[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 126 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34213-34224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16104]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 572
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 96]
RIN 2127-AF41
Anthropomorphic Test Dummy; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes modifications to the Hybrid III test
dummy, which is specified by the agency for use in compliance testing
under Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. The agency is
proposing minor modifications to the femurs and ankles to improve
biofidelity, and is considering specifying use of a neck shield. The
changes would have practically no effect on Standard No. 208 test
results, but would make the compliance test dummy more useful to
vehicle manufacturers in the more severe impact conditions of some
research and vehicle development programs. This rulemaking results from
petitions submitted by Ford, Toyota, Honda and Nissan.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 29, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stanley Backaitis, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-4912. Fax: (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection,
currently permits the use of either the Hybrid III test dummy or the
older Hybrid II dummy in compliance testing. Effective September 1,
1997, however, the Standard will specify the use of only a single
dummy, the Hybrid III dummy.
NHTSA adopted the Hybrid III dummy as an alternative to the older
dummy in a final rule published in the Federal Register (51 FR 26688)
on July 25, 1986. That rulemaking resulted from a petition submitted by
General Motors (GM). The specifications for the Hybrid III dummy appear
in subpart E of 49 CFR part 572.
The Hybrid III dummy is the most human like test dummy currently
available and represents a number of advances over the earlier dummy.
Among other things, the Hybrid III dummy has a more humanlike seated
posture, head, neck, chest, and lumbar spine designs that meet
biofidelic impact response requirements, and the capability of
monitoring almost four times as many injury-indicating parameters as
compared with the Hybrid II dummy. NHTSA decided to specify exclusive
use of the Hybrid III dummy in a final rule published in the Federal
Register (58 FR 59189) on November 8, 1993.
The Hybrid III dummy has seen widespread use in recent years. A
number of manufacturers have used that dummy for Standard No. 208
certification purposes. Moreover, many manufacturers use this advanced
[[Page 34214]]
dummy in their research and developmental testing. Finally, NHTSA uses
the Hybrid III dummy in its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). This
program involves testing new cars and trucks by crashing them into a
fixed collision barrier at 35 mph, which is five mph faster and 36
percent more severe than the crash test specified in Standard No. 208.
NCAP results are made available to consumers as the tests are completed
each model year, and insurance and consumer organizations use the
results as the basis for information they publish.
In using the Hybrid III dummy, vehicle manufacturers have
identified three areas in which they believe the dummy should be
improved. Two of these areas were identified by Ford in a petition for
rulemaking submitted in March 1991, and the third was identified in
petitions submitted by Toyota, Honda and Nissan between September 1993
and April 1994.
One of the requests in Ford's petition was for NHTSA to increase
the ankle dorsiflexion motion of the Hybrid III dummy. That company
argued that the current dummy's ankles have a lower rotation range
compared to human ankles. Ford believes that this can cause unrealistic
transfer of crash forces through the lower leg and knee to the femur,
adversely affecting the femur response.
Ford's other request was for the agency to specify the use of a
soft foam neck shield for the Hybrid III dummy. That company believes
that the dummy's neck is too small in cross section for air bag
applications and that portions of a deploying air bag can get caught
around the neck and in the concave sections of the bottom of the dummy
head. According to Ford, when this occurs, the dummy's head snaps
rearward in an unhumanlike manner, and unrealistic head and neck
responses are measured by the dummy instrumentation. That manufacturer
stated that this problem can be avoided by using a special purpose
shield around the dummy's neck when testing with an air bag.
Toyota, Honda and Nissan petitioned NHTSA to increase femur flexion
ranges in the dummy. They argued that this change is needed to avoid
unhumanlike femur-to-pelvic bone interaction, or hip lock. According to
these petitioners, hip lock produces acceleration spikes throughout the
dummy in general, and in the thorax in particular, resulting in overly
high chest g's for the unrestrained (air bag only), passenger-side test
condition. Several manufacturers, including Ford, Chrysler, Mazda and
Mitsubishi, submitted letters supporting the basic intent of the
Toyota/Honda/Nissan petitions, although not necessarily all of the
specific arguments.
NHTSA notes that, until it received these petitions, it was unaware
that any manufacturers had these concerns about the Hybrid III dummy.
These issues were not raised during the rulemaking to add the dummy as
a compliance option for Standard No. 208. Moreover, the agency had not
encountered any of the alleged problems during Standard No. 208
compliance tests or evaluations of the dummy in sled tests.
NHTSA also notes that, in evaluating the petitions, the agency was
aware that manufacturers use the Hybrid III dummy in contexts other
than the test conditions specified in Standard No. 208. To fully
understand the problems alleged by the petitioners, the agency had to
consider the test conditions under which the problems arise.
