[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34366-34410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11201]



[[Page 34365]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 102

May 26, 2023

Part IV





 Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





New Car Assessment Program; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2023 / 
Notices  

[[Page 34366]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0020]


New Car Assessment Program

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

ACTION: Request for comments (RFC).

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests comment on a proposal to update the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's New Car Assessment 
Program (NCAP) to provide consumers with information about 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection of new vehicles. The proposed 
updates to NCAP would provide valuable safety information to consumers 
about the ability of vehicles to protect pedestrians and could 
incentivize vehicle manufacturers to produce vehicles that provide 
better protection for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians. In 
addition, this proposal addresses several mandates set forth in section 
24213 of the November 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

DATES: Comments should be submitted no later than July 25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be 
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting 
comments, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received 
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including 
any personal information provided.
     Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all 
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact 
Ms. Jennifer N. Dang, Division Chief, New Car Assessment Program, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: 202-366-1810). For 
legal issues, you may contact Ms. Sara R. Bennett, Office of Chief 
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992). You may send mail to either of these 
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. December 16, 2015, Request for Comments
    B. October 1, 2018, Public Meeting
    C. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and March 9, 2022, Request for 
Comments
III. Purpose and Rationale
IV. Crashworthiness Pedestrian Protection Testing Program
    A. Safety Need
    B. System Designs Exist
    C. Potential Safety Benefits
    D. Objective Test Procedure Exists
    1. Headforms and Head Impacts
    2. Legforms and Leg Impacts
    E. Response to Comments Received in Previous Actions
    1. General Pedestrian Protection Comments
    2. Part 581 Issues
    3. Test Device Issues
    F. Proposal in Detail
    1. Differences From Euro NCAP Tests and Assessment Protocols
    a. Self-Reporting Data
    b. No ``Blue Points'' for Predicted Head Impact Test Data
    c. Use of FlexPLI on Pickup Trucks and Large SUVs
    d. No Bumper Testing When LBRL is Greater Than 500 mm
    e. Addressing Artificial Interference in High-Bumper Vehicles
    f. Revised Bumper Corner Definition
    g. FlexPLI Qualification
    h. Active Hood Detection Area
    2. Injury Limits and Scoring Process
    3. NCAP Proposal for Awarding Credit
    4. NCAP Verification Testing
V. Conclusion
VI. Economic Analysis
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Appendices
    A. Additional Pedestrian Crash Data
    B. Vehicle Scoring and Verification Testing Example
    C. Questions Asked Throughout This Notice

I. Executive Summary

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) New 
Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides comparative information on the 
safety performance of new vehicles and availability of new vehicle 
safety features to assist consumers with vehicle purchasing decisions 
and to encourage safety improvements. NCAP is one of several programs 
that NHTSA uses to fulfill its mission of reducing the number of 
fatalities, injuries, and economic losses that occur on United States 
(U.S.) roadways. This Request for Comments focuses on the inclusion of 
the first ever pedestrian protection program in U.S. NCAP.
    While passenger vehicle occupant fatalities decreased from 32,225 
in 2000 \1\ to 23,824 in 2020,\2\ during that same timeframe, 
pedestrian fatalities increased by 37 percent, from 4,739 in 2000 to 
6,516 in 2020.\3\ \4\ These 6,516 pedestrian deaths in 2020 represent 
17 percent of all traffic fatalities that year. In contrast, pedestrian 
injuries (54,769) were less than 3 percent of all motor vehicle 
occupant injuries (2,093,246) in 2020. Although vehicle-to-pedestrian 
crashes do not occur as frequently as vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, they 
are especially deadly. In fact, a NHTSA study that grouped various pre-
crash scenarios into nine distinct pre-crash scenario groups,\5\ 
including a group involving light vehicle \6\ crashes with a 
pedestrian, estimated that on an annual

[[Page 34367]]

average, 53 of every 1,000 vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes is a fatal 
crash.\7\ This fatality statistic in the light vehicle-pedestrian pre-
crash scenario group is significantly greater than any of the other 
eight pre-crash scenario groups in the study.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Traffic Safety Facts 2019 ``A Complication of Motor Vehicle 
Crash Data.'' U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.
    \2\ Stewart, T. (2022, March). Overview of motor vehicle crashes 
in 2020 (Report No. DOT HS 813 266). National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
    \3\ Traffic Safety Facts 2000 ``A Compilation of Motor Vehicle 
Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the 
General Estimates System.'' U.S. Department of Transportation. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    \4\ Stewart, T. (2022, March). Overview of motor vehicle crashes 
in 2020 (Report No. DOT HS 813 266). National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
    \5\ The nine pre-crash scenario groups are: control loss 
(vehicle lost control), road departure (vehicle departed road), 
animal (vehicle struck animal), pedestrian (vehicle struck 
pedestrian), pedalcyclist (vehicle struck pedalcyclist), lane change 
(vehicle made lane change), opposite direction (vehicle maneuvered 
into opposite direction), rear-end (vehicle struck rear of other 
vehicle), and crossing paths (vehicle traveled straight crossing 
another vehicle's path or turned and crossed another vehicle's 
path).
    \6\ Light vehicles include all passenger cars, vans, minivans, 
sport utility vehicles, or light pickup trucks with gross vehicle 
weight ratings less than or equal to 4,536 kilograms.
    \7\ Swanson, E., Foderaro, F., Yanagisawa, M., Najm, W.G., & 
Azeredo, P. (2019, August). Statistics of light-vehicle pre-crash 
scenarios based on 2011-2015 national crash data (Report No. DOT HS 
812 745). Table ES1--Yearly Average Statistics--Scenario Groups 
Based on 2011-2015 FARS and GES. Washington, DC. National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.
    \8\ The pre-crash scenario group ``Opposite Direction'' resulted 
in 32.3 fatal crashes per thousand crashes, the second highest. One 
of the lowest scenario groups was ``Rear-End,'' which only resulted 
in 0.7 fatal crashes per thousand crashes. On average, the nine 
scenario groups resulted in 4.9 fatal crashes per thousand crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Historically, features rated or otherwise included in NCAP have 
focused largely on the protection of occupants in motor vehicles. 
However, NHTSA has also recognized the importance of protecting 
vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, from injury and death due 
to motor vehicle crashes. In support of furthering the goal of 
protecting pedestrians from being seriously injured or killed in motor 
vehicle crashes, NHTSA has conducted a number of activities including 
research, international regulation development, and domestic regulation 
development.\9\ On December 16, 2015, NHTSA published a broad request 
for comment (RFC) (the December 2015 Notice) \10\ and sought public 
comment on the Agency's proposal that included, among other things, a 
new crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program in NCAP. The 
December 2015 Notice proposed adding to NCAP test procedures and 
evaluation criteria similar to those used by the European New Car 
Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) at the time to assess new vehicles for 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=2127-AK98.
    \10\ 80 FR 78522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this RFC, NHTSA is proposing to add crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection to NCAP to spur vehicle technologies that help address the 
rising number of fatalities and injuries that involve pedestrians. 
NHTSA proposes to test vehicles using all four test devices currently 
utilized in Euro NCAP--adult and child headforms (representative of the 
weight of an adult and child head), the upper legform, and the FlexPLI 
lower legform.\11\ The Agency is also proposing to adopt the majority 
of Euro NCAP's pedestrian crashworthiness assessment methods, including 
the injury limits for each test device and the method in which scores 
for each impact point are calculated. However, this RFC does not 
propose a comparative rating system for crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection. Instead, NHTSA is proposing to identify new model year 
vehicles that meet a certain minimum safety threshold on the Agency's 
website and in other published literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The terms ``headform'' and ``legform'' are used to describe 
the pedestrian head and leg test devices, which are general 
representations of human heads and legs. The head and leg test 
devices are described in greater detail later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the subject of this RFC also covers pedestrian protection, it 
should be viewed as a new initiative, not an extension of the December 
2015 Notice. To this point, NHTSA noted in its March 9, 2022, NCAP RFC 
\12\ that finalizing that 2022 RFC would close the December 16, 2015 
proceeding and notice. The March 2022 NCAP RFC proposed adding four new 
advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) technologies to those 
currently recommended in NCAP, increasing stringency of the evaluation 
of currently recommended ADAS technologies, and a ten-year roadmap of 
NHTSA's plans to upgrade NCAP in phases. NHTSA noted in the March 2022 
notice that all information previously collected by NHTSA may be used 
in the development of future notices, such as this one. As such, this 
notice replaces the previous NCAP crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
proposal from the December 2015 RFC, in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 87 FR 13452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal is part of the Agency's multi-faceted effort to 
encourage pedestrian safety improvements in vehicles by providing 
comprehensive vehicle safety information to consumers on (1) whether a 
vehicle can offer better protection to pedestrians in the event of a 
collision with a pedestrian and (2) whether a vehicle can prevent a 
collision with a pedestrian or reduce the severity of injuries to a 
pedestrian when equipped with advanced driver assistance systems such 
as pedestrian automatic emergency braking. The latter was proposed to 
be added to NCAP in the March 2022 RFC. In addition, NHTSA is working 
to issue a proposal mandating such systems in all new light vehicles. 
As stated in the Department of Transportation's National Roadway Safety 
Strategy, proposals to update NCAP are expected to emphasize safety 
features that protect people both inside and outside of the vehicle, 
and may include consideration of pedestrian protection systems, better 
understanding of impacts to pedestrians (e.g., specific considerations 
for children), and automatic emergency braking and lane keeping 
assistance to benefit bicyclists and pedestrians.\13\ The Agency is 
also pursuing a rulemaking to set minimum safety standards for 
pedestrian protection.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf.
    \14\ RIN 2127-AK98 available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=2127-AK98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From a testing perspective, NHTSA still plans to align with, to the 
extent feasible, the Euro NCAP test procedures and evaluation criteria 
for pedestrian protection \15\ for the Agency's new crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection testing program. However, in order to accelerate 
the adoption of pedestrian protection features into new vehicles, NHTSA 
is not proposing changes to the 5-star ratings system at this time.\16\ 
As discussed in the notice that was published on March 9, 2022, NHTSA 
plans for multiple updates to NCAP in the next several years--as part 
of the Agency's short-term roadmap that will include various enhanced 
tools and techniques (advanced dummies, tests, rating systems, etc.) in 
both crashworthiness and crash avoidance programs. Until NHTSA 
completes a rulemaking to update the Monroney label, NHTSA plans to 
introduce the new crashworthiness pedestrian safety program in NCAP by 
highlighting on the NHTSA website new vehicles that meet NHTSA's 
performance test criteria for providing better pedestrian protection in 
the event of a collision with a pedestrian. NHTSA proposes using a 
pass/fail scoring system, described below, and will consider including 
pedestrian protection in the rating system when it updates the Monroney 
label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol--euro-ncap-
pedestrian-testing-protocol-v85.201811091256001913.pdf 
(euroncap.com) and Part I Pedestrian Impact Assessment in https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/67553/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-vru-v1005.pdf.
    \16\ Currently, the existing 5-star ratings system does not 
address pedestrian safety evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The testing methodology proposed in this notice is very similar to 
that of Euro NCAP.\17\ The pedestrian protection testing evaluates the 
potential risk of head, pelvis, leg, and knee injuries to pedestrians 
hit by the front of vehicles that result in impacts between the 
pedestrian and the bumper, leading edge, hood, and windshield of a 
vehicle. A vehicle that scores well in these tests will likely utilize 
designs that absorb

[[Page 34368]]

energy, reduce hard points of contact, and include front end shapes 
that would cause less harm (i.e., injuries) to a pedestrian if a 
vehicle hits that pedestrian. The crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
test procedures in Euro NCAP consist of standardized instructions to 
(1) prepare a vehicle for testing, (2) conduct impact tests using 
various test devices, and (3) assess a vehicle's performance based on 
the result of the impact tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/41769/euro-ncap-pedestrian-testing-protocol-v85.201811091256001913.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, NHTSA plans to use a different scoring distribution than 
the one used in Euro NCAP. Specifically, for this proposal, the 
weightings are as follows: (1) the adult and child head impact test 
results would contribute \3/8\ (37.5 percent) of the available points 
for a maximum component score of 13.5 points; (2) the upper leg impact 
test results would account for \2/8\ (or 25 percent) of the available 
points for a maximum component score of 9 points; and (3) the lower leg 
impact test results would cover \3/8\ (or 37.5 percent) of the 
available points for a maximum component score of 13.5 points. Also, 
NHTSA is proposing to award credit for pedestrian protection safety to 
vehicles that score 60 percent (21.6 out of 36.0 points) or above. 
Furthermore, NHTSA is proposing to implement this new program as a 
self-reporting program in which (1) vehicle manufacturers provide data 
to the Agency, (2) NHTSA reviews the data and awards credit as 
appropriate, and (3) NHTSA performs verification tests on certain new 
model year vehicles each year to ensure they meet the performance 
levels indicated by the vehicle manufacturer. A similar self-reporting 
and verification testing approach is currently used for evaluating 
certain ADAS technologies in NCAP.
    This RFC fulfills portions of the requirements in Section 24213(b) 
of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act \18\ and signed on November 15, 2021, which 
require that the Agency ``publish a notice, for purposes of public 
review and comment, to establish a means for providing to consumers 
information relating to pedestrian, bicyclist, or other vulnerable road 
user safety technologies.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ (Pub. L. 117-58).
    \19\ Further discussion on the BIL requirements appears in 
section II. Background, later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, NHTSA is committed to ensuring safety is equitable for 
all pedestrians, regardless of gender. The proposed test requirements 
cover the entire front end of the vehicle--the bumper, the grille, the 
hood leading edge, the hood, and the windshield--encompassing a large 
area causing injury to child and adult pedestrians in the real world. 
NHTSA believes that by covering such a large area, crash protection 
will be afforded to both male and female pedestrians of varying 
stature. Additionally, testing is conducted using two different 
headforms representing average child to adult heads.
    The remainder of this notice outlines NHTSA's proposal in detail, 
including the self-reporting requirements and the process of conducting 
verification testing. Also, this notice describes in detail deviations 
from the Euro NCAP test procedures and requests public comment on the 
overall proposal as well as specific details of the proposal.

