[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2059-2075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-705]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 572
Docket No. NHTSA-99-6714
RIN 2127-AG76
Anthropomorphic Test Dummy; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends 49 CFR part 572 by adding a new, more
advanced 6-year-old child dummy (H-III6C). The new dummy, part of the
family of Hybrid III test dummies, is more representative of humans
than the existing one, and allows the assessment of the potential for
more types of injuries. The new dummy is especially needed to evaluate
the risks of air bag deployment for children, particularly unrestrained
children. It will also provide greater and more useful information in a
variety of environments to better evaluate child safety.
Adding the dummy to part 572 is the first step toward using the
dummy to evaluate the safety of air bags for children. The issue of
amending the agency's safety standards, such as the one on frontal
occupant crash protection or the ones on child restraints, to specify
use of the dummy in determining compliance with performance test
requirements will be addressed in other rulemaking proceedings.
DATES: Effective Date: This regulation becomes effective March 13,
2000. The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in the
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March
13, 2000.
Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by
February 28, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this rule and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Stan Backaitis, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-4912.
For legal issues, you may call Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the
Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of Decision
Based on NHTSA's use of the H-III6C 6-year-old dummy in calibration
tests and in frontal impact tests involving restraints such as air bags
and belts, we have concluded that this dummy is suitable for both
research and compliance safety assessments. The dummy is not only
considerably more biofidelic than its predecessor, the Part 572 Subpart
I 6-year-old dummy, but it also has considerably more extensive
instrumentation to measure impact responses such as forces,
accelerations, moments, and deflections in conducting tests to evaluate
vehicle occupant protection systems. Depending on the intended injury
assessment needs, the dummy has the necessary instrumentation to
measure the potential for injuries to the head, the upper and lower
ends of the neck, the chest, the lumbar spine, the pelvis, and the
femurs, as well as the forces on the iliac crests 1 caused
by the lap belt. In extensive agency tests, the dummy exhibited
excellent durability and robustness as a measuring test tool. Although
other dummy users were invited to provide comments on their test
experience with the H-III6C, their responses to the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) were based primarily on data from calibration-type
tests. Little of the data was from the dummy's response in systems
tests. Accordingly, our judgment about adequacy of the dummy in
system's tests is based on our own test data. However, we believe that
our conclusion is consistent with the calibration data submitted in
response to the NPRM by other dummy users, since those data provide a
reasonably good match with the agency data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ilium is the dorsal, upper and largest of the three
bones composing the left or right half of the pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have decided to add the H-III6C to Part 572 as Subpart N, and
designate it as the alpha version of the H-III6C dummy. Further changes
to the dummy will be designated as beta, gamma, etc., to assure that
modifications can be easily tracked and identified. The new dummy is
defined by a drawing and specification package, a new procedures
document for disassembly, assembly and inspection, and performance
parameters including associated calibration procedures.
II. Background
The development of the dummy's initial concept and specifications
was initiated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
when it provided funds to Ohio State University to develop a design
foundation for a Hybrid III type 6-year-old child dummy (H-III6C) in
1989. Ohio State University asked the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) to form an appropriate working group that could provide advice
and guidance from the automotive perspective. The development of the H-
III6C has continued since then under the guidance of the Hybrid III
Dummy Family Task Force of SAE. NHTSA has also been involved in the
development of the dummy, initially as an observer in meetings of the
SAE Task Force, and later as a participant sharing relevant test data.
As the development of the dummy approached maturity, we initiated a
program in 1997 to evaluate the dummy to determine its readiness for
use as a test device in agency compliance programs.
Upon completion of the evaluation program, which also involved a
series of dummy modifications, we tentatively concluded that the
upgraded dummy was suitable for potential incorporation into Part 572.
On June 29, 1998, we published an NPRM in which we proposed to
incorporate the Hybrid III type 6-year-old child dummy into Part 572 as
Subpart N, and invited comments (63 FR 35170).
We received comments from 14 organizations: First Technology Safety
Systems (FTSS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Applied
Safety Technology Corporation (ASTC), Robert A. Denton, Inc.,
Transportation Research Center, Inc. (TRC), International Electronic
Engineering (IEE), TRW, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates), Entran, Mitsubishi, Volvo, SAE Dummy Test
[[Page 2060]]
Equipment Subcommittee (DTES), National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA).
Several of the commenters expressly supported adding the H-III6C to
Part 572, and others provided technical comments indicating overall
support.
The comments tended to fall into two groups. Commenters either
supported the rulemaking generally without being specific as to any
particular aspect of the proposal, or they provided very specific,
technical discussions on several portions of the proposal. Often, these
technical comments dealt with procedures on how the dummy is set up and
positioned for calibration test or concerns with the sufficiency and
clarity of the dummy drawings. These highly technical comments are
addressed in the ``Technical Analysis of Issues Report'' (TAIR-HIII6C)
supporting this final rule. Where we have agreed with the comments, we
have made appropriate changes in either the drawing package or the
regulatory text. The TAIR-H-III6C is in the docket.
III. Dummy Drawings
Two of the commenters, primarily ASTC and to a lesser extent
Denton, raised a number of questions about the specifications in the
drawings, including missing and incomplete data, availability of molds
and patterns, instrumentation, and whether several drawings cited in
the drawings package replaced existing drawings already referenced in
the CFR. To simplify analysis of the large number of detailed issues
related to design specifications, we divided the comments into four
categories: critical, performance, manufacturing, and other issues.
Critical Issues: This group of issues concerns those requested
changes that, in our opinion, are essential to assure the dummy's
structural consistency and its appropriate functioning. They involve a
series of questions essential to dummy design, as well as missing or
incomplete significant specifications. The issues deemed critical
involve dummy drawings that need to be changed either by adjusting
existing specifications or adding further specifications to assure a
correct fit and interface between components and their appropriate
functioning in the impact environment. While these changes are
important, they must be addressed with a degree of technical
specificity that will likely be appreciated only by the two dummy
manufacturers who commented on the NPRM. Accordingly, they are fully
discussed in the TAIR-H-III6C.
Performance Issues: This group of issues involves comments on
drawings and specifications that we consider relate primarily to
production decisions which dummy manufacturers need to address on their
own. We believe the requested changes to the specifications falling in
this category are of little consequence to the fit and function of the
dummy. The performance issues primarily concern requests for the
addition of new dimensions and specifications that have little, if any,
functional significance for the part in question; expanding the
specifications to include manufacturing processes and further details
for material specifications; and assignment of dimensional and surface
finish controls on parts that have no foreseeable effects to their fit
and overall dummy performance. We have found no reason to include the
requested information in the drawing set of the final rule. The
inclusion of such information would be of little value, if any, and
would not assure better quality of the manufactured dummy. Indeed, the
addition of the specifications may reduce a dummy manufacturer's
flexibility in selecting a superior production technique or process,
and may preclude competition. The comments are fully discussed in the
TAIR-H-III6C.
