Anthropomorphic Test Dummy; Occupant Crash Protection

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