II. Background

    NHTSA established the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in 1978 in 
response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
Act of 1972. When the program first began providing consumers with 
vehicle safety information derived from frontal crashworthiness 
testing, consumer interest in vehicle safety and manufacturers' 
attention to enhanced vehicle safety features was relatively new. Over 
the years, NCAP has periodically expanded the scope of the safety 
information the program provides to consumers. For example, the program 
added safety features to protect vehicle occupants involved in 
additional types of crashes, more specifically side impacts and 
rollovers. As more consumers focused on vehicle safety, making it a top 
factor in their vehicle purchasing decisions,\20\ vehicle manufacturers 
responded to consumer demands by continually making safety improvements 
to their vehicles with enhanced safety features. These additional 
safety improvements have led to improved vehicle safety performance. 
This improvement in safety performance has translated into higher NCAP 
star ratings. In recent years, NHTSA has also incorporated various 
advanced driver assistance technologies in NCAP, including automatic 
emergency braking, and highlighted those technologies (via the Agency's 
website) if they meet NHTSA's system performance criteria. For the 
first time in the program's history, NHTSA is now, through this notice 
and the March 2022 RFC, taking steps to expand the program to also spur 
safety protection for those outside of the motor vehicle, with a 
particular focus on pedestrian safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0016 for a 
report of ``New Car Assessment Program 5-Star Quantitative Consumer 
Research.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. December 16, 2015, Request for Comments

    The Agency requested comment on broad, sweeping changes to NCAP in 
a December 2015 notice.\21\ As part of that proposal, NHTSA outlined, 
among other things, details of a pedestrian protection safety rating 
category comprised of (1) pedestrian automatic emergency braking and 
(2) pedestrian crashworthiness. For pedestrian crashworthiness, the 
Agency proposed to evaluate how well a vehicle could reduce injuries 
sustained to a pedestrian in a frontal collision where the vehicle hit 
the pedestrian. The pedestrian crashworthiness impact tests proposed in 
the notice involved the use of adult and child headforms, an upper 
legform, and a FlexPLI lower legform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 80 FR 78521 (Dec. 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency received more than 300 comments in response to the 
December 2015 notice. The Agency also received responses to the notice 
at two public hearings, one in Detroit, Michigan, on January 14, 2016, 
and the second at U.S. DOT Headquarters in Washington, DC, on January 
29, 2016. By request, the Agency also held several meetings with 
stakeholders.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0119 
for a full listing of the commenters and the comments they 
submitted, as well as records of the public hearings and ex parte 
meetings relating to the RFC that occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the Agency's pedestrian proposals, most commenters 
generally supported efforts to protect pedestrians using both 
pedestrian crash avoidance technologies and crashworthiness pedestrian 
safety. Commenters were divided on whether pedestrian crashworthiness 
should be applicable as a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
or if it was more appropriate for NCAP, even though the former 
application (i.e., development of a FMVSS) was outside the scope of the 
RFC. Many commenters outlined technical issues with the pedestrian 
crashworthiness test devices and test procedures, with the majority of 
concern focused on the leg impactors. Furthermore, commenters noted 
that there were difficulties in meeting both 49 CFR part 581, ``Bumper 
Standard,'' and the proposed pedestrian crashworthiness requirements in 
NCAP. Commenters noted that some vehicles, such as sport utility 
vehicles (SUVs) and pickups, would have difficulty meeting pedestrian 
crashworthiness requirements due to their front-end geometry. Comments 
from vehicle manufacturers and suppliers generally supported the 
Agency's proposal to

[[Page 34369]]

harmonize with Euro NCAP pedestrian requirements. On the other hand, 
safety advocate organizations requested different test procedures and 
scoring from that in Euro NCAP to account for differences in vehicle 
fleets and promote new technology development.
    Commenters were divided on how to implement pedestrian safety 
ratings in NCAP. Some commenters favored a separate pedestrian rating 
category that combines pedestrian crash avoidance and crashworthiness 
protection, while other commenters preferred a pedestrian safety 
assessment that splits into the crashworthiness protection category 
(i.e., this proposal--vehicle performance evaluation for pedestrian 
protection) and the crash avoidance category (i.e., pedestrian 
automatic emergency braking system performance evaluation for avoiding 
a collision with a pedestrian). As stated previously, some commenters 
supported crashworthiness pedestrian protection as part of an FMVSS 
instead of an NCAP rating.

B. October 1, 2018, Public Meeting

    In 2018, NHTSA held a public meeting at the Department of 
Transportation's headquarters in Washington, DC to reengage 
stakeholders regarding potential changes to NCAP.\23\ Thirty-five 
parties participated in the public meeting, 32 of which submitted 
written comments to the docket. Additional written comments were 
submitted by other entities or public citizens who did not attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice announcing this meeting, NHTSA requested comments on a 
variety of topics, including both the crash avoidance and 
crashworthiness portions of the program. Although no pedestrian 
crashworthiness programs were proposed as part of the public meeting 
notice, nor were specific sessions of the public meeting targeted on 
pedestrian crashworthiness, several attendees and commenters suggested 
that the Agency continue to pursue pedestrian safety in NCAP. 
Specifically, a large number of individuals submitted comments 
supporting the League of American Bicyclists' comment that requested 
NHTSA to include pedestrians and bicyclists in the NCAP rating system.
    Most commenters suggested an NCAP roadmap that lays out planned 
changes to the program and details when those changes are likely to 
occur. Some commenters pointed to the roadmaps of Euro NCAP and stated 
that an update to the U.S. NCAP program was overdue.

C. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and March 9, 2022, Request for 
Comments

    Section 24213(b) of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes 
requirements to add to NCAP information about advanced crash avoidance 
technologies and vulnerable road user safety. NHTSA is directed to 
publish an RFC to establish a means for providing consumers information 
relating to advanced crash avoidance technologies and pedestrian, 
bicyclist, or other vulnerable road user safety technologies.
    For both advanced crash avoidance technologies and vulnerable road 
user safety, Section 24213(b) of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
requires NHTSA to (i) determine which technologies shall be included, 
(ii) develop performance test criteria, (iii) determine distinct 
ratings for each technology, and (iv) update the overall vehicle rating 
to incorporate the new technology ratings in the public notices.
    In March 2022, NHTSA published an RFC that proposed, among other 
things, adding four new ADAS technologies to NCAP, including Pedestrian 
Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB). Because the March 2022 notice 
described in detail why NHTSA chose the four ADAS technologies for 
inclusion in NCAP, proposed performance test criteria for evaluating 
the technologies, and proposed PAEB for enhancing pedestrian safety as 
one of the four proposed ADAS technologies, NHTSA fulfilled 
requirements (i) and (ii) listed above of the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law Section 24213(b) for both advanced crash avoidance technologies and 
vulnerable road user safety. NHTSA anticipates finalizing the March 
2022 proposal in a forthcoming notice. Adopting the changes proposed in 
the March 2022 notice would mark the first time in the history of NCAP 
that the program evaluates vehicle technologies that specifically 
target pedestrian safety, and thus could help address the rising number 
of fatalities and injuries that involve pedestrians.
    Besides PAEB, there are other safety technologies to protect 
pedestrians. This notice describes crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection safety technologies and proposes their introduction into 
NCAP. Since this RFC seeks public comment on the inclusion of 
crashworthiness technologies for pedestrian protection into NCAP and 
the proposed performance tests and criteria to evaluate these 
technologies, it also fulfills parts (i) and (ii) listed above of 
Section 24213(b) of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with respect to 
vulnerable road user safety. The remaining requirements of section 
24213(b) of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (iii and iv listed above) 
will be fulfilled once NHTSA proposes and then finalizes a new rating 
system for the crash avoidance technologies in NCAP, updates the 
current crashworthiness 5-star rating program, and proposes and 
finalizes an overall vehicle rating that incorporates crash avoidance 
and crashworthiness technology evaluations. Section 24213(b) of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also requires that NHTSA submit reports 
to Congress on its plans for fulfilling the abovementioned 
requirements. NHTSA plans to address these reporting requirements in a 
timely manner. In the March 2022 RFC, the Agency also sought public 
comment on a proposed ten-year roadmap outlining future updates to NCAP 
(mid-term and long-term timelines) in the next several years. A number 
of commenters noted that modern vehicles are larger, with higher front 
ends, and less visibility of non-occupants. These commenters expressed 
support for NHTSA's inclusion of crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
in the NCAP roadmap. Today's notice serves as the next step for the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection update to NCAP.

III. Purpose and Rationale

    This RFC carries out NHTSA's goals of improving pedestrian safety 
from a crashworthiness perspective and, in the process, partially 
fulfills section 24213(b) of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that 
requires the Agency to publish a request for comment notice to 
establish a means of providing consumers information relating to 
pedestrian, bicyclist, or other vulnerable road user safety 
technologies. Unlike the March 2022 RFC,\24\ which focused on four 
advanced driver assistance systems, this notice focuses solely on the 
Agency's efforts to improve pedestrian safety from a crashworthiness 
perspective by evaluating how well a vehicle protects a pedestrian in 
the event of a frontal collision between the vehicle and the 
pedestrian. This RFC also works towards addressing recommendations from 
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO).\25\ \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NHTSA's March 2022 RFC proposed four new ADAS technologies, 
including PAEB for improving pedestrian safety and therefore also 
partially addresses the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Sec. 24213(b).
    \25\ NTSB Special Investigation Report--Pedestrian Safety (NTSB/
SIR-18/03) Adopted September 25, 2018.
    \26\ GAO Report--Pedestrian Safety (GAO-20-419), April 2020.

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

[[Page 34370]]

    In particular, this notice seeks comment on a revised proposal to 
add pedestrian crashworthiness evaluations to NCAP. The Agency believes 
that the pedestrian crashworthiness test devices, test procedures, and 
evaluation criteria proposed in this RFC are well-established, and that 
incorporating pedestrian crashworthiness evaluations into NCAP has the 
potential to further reduce fatalities and injuries on U.S. roadways. 
Furthermore, by continuing to make safety information readily available 
to consumers, NHTSA hopes to increase consumer awareness of pedestrian 
safety issues.
    The Agency includes numbered questions in this notice to highlight 
specific topics on which the Agency seeks comment. To ensure that NHTSA 
addresses all comments, the Agency requests that commenters provide 
corresponding numbering in their responses. The questions are compiled 
for the reader's convenience in appendix C.

IV. Crashworthiness Pedestrian Protection Testing Program

    NHTSA currently conducts testing for NCAP in two different ways. 
The NCAP crashworthiness safety ratings program conducts physical crash 
tests with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs, or crash test dummies), 
determines injury values based on ATD sensors, and assigns star ratings 
based on the resulting injury values. The NCAP crash avoidance safety 
testing program highlights vehicles equipped with certain advanced 
driver assistance system technologies (recommended by NHTSA through 
NCAP) if the vehicles meet NHTSA's system performance test criteria. 
Unlike the NCAP crashworthiness safety program, the crash avoidance 
safety program uses test data reported by vehicle manufacturers to 
determine whether a vehicle meets system performance criteria set forth 
under NCAP and awards credit as applicable. Each year, a certain number 
of advanced driver assistance systems are selected and tested to verify 
system performance as part of the NCAP crash avoidance safety testing 
program.
    NHTSA's 2015 proposal for the crashworthiness pedestrian safety 
program was similar to that of the NCAP crashworthiness safety testing 
program. Vehicles would undergo physical testing with test devices 
(head and leg impactors), NCAP would determine injury values from the 
test devices' sensors, and the program would then assign star ratings 
based on the test results.
    Today's proposal would operate more similarly to the NCAP crash 
avoidance safety testing program than the crashworthiness program. 
Under the proposal, NHTSA would collect voluntary self-reported data 
from vehicle manufacturers. If a vehicle manufacturer submits self-
reported data for its vehicle, NCAP would first review data for 
accuracy and completeness and award credit where applicable. In 
addition, NHTSA would perform verification testing on a number of 
vehicles selected each year through NCAP. Instead of rating vehicles on 
a scale of 1 to 5 stars, the Agency plans to initially implement this 
program in NCAP by awarding pedestrian crashworthiness credit to 
vehicles that meet NHTSA's performance test criteria. This change from 
NHTSA's 2015 proposal will provide consumers the crashworthiness 
pedestrian safety information sooner rather than later as the Agency is 
working on other initiatives (discussed in the March 2022 proposals) to 
allow for a complete overhaul of the existing rating system in the 
future. More specifically, once NHTSA completes its planned updates to 
the NCAP crashworthiness and crash avoidance programs and concludes the 
Agency's ongoing consumer research for a new NCAP labeling concept on 
the Monroney label, NHTSA plans to update its safety ratings system to 
include pedestrian safety information. In the meantime, NHTSA believes 
that the proposal in this notice would provide consumers with valuable 
information and continue to incentivize vehicle safety improvements to 
help protect pedestrians.
    The test procedures and evaluation criteria proposed in this RFC 
would make use of four pedestrian test device impactors--an adult 
headform, a child headform, an upper legform, and a FlexPLI lower 
legform. NHTSA proposes to carry out testing in the manner described in 
the Euro NCAP pedestrian test protocols, with some differences that 
will be explained in detail later in this notice.\27\ Vehicles are 
first prepared by measuring and marking the front end of the vehicle in 
a prescriptive way to locate the test boundaries and impact points on 
the vehicle. The impact points are marked on a 100 mm by 100 mm grid on 
the hood, windshield, and surrounding components for the head impact 
tests; in a line along the hood (or bonnet) leading edge every 100 mm 
for the upper leg impact tests; and in a line along the front bumper 
every 100 mm for the lower leg impact tests. The test procedures then 
provide instructions on how to prepare and launch the test devices at 
the predetermined impact points--specifically, the adult and child 
headforms for the hood and windshield area points, the Transport 
Research Laboratory (TRL) upper legform for the hood leading edge 
points, and the Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI) for the 
lower leg impact points. Finally, the procedures describe how a vehicle 
is scored and rated based on the resulting measurements collected from 
each impact test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ https://www.euroncap.com/en/for-engineers/protocols/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/. See ``Pedestrian Test 
Protocol'' and Part I of the ``Assessment Protocol--VRU.'' Part II 
of the ``Assessment Protocol'' and the ``AEB VRU Test Protocol'' do 
not apply and are not part of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes that crashworthiness pedestrian protection is a 
suitable candidate for inclusion in NCAP because it satisfies four 
prerequisites the Agency previously established for inclusion of new 
safety programs in NCAP. The prerequisites are: (1) the update to the 
program addresses a safety need; (2) there are system designs 
(countermeasures) that can mitigate the safety problem; (3) existing or 
new vehicle designs have safety benefit potential; and (4) a 
performance-based objective test procedure exists that can assess 
vehicle performance.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 78 FR 20599 (Apr. 5, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Safety Need

    In NHTSA's December 2015 RFC, the Agency outlined the safety need 
to upgrade NCAP with crashworthiness pedestrian protection. In that 
notice, NHTSA noted that over 4,000 motor-vehicle related pedestrian 
fatalities and 70,000 pedestrian injuries have occurred annually since 
the Agency began tracking these data in 1975.
    Since that RFC was published in 2015, the number of pedestrians 
killed or injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes continued to grow. 
In fact, over the past 10 years (as shown in Table 1), motor vehicle 
related pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. have increased more than 46 
percent--from 4,457 fatalities in 2011 to 6,516 fatalities in 2020. In 
the same time period, the proportion of pedestrians killed in motor 
vehicle crashes relative to all roadway crash fatalities increased from 
14 percent to 17 percent, respectively.\29\ \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, May). 
Pedestrians: 2019 data (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 813 
079).
    \30\ Stewart, T. (2022, March). Overview of motor vehicle 
crashes in 2020 (Report No. DOT HS 813 266). National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.

[[Page 34371]]



                                     Table 1--Pedestrian Fatalities by Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Pedestrian fatalities
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                              Year                                     Total                       Percentage of
                                                                    fatalities        Number           total
                                                                                                    fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................................          32,479           4,457              14
2012............................................................          33,782           4,818              14
2013............................................................          32,893           4,779              15
2014............................................................          32,744           4,910              15
2015............................................................          35,484           5,494              15
2016............................................................          37,806           6,080              16
2017............................................................          37,473           6,075              16
2018............................................................          36,835           6,374              17
2019............................................................          36,355           6,272              17
2020............................................................          38,824           6,516              17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 2011-2018 data are from DOT HS 813 079 and 2019-2020 data are from DOT HS 813 266.