The test conditions vary according to the purposes for which the
dummy is used. For the agency to specify the Hybrid III dummy in
Standard No. 208, it is only necessary for the dummy to be biofidelic
and otherwise appropriate for the specific injury criteria and impact
conditions specified in that standard. And, to the extent that the
Hybrid III dummy is used for NCAP purposes, it is necessary for it to
be appropriate for those test conditions. The agency understands,
however, that manufacturers wish to be able to use the same dummy for a
third purpose, for research and vehicle development. In these
applications, the dummies are often exposed to much more severe
conditions than specified in Standard No. 208 or experienced under
NCAP.
NHTSA granted each of the petitions for rulemaking and conducted
extensive analysis, including a test program, of the issues raised in
the petitions. Among other things, the agency consulted with the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Human Biomechanics and
Simulations Committee concerning the hip lock issue.
The agency has prepared a Technical Assessment which presents the
agency's analysis of the issues raised by the petitioners. A copy of
that document is being placed in the docket for this rulemaking. While
the conclusions of that document are summarized below, persons who are
interested in the details of the agency's analysis are encouraged to
read the Technical Assessment.
As discussed in the Technical Assessment, the agency's analysis
shows that motion ranges of the Hybrid III hip joint and ankle have
minor biomechanical shortcomings that can easily be improved with
minimal design modifications.
With respect to the hip joint, the current dummy design is within
generally accepted biomechanical limits for femur free motion range.
However, the hip joint design needs modification to assure the same
motion range between the right and left femurs. Moreover, to the extent
that the dummy is used in impact environments where the dummy will be
forced to exceed these limits, i.e., environments more severe than that
of the Standard No. 208 test procedure or the NCAP test procedure, it
is desirable to prevent metal to metal contact from occurring between
the femur and the pelvic bone. Such contact can cause spurious test
results. An SAE Task Force has identified modifications in the design
of the femurs that would address forced motion range needs of the
dummy's hip joints and eliminate the possibility of either metal to
metal or hard contact impacts at maximum femur flexion. Agency testing
indicates that the dummy femur-hip joint modification will result in
somewhat reduced chest responses for those test exposures in which the
hip joint and the ankle are forced to exceed the available motion
ranges, i.e., test exposures considerably more severe than Standard No.
208 testing.
With respect to the ankle, the agency's analysis shows that
modifying the ankle to allow 45 degrees of dorsiflexion instead of the
current 30 degrees would be anthropometrically in the correct
direction.
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the specifications for the
Hybrid III dummy should be changed to incorporate these minor femur and
ankle modifications. As part of these changes, a calibration test would
be added for hip joint-femur flexion.
The proposed modifications would have practically no effect on the
dummy impact responses for either Standard No. 208 or NCAP testing. The
agency believes, however, that the modifications would provide a more
realistic assessment of the effectiveness of occupant protection
systems under more severe impact conditions. Changing the part 572
specifications to incorporate these modifications would help ensure
that manufacturers can use the same dummies for Standard No. 208
certification testing and for research and vehicle development testing.
NHTSA believes the evidence is less clear with respect to whether a
neck shield should be specified for the Hybrid III dummy. The agency
has evaluated the neck shield recommended by Ford. As discussed in the
agency's
[[Page 34215]]
Technical Assessment, the use of the neck shield generates responses of
a slightly stiffer neck but does not appear to produce significant
differences in the dummy's head kinematics or overall impact responses.
The agency specifically requests comments on whether use of the neck
shield should be specified. Commenters supporting use of a neck shield
are requested to discuss why they believe such use would produce
different results. Depending on the comments, the agency may or may not
specify use of a neck shield. However, use of a neck shield is
reflected in the proposed regulatory text.
NHTSA notes that it contemplates either adding a neck shield to the
Hybrid III dummy for purposes of all Standard No. 208 compliance
testing or declining to add a neck shield and not providing a
manufacturer option in this area. To ensure comparability of test
results, the agency believes that all vehicles should, to the extent
possible, be tested in the same manner.
NHTSA is proposing to make the amendments effective 30 days after
publication of a final rule. However, the agency is requesting comments
on whether a later effective date would be more appropriate, and, if
so, whether optional compliance should be permitted 30 days after
publication of a final rule.
The agency believes that the proposed dummy modifications are so
minor that they would not have any significant effect on Standard No.
208 test results, and that it may therefore be in the public interest
to make the amendments effective 30 days after issuance of a final
rule. Such an effective date would assume that manufacturers do not
need to conduct any testing to recertify their vehicles using the
modified dummy. The agency requests comments on this assumption and on
whether there are any reasons to specify a later effective date, such
as September 1, 1997.