Manufacturing Issues: ASTC commented that the proposed drawing set
does not allow another manufacturer to produce this dummy because it
lacks surface contour information. ASTC stated that the surface contour
information affects not only outside vinyl skin pieces, but also many
internal structures such as skull, clavicle, clavicle link, and pelvic
bone. ASTC argued this would create problems in interchangeability and
equivalency between dummies produced by different manufacturers, and
could also affect dummy performance. ASTC requested that the agency
provide opportunities for commenters to review the dummy to answer
their questions and provide patterns or parts for the surface contour
information. Careful consideration was given to these comments. Several
options were considered for resolving ASTC's concerns. The drawing
review option was impracticable for this dummy, since drawings were
already released as part of the NPRM package, and there was no way to
assure that all parties would ever be satisfied with any contour
definitions placed on the drawings. The availability of molds and
patterns was also impracticable, since the agency does not own any
molds and patterns for this dummy.2 As a third option, the
agency considered making a copy of the dummy available to interested
manufacturers for non-destructive dimensional inspection and extraction
of surface contour information. In order to provide all interested
parties with the opportunity to inspect and measure the dummy, NHTSA
decided it will make the dummy available to any interested party for a
period of six months after the issuance of this final rule. Such access
is subject to the following terms:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The NPRM incorrectly stated that dummy molds and digital
patterns would be part of the dummy specifications in the final
rule. This statement was corrected in a correction notice that was
published on September 3, 1998 (63 FR 46979), where we noted that
NHTSA does not have molds or patterns for the H-III6C dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All inspections are to take place at VRTC's convenience,
although reasonable attempts will be made to accommodate the interested
party's schedule.
An individual or company that wishes to inspect the dummy
will need to contract directly with TRC to make arrangements for an
individual to oversee the measurement process. This oversight by TRC is
necessary to ensure that the dummies are not damaged and are
reassembled correctly without the undue expenditure of agency
resources.
ASTC has already availed itself of this opportunity, although it
was warned that prior to the issuance of this rule, the dummy was
subject to changes.
Other Issues: Some issues were raised which do not fall into the
above categories for this dummy. Discussion of those comments can be
found in the TAIR-H-III6C.
IV. Calibration Procedures
The agency proposed calibration tests involving head drop tests,
neck pendulum tests, thorax and knee impacts, and torso flexion tests.
AAMA, TRC, TRW and Mitsubishi were the principal commenters on test
procedures.
Discussion of the vast majority of these comments is left to the
TAIR-H-III6C because they raise very minor issues. Nevertheless, we are
discussing a couple of the comments here because they raise concerns as
to whether the proposed semi-static torso flexion test and the knee
calibration test should be calibration tests or simply initial, as
received, inspection tests. This distinction is important because
inspection tests usually are performed at the time the dummy is
received from the manufacturer and are not necessarily repeated during
the life of the dummy. An additional concern, unrelated to the
inspection test issue, was raised that the impact probes
[[Page 2061]]
specified for the knee and thorax tests were unduly design restrictive.
The semi-static torso flexion test (upper torso half relative to
the lower half) was proposed as a calibration specification for this
dummy. AAMA, TRC and TRW objected to characterizing this procedure as a
calibration test, claiming it is not critical to the dummy's
performance. Rather, they suggested it be retained as an inspection
test as shown in the SAE user's manual. Further, they claimed that the
preflexion test is not needed and that the upper torso return angle
upon release of the bending force should be eliminated.
The commenters have not provided any factual support for the claim
that flexion stiffness of the torso is not critical to the dummy's
performance, and that the measurement of stiffness during the dummy's
inspection is sufficient. They have argued that the SAE user's manual
lists this test as an ``inspection test'' which is supplemental to the
calibration tests to ensure that a component meets its design intent.
They note that inspection tests are performed by the dummy manufacturer
on new parts, but that the dummy user may conduct inspection tests only
after a part is damaged or replaced. The agency does not agree with the
SAE assessment. The dummy's torso midsection provides an important
coupling and transfer of loads between the upper and lower torso
halves. The lumbar spine and the pelvis bone cavity control the
confinement of the abdomen fit from the rear and the bottom of the
torso. Thus, the bottom of the ribcage as it glides around and pushes
on internal surfaces of the flesh has a substantial influence not only
on the extent the torso will flex, but also on how the load transfer
between the upper and lower torso halves will be distributed. By
suggesting that we adopt the agency-developed, but SAE-interpreted test
procedure contained in the SAE user's manual, the commenters have
admitted its need and importance. We believe the flexion procedure is
necessary as a calibration test to ensure that when the dummy is used,
its torso flexion stiffness is consistent, provides consistent upper
torso kinematics relative to the lower torso, and does not cause the
variability of dummy response measurements in other body segments. A
procedure relegated to an inspection category would be nearly useless
for these purposes, since if the dummy was not tested prior to the
compliance test, it would never be known if the dummy had the correct
mid-section stiffness and if the responses of the other body segments
were not affected by mid-section variability.
We also disagree with the suggestion that the return angle during
the bending stiffness test of the lumbar spine/upper torso assembly is
not needed. There will be a substantial difference in overall torso
kinematics between a seated dummy that can and a seated dummy that
cannot return its upper torso half from a flexed position to an upright
posture, particularly after full flexion has occurred. Without return,
the flexion is substantially plastic, while evidence of a specific
return would be indicative of the torso mid-section having certain
elastic properties. Also, evidence of consistent return would indicate
that the forces of restitution are intact, while no or indefinite
return would indicate a substantial change within the internal
mechanisms of the mid-torso structure, such as failure of the lumbar
spine, abdomen, or a substantial shift between interfacing body
segments within the abdominal cavity. Analysis of all of the test
results indicate that the upper torso returns consistently within 8
degrees of the starting position, indicating the necessity of
specifying the return angle.
The commenters also suggested removal of the preflex provision,
claiming such a provision is not needed and would interfere with the
waiting time between tests recommended in the SAE user's manual. A
preflex provision was proposed to provide an opportunity for the mating
parts to inter-align between themselves, so that the internal
structures within the dummy's mid-torso are not sprung or misaligned at
the time of testing. Preflexing was performed in the agency tests, and
it is working reasonably well in developing a stabilized set-up
posture. We see no reason to remove a provision that helps to assure a
stabilized posture and better and more consistent measurements,
including the integrity of the interconnection between the upper and
the lower torso halves. In response to FTSS' comments about excessive
flexing angle of the torso for stabilization purposes, the proposed
provision for flexing the torso 3 times by 40 degrees from its initial
upright position is being reduced to a nominal 30 degrees. The agency
found 30 degrees of flexion sufficient to achieve stabilized
interalignment of parts within the dummy's abdominal area.