    Motor vehicle related crashes involving pedestrians are especially 
deadly. Although they do not occur as frequently as crashes involving 
only motor vehicles, they result in fatalities more frequently. A 2019 
NHTSA report examined the critical event and specific vehicle movements 
just prior to crashes that occurred from 2011 to 2015.\31\ The report 
defined 36 distinct pre-crash scenarios arranged into nine groups, 
which accounted for 94 percent of fatal crashes. The pre-crash 
scenarios were grouped in terms of environmental conditions, road 
geometry, crash location, vehicle/crash-related factors, driver 
characteristics, attempted avoidance maneuver, traffic violations, and 
crash contributing factors. One of the pre-crash scenario groups 
studied was ``pedestrian,'' in which each crash included in this group 
involved at least one light vehicle (i.e., less than 4,536 kilograms 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)) striking a pedestrian. The report 
found an average of 3,731 fatal crashes and a total of 70,461 crashes a 
year included the critical event of a vehicle striking a pedestrian--as 
shown in Table 2. Although 70,461 crashes represent only one percent of 
all crashes, 3,731 fatal crashes represent 15 percent of all fatal 
crashes. This represents 53 fatal crashes per thousand crashes, the 
highest among any pre-crash scenario group identified in the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Swanson, E., Foderaro, F., Yanagisawa, M., Najm, W.G., & 
Azeredo, P. (2019, August). Statistics of light-vehicle pre-crash 
scenarios based on 2011-2015 national crash data (Report No. DOT HS 
812 745). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.

                  Table 2--Nine Scenario Groups Yearly Average Based on 2011-2015 FARS and GES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Crashes where the light vehicle is making the critical
                                                                   action
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------  Number of
                                            Fatal crashes       All crashes      Number of crashes      fatal
             Scenario group             --------------------------------------   per billion light   crashes per
                                                                                   vehicle miles        1,000
                                                                                     traveled          crashes
                                            Total       %       Total      %  ----------------------
                                                                                  Fatal       All
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Control Loss........................        4,456    18%      470,733   9%          1.6      174          9.5
2. Road Departure......................        6,500     26      547,098   11          2.4      202         11.9
3. Animal..............................          102      0      297,968    6          0.0      110          0.3
4. Pedestrian..........................        3,731     15       70,461    1          1.4       26         53.0
5. Pedalcyclist........................          518      2       47,927    1          0.2       18         10.8
6. Lane Change.........................          752      3      644,099   13          0.3      238          1.2
7. Opposite Direction..................        3,258     13      100,786    2          1.2       37         32.3
8. Rear-End............................        1,245      5    1,709,717   34          0.5      632          0.7
9. Crossing Paths......................        3,972     16    1,131,273   23          1.5      418          3.5
Nine Group Total.......................       24,534    100    5,020,062  100          9.1    1,855          4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most pedestrian traffic motor vehicle related fatalities are due to 
a collision with a single-vehicle (under 4,536 kilograms GVWR) where 
the impacting point is the front of the vehicle. Between 2011 and 2020, 
55,775 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.\32\ Of these 
pedestrians, 71.8 percent (40,093) were killed by light vehicles (i.e., 
passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans under 4,536 kilograms GVWR) in 
single-vehicle crashes.\33\ Ninety percent (36,076) of the 
aforementioned single-vehicle crashes were frontal impacts.\34\ 
Passenger cars were responsible for approximately half (18,194) of 
these 36,076 fatalities, and light trucks (i.e., SUVs, pickups, and 
vans) were responsible for the other half (17,882).\35\ Large trucks 
and buses over 4,536 kilograms GVWR in single-vehicle crashes with 
pedestrians accounted for a much smaller portion of single vehicle 
pedestrian fatalities; about 7 percent (3,388).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Table 16 in appendix A.
    \33\ See Table 17 in appendix A.
    \34\ See Table 18 in appendix A.
    \35\ See Table 18 in appendix A.
    \36\ See Table 17 in appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to fatalities that occur in traffic motor vehicle-to-
pedestrian crashes, there are notable numbers of nonoccupants killed 
and injured in non-traffic motor vehicle related crashes. Non-traffic 
crashes frequently occur in private roadways, parking facilities, and 
driveways, places in which NHTSA's

[[Page 34372]]

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and Crash Report Sampling 
System (CRSS) data systems do not capture data. NHTSA's Non-Traffic 
Surveillance (NTS) system recorded an average additional 386 
nonoccupants killed and 14,265 injured annually from forward-moving 
vehicles between 2016 and 2020.\37\ These average annual numbers are 
similar to data collected through the NTS in 2012-2015.38 39 
Although the data may include some non-pedestrian nonoccupants (such as 
bicyclists), it highlights the dangers of moving motor vehicles to 
nonoccupants around them, even in lower speed environments outside of 
roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022, 
September). Non-Traffic Surveillance: Fatality and injury statistics 
in nontraffic crashes, 2016 to 2020. (Report No. DOT HS 813 363). 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    \38\ Singh, S. (2016, August). Non-Traffic Surveillance: 
Fatality and injury statistics in non-traffic crashes, 2012 to 2014. 
(Report No. DOT HS 812 311).
    \39\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2018, April). 
Non-traffic surveillance: fatality and injury statistics in 
nontraffic crashes in 2015 (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 
812 515).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. System Designs Exist

    As discussed in the 2015 NCAP RFC, the Agency selected the speed of 
40 kph (25 mph) for testing in the NCAP crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection program because most pedestrian crashes occur at this speed 
or below. Thus, there is opportunity to improve pedestrian safety. In 
crashes that occur at these speeds--up to 40 kph (25 mph), for low 
profile vehicles such as passenger cars--the typical pedestrian-vehicle 
interactions are as follows: (1) the pedestrian's lower legs generally 
engage with the vehicle bumper, (2) the upper leg and pelvis make 
contact with the vehicle's leading edge, (3) the body is rotated around 
the vehicle and the torso swings downward, and (4) the pedestrian's 
head makes contact with the vehicle's hood or windshield. Higher-
profile vehicles, such as large SUVs, vans, and trucks, may engage with 
the pedestrian's pelvis earlier in the dynamic event. At speeds greater 
than 40 kph (25 mph), impact dynamics often cause the pedestrian's head 
to overshoot the hood and windshield and therefore countermeasures 
become less relevant to reduce head injuries to pedestrians.
    The fatalities and serious injuries that occur from motor vehicle 
crashes involving pedestrians can be attributed to specific body 
regions. A NHTSA study using both U.S. and German crash data found that 
the head and lower extremities are the most common injury locations on 
a struck pedestrian.\40\ For seriously-injured pedestrians (Abbreviated 
Injury Scale (AIS) 3 or higher), the thorax is the third most common 
body location to sustain an injury.\41\ For disabling injuries, where 
the pedestrian is still disabled one year after the crash, the thorax 
injury is less prevalent, and the pelvis/hip area is the third most 
common body location injured.\42\ Thus, the head, legs, and thorax are 
the most common locations of serious injury, and the head, legs, and 
pelvis/hip are the most common locations for disabling injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Mallory, A., Fredriksson, R., Rosen, E., Donnelly, B. 
(2012, October). Pedestrian Injuries By Source: Serious and 
Disabling Injuries in US and European Cases. 56th AAAM Annual 
Conference.
    \41\ The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is a classification 
system for assessing impact injury severity developed and published 
by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine and is 
used for coding single injuries, assessing multiple injuries, or for 
assessing cumulative effects on more than one injury. AIS ranks 
individual injuries by body region on a scale of 1 to 6 where 
1=minor, 2=moderate, 3=serious, 4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum 
(untreatable).
    \42\ Disabling injuries were estimated using the Functional 
Capacity Index (FCI). In the FCI system, each AIS code is assigned 
an FCI value to reflect the expected disability one year following 
the injury for initially healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 
34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same NHTSA study also showed that pedestrian injuries sustained 
to the body regions mentioned above can be primarily attributed to 
areas of the impacting vehicle. For instance, the bumper and valence 
\43\ of a vehicle are responsible for the majority of serious and 
disabling injuries caused primarily to the lower legs. Also, the hood 
(or bonnet) of a vehicle is the cause of injuries to numerous areas of 
the body including the head and face, thorax, upper extremities, 
abdomen, and pelvis and hip. Furthermore, the hood leading edge is a 
significant source of injuries to the thorax and pelvis and hip, 
especially in larger vehicles. Finally, the windshield of a vehicle is 
the second highest source of injury--just behind the bumper, and the 
leading cause of head injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The valence is a thin panel located under the bumper that 
is generally used as a styling element, to improve aerodynamics, or 
to protect the underside of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicles can be designed to mitigate injury to a pedestrian for the 
body areas discussed above. For example, a vehicle's bumper and hood 
leading edge can be designed to have geometric and material properties 
to minimize bending moments and ligament extension in a pedestrian's 
leg and knee or excessive force in the pelvis and hip. Similarly, the 
hood may be designed to have space underneath to crush without 
bottoming out on any rigid components, such as an engine block. The 
hood and hood hinges may also be designed in a way to make them less 
rigid and to allow more deformation when impacting a pedestrian. The 
deformation of components on a vehicle would absorb some of the energy 
of the impact and transfer less energy to the pedestrian's head--thus 
lessening the chance of a head injury. Certain vehicles are even 
designed with an active hood that deploys upon contact with a 
pedestrian to allow more space between the hood and engine bay 
components for additional deformation and energy absorption.
    Since other consumer information vehicle safety programs such as 
The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), The Australasian 
New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), Japan New Car Assessment Program 
(JNCAP), and Korean New Car Assessment Program (KNCAP) have been 
evaluating crashworthiness pedestrian protection over the years, 
vehicles with pedestrian safety countermeasures have been available in 
the market globally. In preparation for incorporating the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection program in U.S. NCAP, NHTSA 
surveyed vehicles in the U.S. fleet by conducting a feasibility study 
on nine model year (MY) 2015-2017 vehicles to evaluate their pedestrian 
protection performance against the Euro NCAP test procedures.\44\ The 
nine vehicles included pickups, SUVs, and passenger cars, domestic-only 
models and global platform \45\ vehicles that are not only sold in the 
U.S. but also are available in other markets with minor design changes. 
As shown in Table 3, four of the tested vehicles exceeded the 60 
percent score necessary to receive a 5-star overall rating in Euro 
NCAP.\46\ Four of the vehicles scored under the 60 percent threshold, 
and one vehicle received a 60 percent score. In general, the global 
platform vehicles were found to perform better overall in the 
pedestrian impact tests (using the Euro NCAP test procedures) than the 
domestic-only models. This study

[[Page 34373]]

shows that not only can vehicles in the U.S. market be designed with 
pedestrian safety in mind, but also additional safety gains can be made 
for currently underperforming vehicles through better vehicle designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Suntay, B., Stammen, J., & Martin, P. (2019, June). 
Pedestrian protection--Assessment of the U.S. vehicle fleet (Report 
No. DOT HS 812 723). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
    \45\ Global platform vehicles are vehicles that have variants 
sold in both the U.S. and European markets.
    \46\ For MY2022, vehicles must receive a vulnerable road user 
sub-score of 60 percent or greater to be eligible to receive a 5-
star overall rating in Euro NCAP. Euro NCAP's vulnerable road user 
sub-score also includes active crash avoidance systems, such as 
PAEB, that were not factored into NHTSA's crashworthiness only 
assessment of pedestrian protection.

 Table 3--U.S. Fleet Vehicles Tested Using Euro NCAP Scoring Methodology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Scores (max 36
                 Vehicle                       pts)         Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Audi A4 *..........................           24.41           67.8%
2016 Chevrolet Malibu...................           21.75            60.4
2016 Chevrolet Tahoe....................           14.98            41.6
2016 Ford Edge *........................           18.60            51.7
2015 Ford F-150.........................           11.02            30.6
2016 Honda Fit *........................           24.67            68.5
2016 Nissan Rogue *.....................           30.00            83.3
2016 Toyota Prius *.....................           30.12            83.7
2015 Toyota Sienna......................           19.10            53.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Global platform vehicles with European variants tested by Euro NCAP

C. Potential Safety Benefits

    While pedestrian fatalities have been increasing in the U.S. in 
recent years, there has been a steady decline in pedestrian fatalities 
in other developed countries. Figure 1 shows that pedestrian fatalities 
related to motor vehicle crashes significantly decreased in Europe and 
gradually decreased in Japan--especially from 2000 to 2010. Pedestrian 
fatalities in the U.S., on the other hand, remained the same during 
that time period but then steadily increased over the past ten years 
and at a much faster pace for several years now. One difference between 
the other countries in Figure 1 and the U.S. is that other countries 
have adopted crashworthiness pedestrian protection vehicle safety 
consumer information programs and pedestrian protection regulations, 
while the U.S. has not yet adopted either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Sources: FARS (U.S.), European Road Safety Observatory (E. 
U.), Institute for Traffic Accidents Research and Data Analysis 
(Japan)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.000


[[Page 34374]]


    As discussed previously, other consumer information vehicle safety 
programs have implemented various crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
testing programs over the years. A paper published by the German 
Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) studied the effectiveness of 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection requirements in Germany.\48\ By 
examining crash data from Germany, this paper found a correlation 
between Euro NCAP pedestrian protection scores and pedestrian injuries 
and fatalities. The author concluded that ``each point in [the Euro] 
NCAP [pedestrian] score relates to a relative reduction in probability 
of 2.5 percent for fatalities, and 1 percent for serious injuries.'' 
Similarly, a paper published by the Swedish Transport Administration 
found vehicles that scored better in the Euro NCAP pedestrian 
crashworthiness tests produced less serious injuries in real-world 
crashes.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Pastor, C., ``Correlation between pedestrian injury 
severity in real-life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian test 
results,'' The 23rd International Technical Conference on the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0308, 2013.
    \49\ Standroth, J. et al. (2014), ``Correlation between Euro 
NCAP pedestrian test results and injury severity in injury crashes 
with pedestrians and bicyclists in Sweden,'' Stapp Car Crash 
Journal, Vol. 58 (November 2014), pp. 213-231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOT believes that the crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
tests outlined in this proposal have the potential to reduce the rising 
number of pedestrian fatalities and injuries in the U.S. As discussed 
previously, there were 36,076 pedestrian fatalities between 2011-2020 
involving single-vehicle crashes between the front end of a light 
vehicle and a pedestrian.\50\ When travel speed was known, 13.2 percent 
of fatal crashes occurred at travel speeds of 40 kph (25 mph) or below 
(Figure 2).\51\ From 2011-2020, the front end of passenger cars and 
light trucks caused approximately 479,000 injuries to pedestrians in 
single-vehicle crashes,\52\ and 68.7 percent of those crashes occurred 
at travel speeds of 40 kph (25 mph) and below when travel speed was 
known.\53\ Looking at these data on an annual basis, approximately 476 
fatalities and 32,907 injuries could be mitigated by crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection contemplated under the proposed testing program. 
Based on this data, the DOT believes that the proposed test speed of 40 
kph (25 mph) is an appropriate threshold for the new crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection tests in NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Table 18 in appendix A.
    \51\ See Table 19 in appendix A.
    \52\ See Table 20 in appendix A.
    \53\ See Table 19 in appendix A.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.001
    

[[Page 34375]]


    Although these numbers only account for crashes occurring at 40 kph 
(25 mph) or less, it is possible that some residual benefit could also 
be afforded in crashes that occur at slightly higher speeds. 
Furthermore, as PAEB continues to proliferate in the vehicle fleet, it 
is expected that vehicles traveling at speeds above 40 kph (25 mph) may 
impact pedestrians as it slows down to speeds at or below 40 kph (25 
mph) if the PAEB system engages but is unable to fully stop the 
vehicle. Thus, crashworthiness pedestrian protection countermeasures 
along with PAEB technology may provide pedestrians some safety benefit 
even at higher speeds, either by avoiding pedestrian collision or by 
reducing the impact speeds to levels at which crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection countermeasures would work.