To the extent a later effective date were to be specified, the
agency could permit optional compliance 30 days after publication of a
final rule. Under this scenario, manufacturers could, for an interim
period, certify their vehicles using either the earlier or modified
Hybrid III dummy. NHTSA notes, however, that it would generally prefer
to avoid multiple dummy options, to reduce the complexity and costs of
compliance testing. In compliance testing, the agency would want to use
the dummy option specified by the manufacturer, and would therefore
need to maintain two versions of the Hybrid III dummy. This problem
could be avoided by specifying a single date on which the dummy
modifications would become effective. The agency requests comments,
however, on whether other factors would outweigh this concern and
should lead to the combination of a later effective date with optional
compliance 30 days after publication of a final rule.
As indicated earlier in this document, the specifications for the
Hybrid III dummy appear in subpart E of 49 CFR part 572. The proposed
regulatory text reflects the modifications to the dummy that are under
consideration by the agency. However, many of the specifications for
the Hybrid III dummy are set forth in drawings which are incorporated
by reference. Copies of the new or revised drawings, including a
revised User's Manual (referred to in Part 572.31(a)(4) as Disassembly,
Inspection, Assembly and Limbs Adjustment Procedures for the Hybrid III
Dummy), that would be incorporated by reference are being placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
NHTSA notes that it has a policy of ensuring that the dummies
specified in part 572 can be manufactured by any manufacturer wishing
to do so. The agency is therefore considering whether any persons have
proprietary rights in the dummy modifications proposed in this document
and, if they do, how the agency can ensure that any manufacturer can
produce the modified Hybrid III dummy. NHTSA specifically requests
comments on this issue. With respect to the dummy drawings that are
being placed in the docket in connection with this proposal, the agency
has taken steps to ensure that, if incorporated by reference as part of
a final rule, the drawings could be freely used by all persons. See
letter dated June 1, 1995 to Mr. Muir Parker, President and CEO of
First Technology Safety Systems, a copy of which is being placed in the
docket.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been
determined to be ``non-significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The proposed
amendments would not require any vehicle design changes but would
instead only require minor modifications in the test dummies used to
evaluate a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. The agency
believes that the proposed femur and ankle modifications would not
affect the cost of new dummies. The cost of modifying existing dummies
would be about $4,400 per dummy for the femurs, and about $610 for the
ankles. The cost of a neck shield is about $145. Therefore, the impacts
of the proposed amendments would be so minimal that a full regulatory
evaluation is not required.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Modifications to dummy designs affect motor vehicle
manufacturers, few of which are small entities. As described above,
there would be no significant economic impact on those vehicle
manufacturers that are small entities. Further, since no price
increases would be associated with the proposed rule, small
organizations and small governmental units would not be affected in
their capacity as purchasers of new vehicles.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured
[[Page 34216]]
for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for
judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part
572 be amended as follows:
PART 572--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 572 of Title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Subpart E--Hybrid III Test Dummy
2. Section 572.31 would be amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1),
(a)(3), (a)(4), (b) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 572.31 General description.
(a) * * *
(1) The Anthropomorphic Test Dummy Parts List, dated (a date would
be inserted), and containing 13 pages, and a Parts List Index, dated (a
date would be inserted), containing 8 pages.
* * * * *
(3) A General Motors Drawing Package identified by GM Drawing No.
78051-218, revision S, and subordinate drawings.
(4) Disassembly, Inspection, Assembly and Limbs Adjustment
Procedures for the Hybrid III dummy, dated (a date would be inserted).
* * * * *
(b) The dummy is made up of the following component assemblies:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drawing No. Revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
78051-61 head assembly--complete.............................. (T)
78051-90 neck assembly--complete.............................. (A)
78051-89 upper torso assembly--complete....................... (K)
78051-70 lower torso assembly--without pelvic instrumentation
assembly, drawing No. 78051-59............................... (E)
86-5001-001 leg assembly--complete (LH)....................... (A)
86-5001-002 leg assembly--complete (RH)....................... (A)
78051-123 arm assembly--complete (LH)......................... (D)
78051-124 arm assembly--complete (RH)......................... (D)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) The weights, inertial properties and centers of gravity
location of component assemblies shall conform to those listed in
drawing 78051-338, revision T.
* * * * *
3. Section 572.33 would be amended by moving Figures 20, 21 and 22
to the end of the section and adding a heading preceding Figure 20,
revising paragraph (b) introductory text, and revising Figures 20 and
21, to read as follows:
Sec. 572.33 Neck.