The agency proposed knee assembly impact tests using a ballistic
test probe for impacts. AAMA and TRW recommended that the knee impact
test should be an inspection test, instead of a calibration test. AAMA
also argued that only an inspection test is needed since femur loads
are almost never measured.
The NPRM proposed knee assembly calibration tests using a
cylindrical probe for impacts. AAMA and TRW noted that the proposed
knee impact calibration test is identical to the inspection test in the
SAE H-III6C user's manual. AAMA stated that ``this test is included in
the SAE user's manual as an inspection test since femur loads are
almost never measured with the dummy. However, if femur loads are
measured, the test should be run periodically as a calibration test.''
TRW noted that inspection tests are supplemental to the calibration
tests, arguing they should be used only to ensure that a component
meets the design intent. TRW stated that it believes that knee impact
tests fall within the inspection description.
The agency proposed incorporating this dummy into Part 572 with the
intent of it being used for all types of crash test and restraint
conditions including those in which knee impact is involved. In most
test conditions, it is not known ``a priori'' that knee impacts will or
will not occur. Any test that is being conducted with this test dummy
should consider the possibility of knee impact. Accordingly, knee
calibration even by AAMA-TRW's criteria is necessary. Thus, we disagree
with AAMA and TRW's support of the SAE position that a calibration test
is not needed if a part in question is not impacted. Calibration tests
are also needed to ensure that the knee linking the femur with the
tibia is properly connected. Such tests assure that the connection is
not a source of noise and spikes in other measurements within the
dummy.
The impact probes specified by the NPRM for knee and thorax tests
are meant to be ideally cylindrical in shape and of a certain diameter.
TRC noted that this type of test probe description in the NPRM
unnecessarily restricts the design of the probe and puts additional
burden on test laboratories. TRC prefers the wording used in current
drafts of the SAE user's manuals. That wording was chosen by committee
consensus to allow a wide range of design options without affecting
impact results. In the case of the SAE H-III6C manual, TRC claims, the
wording for the knee probe is more correct and preferred.
Up to now, all of the agency-specified dummy impact probes have
been defined as rigid body cylinders of a specified diameter.
Similarly, most SAE user's manuals, which are patterned after the
agency's test procedures, also specify cylindrical impact probes,
although in practice such probes may
[[Page 2062]]
not be perfectly cylindrical. The addition of several new dummies to 49
CFR Part 572 may make it necessary for some dummy calibration
laboratories to equip the existing test facilities with a variety of
new impact probes. Some of those probes may be difficult to design in a
pure cylindrical form due to their low weight.
We agree that more latitude in the selection of impact probes will
allow the various laboratories greater flexibility in the use of
existing impactors and/or in developing new ones. At the same time, it
is essential that alternate impact probes do not create problems such
as imprecision in the geometry of the impact face which could lead to
inappropriate interface with dummy components during impact,
introduction of vibratory effects due to potential resonances, inter-
mass impacts within the impactor, and kinematic differences due shape
and mass moment of inertia differences. Similarly, the measurement of
impact force must be sensed by an accelerometer in a location whose
signal is not distorted by the rigidity and geometry of the structures
on which it is mounted. It is also noted that while the current
specification for impactors defines the general shape of the impactor
that the agency intends to use, that specification does not prohibit
any test facility to use an impactor of its choice, as long as the user
is confident that the alternate impactor will generate the same results
under identical test conditions.
While the agency believes that, for the sake of consistency and
simplicity, it would be best if all impact probes for dummy testing
were of cylindrical design as defined in the NPRM, we have redefined
the impact probes in generic terms and will accept other impactor
configurations for compliance purposes, as long as they have the same
(1) mass, (2) impact surface configuration, (3) defined mass moment of
inertia in yaw and pitch with respect to the principal axis, (4)
structural integrity, (5) an identically aligned accelerometer on the
rear face of the impactor, (6) free air resonant frequency of not less
than 1000 Hz, and (7) functionality and freedom of interference with
the dummy's other body segments during the impact.
V. Calibration Response Corridors
The agency proposed calibration corridors for the head, neck
flexion/extension, thorax resistive force and deflection, knee load and
torso-flexion. Mitsubishi was concerned about the mass effects of the
load adapter bracket on the test results. Comments on the response
corridors were received from the following organizations: TRC, AAMA,
and TRW. AAMA, by endorsing the SAE/DTESC User's Manual of October 98,
indirectly commented on the response corridors for the head. During the
agency's data analysis process, we contacted AAMA and SAE DTESC for
further details and clarification of the basis of their recommendation.
All comments are discussed in the TAIR-H-III6C.
We proposed calibration corridors for the head, neck flexion/
extension, thorax resistive force and deflection, knee load and torso-
flexion.
None of the commenters objected to the proposed head response
corridors of 245 G to 300 G. AAMA, by endorsing the SAE/DTESC User's
Manual of October 1998, indirectly agreed with the proposed response
corridors for the head. Accordingly, the 245 G's to 300 G's impact
response corridor is retained in the Final Rule as proposed in the
NPRM.
We proposed neck response corridors in flexion in terms of neck
moments, maximum head flexion-rotation angle, and moment decay time.
For flexion, we specified a head displacement-rotation range from 74-92
degrees, a peak moment of 27 N-m to 33 N-m (19.9-24.3 ft-lbf), and a
positive moment decay for the first 5 N-m (3.7 ft-lbf) between 103 and
123 ms after time-zero. The SAE Engineering Aid 29 of October 1998,
which is referenced in AAMA and TRW responses, shows agreement with all
of the NPRM proposed neck flexion corridors. Accordingly, the final
rule retains the calibration corridors as proposed in the NPRM.
The agency proposed neck response corridors in extension in terms
of neck moments, maximum head extension-rotation angle, and moment
decay time. For extension, we specified a head displacement rotation
range from 94-106 degrees, a peak moment of -19 N-m to -24 N-m (-14.7
to -17 ft-lbf), and a negative moment decay for the first -5 N-m (-3.7
ft-lbf) between 127 and 143 ms after time-zero. TRC, TRW and AAMA
recommended a corridor of 85-103 degrees for neck rotation, a corridor
of -20 to -25 N-m for peak moment, and, for moment decay time, a
corridor of 123-143 ms after time zero as a more reasonable fit to the
existing data base, apparently based on the SAE Engineering Aid 29,
October 1998. AAMA also noted that the method of defining neck moment
and time corridors proposed in the NPRM is acceptable because it
produces more consistent results.
Upon review of the substantial neck extension data submitted in
comments, we reevaluated the proposed corridors and found a substantial
degree of agreement with the commenters' recommendations for revising
the head rotation and decay time, but not for the peak moment
corridors. Accordingly, we have revised the neck extension corridor to
a maximum head rotation of 85-103 degrees, and the decay time corridor
to 123-147 ms value. We have retained the peak moment at -19 N-m to -24
N-m (-14 to -17 ft-lbf) as proposed in the NPRM.