D. Objective Test Procedure Exists

    The last guiding principle in NHTSA's four pre-requisites when 
considering a new safety program for inclusion in NCAP is whether there 
is an objective test procedure to assess for vehicle performance. NHTSA 
has been conducting research, developing test devices, and creating 
test procedures to simulate pedestrian crash impacts since the 1980s. 
As early as 1990, NHTSA published a test procedure for evaluating head 
impacts to the hood of a test vehicle.\54\ Some of the elements of the 
early test procedures are still used in these currently proposed 
pedestrian crashworthiness test procedures, such as the use of an adult 
and child headform to measure head injury criteria (HIC), the layout of 
test locations on the hood of a test vehicle, test speeds at 40 kph (25 
mph), and the concept of a ``wrap around distance'' (WAD)--as shown in 
Figure 3.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ MacLaughlin, T. and Kessler, J., ``Pedestrian Head Impact 
Against the Central Hood of Motor Vehicles--Test Procedure and 
Results,'' SAE Technical Paper 902315, 1990.
    \55\ The term ``Wrap Around Distance (WAD)'' is a distance 
measurement made using a flexible tape measure. One end of the tape 
is held at ground level directly below the bumper. The other end is 
wrapped around the front end of a vehicle and held taut and in 
contact with a point on the hood or windshield.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.002

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    Over the years, many advancements to pedestrian crashworthiness 
evaluations have occurred in part due to the introduction of similar 
pedestrian safety programs in other NCAP programs worldwide. For 
instance, in addition to using the headforms for head injury 
assessment, other impactors such as the legforms that measure forces, 
bending moments, and ligament elongation for the knees have been 
developed. Test devices have also undergone design changes to improve 
biofidelity and durability. Furthermore, the test zone is no longer 
limited to just the central portion of the hood as it has been extended 
to other areas on a vehicle such as the front bumper, hood leading 
edge, windshield, and A-pillars, to include assessment of other injury 
sources to pedestrians. Also, test procedures have been refined to 
ensure that the layout of test points and the aiming method of test 
impactors are more repeatable. Most of NHTSA's recent research 
activities on crashworthiness pedestrian safety may be found in http://
www.Regulations.gov (Docket Number: NHTSA-2019-0112), and additional 
work is published on the National Transportation Library website with 
the search keywords ``Pedestrian Safety.'' 57 58 DOT notes 
that some documents contained in these repositories do not directly 
relate to this proposal to update NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 9.
    \57\ Regulations.gov docket available here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NHTSA-2019-0112.
    \58\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/gsearch?pid=dot%3A40796&parentId=dot%3A40796&sm_key_words=Pedestrian%20safety. Search keywords ``pedestrian safety''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 through Table 8 summarize the various crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection testing programs being

[[Page 34376]]

conducted around the world. The tables display both consumer 
information programs (NCAPs) as well as regulations. Global Technical 
Regulation No. 9 Pedestrian Safety \59\ is the basis for the regulation 
adopted in Europe--UNECE R127; \60\ the regulation adopted in Korea--
Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 102-2; and the regulation adopted 
in Japan--Article 18 Attachment 99. The purpose of the consumer 
information programs is to provide information to new vehicle buyers 
and often incentivize safety improvements that extend beyond the 
established standards, while the purpose of the regulations is to set 
minimum performance standards. Therefore, the consumer information 
programs award zero points for tests that do not meet certain 
established performance criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ https://unece.org/transport/standards/transport/vehicle-regulations-wp29/global-technical-regulations-gtrs.
    \60\ The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 
Regulation No. 127-00, ``Motor Vehicles Pedestrian Safety 
Performance.''

                                                         Table 4--Adult Headform Test Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Consumer information programs                        GTR 9 and UN R127
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  and KMVSS 102-2
                                                             Euro NCAP and                                                             and Japan article
                                                                 ANCAP              JNCAP              KNCAP              C-NCAP           18 att. 99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (kph)....................................                 40                 40                 40                 40                 35
WAD (mm).................................................   * 1500/1700-2100          1700-2100          1700-2100     1500/1700-2300          1700-2100
Impact Angle (degrees)...................................                 65                 65                 65                 65                 65
Test on windshield?......................................                Yes                Yes                Yes                Yes                 No
HIC Max. Score...........................................                650                650                650                650  .................
HIC Zero Score...........................................               1700               1700               1700               1700
HIC Limit................................................  .................  .................  .................  .................          1000/1700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In Euro NCAP and ANCAP, points rearward of the bonnet rear reference line between 1500 mm and 1700 mm WAD and up to 2100 mm WAD are assessed using the
  adult impactor.


                                                         Table 5--Child Headform Test Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Consumer information programs                        GTR 9 and UN R127
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  and KMVSS 102-2
                                                             Euro NCAP and                                                             and Japan article
                                                                 ANCAP              JNCAP              KNCAP              C-NCAP           18 att. 99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (kph)....................................                 40                 40                 40                 40                 35
WAD (mm).................................................   * 1000-1500/1700          1000-1700          1000-1700     1000-1500/1700          1000-1700
Impact Angle (degrees)...................................                 50                 50                 50                 50                 50
Test on windshield?......................................                Yes                Yes                Yes                Yes                 No
HIC Max. Score...........................................                650                650                650                650  .................
HIC Zero Score...........................................               1700               1700               1700               1700  .................
HIC Limit................................................  .................  .................  .................  .................          1000/1700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In Euro NCAP and ANCAP, where the bonnet rear reference line is between 1500 mm and 1700 mm WAD, points forward of and directly on the BRRL are
  assessed using the child headform. Where the BRRL is rearward of 1700 mm WAD, the child headform is used up to and including 1700 mm.


                                                    Table 6--Upper Legform to WAD775 Test Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Consumer information programs                               GTR 9 and UN R127
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  and KMVSS 102-2
                                                                                                                                       and Japan article
                                                    Euro NCAP and ANCAP             JNCAP              KNCAP              C-NCAP           18 att. 99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Angle ([deg])........................  90[deg] leading edge..........
Impact Velocity (kph).......................  20-33.........................
Sum of forces (N) Max. Score................  5000..........................
Sum of forces (N) Zero Score................  6000..........................
Bending moment (Nm) Max. Score..............  285...........................
Bending moment (Nm) Zero Score..............  350...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Table 7--Upper Legform to Bumper Test Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Consumer information programs                  GTR 9 and UN R127
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------  and KMVSS 102-2
                                Euro NCAP and                                                  and Japan article
                                    ANCAP           JNCAP           KNCAP          C-NCAP          18 att. 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity (kph)........              40  ..............              40  ..............                 40
Sum of forces (N) Max. Score.            5000  ..............            5000
Sum of forces (N) Zero Score.            6000  ..............            7500

[[Page 34377]]

 
Sum of forces (N) Limit......  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               7500
Bending moment (Nm) Max.                  285  ..............             300
 Score.......................
Bending moment (Nm) Zero                  350  ..............             510
 Score.......................
Bending moment (Nm) Limit....  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............                510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                    Table 8--Lower Legform to Bumper Test Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Consumer information programs                                 GTR 9 and UN R127 and
                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KMVSS 102-2 and Japan
                                       Euro NCAP and ANCAP            JNCAP                  KNCAP                  C-NCAP           article 18 att. 99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legform Used.......................  Flex PLI..............  Flex PLI..............  Flex PLI.............  aPLI.................  Flex PLI.
Impact Velocity (kph)..............  40....................  40....................  40...................  40...................  40.
Ground clearance (mm)..............  75....................  75....................  75...................  25...................  75.
Femur bending (Nm) Max. Score......  ......................  ......................  .....................  390.                   .....................
Femur bending (Nm) Zero Score......  ......................  ......................  .....................  440..................
Tibia bending (Nm) Max. Score......  282...................  202...................  282..................  275.                   .....................
Tibia bending (Nm) Zero Score......  340...................  306...................  340..................  320..................
Tibia bending (Nm) Limit...........  ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  340/380.
MCL elongation (mm) Max. Score.....  19....................  14.8..................  19...................  27.                    .....................
MCL elongation (mm) Zero Score.....  22....................  19.8..................  22...................  32.                    .....................
MCL elongation (mm) Limit..........  ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  22.
ACL/PCL elongation (mm) Max. Score   10....................  13....................  10.                                           .....................
 *.
ACL/PCL elongation (mm) Zero Score   10....................  13....................  10.                                           .....................
 *.
ACL/PCL elongation (mm) Limit......  ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In Euro NCAP, ANCAP, JNCAP, and KNCAP the ACL and PCL elongations act as modifiers. If the stated limit is exceeded that impact is awarded zero points
  regardless of the MCL or Tibia results.

    The crashworthiness pedestrian protection test procedures in Euro 
NCAP consist of standardized instructions to (1) prepare a vehicle for 
testing, (2) conduct impact tests using various test devices, and (3) 
assess a vehicle's performance based on the result of the impact tests. 
Vehicles are first prepared by measuring and marking the front end of 
the vehicle in a prescriptive way to locate the test boundaries and 
impact points on the vehicle. The impact points are marked on a 100 mm 
by 100 mm grid on the hood, windshield, and surrounding components for 
the head impact tests; in a line along the hood (or bonnet) leading 
edge every 100 mm for the upper leg to WAD775 impact tests; and in a 
line along the front bumper every 100 mm for the lower leg to bumper 
impact tests. The Euro NCAP test procedures then provide instructions 
on how to prepare and launch the test devices at the predetermined 
impact points--specifically, the adult and child headforms for the hood 
and windshield area points, the TRL upper legform for the WAD775 
points, and the FlexPLI for the bumper impact points. Finally, the 
procedures describe how a vehicle is scored and rated based on the 
resulting measurements collected from each impact test. The next 
several sections discuss in detail the individual tests and test 
procedures currently used in Euro NCAP and will be used in this 
proposed U.S. NCAP's crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing 
program.
1. Headforms and Head Impacts
    As discussed earlier, since NHTSA began its research efforts on 
pedestrian safety in the 1980s and 1990s, head impact testing has been 
introduced in other NCAP programs (e.g., Euro NCAP, ANCAP, JNCAP, 
KNCAP) worldwide. Test devices, specifically the child and adult 
headforms, have been standardized in other countries (e.g., UNECE R127, 
Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 102-2, Japan Article 18 Attachment 
99, and Global Technical Regulation No. 9).
    The headforms used in Euro NCAP are featureless, hemispherical 
impact devices that represent an adult and a 6-year-old child's head. 
Although each headform has the same diameter -165 mm (6.5 in), the 
adult headform weighs 4.5 kg (9.9 pounds), based on an average adult 
male, and the child headform weighs 3.5 kg (7.7 pounds). Early research 
and protocols used a smaller child headform with a mass of 2.5 kg (5.5 
pounds) and a diameter of 130 mm and found the smaller and lighter 
headform produced higher accelerations when striking a hood but a 
heavier headform was more likely to bottom out against a hard 
underlying structure. Thus, mass was determined to be the most 
important parameter in assessing pedestrian head injury risk. The two 
head test devices cover a range of head masses from children to small 
adults to average sized adult males and encompasses a large percentage 
of adult females. The test procedures cover a range of components over 
an area of the vehicle that are injurious to pedestrians of all sizes. 
Both headforms use a triaxial arrangement of accelerometers to measure 
HIC values. The HIC skull fracture risk function is based on adult male 
cadaveric data but the Agency is not aware of biomechanical data 
suggesting that a female head may be more vulnerable than a male head 
for the same impact condition.\61\ Therefore, NHTSA believes that any 
countermeasure that is beneficial for a male pedestrian would also be 
beneficial for a female pedestrian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The head injury assessment reference values used for the 
50th percentile adult male dummy and the 5th percentile adult female 
dummy are the same in frontal and side impact crash tests in NCAP 
and in Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA proposes to use these headforms in the NCAP program proposed 
in this RFC. The adult headform that is used in Euro NCAP has been 
evaluated by NHTSA, and the Agency has published drawings and 
Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly,

[[Page 34378]]

and Inspection (PADI).\62\ Similarly, the Agency has evaluated the 
child headform and published drawings and the associated PADI.\63\ 
Furthermore, both adult and child headforms from multiple manufacturers 
were evaluated for durability, repeatability, and reproducibility by 
conducting impact tests on a variety of U.S. fleet vehicles and found 
them to perform well.\64\ Qualification procedures also exist for these 
test devices.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Both documents are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0024.
    \63\ Both documents are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0025.
    \64\ Suntay, B., Stammen, J., Vehicle Hood Testing to Evaluate 
Pedestrian Headform Reproducibility, GTR No. 9 Test Procedural 
Issues, and U.S. Fleet Performance, August 2018.
    \65\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Euro NCAP conducts head impacts at a speed of 40 kph (25 mph).\66\ 
The tests are carried out over a large area on the front of the vehicle 
including the hood, windshield, and A-pillars on a 100 mm by 100 mm 
grid pattern. The child headform generally covers the portion of the 
vehicle's front end closer to the bumper, and the assessment zone for 
the adult headform covers an area further back, toward the windshield. 
The head impactors are aimed at the impact locations through the 
headform centerline and line of flight as shown in Figure 4. There is 
no HIC limit for each impact point, and Euro NCAP averages scores 
across all test locations--awarding higher scores for test locations 
with low HIC values (<650) and lower scores for test locations with 
high HIC values (<=1,700).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Section 12 
``Headform Testing'' for instructions for carrying out the headform 
impact tests. euro-ncap-pedestrian-testing-protocol-
v85.201811091256001913.pdf (euroncap.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.003

