                   (3.750.05 lb)..           (1.33)
Subpart V, SID-IIs Side Impact Crash  Thorax/Abdomen/Iliac (for     13.970.23 kg...            1.65
 Test Dummy (refers to Subpart O,      HIII5F, Thorax).             (30.80.05 lb)..          (0.162)
 HIII5F).                                                           *tolerances not equivalent.
Petitioned SID-IIs/HIII5F probe mass  Thorax/Abdomen/Iliac (for     13.970.023 kg..           0.164
 tolerance.                            HIII5F, Thorax).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner's request to change the mass tolerance to 0.023 kg
would result in a tolerance that is similar to the 3-year-old and 6-
year-old dummy probe tolerances (0.02 kg). However, 0.02 kg is 0.70% to
2.44% of the mass of the child dummy probes. Because the SID-IIs/HIII5F
probe mass is larger than those for the child dummies, the requested
0.023 kg tolerance is only 0.16% of the probe mass for the 5th
percentile adult female dummies, which is a very tight tolerance for
the larger probe. The current mass tolerance of 0.23 kg is more
consistent with child dummy probe mass tolerances in terms of the
percentage of the probe mass (0.23 kg is 1.65% of the SID-IIs/HIII5F
probe mass). Further, although it is possible for the probes to be
produced to a tight tolerance of 0.16%, several labs, including those
at VRTC, TRC, MGA and GM, would not meet the mass specification with
this lower tolerance for all probes (Table 7). Under a 0.23 kg
tolerance, the VRTC and TRC probe masses would meet specifications and

the MGA probes would be only slightly outside the allowable range.
Because data showing a need to change the tolerance of 0.23 kg to 0.023
kg has not been shown, the agency is denying the request.

                          Table 7--SID-IIsD Impact Probe Masses at Various Laboratories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Meets 0.23 kg          Meets 0.023 kg
                Lab                           Probe mass                tolerance?              tolerance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGA................................  14.22 kg (all).............  NO....................  NO.
TRC (before 5/4/07)................  13.97 kg (all).............  YES...................  YES.
TRC (5/4/07-present)...............  13.94 kg (sh/thx/acet).....  YES...................  NO.
                                     13.96 kg (abd and iliac)...  YES...................  YES.
VRTC...............................  14.1195 kg (sh/thx/acet);    YES...................  NO.
                                      14.1014 kg (abd); 14.1558
                                      kg (iliac).
FTSS...............................  13.950 kg (sh/thx/acet);     YES...................  YES.
                                      13.972 kg (abd); 13.955 kg
                                      (iliac).
GM.................................  14.302 kg (abdomen)........  NO....................  NO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Neck Cable Torque in PADI

    In the ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection
(PADI) of the SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy'' \39\ incorporated
by reference by the December 14, 2006 final rule, a torque of 10-12 in-
lb is required for the neck cable jam nut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Requested Change
    Denton/SAE DTES suggested that since the SID-IIs neck is the same
as that of the HIII5F, the neck cable jam nut torque specification
should be changed to 122 in-lb to match the HIII5F.
Agency Response
    This request is denied. The petitioner did not provide any neck
qualification data to support its recommendation. To evaluate the
request, VRTC conducted neck qualification tests with neck cable
torques of 12 and 14 in-lb to determine the effect of increased cable
torque on neck response. The results of these tests are presented and
explained in a memorandum entitled, ``Results of Neck Cable Torque
Investigation,'' which has been placed in the agency's docket for
today's final rule. The results indicated that one out of three tests
on one neck and two out of three tests on a second neck tested with a
cable torque of 14 in-lb failed the neck qualification test
(specifically, the peak OC moment was higher than allowed by the
performance criteria). In contrast, all six tests with a neck cable
torque of 12 in-lb and meeting pendulum deceleration requirements
passed the neck qualification test. Data from the forward and headform
potentiometers indicated that the tests conducted with a cable torque
of 14 in-lb produced a lower peak rotation than those conducted at 12
in-lb., i.e., the higher cable torque appears to cause a slightly
stiffer neck response. Although the difference in response is small, at
this higher torque laboratories may experience difficulty in passing
the neck qualification test performance criteria, especially if the
neck is somewhat stiff, as the performance corridors were formed using
necks with cable torques of 10-12 in-lb. Accordingly, the agency has
decided against changing the neck cable torque specification in the
PADI.

f. Pendulum Deceleration Pulse

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.193(c)) specifies that the
pendulum deceleration pulse is characterized in terms of decrease in
velocity as obtained by integrating the pendulum acceleration output
from time zero. In an interpretation request received by NHTSA on May
21, 2008, FTSS asked about the time measurement at >25.0 and <100
milliseconds (ms). FTSS asked whether the requirement is to record the
singular peak value of the Pendulum Delta-V, or whether the Pendulum
Delta-V must fall between -5.50 to -6.20 meters per second throughout
the time period.
Agency Response
    We have clarified the table in 572.193(c)(1) such that the
specified pendulum delta V for 25-100 ms applies to the peak velocity
in that time period. We believe that there is no need to record the
pendulum Delta-V over the range, as once the pendulum acceleration
stops, the pendulum Delta-V becomes relatively constant, reaching an
overall peak just after 25 ms and slightly decreasing in magnitude
after that. Further, the peak may be easier to tune than the whole
range.