The agency proposed thorax impact response corridors in terms of
sternum to spine compression at 38-44 mm (1.5-1.77 in) and peak force
at 1150 N to 1300 N (259-292 lbf). AAMA, TRC, and TRW urged the agency
to accept the 38-46 mm compression corridor contained in SAE
Engineering Aid 29, October 1998. AAMA and TRW urged the adoption of
the peak force resistance corridor of 1,180 N to 1,380 N, while TRC
argued for a peak force corridor of 1,200 N to 1,400 N. Additionally,
AAMA preferred the wording contained in the agency Technical Report ``*
* * to specify the maximum force within the compression corridor* * *
''.
Based on examination of NHTSA's and the SAE-furnished data bases,
the agency concluded that the existing data supported the resetting of
thorax compression corridor between 38-46 mm (1.5-1.8 in) and the force
response between 1150 N -1380 N (259-310 lbf). We also decided to
change the wording of the regulatory text in accordance with the AAMA's
suggestion. Thus, we have changed the wording in S572.124(b)(1) from
``During the displacement interval* * * '' to ``Within the specified
compression corridor* * * ''.
The AAMA expressed concern over the torso flexion test and the knee
response. TRW expressed concern over the knee response as well. During
the data analysis process, we contacted AAMA and SAE DTESC for further
details and clarification of their recommendations for modifying the
torso flexion and knee impact response corridors.
In the NPRM, the agency proposed a semi-static torso bending
stiffness value of 147-200 N (33-45 lbf). While initial comments by
AAMA noted that the SAE Engineering Aid 29 of August 1998 supported a
torso bending stiffness value between 156 N (35 lbf) and 200 N (45
lbf), subsequent SAE User Manual versions agreed with the agency
proposed value of 147-200 N (33-45 lbf). Accordingly, the torso flexion
force values are retained in the regulatory text at 147-200 N (33-45
lbf). Similarly, since there was no disagreement on internal hystersis
of the ribcage, the
[[Page 2063]]
proposed range of 65 percent to 85 percent is retained for the final
rule.
The NPRM proposed a knee impact response corridor of 1,800-N to
2,800-N (405-629 lbf). AAMA and TRW recommended a corridor between
2,000-N and 3,000-N (450-674 lbf) as called for in the SAE Engineering
Aid 29 of October 1998. Upon receipt of comments and supplemental data
from the SAE DTESC, we recomputed the response corridor. The resultant
average values were found to be very close to the proposed SAE mean of
2,500 N (2,469 511 N (1 sigma limit) for the left knee and
2,480 481 N (1 sigma limit) for the right knee).
Accordingly, the knee impact response corridors have been adjusted to
the 2,500 500 N (562 112 lbf ) range, as
recommended by AAMA and TRW.
VI. Instrumentation (Accelerometers and Loads Cells)
In the NPRM, the agency proposed for the first time ``generic''
specifications for dummy-based sensors. The generic specifications
apply to the following sensors: (1) The accelerometer (SA572-S4), (2)
force and moment transducers for upper neck (SA572-S11) and lower neck
(SA572-S26), lumbar spine (SA572-S12), anterior-superior iliac spine
load cell (SA572-S13), single axis femur load cell (SA572-S10), and (3)
the thorax based chest deflection potentiometer (SA572-S50). Of the 19
comments received, only three addressed the generic specifications for
transducers. They were: Robert A. Denton, Inc, Entran, Inc., and AAMA.
A full discussion of comments can be found in the TAIR-H-III6C.
After analyzing the comments received, we have concluded that
generic specifications for the transducers or sensors used in crash
test dummies can be defined sufficiently and will provide a broader
latitude for the user industry to select suitable sensors. The input
from these comments is being incorporated into generic sensor
specifications in the regulatory text.
VII. Biofidelity, Pressure Distribution and Occupant Sensing
Capability
The agency noted in the NPRM preamble that the proposed H-III6C
dummy incorporates improved biofidelity and extended measurement
capability. Because of this capability, the dummy can be used to
evaluate the safety of children in a much wider array of environments
than the Subpart I 6-year-old dummy, including assessing the effects of
air bag deployment on out-of-position children. Comments were received
from American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Advocates for Auto Safety
(AAS), and International Electronics Engineering (IEE). AAP, AAS and
Volvo endorse the greater biofidelity of the H-III6C dummy without
reservations. Only IEE said there was a need to improve the dummy's
proximity sensing and the pressure profile of the seated dummy's
buttocks.
Biofidelity is a desirable and useful feature of this dummy which,
because of the extended measuring capability, is endorsed by the
commenters, particularly for its usefulness in evaluating child safety
in the air bag environment. However, the IEE request for redesign of
the dummy buttocks and for proximity sensing are technically premature
and beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
IEE's comment about proximity sensing and the pressure profile a
seated dummy's buttocks would be relevant if the agency were to decide
that occupant sensing is needed along the lines suggested by IEE.
However, this dummy in its original design was not intended to have
such sensing and pressure profile capabilities. The development of such
capabilities are still in early stages of research and considerably
more research, testing and evaluation will need to be done before such
technologies mature and become acceptable for safety certification
activities. Nevertheless, IEE's comment is acknowledged as grounds for
possible future research and development.
VIII. User's Manual--Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and
Inspection (PADI)
The NPRM noted in sections 572.120(a)(2) and 572.121(b) that the
final rule package will contain a ``User's Manual for the Hybrid III 6-
year-old Dummy.'' Responding to the NPRM, Volvo recommended and DTES
requested that the agency incorporate the SAE User's Manual by
reference in the final rule. We acknowledge the DTES'' contribution
toward clarifying several assembly and disassembly issues and in
illustrating the importance of this document through their diligent
development efforts. NHTSA commends the DTES for their participation
and contribution, and encourages the manual's further development as
the test data begins to surface in larger volumes from its application
in the field. Nevertheless, we have decided against incorporating the
manual into Part 572.
During initial dummy assessment stages, the agency had to establish
methods for an initial dummy inspection. Additionally, part of the
agency test protocol was based on a Draft SAE User's Manual of May 27,
1997. Subsequent to the issuance of the NPRM, the SAE provided several
user manual draft revisions in August, October and December 1998. Each
of them consisted basically of two parts: inspection and calibration.
Each of the User Manuals varied to some extent in the way inspection
and calibration procedures and norms were formulated.
The December 1998 SAE User's Manual draft shows it to be a
reasonably well-developed document that is well suited for research
use. However, because of redundancies, ambiguities, and in some areas a
lack of objectivity, it is far less suitable for regulation and
compliance purposes. If employed in its present form, it could become a
source of different interpretations and misunderstandings, and as a
result create difficulties for both the agency and dummy users in
enforcement and compliance certification programs. Also, the SAE User's
Manual is copyrighted by both SAE and FTSS. Until the copyright status
of the document is resolved, its usefulness as a reference document
would be highly limited, particularly for publication by the agency
through the electronic media. Further, the recommended DTES User's
Manual includes both inspection and calibration procedures, while the
agency format provides only an inspection document involving the
dummy's initial conformance to dimensional mass and fit-for-assembly
specifications, as well as objective assembly and disassembly
procedures.