    NHTSA has evaluated the Euro NCAP head impact test procedures over 
several years, including in support of NHTSA's 2015 RFC regarding 
potentially incorporating those test procedures into the U.S. NCAP. For 
that effort, NHTSA evaluated nine U.S. vehicles, including passenger 
cars, SUVs, pickups, and a minivan. The vehicles included both U.S. 
market-only and global platform vehicles. Since the latter vehicles are 
vehicles that are sold in the U.S. as well as in other countries, 
results from the Agency's tests could be compared to Euro NCAP scores. 
NHTSA's assessment of the global platform vehicles showed that not only 
the head impact location markups but also the resulting headform scores 
were similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Legforms and Leg Impacts
    In addition to the headforms mentioned above, Euro NCAP also 
currently uses a pair of legforms for crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection safety evaluations. One of these legforms is a test device 
used in Euro NCAP to evaluate injuries to the upper leg, pelvis, and 
hip. This upper legform impactor, created by the Transport Research 
Laboratory (TRL), measures bending moments for femur fracture and 
forces for pelvis fracture. The TRL upper legform impactor consists of 
a front and rear member with a torque limiting joint, which is used to 
protect the test equipment in cases of extreme forces. The device is 
wrapped in two layers of foam to simulate a human leg with flesh. The 
TRL upper legform also has adjustable ballast to change the impactor 
mass depending on the test application. A comprehensive NHTSA 
evaluation, which was published in

[[Page 34379]]

2019, found that the TRL upper legform impactor was durable, 
repeatable, reproducible, sensitive to vehicle design, and could 
measure the relative stiffness of a vehicle's leading edge.\68\ Similar 
to the other test devices discussed in this notice, NHTSA has published 
drawings and a PADI for the TRL upper legform impactor.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0007.
    \69\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TRL upper legform impactor is utilized in two separate 
tests.\70\ In Euro NCAP, the upper legform may be used in place of the 
FlexPLI legform for bumper impacts on certain vehicles. If the lower 
bumper reference line (LBRL), as measured in Figure 5,\71\ is equal to 
or greater than 425 mm but less than or equal to 500 mm, the vehicle 
manufacturer may choose to use either the FlexPLI or the TRL upper 
legform for bumper impact tests. 72 73 If the LBRL of a 
vehicle is greater than 500 mm, the TRL upper legform impactor must be 
utilized on those vehicles. The FlexPLI is not utilized in vehicles 
with very high LBRL (greater than 500 mm) due to the impactor's poor 
kinematic response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Unlike the headform and FlexPLI impactor tests, which are 
projectile impacts, the TRL upper legform impactor test is a 
linearly guided impact.
    \71\ The LBRL is identified by the geometric trace between the 
bumper and a straight edge at a 25[deg] forward incline. It 
represents the lower boundary of significant points of contact with 
a pedestrian leg and the bumper.
    \72\ Euro NCAP plans to remove this option beginning with MY 
2023, see Vulnerable Road User Testing Protocol V9.0 at https://www.euroncap.com/en/for-engineers/protocols/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/.
    \73\ See Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Section 9 
``Legform Tests'' for instructions for carrying out the FlexPLI to 
bumper impact test and Section 10 ``Upper Legform to Bumper Tests'' 
for instructions for carrying out the upper legform to bumper impact 
test. euro-ncap-pedestrian-testing-protocol-
v85.201811091256001913.pdf (euroncap.com).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.004

    Additionally, Euro NCAP employs an impact test along the bonnet (or 
hood) leading edge with the TRL upper legform impactor known as the 
Upper Legform to WAD775mm Test.\75\ The WAD775 test, which is conducted 
at a WAD of 775 mm, simulates a pedestrian's upper leg and hip wrapping 
around the front end of the vehicle in the transition area between the 
bumper and the hood. Because the pedestrian's hip wraps around the 
front end of the vehicle, the upper legform impactor is set up to 
strike the vehicle at an angle perpendicular to the internal bumper 
reference line (IBRL) (shown in Figure 6) and a point along the WAD at 
930 mm.\76\ These tests are conducted at a speed between 20 and 33 kph 
(12 and 21 mph) and at an impact angle depending on vehicle geometry, 
and maximum points are awarded for forces below 5 kN and bending 
moments below 280 Nm. The test setup is shown in Figure 7. Vehicles 
with higher front ends tend to have lower impact angles (relative to 
horizontal) and higher impact speeds with more energy. Vehicles with 
lower front ends tend to have higher impact angles (relative to 
horizontal) and lower impact speeds with less energy. The Upper Legform 
to WAD775mm Test in Euro NCAP has remained the same since 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 13.
    \75\ See Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Section 11 
``Upper Legform to WAD775mm Tests'' for instructions for carrying 
out the upper legform to WAD775 test. euro-ncap-pedestrian-testing-
protocol-v85.201811091256001913.pdf (euroncap.com).
    \76\ The IBRL height is identified where a vertical plane 
contacts the bumper beam up to 10mm into the profile of the bumper 
beam.

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

[[Page 34380]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.006


[[Page 34381]]


    In addition to the TRL upper legform, the Flexible Pedestrian 
Legform Impactor (FlexPLI), represents an adult human's femur, knee, 
and tibia. Prior to the creation of the FlexPLI, the European Enhanced 
Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) legform impactor was utilized in Euro 
NCAP. The EEVC legform had limitations because (1) it has a rigid femur 
and tibia, (2) the knee joint was unable to simulate combined loading, 
and (3) the steel ligaments needed to be replaced after every test. 
Unlike the EEVC legform impactor, the FlexPLI has not only an 
articulated femur and leg bone elements but also an articulated knee 
structure. The bone elements for the FlexPLI are instrumented with 
strain gauges, and the knee segment is instrumented with four 
potentiometer ligaments that retract and elongate. The entire FlexPLI 
assembly, which weighs 13.2 kg (29.1 pounds), is wrapped in rubber 
layers and a neoprene cover simulating flesh and skin of a human leg. 
The FlexPLI has been used by Euro NCAP since 2014. In 2014, a 
comprehensive NHTSA evaluation of the FlexPLI found the impactor to be 
durable, biofidelic, repeatable, reproducible, and sensitive to vehicle 
design.\79\ NHTSA has published drawings and a PADI for the 
FlexPLI.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 15.
    \78\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 29.
    \79\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0003.
    \80\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate injuries to a pedestrian's knee and lower leg, the 
FlexPLI is launched in free flight, perpendicular to the ground, at a 
fixed height, into the front bumper of a vehicle at an impact velocity 
of 40 kph (25 mph).\81\ The test setup is shown in Figure 8. The 
FlexPLI test has remained relatively the same in Euro NCAP since its 
addition to the program in 2014. Euro NCAP evaluates tibia bending 
moments and knee ligament elongations. Maximum points are awarded for 
tibia bending moments 282 Nm and lower, and zero points are awarded for 
tibia bending moments above 340 Nm. Knee ligament elongations are 
measured for the medial collateral ligament (MCL), and maximum points 
are awarded for an elongation less than 19 mm and zero points are 
awarded for an elongation greater than 22 mm. In addition, the anterior 
cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) cannot 
exceed 10 mm elongation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Section 9 
``Legform Tests'' for instructions for carrying out the FlexPLI to 
bumper impact test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.007

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    The upper legform and the FlexPLI are based on a 50th percentile 
average adult male in both mass and stature. These legforms are the 
most current anthropomorphic legforms available that have been 
thoroughly researched and reviewed by NHTSA. Comments are requested on 
whether other legforms that represent smaller adult females are 
available, the injury criteria and test procedures associated with 
them, and the safety need for such legforms. As with the headforms, 
NHTSA believes that testing with heavier legforms is more stringent 
because the heavier legforms are more likely to bottom out on and hit 
more rigid structures. NHTSA seeks comment on the topic of female leg 
safety. Are there data showing that vehicle front end designs that 
perform well in the FlexPLI and upper legform impact tests would not 
afford protection to female pedestrians? Are there any legforms 
representing female or small stature pedestrians? Are there female 
specific data and associated 5th percentile female specific injury 
criteria for use with a 5th percentile female legform impactor? [1] 
\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 26.
    \83\ The number in square brackets signifies the question number 
on which NHTSA seeks comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Response to Comments Received in Previous Actions

    The following section addresses comments received from the public 
in response to NHTSA's December 2015 RFC section on pedestrian 
protection and the public meeting in 2018.

[[Page 34382]]

1. General Pedestrian Protection Comments
    NHTSA received many comments in general support of adding a 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing component to NCAP. 
Furthermore, many of the comments in response to the December 2015 
notice stated that both pedestrian crash avoidance and pedestrian 
crashworthiness elements were appropriate for inclusion in NCAP. The 
Agency's most recent RFC, which was issued in March 2022, proposed to 
include pedestrian automatic emergency breaking technology in NCAP. 
That proposal focused on the crash avoidance aspect of pedestrian 
safety in NCAP. The March 2022 notice also included a roadmap outlining 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection as a future update. NHTSA 
received a number of comments in support of adding crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection to NCAP, with commenters noting that vehicles are 
getting larger and pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are increasing in 
recent years. The commenters requested adopting a crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection testing program and rating system similar to that 
implemented in Euro NCAP. Commenters requested ensuring protection for 
a wide range of pedestrian sizes and weights. Some suggested designing 
the tests to protect children and smaller adults and others suggested 
including protection for cyclists and using female specific test 
devices. This proposal continues the Agency's efforts to improve 
pedestrian safety from a crashworthiness perspective, demonstrating a 
multi-prong approach to improving pedestrian safety and preventing 
pedestrian injury and death related to motor vehicle crashes in the 
United States.
    A common theme in the comments received from the public on NCAP 
updates was that NHTSA should work to harmonize with other NCAPs; thus, 
many commenters were supportive of the proposal in the December 2015 
Notice to adopt the Euro NCAP test procedures. However, a few 
commenters noted that harmonization may not always be appropriate 
because (1) there are differences in the U.S. and European vehicle 
fleet and (2) different tests may address a broader spectrum of real-
world scenarios. Many commenters also suggested that NHTSA continue to 
monitor updates to Euro NCAP and consider applying those to the U.S. 
NCAP.
    The proposal in this RFC draws from the most recent Euro NCAP 
pedestrian crashworthiness test procedures.\84\ Although NHTSA is 
mainly proposing to adopt the Euro NCAP test devices and test 
procedures, to ensure that the overall score better reflects the 
pedestrian protection provided by the vehicle's front end, the Agency 
is proposing some changes to FlexPLI and TRL upper legform bumper and 
WAD775 testing. As noted by many commenters in the March 2022 notice, 
U.S. vehicle front ends are getting taller and these changes to the 
test procedure will ensure these taller vehicles are tested 
appropriately. Furthermore, NHTSA is proposing changes to the 
apportionment that each test device contributes to a vehicle's overall 
score, to align with injury data in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol--euro-ncap-
pedestrian-testing-protocol-v85.201811091256001913.pdf 
(euroncap.com) and Part I Pedestrian Impact Assessment in https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/67553/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-vru-v1005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few commenters specifically requested that NHTSA use the Euro 
NCAP pedestrian crashworthiness test procedures rather than the GTR 9 
procedures for the U.S. NCAP because the grid markup method and point 
scoring method have been shown to be suitable for use to evaluate and 
score vehicles in that consumer information program. NHTSA is 
considering Euro NCAP test procedures for inclusion in the U.S. NCAP in 
this proposal.
    Some commenters, including the Alliance for Automotive Innovation 
(formerly the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of 
Global Automakers), suggested that pedestrian crashworthiness was not 
appropriate for NCAP, but would instead be more appropriate for a 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). The Agency agreed to 
portions of GTR 9 and is currently developing a rulemaking proposal on 
requirements to protect pedestrian heads impacting vehicle hoods that 
is based on the requirements in GTR 9.\85\ On first impression these 
programs might appear identical, but there are important differences 
that differentiate the NCAP proposal discussed in this RFC from the 
future GTR 9 rulemaking that the Agency is developing. The proposal in 
this RFC evaluates protection afforded by the front of vehicles for the 
head, pelvis, leg, and knee in pedestrian impacts with the front of the 
vehicle, while the GTR 9 rulemaking focuses on protection for the head. 
There are also key differences for the head impact testing procedures. 
Those differences between GTR 9 and Euro NCAP (which are similar to 
that proposed in this RFC) are detailed in Tables 4 and 5. 
Specifically, the headform impact speed in this RFC is 5 km/h greater 
than that in GTR 9. Additionally, the Agency proposes to conduct impact 
tests on the windshield with the adult headform if the windshield is 
within WAD of 2100 mm while GTR 9 does not conduct head impact tests 
beyond the hood test area. This proposal to include a crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection testing program in NCAP along with a future 
rulemaking proposal (GTR 9) align with previous agency efforts to 
address a safety need using both non-regulatory and regulatory 
approaches. One example would be the incorporation of a dynamic pole 
test in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS), No. 214, ``Side 
impact protection,'' \86\ as well as NCAP.\87\ In addition, BIL 
explicitly incorporates concern over the safety of pedestrians and 
other vulnerable road users into NCAP, thus making any question that 
may have existed on this issue at the time of the 2015 notice moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ RIN AK98 on the 2022 Spring Agenda available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.
    \86\ 72 FR 51908.
    \87\ 73 FR 40015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comment, BMW questioned the effectiveness of a 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program. BMW noted that 
pedestrian crashworthiness requirements are part of European and 
Japanese regulations, and it is unclear if the reductions in pedestrian 
injuries and fatalities in Europe and Japan are due to these 
regulations or due to improvements in roadway infrastructure. As noted 
earlier, a review of 7,576 crashes in the German National Accident 
Records from 2009-2011 involving Euro NCAP rated vehicles showed a 
significant correlation between Euro NCAP pedestrian score and injury 
outcome in real-life car-to-pedestrian crashes.\88\ Comparing a vehicle 
that earned 5 points to a vehicle that earned 22 points, the 
conditional probability of fatal injury to a pedestrian from the latter 
vehicle was reduced by 35 percent. Additionally, the probability of 
serious injury from the latter vehicle was reduced by 16 percent.\89\ 
Furthermore, a review of the FlexPLI bumper tests from the Federal 
Highway Research Institute (BASt) indicated that 11 fatalities and 506 
serious injuries