g. Neck Potentiometers

    The December 14, 2006 final rule (572.193) specifies the neck
assembly qualification tests. The test procedure calls for the
attachment of the neck-headform assembly in accordance with Figure V2-A
or V2-B (depending on the direction of impact) of the Appendix of the
subpart. These figures show the use of three angle potentiometer
assemblies for measuring the maximum translation-rotation of the
midsagittal plane of the headform disk.

Requested Change

    Since only two potentiometers (``pots'') are used for the
measurement requirements of the neck qualification test, Denton/SAE
DTES inquired about either eliminating the third pot (the aft/inner
angle pot assembly shown in Figures V2-A, -B, -C) or making it
optional, and including a spacer mass in its place.

Agency Response

    We do not agree to this change. Denton/SAE DTES is correct that
only the fore/outer angle potentiometer assembly and the headform angle
potentiometer assembly are used to calculate the maximum translation/
rotation of the headform. However, the aft/inner potentiometer assembly
has been installed throughout the development of the dummy and neck
performance corridors, as use of this assembly was originally specified
in the FTSS SID-IIs user's manual. The agency has not conducted any
tests without this potentiometer assembly, and no data of this kind
were provided to support removing the third pot. Therefore, it is
unknown how removal of this assembly will affect the overall response
characteristics of the neck during this test. In order to obtain neck
qualification results consistent with those that have been derived
using all three potentiometers, the aft/inner angle pot assembly cannot
be eliminated without compensating for the absent part. The petitioner
has not provided a replacement part that can achieve this end result.

XI. Qualification Performance Corridors

    In response to the final rule, the petitioners provided additional
qualification data and recommendations for revised performance
corridors. To the extent possible, NHTSA incorporated the data that had
been acquired in tests conducted according to the final rule test
procedures, or to the procedures amended today, as appropriate, into
the NHTSA data set.\40\ To provide as extensive and variable a data set
as possible, the agency also added to this data set tests performed at
TRC that had been overlooked at the time of the final rule, tests
conducted at TRC following the publication of the final rule, and
shoulder, abdomen, and pelvis iliac qualification tests conducted at
VRTC in support of the agency's evaluation of the petitions for
reconsideration. Additionally, the ``time-of-purchase'' qualification
test results performed at FTSS on dummies purchased by the agency for
research or compliance purposes were added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ As noted earlier, the Alliance data provided as part of
their petition for reconsideration was considered in the formation
of recommended corridors but was not incorporated into the NHTSA
data set for inclusion in the statistical analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, some data from these sources were not used because the
agency was not confident that the tests were conducted under the
appropriate test procedures and conditions. The details of test removal
are described in the report, ``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD
Qualification Specifications in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration,'' supra. As discussed in that document, qualification
tests were removed for the following reasons: Impact energy did not
fall within the allowable range (see discussion below); the time
history trace showed unusual behavior; or the test was improperly
conducted.
    With regard to impact energy, during NHTSA's examination of the
December 2006 final rule data set, the agency found that many of the
probe acceleration values were calculated from probe force values using
an assumed probe mass of 13.97 kg. To obtain more precise acceleration
values with which to form performance corridors, the agency requested
information about probe masses from the test labs that had provided
probe force rather than acceleration data. We found that the probe
masses used at some test laboratories were greater than allowed by the
probe mass tolerance specified in 572.137(a). To account for these
higher probe masses, we calculated the allowable impact energy range
using the specified tolerances for mass and velocity and the impact
energy of each individual test (where Energy = \1/2\mv\2\). We removed
from the data set tests with impact energies that did not meet the
allowable range. This process of ``filtering'' tests by impact energy
rather than impact velocity was performed only for the purpose of
evaluating the performance criteria. When a test lab conducts the Part
572 tests specified in subpart V, we expect them to ensure that the
probe mass and impact velocity requirements specified in subpart V are
met.
    We considered several other factors in responding to the petitions
pertaining to the revision of the performance corridors. Performance
corridors are generally based on the mean, standard deviation (SD), and
coefficient of variation (CV) of the data set. Bounds are preliminarily
set at a certain distance from the mean value, depending on the CV.
Corridor bounds are initially set based on the CV of the data set as
follows: for CV less than 3%, the bounds are set at 3
standard deviations (SD) from the mean; for CV between 3% and 5%,
2 SD from the mean; for CV greater than 5%, 10%
from the mean. After setting a preliminary corridor based on the CV,
the bounds are rounded to the next whole number away from the mean to
obtain the ``statistically-derived'' corridor. Either bound could then
be adjusted slightly to account for outside data points, if warranted
(71 FR at 75360). In its petition for reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES
recommended that 3 standard deviations (such that ~99% of
the available data would be included) be used to create corridors
instead of 2 standard deviations (which includes only ~95%
of the available data) because, the petitioner believed, there was
limited data accounting for lab-to-lab and technician-to-technician
variability to create acceptable corridors that would accommodate this
expected level of variation.
    We have considered Denton's request but have decided against its
recommendation. Use of the NHTSA guidelines for setting performance
corridors better ensures that the corridor width is appropriate for the
variation in the data set, because the width of each corridor is based
on the CV of the data. Forming corridors according to 3
standard deviations from the mean can result in corridors that provide
an unnecessary ``buffer zone'' around the data, and allow for too large
a range of responses. Performance corridors must be constrictive enough
to identify and disqualify dummies whose responses fall significantly
away from the mean.
    Further, the petitioner made the suggestion about using a corridor
width of 3 standard deviations out of concern about the
limited variability in the data. The revised data set adopted today in
response to the petitions for reconsideration incorporates all the
relevant test results that have been made available and represents five
laboratories and a much larger sample of dummies than the December 2006
final rule data set, which represented two laboratories and four
dummies for all tests but the iliac test (which represented four
dummies and one laboratory).\41\ We believe this expanded data source
is sufficient to capture the behavior of the majority of dummies tested
at different labs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The shoulder test had samples of 13 different dummies; the
thorax with and without arm tests had samples of at least 29-30
different dummies; the abdomen test had samples of 10 different
dummies; the pelvis acetabulum test had a sample of 18 different
dummies; and the pelvis iliac test used 48 different iliac wings and
6 pelvis skins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another factor we considered in responding to the petitions
pertaining to the performance corridors related to the use of rounded
integers by NHTSA in developing the corridors of the December 14, 2006
final rule. NHTSA published a final report ``Development of
Certification Performance Specifications for the SID-IIsD Crash Test
Dummy,'' \42\ in the establishment of qualification corridors. The
report included tabulated data, as well as plots of the adopted
corridors. In its petition for reconsideration, Denton/SAE DTES noted
that many of the data presented in this report appear to be rounded to
even integers for the T1 acceleration in the thorax without arm test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We reviewed the data in response to the petition and have observed
that rounded integers were used. To improve the data tables, we have
replaced the rounded values for T1 acceleration and other thorax
without arm qualification test measurements, as well as measurements in
other tests such as shoulder, abdomen, etc., with more precise values
obtained from NHTSA crash test reports, supporting reports for the SID-
IIsD final rule,\43\ and electronic data (as available). The improved
data were used to evaluate the performance criteria for the thorax
without arm and