For these reasons, NHTSA has decided against adopting the SAE
user's manual and has developed a publication, ``Procedures for
Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 6-year-
old Child Crash Test Dummy, Alpha version'' (August, 1999) 3
for the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA believes that the name ``user's manual'' for this
document is a misnomer given its intended purpose. As the name
implies, the user's manual should provide instructions on how to use
the dummy, rather than how to inspect it and perform its assembly/
disassembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency-developed procedure for disassembly, assembly
and inspection provide unambiguous, direct and straightforward
instructions;
The document references only essential drawings based on
the final rule parts list;
Important and detailed photographic views are included to
facilitate the assembly-disassembly process, including the mounting of
generic instrumentation;
It provides specific information for calibration
laboratories, particularly useful for disassembly of any single
[[Page 2064]]
major component, determination of instrumentation polarity, and the
measurement of impactor moment of inertia;
It uniquely provides recommendations for cable and
connector routing and attachment based on lessons learned in the agency
test program;
It includes important torque specifications for all
fasteners used in the dummy;
It supports all elements of the final rule and will
facilitate the dummy's use in agency required testing activities; and
Its publication and copying are not hampered by copyright
claims.
IX. Dummy Availability
At the issuance of the NPRM, the agency noted that only one
manufacturer (FTSS) was producing the H-III6C dummy. Although the dummy
has been available for several years, its use has been limited
primarily to research applications. Mitsubishi commented that it did
not have sufficient time to evaluate the proposed dummy and could not
offer extensive comments.
Numerous organizations possessed the Hybrid III 6-year-old type
dummy when the NPRM was published. Additionally, over a year has passed
since the issuance of the NPRM. During this time, all interested
parties have had ample time to procure and evaluate the dummy and
provide additional comments. The agency expressly invites and routinely
considers all comments submitted outside of the comment period, but
prior to arriving at a final agency position. Also, during this period,
considerable further discussions have taken place at the SAE DTES
regarding adequacy of this dummy in calibration and test applications.
Interested parties have had sufficient opportunity to avail themselves
of the information that is contained in the minutes of those meetings.
Inasmuch as no other comments were received regarding the availability
of the dummy, it is assumed that Mitsubishi as well as others were
satisfied with the dummy as proposed in the NPRM.
X. Other Issues
The NPRM proposed that conformance of the dummy's structural
properties would be checked before and after any compliance testing.
When we published the NPRM for the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult
small female dummy on September 3, 1998, 63 FR 46981, we decided to
specify that the dummy conform to this part in every respect before its
use in any test, but not after. The NPRMs for the Hybrid III 3-year-old
child test dummy (64 FR 4385, January 28, 1999) and the 12-month-old
infant dummy (CRABI) (64 FR 10965, March 8, 1999) proposed the same
specification as the one proposed for the small adult female dummy. A
full explanation of the agency's rationale can be found in the NPRM for
the small adult female dummy. The agency rationale for the change in
when to check for structural conformance is as applicable for the H-
III6C as it is for the other dummies. Accordingly, section 572.121(c)
has been changed to adopt the language used in the NPRMs for the other
pending dummy rulemakings.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rule is not considered a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866.
Consequently, it was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
This document amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and
performance specifications for a new six-year-old child dummy which the
agency may later separately propose for use in the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. This rule indirectly imposes requirements on
only those businesses which choose to manufacture or test with the
dummy, in that the agency will only use dummies for compliance testing
that meet all of the criteria specified in this rule. It may indirectly
affect vehicle and child seat manufacturers if it is incorporated by
reference into the advanced air bag rulemaking or a future Child
Seating Systems (FMVSS No. 213) rulemaking.
The cost of an uninstrumented H-III6C dummy is approximately
$30,000. Instrumentation will add approximately $25,000 to $41,000 to
the cost, depending on the number of data channels the user chooses to
collect.
Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.
Executive Order 13132
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132
(``Federalism''). We have determined that this rule does not have
sufficient Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It does indirectly
involve decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect
children, namely, the risk of deploying air bags to children. However,
this rulemaking serves to help vehicle and air bag manufacturers to
take steps to reduce that risk.
Executive Order 12778
Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this rule will have any retroactive effect.
This rule does not
[[Page 2065]]
have any retroactive effect. A petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceeding will not be a prerequisite to an action
seeking judicial review of this rule. This rule does not preempt the
states from adopting laws or regulations on the same subject, except
that it does preempt a state regulation that is in actual conflict with
the federal regulation or makes compliance with the Federal regulation
impossible or interferes with the implementation of the federal
statute.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certify that this
proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The rule does not impose or rescind any
requirements for anyone. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not,
therefore, require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this amendment for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rule does not
propose any new information collection requirements.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The H-III6C dummy that is the subject of this document was
developed under the auspices of the SAE. All relevant SAE standards
were reviewed as part of the development process. The following
voluntary consensus standards have been used in developing the dummy:
SAE Recommended Practice J211-1995 Instrumentation for
Impact Tests--Parts 1 and 2, dated March, 1995; and
SAE J1733 Information Report, titled ``Sign Convention for
Vehicle Crash Testing'', dated December 1994.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rule does not meet the definition of
a Federal mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone.
Further, it will not result in costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
Incorporation by reference. Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 572 as
follows:
PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 572 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by adding a new subpart N consisting
of Secs. 572.120-572.127 to read as follows:
Subpart N--Six-year-old Child Test Dummy, Alpha Version
Sec.
572.120 Incorporation by reference.
572.121 General description.
572.122 Head assembly and test procedure.
572.123 Neck assembly and test procedure.
572.124 Thorax assembly and test procedure.
572.125 Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test
procedure.
572.126 Knees and knee impact test procedure.
572.127 Test conditions and instrumentation.
Subpart N--Six-year-old Child Test Dummy, Alpha Version
Sec. 572.120 Incorporation by reference.
(a) The following materials are hereby incorporated into this
subpart by reference:
(1) A drawings and inspection package entitled ``Drawings and
Specifications for the Hybrid III 6-year-
[[Page 2066]]
old Dummy (August 1999)'', consisting of:
(i) Drawing No. 127-1000, Head Assembly,
(ii) Drawing No. 127-1015, Neck Assembly,
(iii) Drawing No. 127-2000, Upper Torso Assembly,
(iv) Drawing No. 127-3000, Lower Torso Assembly,
(v) Drawing No. 127-4000, Leg Assembly,
(vi) Drawing No. 127-5000, Arm Assembly, and
(vii) The Hybrid III Six-year-old Parts List.