[[Page 34383]]

were reduced annually \90\ in Germany.\91\ BASt conducted this study in 
relation to the GTR 9 testing requirements (not Euro NCAP 
requirements). However, the test procedures are similar (same impactor 
and similar test speed) to those in Euro NCAP, but the Euro NCAP 
testing protocol has more stringent injury criteria to achieve a non-
zero score.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Pastor C. Correlation between pedestrian injury severity in 
real-life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian test results, In: 
Proceedings of the 23rd Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety 
of Vehicles (ESV). Seoul, 2013.
    \89\ See Table 21 in appendix A.
    \90\ This study utilized ``AIS-1'' shifting where some 
fatalities would have instead been serious injuries and where some 
serious injuries would have instead been slight injuries.
    \91\ Estimation of Cost Reduction due to Introduction of FlexPLI 
within GTR9. 5th Meeting of Informal Group GTR9 Phase 2. Federal 
Highway Research Institute (BASt). Bergisch Gladbach, December 6th--
7th, 2012. Available at https://wiki.unece.org/display/trans/GTR9-2+5th+session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters to the March 2022 NCAP RFC requested a rating 
system for crashworthiness pedestrian protection similar to EuroNCAP. 
Several previously received comments suggested a ``soft landing'' 
approach to introducing new elements in NCAP. A soft landing is an 
approach in which requirements are either gradually introduced or the 
stringency is gradually increased. The Agency agrees that there is 
merit to such an approach and therefore is introducing the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program in NCAP first as 
a program similar to the current crash avoidance testing program in 
NCAP. In other words, NHTSA would give credit to vehicles that pass the 
Agency's performance test criteria on the Agency's website. Initially, 
it will not be part of a rating system. As discussed in the March 2022 
notice, after NHTSA completes its comprehensive consumer research on 
updating the safety rating section of the Monroney label, the Agency 
plans to completely overhaul its ratings system to include, among other 
things, crash avoidance testing, crashworthiness pedestrian testing, 
and other planned updates. By introducing the crashworthiness 
pedestrian testing program in this manner, NHTSA intends to encourage 
early adopters by highlighting vehicles that perform well, while also 
providing sufficient time for manufacturers to plan and incorporate the 
necessary design changes for pedestrian safety improvements before the 
label includes information about new crash avoidance or pedestrian 
protection systems.
    Many individuals who support initiatives from the League of 
American Bicyclists suggested that NHTSA should incorporate bicyclists 
into the Agency's assessment of pedestrian safety. NHTSA notes that, at 
this time, there are not widely accepted objective test procedures for 
crashworthiness bicyclist protection evaluation of vehicles, and thus 
it does not meet the four prerequisites for inclusion NCAP. However, it 
may be possible that countermeasures that reduce injury risk for 
pedestrians may also have a positive effect for bicyclists. The Agency 
recognizes that Euro NCAP has proposed incorporating bicyclist impact 
tests in the future. NHTSA will continue to monitor that effort, 
continue to evaluate whether objective test procedures can be 
developed, and may reassess the inclusion of bicyclist safety in NCAP 
in the future.
2. Part 581 Issues
    Many vehicle manufacturers noted that NHTSA's proposal to 
incorporate Euro NCAP lower leg bumper testing as part of the proposed 
pedestrian crashworthiness testing program would be difficult due to 
conflicts with the bumper damageability requirements outlined in 49 CFR 
part 581. Commenters argued that part 581 bumper damageability 
requirements require designs to a vehicle's front end that tend to 
increase the severity of injury to pedestrians. Commenters also noted 
that the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 
42 (ECE R42) bumper standard allows more flexibility in vehicle front 
end design and requested that NHTSA consider replacing the part 581 
bumper standard with a standard similar to ECE R42.
    NHTSA has examined potential conflicts between the part 581 
requirements and pedestrian crashworthiness leg impact testing. During 
the 2014 Society of Automotive Engineers Government/Industry Meeting, 
NHTSA presented the results of its research study.\92\ One of the 
vehicles tested for this study was the 2013 Ford Fusion, which is 
subject to part 581 bumper requirements. The Ford Fusion passed all GTR 
9 lower leg injury requirements without modification.\93\ Similarly, a 
2011 Chevrolet Cruze and a 2006 Volkswagen Passat were also included in 
this study. These two vehicles were U.S. vehicles subject to part 581 
bumper requirements that were modified with parts from their 
corresponding overseas models. In both cases, the lower apron was 
replaced with the comparable overseas part, which was believed to be 
stiffer than the U.S. part. Once modified, the Chevrolet Cruze met the 
GTR 9 lower leg injury requirements and the Volkswagen Passat nearly 
met the lower leg injury requirements. At the conclusion of the GTR 9 
testing, these three vehicles were evaluated to see if they met the 
part 581 impact requirements.\94\ Although the part 581 testing was not 
exhaustive and only the frontal pendulum test was conducted, all 
vehicles passed without incident. Furthermore, although these vehicles 
were evaluated using the GTR 9 FlexPLI test procedures and injury 
criteria, the Euro NCAP FlexPLI test procedures and injury criteria are 
very similar, and it is therefore anticipated that vehicles will be 
able to meet both part 581 requirements and receive a non-zero score in 
the Euro NCAP FlexPLI tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0023.
    \93\ See Table 22 in appendix A.
    \94\ See Table 23 in appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, NHTSA conducted fleet testing on several U.S. 
vehicles using the Euro NCAP test procedures.\95\ Among these vehicles 
were global platform vehicles that were believed to be equipped with 
some pedestrian safety countermeasures. One of these models, a 2016 
Toyota Prius, obtained a good result of 4.41 out of 6.00 points for the 
lower leg impact testing. The 2016 Prius was also subject to part 581. 
Although other global platform vehicles that were also subject to part 
581 did not perform as well, the case of the Toyota Prius shows that it 
is possible to meet both lower leg impact tests and part 581 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ DOT HS 812 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Test Device Issues
    Some commenters requested that pedestrian crashworthiness test 
devices be federalized into 49 CFR part 572 before including them in 
NCAP. NHTSA does not plan to incorporate the test devices into part 572 
at this time, but has instead released drawings, PADIs, and 
qualification procedures to inform stakeholders that NHTSA will be 
using those test device specifications and procedures as well as the 
criteria set forth in this RFC to award credit to vehicles that meet 
the Agency's performance testing criteria.
    A variety of commenters raised issues with the various test devices 
proposed for pedestrian crashworthiness testing. Many of these comments 
raised concerns with the FlexPLI related to the qualification 
procedures, biofidelity, and usage in bumper testing. When the FlexPLI 
was proposed in the 2015 RFC, the test device was relatively new 
(compared to the more mature headforms), and Euro NCAP had used it for 
about one year. Since the Agency's 2015 proposal, there have been no 
changes to the FlexPLI, and it has been

[[Page 34384]]

adopted by other programs including phase 2 of GTR 9.
    Commenters also questioned the biofidelity of the TRL upper legform 
impactor. While NHTSA agrees there is limited biomechanical basis for 
upper leg measurements, the Agency's research has shown that, as a test 
tool, the upper legform impactor demonstrates the ability to measure 
the relative stiffness of a vehicle's front end and is sensitive to 
different vehicle designs. Therefore, the Agency believes it is an 
acceptable tool to evaluate the pedestrian crashworthiness of a 
vehicle's front end. Also, several commenters questioned the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the TRL upper legform impactor. 
NHTSA investigated the repeatability and reproducibility of the upper 
legform in both qualification testing and vehicle testing.\96\ For the 
repeatability tests, which used the same impactor to strike a vehicle 
multiple times in the same location, all tests were conducted with a 
coefficient of variation (CV) less than 10 percent. CV is a measure of 
variability expressed as a percentage of the mean, and a CV of less 
than 10 percent is considered acceptable.\97\ Similarly, the 
reproducibility tests, which used multiple legforms to impact the same 
location, produced a CV less than 10 percent in 21 of the 24 impacts. 
During this testing, NHTSA found that the foams used in the upper 
legform are sensitive to changes in temperature and humidity. 
Therefore, NHTSA is considering qualification and vehicle test humidity 
ranges more tightly defined than that specified in the standards 
currently used in other countries. NHTSA seeks comment on what an 
acceptable humidity tolerance should be for the qualification tests of 
the upper legform impactor and the associated vehicle test with the 
upper legform. [2]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0007.
    \97\ Rhule, D., Rhule, H., & Donnelly, B. (2005). The process of 
evaluation and documentation of crash test dummies for part 572 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations. 19th International Technical 
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, DC, June 
6-9, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the FlexPLI, Humanetics suggested that NHTSA 
incorporate the qualification tests from UNECE R127. UNECE R127 
specifies two dynamic qualification tests--a Pendulum test and an 
Inverse Impact test, in addition to a series of quasi-static tests. In 
UNECE R127, the dynamic qualification tests are performed before and 
throughout a test series, while the quasi-static tests are performed on 
an annual basis. Euro NCAP only specifies the dynamic Inverse Impact 
test and the quasi-static tests. NHTSA conducted its evaluation of the 
FlexPLI using only the Pendulum qualification test and did not evaluate 
the Inverse Impact test. The Agency found the Pendulum test to be 
efficient, repeatable, and easy to conduct without disturbing the 
vehicle setup. NHTSA did not evaluate the quasi-static deflection 
qualification tests. However, NHTSA is in the process of evaluating the 
Inverse Impact qualification test. NHTSA is requesting comment on the 
FlexPLI qualification procedures--specifically which procedures 
(dynamic and quasi-static) should be used for qualification, and how 
often they should be conducted? [3]
    Some commenters expressed concern with using the FlexPLI to test 
vehicles that have higher bumpers such as large trucks and SUVs. In 
Euro NCAP and GTR 9, the TRL upper legform can be used in lieu of the 
FlexPLI for vehicles with an LBRL equal to or greater than 425 mm but 
less than or equal to 500 mm. NHTSA does not believe this is 
appropriate for a consumer information program and instead proposes the 
use of the FlexPLI for any vehicle with an LBRL less than or equal to 
500 mm. For vehicle models with an LBRL between 425 mm and 500 mm, 
where the TRL upper legform was used instead of the FlexPLI (as 
permitted in Euro NCAP), it could lead to a better score as discussed 
in a later section of this notice, giving consumers a false impression 
of the vehicles' crashworthiness pedestrian protection performance.
    Ford commented that the apportionment of the leg impacts to the 
overall pedestrian score should remain low until technical challenges 
are addressed with the legforms. While NHTSA believes that there are no 
remaining technical issues preventing the use of the FlexPLI and upper 
legform in pedestrian impact tests, the Agency is seeking comment on 
the combined scoring of the head impact, lower leg impact, and upper 
leg impact tests. In Euro NCAP, head impact tests account for 24.00 out 
of the maximum 36.00 points (67 percent). Each leg impact test accounts 
for 6.00 of the remaining 12.00 points.\98\ In a NHTSA study that 
evaluated the relative frequency of injuries in the U.S., the Agency 
found that the proportion of pedestrian injury across body regions did 
not align with the Euro NCAP proportion of points awarded.\99\ An 
Agency study of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) \100\ 3+ pedestrian 
injuries in the U.S. showed that the apportionment of points in NCAP 
for crashworthiness pedestrian protection should be 3/8th for head 
impact test results (37.5 percent), 3/8th for lower leg impact test 
results (37.5 percent), and 2/8th for upper leg impact test (25 
percent).\101\ NHTSA seeks comment on whether injury severity or 
frequency would be the most appropriate basis for point allocation 
apportionment. [4]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ For 2023 and beyond, Euro NCAP has noted that head testing 
will contribute 18/36 points and the leg tests will contribute the 
other 18/36 points.
    \99\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0006.
    \100\ The Abbreviated Injury Scale is a 6-point ranking system 
used for ranking the severity of injuries. AIS 3+ Injuries means 
injuries of severity level 3 (serious), 4 (severe), 5 (critical), 
and 6 (fatal) according to the Abbreviate Injury Scale. 
www.aaam.org.
    \101\ See Table 24 in appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Partnership for Dummy Technology and Biomechanics (PDB) 
commented on biofidelity concerns related to the FlexPLI legform, 
specifically regarding the knee and ligaments. As concluded in the 
Agency's FlexPLI research report, NHTSA believes the FlexPLI legform is 
biofidelic and seeks comment from the public on whether biofidelity 
concerns with the FlexPLI still remain at this time. [5]
    Many commenters discussed the impact angle of the FlexPLI relative 
to the front bumper. In Euro NCAP, the FlexPLI is launched parallel to 
the travel direction of the vehicle. Commenters noted that tests on the 
outside edges of the test zone may have a large impact angle due to the 
curvature of the bumper and lead to excessive rotation in the FlexPLI, 
reduce biofidelity of the test device, and cause erroneous ligament 
measurements. Some commenters suggested that all lower leg impacts 
should be performed normal (i.e., perpendicular) to the point of 
contact on the bumper. NHTSA does not agree that all lower leg impacts 
should be performed normal to the point of contact because that would 
make the tests less comparable to real-world conditions. Additionally, 
performing tests normal to each impact point would increase test 
complexity because the vehicle or the launcher would need to be moved 
in an arc instead of along a single axis. However, the Agency notes 
that defining the corners and test width of a vehicle is an area where 
the regulations (GTR 9 and UNECE R127) differ from Euro NCAP. Since the 
corners of bumpers are often swept back, these areas can lead to more 
oblique impact points. Euro NCAP uses a vertical plane at a 60-degree 
angle to

[[Page 34385]]

mark the bumper corner (shown in Figure 9), compares this width to that 
of the hard bumper beam, and tests the larger of the two areas. The 
regulations instead use a corner gauge method at a 60-degree angle that 
can be moved vertically, which generally decreases the bumper test zone 
width but is intended to alleviate extreme impact angles--as 
illustrated in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Section IV.F.1.f of this notice 
discusses in detail the corner gauge method. In NHTSA's fleet testing 
with the FlexPLI using the Euro NCAP test procedures, the Agency did 
not encounter issues with impact points along the corners. Also, the 
Agency evaluated the FlexPLI for GTR 9, but that study was performed 
before the updates made in the regulations to use the corner gauge 
method. NHTSA is seeking comment on what procedure it should use for 
marking the test zone on bumpers. In other words, should the procedure 
harmonize with the Euro NCAP 60-degree angle method or should it follow 
the GTR 9 and UNECE R127 corner gauge method? [6]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.008


[[Page 34386]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.010

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 34387]]

    Similar to the above concerns with FlexPLI impacts at high angles, 
GM commented that trucks and other large vehicles with exposed metal 
bumpers warrant additional consideration. GM suggested that if a 
vehicle has an exposed bumper, the bumper test zone should use the 60-
degree angle method instead of testing the full bumper width to 
eliminate testing at the extreme edge of what may be a curved bumper. 
NHTSA requests comment on this concern as well, as it is similar to the 
previous question for bumper test zones. [7]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Reproduced from GTR 9 Amendment 2 Figure 5B.
    \104\ Reproduced from GTR 9 Amendment 2 Figure 5C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters to the March 2022 RFC requested that NHTSA utilize 
female specific test devices for crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
testing and ensure protection for a wide range of pedestrian sizes and 
weights, including children and small adults. NHTSA discussed the 
headform and legform test devices and test procedures in Section IV.D. 
of this notice and noted that we believe protection will be afforded to 
a range of pedestrian sizes from children to large adults because of 
the large test zone and variety of components that are evaluated in 
these tests. Furthermore, we noted that we are not aware of female 
specific leg test devices available for evaluation at this time, but 
request comment on the issue.