* * * * *
(b) When the neck and head assembly (consisting of the parts 78051-
61, revision T; -84; -90, revision A; -96; -98; -303, revision E; -305;
-306; -307, revision X) which has a neck transducer (drawing 83-5001-
008) installed in conformance with Sec. 572.36(d) and a neck shield as
shown in Figures 20 and 21, is tested in accordance with paragraph (c)
of this section, it shall have the following characteristics:
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 34217]]
Figures to Sec. 572.33
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.055
[[Page 34218]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.056
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 34219]]
* * * * *
4. Section 572.35 would be amended by moving Figure 24 to the end
of the section and adding a heading preceding Figure 24; revising
paragraphs (a) through (c); and adding Figures 25 through 27, to read
as follows:
Sec. 572.35 Limbs.
(a) The limbs consist of the following assemblies: leg assemblies
86-5001-001, revision F and -002, revision F, and arm assemblies 78051-
123, revision D and -124, revision D, and shall conform to the drawings
subtended therein.
(b) Femur impact response. (1) When each knee of the leg assemblies
is impacted in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, at 6.9
ft/sec 0.10 ft/sec by the pendulum defined in Sec. 572.36(b), the peak
knee impact force, which is a product of pendulum mass and
acceleration, shall have a minimum value of not less than 1060 pounds
and a maximum value of not more than 1300 pounds.
(2) Test procedure. (i) The test material consists of leg
assemblies (86-5001-001, revision A) left and (-002, revision A) right
with upper leg assemblies (78051-46) left and (78051-47) right removed.
The load cell simulator (78051-319, revision A) is used to secure the
knee cap assemblies (79051-16, revision B) as shown in Figure 24).
(ii) Soak the test material in a test environment at any
temperature between 66 degrees F to 78 degrees F and at a relative
humidity from 10% to 70% for a period of at least four hours prior to
its application in a test.
(iii) Mount the test material with the leg assembly secured through
the load cell simulator to a rigid surface as shown in Figure 24. No
contact is permitted between the foot and any other exterior surfaces.
(iv) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test probe so that at
contact with the knee it is collinear within 2 degrees with the
longitudinal centerline of the femur load cell simulator.
(v) Guide the pendulum so that there is no significant lateral,
vertical or rotational movement at time zero.
(vi) Impact the knee with the test probe so that the longitudinal
centerline of the test probe at the instant of impact falls within .5
degrees of a horizontal line parallel to the femur load cell simulator
at time zero.
(vii) Time zero is defined as the time of contact between the test
probe and the knee.
(c) Hip joint-femur flexion. (1) When each femur is rotated in the
flexion direction in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
the femur rotation from its initial horizontal orientation at an
applied 50 lbs-ft of torque will not be less than 20 deg. and not more
than 34 deg., and at 250 lbs-ft of torque not less than 44 deg. and not
more than 52 deg.
(2) Test procedure.
(i) The test material consists of the assembled dummy, part No.
78051-218 (rev. S) except that (1) leg assemblies (86-5001-001 and 002)
are separated from the dummy by removing the \3/8\-16 Socket Head Cap
Screw (SHCS) (78051-99) but retaining the structural assembly of the
upper legs (78051-43 and -44), (2) the abdominal insert (78051-52) is
removed and (3) the instrument cover plate (78051-13) in the pelvic
bone is replaced by a rigid pelvic bone stabilizer insert (Figure 25a)
and firmly secured.
(ii) Seat the dummy on a rigid seat fixture (Figure 25) and firmly
secure it to the seat back by bolting the stabilizer insert and the
rigid support device (Figure 25b) to the seat back of the test fixture
(Figures 26 and 27) while maintaining the pelvis (78051-58) ``B'' plane
horizontal.
(iii) Insert a suitable rod (lever arm) into femur shaft opening of
the upper leg structure assembly (78051-43/44) and firmly secure it
using the \3/8\-16 SHCS.
(iv) Apply a suitable force to the lever arm to lift it parallel to
the midsagittal plane at a rotation rate of 5 to 10 deg. per second
while maintaining the \1/2\ in. shoulder bolt longitudinal centerline
horizontal throughout the range of motion until the 250 lbs-ft torque
level is reached. Record the applied force (torque) and angle of
rotation of the femur with suitable sensors.
(v) Operating environment and temperature are the same as specified
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 34220]]
Figures to Sec. 572.35
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.057
[[Page 34221]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.058
[[Page 34222]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.059
[[Page 34223]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.060
[[Page 34224]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JN95.061
Issued on June 26, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-16104 Filed 6-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