(2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 6-year-old Child
Crash Test Dummy, Alpha Version (August 1999)'';
(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211-1995 Instrumentation for Impact
Tests--Parts 1 and 2, dated March, 1995'';
(4) SAE J1733 Information Report, titled ``Sign Convention for
Vehicle Crash Testing'', dated December 1994.
(b) The Director of the Federal Register approved those materials
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at NHTSA's Technical
Reference Library, 400 Seventh Street S.W., room 5109, Washington, DC,
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,
Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(c) The incorporated materials are available as follows:
(1) The Drawings and Specifications for the Hybrid III 6-year-old
Dummy (August 1999) referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and
the Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the
Hybrid III 6-year-old Child Crash Test Dummy, Alpha Version (August
1999) referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, are available
from Reprographic Technologies, 9000 Virginia Manor Road, Beltsville,
MD 20705 (301) 419-5070.
(2) The SAE materials referred to in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)
of this section are available from the Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.
Sec. 572.121 General description.
(a) The Hybrid III type 6-year-old dummy is defined by drawings and
specifications containing the following materials:
(1) Technical drawings and specifications package P/N 127-0000, the
titles of which are listed in Table A;
(2) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of
the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, Alpha version (August 1999).
Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drawing
Component assembly number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head assembly............................................... 127-1000
Neck assembly............................................... 127-1015
Upper torso assembly........................................ 127-2000
Lower torso assembly........................................ 127-3000
Leg assembly................................................ 127-4000
Arm assembly................................................ 127-5000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such that except for
contacts existing under static conditions, there is no contact between
metallic elements throughout the range of motion or under simulated
crash impact conditions.
(c) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy
must conform to this Subpart in every respect before use in any test
similar to those specified in Standard 208, ``Occupant Crash
Protection'', and Standard 213, ``Child Restraint Systems''.
Sec. 572.122 Head assembly and test procedure
(a) The head assembly for this test consists of the complete head
(drawing 127-1000), a six-axis neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11) or
its structural replacement (drawing 78051-383X), a head to neck-to-
pivot pin (drawing 78051-339), and 3 accelerometers (drawing SA572-S4).
(b) When the head assembly in paragraph (a) of this section is
dropped from a height of 376.0 1.0 mm (14.8
0.04 in) in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the peak
resultant acceleration at the location of the accelerometers at the
head CG may not be less than 245 G or more than 300 G. The resultant
acceleration vs. time history curve shall be unimodal; oscillations
occurring after the main pulse must be less than 10 percent of the peak
resultant acceleration. The lateral acceleration shall not exceed 15
g's (zero to peak).
(c) Head test procedure. The test procedure for the head is as
follows:
(1) Soak the head assembly in a controlled environment at any
temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 deg.C (66 and 78 deg.F) and a
relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior
to a test.
(2) Prior to the test, clean the impact surface of the skin and the
impact plate surface with isopropyl alcohol, trichloroethane, or an
equivalent. The skin of the head must be clean and dry for testing.
(3) Suspend the head assembly as shown in Figure N1. The lowest
point on the forehead must be 376.0 1.0 mm (14.8
0.04 in) from the impact surface and the head must be
oriented to an incline of 62 1 deg. between the ``D''
plane as shown in Figure N1 and the plane of the impact surface. The
1.57 mm (0.062 in) diameter holes located on either side of the dummy's
head shall be used to ensure that the head is level with respect to the
impact surface.
(4) Drop the head assembly from the specified height by means that
ensure a smooth, instant release onto a rigidly supported flat
horizontal steel plate which is 50.8 mm (2 in) thick and 610 mm (24 in)
square. The impact surface shall be clean, dry and have a micro finish
of not less than 203.2. x 10-6 mm (8 micro inches) (RMS)
and not more than 2032.0 x 10-6 mm (80 micro inches)
(RMS).
(5) Allow at least 2 hours between successive tests on the same
head.
Sec. 572.123 Neck assembly and test procedure.
(a) The neck assembly for the purposes of this test consists of the
assembly of components shown in drawing 127-1015.
(b) When the head-neck assembly consisting of the head (drawing
127-1000), neck (drawing 127-1015), pivot pin (drawing 78051-339), bib
simulator (drawing TE127-1025, neck bracket assembly (drawing 127-
8221), six-axis neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11), neck mounting
adaptor (drawing TE-2208-001), and three accelerometers (drawing SA572-
S4) installed in the head assembly as specified in Sec. 572.122, is
tested according to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this
section, it shall have the following characteristics:
(1) Flexion. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure N2, shall rotate in
the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's
longitudinal centerline between 74 degrees and 92 degrees. Within this
specified rotation corridor, the peak moment about the occipital
condyles shall be not less than 27 N-m (19.9 ft-lbf) and not more than
33 N-m (24.3 ft-lbf).
(ii) The positive moment shall decay for the first time to 5 N-m
(3.7 ft-lbf) between 103 ms and 123 ms.
(iii) The moment shall be calculated by the following formula:
Moment (N-m) = My-(0.01778m) x (FX).
(iv) My is the moment about the y-axis and FX
is the shear force measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11)
and 0.01778m is the distance from force to occipital condyle.
(2) Extension. (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure N3, shall rotate
in the direction of preimpact flight with respect to the pendulum's
longitudinal
[[Page 2067]]
centerline between 85 degrees and 103 degrees. Within this specified
rotation corridor, the peak moment about the occipital condyles shall
be not more than -19 N-m (-14 ft-lbf) and not less than -24 N-m
(-17.7ft-lbf).
(ii) The negative moment shall decay for the first time to -5 N-m
(-3.7 ft-lbf) between 123 ms and 147 ms.
(iii) The moment shall be calculated by the following formula:
Moment (N-m) = My--(0.01778m) x (FX).
(iv) My is the moment about the y-axis and FX
is the shear force measured by the neck transducer (drawing SA572-S11)
and 0.017778m is the distance from force to occipital condyle.
(3) Time-zero is defined as the time of initial contact between the
pendulum striker plate and the honeycomb material.
(c) Test procedure. The test procedure for the neck assembly is as
follows:
(1) Soak the neck assembly in a controlled environment at any
temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 deg.C (69 and 72 deg.F) and a
relative humidity between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours
prior to a test.
(2) Torque the jam nut (drawing 9000341) on the neck cable (drawing
127-1016) to 0.23 0.02 N-m (2.0 0.2 in-lbs).
(3) Mount the head-neck assembly, defined in paragraph (b) of this
section, on the pendulum so the midsagittal plane of the head is
vertical and coincides with the plane of motion of the pendulum as
shown in Figure N2 for flexion tests and Figure N3 for extension tests.