F. Proposal in Detail

    In the December 2015 RFC, NHTSA proposed adopting Euro NCAP test 
devices, test procedures, and scoring methods for its crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection testing program in NCAP. As stated in the 2015 
notice, the Euro NCAP test procedures and test devices simulate a 6-
year-old child and average-size adult male crossing the street and 
being struck in the side by a vehicle travelling at 40 kph (25 mph). 
NHTSA notes that the twenty-five miles per hour test speed reflects 
real-world pedestrian head to hood impacts. As impact speed increases 
so does the likelihood that a pedestrian's head overshoots the 
vehicle's hood and windshield, especially in vehicles with lower front 
ends. However, given the pedestrian death and injury crisis on U.S. 
roadways NHTSA is seeking comment on test speeds. Should test speeds 
for either of the head or leg tests be increased in an attempt to 
provide better protection to pedestrians in vehicle to pedestrian 
crashes? Should the area of assessment be increased beyond the WAD 2100 
mm currently proposed to account for pedestrian heads overshooting the 
hood and impacting the windshield or the roof of the vehicle? [8]
    In this proposal, the Agency is proposing to adopt the Euro NCAP 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection test devices, test procedures, 
and some (not all) of the scoring methods. Since the December 2015 
notice, there were several updates to Euro NCAP procedures. NHTSA is 
proposing to adopt the following test procedures and versions:
    (1) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 8.5, October 
2018. This protocol describes vehicle preparation, test devices, 
qualification procedures, and test procedures.\105\ As discussed later 
in this notice, NHTSA would conduct the headform test described in 
Section 12 of the Euro NCAP testing protocol, the upper legform to 
WAD775 tests described in Section 11 of the Euro NCAP testing protocol, 
and the FlexPLI to bumper tests described in Section 9 of the Euro NCAP 
testing protocol. NHTSA would not conduct the upper legform to bumper 
tests described in Section 10 of the Euro NCAP testing protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/41769/euro-ncap-pedestrian-testing-protocol-v85.201811091256001913.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User Protection, 
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 10.0.3, June 2020. Once 
vehicle test data is collected, this document can be used to determine 
a resulting score.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/58230/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-vru-v1003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection, V2.1, October 
2017. This Microsoft Excel file is used to generate verification points 
to be tested by NHTSA.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/30651/euro-ncap-pedestrian-point-selection-v21.xlsm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Euro NCAP Film and Photo Protocol, Chapter 8--Pedestrian 
Subsystem Tests, V1.3, January 2020. This document describes the camera 
set-up procedure only.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/57993/euro-ncap-film-and-photo-protocol-v13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin, TB 008, Windscreen Replacement 
for Pedestrian Testing, Version 1.0, September 2009. This document 
describes exceptions on bonding agents when windshields are replaced 
during the course of a vehicle test series.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/1352/tb-008-windscreen-replacement-v10-0-b4576306-91fe-4aa9-bf9c-5e5d0883e95e.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 019, Headform to Bonnet Leading 
Edge Tests, Version 1.0, June 2014. This document describes a procedure 
for child headform testing under the special case when test grid points 
lie forward of the hood and within the grille or hood leading edge 
area.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/1367/tb-019-headform-to-ble-v10-0-94085bc9-76d7-4dab-af81-e59e9ed747aa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 024, Pedestrian Human Model 
Certification, V2.0, November 2019. This document lists various 
computer-aided engineering models that have been deemed acceptable for 
use by a vehicle manufacturer in demonstrating the operation and 
performance of an active hood.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/56949/tb-024-pedestrian-human-model-certification-v20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Items 5 and 6 from the above list have not been updated since the 
December 2015 proposal, and therefore the same versions of these 
documents, which were proposed in 2015, are being proposed again in 
this notice. Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 have been updated since NHTSA's 2015 
RFC, and therefore NHTSA is proposing the current versions of these 
documents at this time for incorporation into NCAP. NHTSA requests 
comment on the seven Euro NCAP documents proposed in section IV. F. 
(Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol Version 8.5, Euro NCAP 
Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User Protection Part 1--Pedestrian 
Impact Assessment Version 10.0.3, Euro NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point 
Selection V2.1, Euro NCAP Film and Photo Protocol Chapter 8--Pedestrian 
Subsystem Tests V1.3, Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 008 Windscreen 
Replacement for Pedestrian Testing Version 1.0, Euro NCAP Technical 
Bulletin TB 019 Headform to Bonnet Leading Edge Tests Version 1.0, and 
Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 024 Pedestrian Human Model 
Certification V2.0)--do any elements of these documents need 
modification for the U.S. NCAP? [9]
    There are two notable differences from the list of documents 
proposed in 2015 compared to the list in this notice. The first is the 
removal of the Pedestrian Testing Protocol V5.3.1 that the Agency 
proposed in 2015 to address instances where a vehicle manufacturer did 
not provide NHTSA its test point data. This protocol was removed from 
the list because the proposed crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
protocol will be a self-reporting program in which a vehicle 
manufacturer will provide NHTSA with test data in order for a vehicle 
to be awarded credit. Thus, this document is no longer relevant.
    The second notable change from the 2015 document list is the 
replacement

[[Page 34388]]

of Technical Bulletin (TB) 013 with Technical Bulletin (TB) 024 (item 7 
above). Both of these documents discuss computer models used to 
validate active hoods used for head-to-hood impact tests. NHTSA 
requests comment on TB 024 and its relevance to the U.S. NCAP. Should 
the models and methods in TB 024 or some other method be used to 
calculate head impact times to evaluate vehicles with active hoods? 
[10]
    Although this proposal is to follow the Euro NCAP procedures with 
some proposed changes, NHTSA plans to generate its own test procedures 
and associated documents in the near future based on public input 
received from this notice and release these documents concurrent with 
the final decision notice. The documents will include additional 
requirements for contract test laboratories and will be formatted 
similarly to other NCAP test procedures and reference documents. Below 
are details of differences between the U.S. NCAP and Euro NCAP 
pedestrian protection testing protocols and evaluation methods.
1. Differences From Euro NCAP Tests and Assessment Protocols
    NHTSA proposes to use the Euro NCAP testing protocol to conduct its 
assessment on all selected vehicles, including pickup trucks and large 
SUVs. For the most part, the procedures of Euro NCAP Testing Protocol 
V8.5 are applicable to all vehicles eligible for testing under the U.S. 
NCAP (vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating less than or equal to 
4,536 kilograms). This includes headform testing on grid points forward 
of the hood (or bonnet) leading edge (BLE), where the procedure 
stipulates an impact angle of 20 degrees relative to the ground. 
However, some adjustments to the Euro NCAP testing protocol are needed 
to align with the self-reporting aspect of the proposed program in U.S. 
NCAP, to better reflect pedestrian protection provided by the vehicle's 
front end, and to improve test practices.
a. Self-Reporting Data
    In Euro NCAP, manufacturers typically self-report predicted head 
impact test data of their vehicles prior to Euro NCAP conducting its 
impact testing on those vehicles. However, upper leg and lower leg 
impact test data are not provided by the manufacturer. Instead, these 
data are gathered from the testing conducted by the Euro NCAP test 
facilities. For now, the U.S. NCAP proposes to operate its 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection program in a fully self-reported 
manner--similar to the Agency's crash avoidance testing program. 
Therefore, vehicle manufacturers would be expected to report all 
predicted head, upper leg, and lower leg impact test data to NCAP in 
order to receive crashworthiness pedestrian protection credit for their 
vehicles. NHTSA seeks comment on what level of detail should be 
required for self-reported data. Should manufacturers be allowed to 
submit predicted head and leg response data, or only actual physical 
test results? Should reporting consist of just the results for each 
test location, or should full data traces or a comprehensive test 
report including photographs and videos be required? [11]
b. No ``Blue Points'' for Predicted Head Impact Test Data
    In Euro NCAP, manufacturers may elect to nominate some ``blue 
points'' as part of the predicted head impact test data. Blue grid 
points are those where pedestrian protection performance measure is 
unpredictable,\112\ as indicated by the test results provided by the 
manufacturer. Due to the unpredictable nature of these grid points, the 
manufacturer does not include blue points in computing the overall 
score for the head impact testing assessment submitted to Euro NCAP. 
Euro NCAP always tests the identified blue points (instead of randomly 
selecting grid points) and includes the head impact assessment at these 
blue points in computing the overall head impact score. For the U.S. 
NCAP program, in order for a manufacturer to self-report that its 
vehicle meets the NCAP performance criteria and receives 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection credit, the manufacturer must 
have sufficient data to support a predicted point/color value for every 
head grid point and every upper and lower leg impact test point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Blue grid points are limited to the following structures: 
plastic scuttle, windscreen wiper arms and windscreen base, headlamp 
glazing, and break-away structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Use of FlexPLI on Pickup Trucks and Large SUVs
    For this proposal, all vehicles would be tested with the FlexPLI, 
including pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs where a vehicle's LBRL is equal 
to or greater than 425 mm and less than or equal to 500 mm. As 
discussed previously, when the lower bumper reference line of a vehicle 
equals or exceeds 425 mm but is less than or equal to 500 mm, Euro NCAP 
allows manufacturers the option to test with the TRL upper legform 
instead of the FlexPLI. However, the Agency proposes to use the FlexPLI 
even if a vehicle's LBRL equals or exceeds 425 mm but is less than or 
equal to 500 mm. The option to test with either legform could lead to a 
situation where a high-bumper vehicle, such as a pickup truck, receives 
a similar score as a low-bumper vehicle even though the two vehicles 
could be subjected to two different test devices and test procedures. 
Furthermore, allowing the option to use different test devices could 
generate conflicting or misleading scores since the test parameters and 
test devices used to generate the scorings are not the same. Thus, in 
an effort to provide consumers with comparative vehicle safety 
information, NHTSA believes that vehicles should be subjected to the 
same test devices, testing protocols, and evaluation methods.
d. No Bumper Testing When LBRL Is Greater Than 500 mm
    For vehicles that have an LBRL value of greater than 500 mm, the 
Agency does not propose to conduct a bumper assessment using the 
FlexPLI. Instead, the Agency proposes to simply assign a ``default red, 
no points'' score to the particular point under assessment (e.g., some 
bumper points may be above 500 mm and not tested while others may be 
equal to or below 500 mm and tested). In 2009, the Insurance Institute 
for Highway Safety (IIHS) measured bumper heights for 68 light trucks 
and vans (LTVs or pickups, SUVs, and vans).\113\ Fourteen vehicles (20 
percent) that were measured had a height from ground to the bottom of 
the bumper equal to or greater than 500 mm. NHTSA also collected bumper 
height data on select MY 1989-1998 vehicles for its Pedestrian Crash 
Data Study (PCDS).\114\ That study, which included both passenger cars 
and LTVs, showed that over 95 percent of vehicles measured had lower 
bumper heights (under 500 mm). The PCDS data set also identified 
approximately 20 percent of LTVs with bumper heights above 500 mm, 
closely matching the IIHS data. NHTSA expects that all passenger cars 
would have bumper heights less than 500 mm and be eligible for FlexPLI 
bumper testing. Only certain large SUVs and pickups would have bumper 
heights above 500 mm and thus those vehicles would not be eligible for 
FlexPLI bumper testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2009-0047-0010.
    \114\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency notes that the Euro NCAP testing protocol specifies that 
the TRL upper legform must be used when a

[[Page 34389]]

vehicle's LBRL exceeds 500 mm, and that there is no option to use the 
FlexPLI for testing. Similar to NHTSA's rationale on its procedures, 
when a vehicle's LBRL equals or exceeds 425 mm but is less than or 
equal to 500 mm, the Agency believes that using the upper legform in 
lieu of the FlexPLI could result in an inaccurate or misleading bumper 
score. Furthermore, NHTSA is proposing to use the TRL upper legform for 
the WAD775 test as it is used in Euro NCAP. Thus, using the TRL upper 
legform for bumper testing when the LBRL exceeds 500 mm would result in 
a test redundancy because the WAD775 upper legform test and the ``in 
lieu of the FlexPLI'' upper legform test would be carried out on target 
points that are very close together.
    As briefly discussed before, NHTSA believes that assessing the 
bumper using the FlexPLI when a vehicle's LBRL is greater than 500 mm 
is not an appropriate use of the test device. Such a test condition is 
beyond the limits for which the FlexPLI serves as a useful tool, which 
is also why it is not used in GTR 9 when a vehicle's LBRL exceeds 500 
mm.\115\ If a FlexPLI test is conducted on such a bumper, the legform's 
lack of an upper body structure could result in a condition where, upon 
impact, it is redirected groundward with very little tibia bending and 
knee displacement, thus leading to an artificially high test score. 
Such kinematics do not represent a human-to-vehicle interaction. In a 
real-world situation, bumpers that strike above the knee level cause 
the upper body and lower leg to rotate in opposite directions, which 
increases the likelihood of severe knee trauma.\116\ Therefore, NHTSA 
believes that vehicles with an LBRL of 500 mm or higher should be given 
``default red, no points'' for the bumper assessment. NHTSA would still 
conduct the WAD775 assessment with the upper legform. NHTSA requests 
comment on whether vehicles with an LBRL greater than 500 mm should be 
eligible to receive crashworthiness pedestrian protection credit 
because they will automatically receive a zero score for the FlexPLI 
bumper tests. [12]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See ``Rationale for limiting the lower legform test'' 
paragraph 99 of GTR 9.
    \116\ Simms C and Wood D (2009), ``Pedestrian and cyclist 
impact: a biomechanical perspective,'' Springer, IBSN 978-90-481-
2742-9, Dordrecht, London, Heidelberg, New York, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Addressing Artificial Interference in High-Bumper Vehicles
    When testing a high-bumper vehicle, the WAD775 mark may appear on 
the grille of the vehicle, well below the bonnet leading edge. In this 
instance, the TRL upper legform is propelled horizontally into the 
front face of the vehicle's front-end with contact points along the 
entire impactor, from top to bottom. If the front-end of a vehicle is 
not completely flush with protruding design elements, it could lead to 
a condition in which either the top or bottom edge of the impactor 
would just ``catch'' a protruding vehicle component, such as the top 
edge of the bumper--as shown in Figure 12. When this occurs, the 
impactor could glance off the component in such a way that it could 
absorb a significant amount of impactor energy without registering a 
significant moment or force in the instrument. This situation is an 
artifact of the component test and does not represent real-world 
vehicle-to-pedestrian interaction. The Agency encountered this 
situation when it tested the 2015 Ford F-150. In this proposal, if this 
situation occurs during a test, NHTSA will eliminate the effect by re-
positioning the upper legform and moving it up or down the WAD line to 
a ``worst-case'' position that is no greater than +/- 50 mm from the 
WAD775 target. A worst-case position would be chosen such that the 
likelihood of a glancing blow would be minimized, and the impact energy 
would be maximized. NHTSA expects that most interference will come from 
the top edge of a bumper on a high bumper vehicle, thus the upper 
legform would be moved upward to avoid interference with the bumper. 
Multiple impacts could also be performed within +/- 50 mm from the 
WAD775 target and the worst-case result could be used for that impact 
point. NHTSA requests comment on the proposal to reposition the upper 
legform +/- 50 mm from the WAD775 target when artificial interference 
is present or to conduct multiple impacts within +/- 50 mm from the 
WAD775 target and use the worst-case result when artificial 
interference is present. [13]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.011