all other qualification tests. The revised tables are shown in the
report, ``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD Qualification
Specifications in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Data were obtained from the following reports:
(a)``Certification and Maintenance Records of the SID-IIs Build
Level D Dummies Used in NHTSA Rulemaking Support Tests, May 2005
through November 2005,'' NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Research,
February 2006, Docket No. 25442-5; (b) ``Repeatability and
Reproducibility Analysis of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the
Certification Test Environment,'' Jessica Gall, MGA Research
Corporation, September 2005, Docket No. 25442-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 8 shows the whole-body qualification tests conducted in each
body region that are available for corridor formation. However, note
that for some measurements within each test, responses are not present
or not applicable.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ For each test, multiple dummy measurements are taken to
check whether the dummy meets the performance criteria. But, in some
tests, one or more measurements might not have been collected, or
might have been removed. For example, in the table there are 120
shoulder tests, but as indicated in the footnote to the table, there
were only 69 T1 acceleration measurements. Sometimes there is only
one measurement missing, e.g., one of the upper rib deflection
values was deleted from the thorax with arm data set because the
recorded value was a late spike. So, even though the table indicates
that there are 112 thorax with arm tests, there are not 112 upper
rib deflection measurements. The number of measurements used for
forming each performance corridor are provided in the report
``Analysis and Development of SID-IIsD Qualification Specifications
in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration,'' July 1, 2008.

                Table 8--Total Number of Qualification Tests Used To Form Qualification Corridors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Shoulder    Thorax w/    Thorax w/o    Abdomen      Pelvis-      Pelvis-
          Test performer             (4.3 m/s)       arm          arm       (4.3 m/s)    Acetabulum     Iliac
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA--final rule data set........           26           48           51           23           46  ...........
NHTSA--newly added data...........           15           11           11           16           15          123
FTSS with NHTSA R&D/Compliance               14           28           28            7           56  ...........
 dummies..........................
FTSS--petition for reconsideration           12           25           25           16  ...........           83
GM--Denton/SAE DTES petition for    ...........  ...........  ...........            2  ...........          206
 reconsideration..................