(4) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall freely from a height
to achieve an impact velocity of 4.95 0.12 m/s (16.2
0.4 ft/s) for flexion tests and 4.3 0.12 m/s
(14.10 0.40 ft/s) for extension tests, measured by an
accelerometer mounted on the pendulum as shown in Figure 22 of 49 CFR
572 at the instant of contact with the honey comb.
(i) Time-zero is defined as the time of initial contact between the
pendulum striker plate and the honeycomb material. All data channels
should be at the zero level at this time.
(ii) Stop the pendulum from the initial velocity with an
acceleration vs. time pulse which meets the velocity change as
specified below. Integrate the pendulum acceleration data channel to
obtain the velocity vs. time curve:
Table B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Pendulum pulse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexion Extension
ms ---------------------------------------------------
m/s ft/s m/s ft/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.......................................................... 1.2-1.6 3.9-5.3 1.0-1.4 3.3-4.6
20.......................................................... 2.4-3.4 7.9-11.2 2.2-3.0 7.2-9.8
30.......................................................... 3.8-5.0 12.5-16.4 3.2-4.2 10.5-13.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 572.124 Thorax assembly and test procedure.
(a) Thorax (upper torso) assembly. The thorax consists of the part
of the torso assembly shown in drawing 127-2000.
(b) When the anterior surface of the thorax of a completely
assembled dummy (drawing 127-0000) is impacted by a test probe
conforming to section 572.127(a) at 6.71 0.12 m/s (22.0
0.4 ft/s) according to the test procedure in paragraph (c)
of this section:
(1) The maximum sternum displacement (compression) relative to the
spine, measured with chest deflection transducer (drawing SA572-S50),
must be not less than 38.0 mm (1.50 in) and not more than 46.0 mm (1.80
in). Within this specified compression corridor, the peak force,
measured by the probe in accordance with section 572.127, shall not be
less than 1150 N (259 lbf) and not more than 1380 N (310 lbf). The peak
force after 12.5 mm (0.5 in) of sternum displacement but before
reaching the minimum required 38.0 mm (1.5 in) sternum displacement
limit shall not exceed by more than 5% the value of the peak force
measured within the required displacement limit.
(2) The internal hysteresis of the ribcage in each impact as
determined by the plot of force vs. deflection in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section shall be not less than 65 percent but not more than 85
percent.
(c) Test procedure. The test procedure for the thorax assembly is
as follows:
(1) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature
between 20.6 and 22.2 deg.C (69 and 72 deg.F) and a relative humidity
between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
(2) Seat and orient the dummy, wearing a light-weight cotton
stretch short-sleeve shirt and above-the-knee pants, on a seating
surface without back support as shown in Figure N4, with the limbs
extended horizontally and forward, parallel to the midsagittal plane,
the midsagittal plane vertical within 1 degree and the
ribs level in the anterior-posterior and lateral directions within
0.5 degrees.
(3) Establish the impact point at the chest midsagittal plane so
that the impact point of the longitudinal centerline of the probe
coincides with the midsagittal plane of the dummy within
2.5 mm (0.1 in) and is 12.7 1.1 mm (0.5 0.04
in) below the horizontal-peripheral centerline of the No. 3 rib and is
within 0.5 degrees of a horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal
plane.
(4) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that at the moment of
contact the probe's longitudinal center line falls within 2 degrees of
a horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal plane.
(5) Guide the test probe during impact so that there is no
significant lateral, vertical or rotational movement.
Sec. 572.125 Upper and lower torso assemblies and torso flexion test
procedure.
(a) Upper/lower torso assembly. The test objective is to determine
the stiffness effects of the lumbar spine (drawing 127-3002), including
cable (drawing 127-8095), mounting plate insert (drawing 910420-048),
nylon shoulder bushing (drawing 9001373), nut (drawing 9001336), and
abdominal insert (drawing 127-8210), on resistance to articulation
between upper torso assembly (drawing 127-2000) and lower torso
assembly (drawing 127-3000).
(b)(1) When the upper torso assembly of a seated dummy is subjected
to a force continuously applied at the head to neck pivot pin level
through a rigidly attached adaptor bracket as shown in Figure N5
according to the test procedure set out in paragraph (c) of this
section, the lumbar spine-abdomen assembly shall flex by an amount that
permits the upper torso assembly to translate in angular motion until
the machined rear surface of the instrument cavity at the back of the
thoracic spine
[[Page 2068]]
box is at 45 0.5 degrees relative to the vertical
transverse plane, at which time the force applied as shown in Figure N5
must be not less than 147 N (33 lbf) and not more than 200 N (45 lbf),
and
(2) Upon removal of the force, the torso assembly must return to
within 8 degrees of its initial position.
(c) Test procedure. The test procedure for the torso assemblies is
as follows:
(1) Soak the dummy in a controlled environment at any temperature
between 18.9 and 25.6 deg.C (66 and 78 deg.F) and a relative humidity
between 10 and 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
(2) Attach the dummy (with or without the legs below the femurs) to
the fixture in a seated posture as shown in Figure N5.
(3) Secure the pelvis at the pelvis instrument cavity rear face by
threading four \1/4\ in cap screws into the available threaded
attachment holes. Tighten the mountings so that the test material is
rigidly affixed to the test fixture and the pelvic-lumbar joining
surface is horizontal.
(4) Flex the thorax forward three times between vertical and until
the torso reference plane, as shown in figure N5, reaches 30
2 degrees from vertical. Bring the torso to vertical
orientation, remove all externally applied flexion forces, and wait 30
minutes before conducting the test. During the 30-minute waiting
period, the dummy's upper torso shall be externally supported at or
near its vertical orientation to prevent sagging.
(5) Remove the external support and wait two minutes. Measure the
initial orientation of the torso reference plane of the seated,
unsupported dummy as shown in Figure N5. This initial torso orientation
angle may not exceed 22 degrees.
(6) Attach the loading adapter bracket to the spine of the dummy,
the pull cable, and the load cell as shown in Figure N5.
(7) Apply a tension force in the midsagittal plane to the pull
cable as shown in Figure N5 at any upper torso deflection rate between
0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second, until the torso reference plane is at
45 0.5 degrees of flexion relative to the vertical
transverse plane as shown in Figure N5.
(8) Continue to apply a force sufficient to maintain 45
0.5 degrees of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the
highest applied force during the 10-second period.
(9) Release all force as rapidly as possible, and measure the
return angle at 3 minutes or any time thereafter after the release.
Sec. 572.126 Knees and knee impact test procedure.
(a) Knee assembly. The knee assembly is part of the leg assembly
(drawing 127-4000-1 and -2).
(b) When the knee assembly, consisting of knee machined (drawing
127-4013), knee flesh (drawing 127-4011), lower leg (drawing 127-4014),
the foot assembly (drawing 127-4030-1 (left) and -2 (right)) and femur
load transducer (drawing SA572-S10) or its structural replacement
(drawing 127-4007) is tested according to the test procedure in section
572.127(c), the peak resistance force as measured with the test probe
mounted accelerometer must be not less than 2.0 kN (450 lbf) and not
more than 3.0 kN (625 lbf).
(c) Test Procedure. The test procedure for the knee assembly is as
follows:
(1) Soak the knee assembly in a controlled environment at any
temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 deg.C (66 and 78 deg.F) and a
relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior
to a test.
(2) Mount the test material and secure it to a rigid test fixture
as shown in Figure N6. No contact is permitted between any part of the
foot or tibia and any exterior surface.
(3) Align the test probe so that throughout its stroke and at
contact with the knee it is within 2 degrees of horizontal and
collinear with the longitudinal centerline of the femur.
(4) Guide the pendulum so that there is no significant lateral
vertical or rotational movement at time-zero.
(5) The test probe velocity at the time of contact shall be 2.1
0.03 m/s (6.9 # 0.1 ft/s).
Sec. 572.127 Test conditions and instrumentation.
(a) The test probe for thoracic impacts shall be of rigid metallic
construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal
axis. It shall have a mass of 2.86 0.02 kg (6.3
0.05 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 622 kg-
cm2 (0.55 lbs-in-sec2) in yaw and pitch about the
CG. \1/3\ of the weight of the suspension cables and their attachments
to the impact probe must be included in the calculation of mass, and
such components may not exceed five percent of the total weight of the
test probe. The impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and
concentric with the longitudinal axis, must be at least 12.7 mm (0.5
in) long, and have a flat, continuous, and non-deformable 101.6
0.25 mm (4.00 0.01 in) diameter face with a
maximum edge radius of 12.7 mm (0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to
the impact face must have provisions for mounting of an accelerometer
with its sensitive axis collinear with the longitudinal axis of the
probe. No concentric portions of the impact probe may exceed the
diameter of the impact face. The impact probe shall have a free air
resonant frequency of not less than 1000 Hz.
(b) The test probe for knee impacts shall be of rigid metallic
construction, concentric in shape, and symmetric about its longitudinal
axis. It shall have a mass of 0.82 0.01 kg (1.8
0.02 lbs) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 34 kg-
cm\2\ (0.03 lbs-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG. \1/3\ of the
weight of the suspension cables and their attachments to the impact
probe must be included in the calculation of mass, and such components
may not exceed five percent of the total weight of the test probe. The
impacting end of the probe, perpendicular to and concentric with the
longitudinal axis, must be at least 12.7 mm (0.5 in) long, and have a
flat, continuous, and non-deformable 76.2 0.2 mm (3.00
0.01 in) diameter face with a maximum edge radius of 12.7
mm (0.5 in). The probe's end opposite to the impact face must have
provisions for mounting an accelerometer with its sensitive axis
collinear with the longitudinal axis of the probe. No concentric
portions of the impact probe may exceed the diameter of the impact
face. The impact probe must have a free air resonant frequency of not
less than 1000 Hz.
(c) Head accelerometers shall have dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing
SA572-S4 and be mounted in the head as shown in drawing 127-0000 sheet
3.
(d) Neck force/moment transducer. (1) The upper neck force/moment
transducer shall have the dimensions, response characteristics, and
sensitive axis locations specified in drawing SA572-S11 and be mounted
in the head-neck assembly as shown in drawing 127-0000 sheet 3.
(2) The optional lower neck force/moment transducer shall have the
dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations
specified in drawing SA572-S26 and be mounted as shown in drawing 127-
0000 sheet 3.
(e) The thorax accelerometers shall have the dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing
SA572-S4 and be mounted in the torso assembly in triaxial configuration
at T4, and as optional instrumentation in uniaxial for- and-aft
oriented configuration on the most anterior ends of ribs #1 and #6 and
at the spine box at the levels of #1 and #6 ribs as shown in 127-0000
sheet 3.
[[Page 2069]]
(f) The chest deflection transducer shall have the dimensions and
response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S50 and be mounted
in the upper torso assembly as shown in 127-0000 sheet 3.
(g) The optional lumbar spine force-moment transducer shall have
the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations
specified in drawing SA572-S12 and be mounted in the lower torso
assembly as shown in drawing 127-0000 sheet 3 as a replacement for
lumbar adaptor 127-3005.
(h) The optional iliac spine force transducers shall have the
dimensions and response characteristics specified in drawing SA572-S13
and be mounted in the torso assembly as shown in drawing 127-0000 sheet
3 as a replacement for ASIS load cell 127-3015-1 (left) and -2 (right).
(i) The optional pelvis accelerometers shall have the dimensions,
response characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in
drawing SA572-S4 and be mounted in the torso assembly in triaxial
configuration in the pelvis bone as shown in drawing 127-0000 sheet 3.
(j) The femur force transducer shall have the dimensions and
response characteristics specified in drawing SA72-S10 and be mounted
in the leg assembly as shown in drawing 127-0000 sheet 3.
(k) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing devices installed
in the dummy and in the test apparatus specified by this part must be
recorded in individual data channels that conform to SAE Recommended
Practice J211, Rev. Mar95 ``Instrumentation for lmpact Tests,'' except
that the lumbar measurements are based on CFC 600, with channel classes
as follows:
(1) Head acceleration--Class 1000
(2) Neck:
(i) Forces--Class 1000
(ii) Moments--Class 600
(iii) Pendulum acceleration--Class 180
(3) Thorax:
(i) Rib acceleration--Class 1000
(ii) Spine and pendulum accelerations--Class 180
(iii) Sternum deflection--Class 600
(4) Lumbar:
(i) Forces--Class 1000
(ii) Moments--Class 600
(iii) Flexion--Class 60 if data channel is used
(5) Pelvis accelerations--Class 1000
(6) Femur forces--Class 600
(l) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity shall conform to
the Sign Convention For Vehicle Crash Testing, Surface Vehicle
Information Report, SAE J1733, 1994-12.
(m) The mountings for sensing devices shall have no resonance
frequency less than 3 times the frequency range of the applicable
channel class.
(n) Limb joints must be set at one G, barely restraining the weight
of the limb when it is extended horizontally. The force needed to move
a limb segment shall not exceed 2G throughout the range of limb motion.
(o) Performance tests of the same component, segment, assembly, or
fully assembled dummy shall be separated in time by period of not less
than 30 minutes unless otherwise noted.
(p) Surfaces of dummy components may not be painted except as
specified in this subpart or in drawings subtended by this subpart.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 2070]]
Figures to Subpart N
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JA00.002
[[Page 2071]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JA00.003
[[Page 2072]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JA00.004
[[Page 2073]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JA00.005
[[Page 2074]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JA00.006
[[Page 2075]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JA00.007
Issued: December 29, 1999.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-705 Filed 1-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