[[Page 34390]]


f. Revised Bumper Corner Definition
    In the Euro NCAP test protocol, the width of the FlexPLI test area 
is defined by the point of contact of a 60-degree plane and the 
forward-most point on the vehicle front-end (shown in Figure 9). Until 
2016, the same definition was used in European pedestrian regulations 
that resulted in a vehicle design trend in which protruding ``touch 
points'' are molded into the lower portion of the fascia.\117\ The 
touch points may be placed strategically to contact the 60-degree plane 
as a means for vehicle manufacturers to control the width of the test 
area. In some models, the touch points reduce the test area to as 
little as 40 percent of the vehicle width.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Fascia refers to the materials that cover a vehicle's 
bumper beam. The fascia is often made of plastic and includes 
decorative contours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An analysis of pedestrian casualty data from the United Kingdom 
(U.K.) and Germany showed that vehicle-to-pedestrian contacts were 
distributed across the width of the vehicle, and pedestrians who were 
struck by a vehicle could receive leg injuries from all areas of the 
vehicle front-end.\118\ In fact, it was not obvious that any one area 
was particularly safe or injurious. NHTSA believes that the same 
situation exists in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ TRL CPR1825 from the GTR 9 Bumper Test Area Task Force, 
6th session: https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/23101696/TF-BTA-6-09e.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2016, UNECE R127 was amended to include a new procedure that 
utilizes a corner gauge and diminishes the width-reducing effects of 
fascia touch points--as previously shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. 
The new procedure also includes a specification to ensure that the 
entire width of the bumper beam (the very stiff structure underlying 
the fascia) is included in the test area. This bumper beam width 
requirement has also been included in the Euro NCAP test protocol since 
2013, though Euro NCAP does not utilize the corner gauge. NHTSA 
tentatively plans to use the corner gauge and bumper beam width 
procedure for corner definition for this NCAP proposal and requests 
comment on this change. [14]
g. FlexPLI Qualification
    In UNECE R127, the specifications for the FlexPLI qualification 
requirements involve a dynamic Pendulum test, a dynamic Inverse Impact 
test, and quasi-static force-deflection tests. However, in Euro NCAP, 
only the Inverse Impact and quasi-static tests are specified. For this 
proposal, NHTSA proposes to specify only the Pendulum test and quasi-
static tests. As mentioned previously, NHTSA found the Pendulum test 
procedure easy to administer while vehicle testing is in progress. 
Also, the Agency is satisfied that the proposed qualification test 
assures the legform is performing correctly before resuming vehicle 
tests. NHTSA seeks comment on whether there is benefit in requiring 
both the Pendulum and Inverse Impact dynamic qualification tests in 
addition to the quasi-static tests. Also, what should the qualification 
test schedule for the FlexPLI be? For instance, the Pendulum test would 
be performed before every vehicle test series and the quasi-static 
qualification tests would be performed on an annual basis. [15]
h. Active Hood Detection Area
    For vehicles with active hoods, the Agency would require 
manufacturers to demonstrate that their system does activate when there 
is a leg-to-bumper impact both at the vehicle centerline and as far 
outboard as the outboard end of the bumper test zone. This is the same 
requirement in the Euro NCAP test procedure. However, NHTSA would 
utilize the revised corner definition discussed above when determining 
the outboard end of the bumper test zone. Having said that, the Agency 
notes that the Informal Working Group for Deployable Pedestrian 
Protection Systems (IWG-DPPS) is actively meeting and discussing 
alternative definitions for the detection zone.\119\ The IWG-DPPS is 
also investigating the use of the Flex-PLI in place of the Pedestrian 
Detection Impactor 2 (PDI2) legform to check deployment of active 
hoods. Therefore, NHTSA seeks comment on what the required detection 
area should be for vehicles with active hoods. Additionally, which 
device should be used for assuring the system activates properly, the 
Flex-PLI or the PDI2? [16]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ More information including meeting minutes and 
presentations available at https://wiki.unece.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=45383713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Injury Limits and Scoring Process
    The Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User Protection, 
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 10.0.3, June 2020 
document listed above describes the injury limits and scoring process 
for the crashworthiness pedestrian protection impact tests proposed in 
this notice. That process is also summarized in the paragraphs below.
    Each group of component tests (i.e., headform tests, upper legform 
tests, FlexPLI tests) are first scored individually; these component 
scores are then summed to determine a crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection score for each vehicle. The exact number of impact points 
varies depending on the geometry of a vehicle. For instance, there may 
be 200 head impact points on the hood, windshield, and A-pillars, 15 
upper leg impact points on the forward edge of the vehicle's front-end, 
and 15 lower leg impact points on the vehicle's bumper area. Each 
impact point for each test device is scored between 0 and 1 point 
depending on the resulting injury values from the impact test. Thus, 
each impact point for the head test carries equal weighting to every 
other impact point for the head. Each impact point for the upper leg 
carries equal weighting to every other impact point for the upper leg. 
Each impact point for the FlexPLI leg carries equal weighting to every 
other impact point for the FlexPLI.
    In Euro NCAP, the overall pedestrian crashworthiness score combines 
the results from the headform tests, TRL upper legform tests, and 
FlexPLI tests with a maximum score of 36.00 points. The scoring 
distribution is as follows: 24.00 points (66.67 percent) are 
apportioned to test results with the headforms, 6.00 points (16.67 
percent) are allocated to the upper legform, and 6.00 points (16.67 
percent) are allotted to the FlexPLI. As previously discussed, NHTSA's 
review of pedestrian injuries in the U.S. indicated that serious to 
fatal injuries (AIS 3 or higher) may more closely be represented by 
apportioning 37.5 percent (\3/8\ or 13.50 of 36.00 points) to the 
headform, 25 percent (\2/8\ or 9.00 of 36.00 points) to the upper 
legform, and 37.5 percent (\3/8\ or 13.50 of 36.00 points) to the 
FlexPLI.\120\ Therefore, the Agency is proposing a maximum of 13.50 
points for the headform tests, 9.00 points for the upper legform tests 
as shown, and 13.50 points for the FlexPLI tests--as shown in Table 9. 
The Agency proposes utilizing a modified \3/8\, \3/8\, \2/8\ scoring 
apportionment for the head impacts, Flex PLI impacts, and upper leg 
impacts respectively for NCAP and requests comment on this proposal. 
[17]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ DOT HS 812 658.

[[Page 34391]]



                             Table 9--Apportionment of Pedestrian Impact Test Scores
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Apportionment
                            Component                              Apportionment   (percentage)   Maximum points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head............................................................             3/8            37.5           13.50
Upper Legform...................................................             2/8            25.0            9.00
FlexPLI.........................................................             3/8            37.5           13.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the head impact locations on a vehicle contribute equally 
to the component level sub-score for the head tests. The Euro NCAP 
assessment protocol designates a color and awards either 0.00, 0.25, 
0.50, 0.75, or 1.00 point to each head impact location using the 
following criteria:

                       Table 10--Headform Scoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Point
                 Color                    HIC min.   HIC max.    value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green..................................  .........       <650       1.00
Yellow.................................        650     <1,000       0.75
Orange.................................      1,000     <1,350       0.50
Brown..................................      1,350     <1,700       0.25
Red....................................      1,700  .........       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, any HIC score that falls in the ``Green'' range will receive 
a point value of 1.00, any HIC score that falls in the ``Yellow'' range 
will receive a point value of 0.75, any HIC score that falls in the 
``Orange'' range will receive a point value of 0.50, etc.
    The head impact sub-score is calculated according to the following 
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.012

    Each of the upper legform impact locations contributes equally to 
the component level sub-score for the upper legform impacts. Each 
impact location may be awarded up to 1.00 point on a linear sliding 
scale between the upper and lower injury limits. This is different than 
the headform scoring where injury values are put in discrete scoring 
bands. The worst-performing injury metric (one of three moments--upper, 
middle, or lower; or sum of forces) is used to determine the score 
using the following criteria:

                     Table 11--Upper Legform Scoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Max.
               Component                    Min.       Max.      point
                                           injury     injury     value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bending Moment (Nm)....................        285        350       1.00
Sum of forces (N)......................       5000       6000  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The upper legform scoring is shown graphically in Figure 13 and 
Figure 14. Injury values closer to the minimum injury values earn more 
points and injury values closer to the maximum injury values earn fewer 
points.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.013


[[Page 34392]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.014

    The upper legform impact sub-score is calculated according to the 
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.015

    Similarly, each of the FlexPLI impact locations on a vehicle 
contributes equally to the component level sub-score for the FlexPLI 
tests. Each impact location may receive up to 0.50 points from the 
tibia moments and up to 0.50 points from the ligament elongations. The 
tibia score is determined from the worst of the four tibia 
measurements--T1, T2, T3, or T4. The ligament elongation is scored from 
the MCL as long as neither the ACL nor PCL exceeds the 10 mm elongation 
limit. If either the ACL or PCL exceed this limit, the overall ligament 
elongation score is 0.00. Similar to the upper legform scoring, the 
Euro NCAP assessment protocol awards points based on a linear sliding 
scale between the upper and lower injury limits using the criteria in 
Figure 8. Again, this is different than the headform scoring method 
where injury values are put in discrete scoring bands.

                        Table 12--FlexPLI Scoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Max.
               Component                    Min.       Max.      point
                                           injury     injury     value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibia bending (Nm).....................        282        340       0.50
MCL elongation (mm)....................         19         22       0.50
ACL/PCL elongation (mm)................  .........         10       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FlexPLI scoring is shown graphically in Figure 15 and Figure 
16. Injury values closer to the minimum injury value earn more points, 
and injury values closer to the maximum injury value earn fewer points.

[[Page 34393]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.017

    The FlexPLI impact sub-score is calculated according to the 
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.018


[[Page 34394]]


    The resulting crashworthiness pedestrian protection score is the 
summation of the three component sub-scores and is calculated according 
to the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.019

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
3. NCAP Proposal for Awarding Credit
    As stated earlier in this notice, NHTSA proposes to implement the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program initially by 
assigning credit to vehicles that meet NCAP performance test 
requirements before including them as part of a future rating system. 
In other words, instead of rating a vehicle's crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, initially, NHTSA 
proposes to assign credit to vehicles if they meet a certain minimum 
scoring threshold for crashworthiness pedestrian protection. The Agency 
believes that consumers would still be able to compare crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection by identifying vehicles that have been designated 
by NHTSA as meeting this minimum level of pedestrian safety. 
Furthermore, this approach would not only allow early adopters to 
participate in the program, but also provide sufficient time for 
manufacturers to redesign their vehicles to improve pedestrian 
crashworthiness safety.
    In Euro NCAP, a MY 2022 vehicle must receive a Vulnerable Road User 
(VRU) sub-score of 60 percent or greater to receive a 5-star overall 
vehicle safety rating, or 50 percent or greater to receive a 4-star 
overall vehicle safety rating. The VRU sub-score is a combination of 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection as well as pedestrian and 
pedalcyclist crash avoidance. Omitting the crash avoidance portion from 
the VRU score, a vehicle must score 21.60 points or greater in 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection to achieve the 60 percent 
threshold and receive a 5-star overall vehicle safety rating in Euro 
NCAP. Similarly, a vehicle must score 18.00 points or greater to attain 
the 50 percent threshold and receive a 4-star overall vehicle safety 
rating in Euro NCAP. For MY 2023 and beyond, Euro NCAP's assessment 
protocol will become more stringent. For instance, a 70 percent VRU 
score will be required to achieve an overall 5-star vehicle safety 
rating, and 60 percent VRU will be needed to earn an overall 4-star 
rating.\121\ In terms of points, this would equate to 25.20 points for 
a 5-star overall rating, or 21.60 points for a 4-star overall rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Overall Rating v9.1. 
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/64096/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-overall-rating-v91.pdf.
    \122\ DOT HS 812 723.

                         Table 13--U.S. and European Fleet Pedestrian Protection Scores
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    U.S. fleet scores (MY 2015-    Euro NCAP vehicle scores (MY
                                                               2017)                        2018-2021)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Points        Percentage        Points        Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headform (24.00 max.)...........................           16.43              68           16.50              69
Upper Legform (6.00 max.).......................            3.52              59            4.06              68
Lower Legform (6.00 max.).......................            1.67              28            5.93              99
Overall (36.00 max.)............................           21.63              60           26.49              74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA reviewed approximately 100 European vehicles rated by Euro 
NCAP from model years 2018 to 2021 for crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection--as shown in Table 13 above. Of those vehicles, the average 
overall score for all three tests was 26.49 points out of a possible 
36.00, or 74 percent, and only one vehicle had an overall score of less 
than 21.60 points (60 percent). At a component level, the average score 
was 16.50 out of a possible 24.00 points for the head tests, 4.06 out 
of a possible 6.00 for the upper legform impact test, and 5.93 out of a 
possible 6.00 for the lower leg impact test. The upper legform impact 
test had the most variable scores as many vehicles received a perfect 
6.00 points, but many vehicles also received 0.00 points.
    NHTSA also evaluated nine U.S. vehicles from model years 2015 to 
2017 using head impact tests, upper leg impact tests, and lower leg 
impact tests.\122\ Also, as illustrated in Table 13, of the nine 
vehicles tested, the average overall score was 21.63 points out of 
36.00 points, or 60 percent. Overall scores ranged from 11.02 to 30.12 
points. Four of the nine vehicles scored less than 21.60 points, or 60 
percent. For the head component testing, vehicles in the NHTSA 
evaluation scored an average of 16.43 points out of a possible 24.00 
points. As shown in Table 13, the average head score of 16.43 points 
for NHTSA's fleet testing of U.S. vehicles is only slightly less than 
the Euro NCAP average head score of 16.50 points. For the upper legform 
testing, the U.S. fleet scored an average of 3.52 points and the 
European fleet scored an average of 4.06 points. Although these two 
averages are similar, the European data has a median score of 4.06 
points, and many vehicles received high scores for the WAD775 tests 
while some vehicles received very low scores, which brought the average 
score down. For the lower legform testing, NHTSA fleet testing also had 
low scores from

[[Page 34395]]

the U.S. fleet vehicles with an average of 1.67 points out of a maximum 
of 6.00 points while the 100 vehicles rated by Euro NCAP had an average 
of 5.93 points--nearly perfect.

         Table 14--U.S. and European Fleet Pedestrian Protection Scores Using a Modified Scoring System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    U.S. fleet scores (MY 2015-    Euro NCAP vehicle scores (MY
                                                               2017)                        2018-2021)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Average points    Percentage    Average points    Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Modified \3/8\, \3/8\, \2/8\ Scoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headform (13.50 max.)...........................            9.24              68            9.28              69
Upper Legform (9.00 max.).......................            5.29              59            6.09              68
Lower Legform (13.50 max.)......................            3.76              28           13.35              99
Overall (36.00 max.)............................           18.29              51           28.72              80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 14 presents the same nine U.S. fleet vehicles and 
approximately 100 Euro NCAP vehicles but with the proposed \3/8\, \3/
8\, \2/8\ modified apportionment scoring for the U.S. NCAP program 
discussed earlier in this notice. As shown in the table, the spread in 
overall scoring between the existing U.S. vehicles and Euro NCAP 
vehicles is much wider. The overall score is reduced for the U.S. 
vehicles because more weight is distributed in the upper and lower leg 
impact tests, which perform poorly compared to the Euro NCAP vehicles. 
In this proposed apportionment method, less weight is assigned to the 
head impact tests, in which the U.S. vehicles' performance was 
comparable to the Euro NCAP vehicles. The data not only shows that this 
modified apportionment of the component scores more closely reflect 
real-world AIS 3+ injuries in the U.S., but also highlights the 
disparity between the European and U.S. fleets and the need for 
additional safety improvements for the latter.
    In order for a vehicle to be recognized by NHTSA as meeting the 
performance requirements for crashworthiness pedestrian protection, it 
must score at least 21.60 out of 36.00 points (or 60 percent) combined 
for the head, upper leg, and lower leg impact tests when tested and 
scored in accordance with the documents outlined in the previous 
section of this notice and the modified \3/8\, \3/8\, \2/8\ 
apportionment scoring. Six of the nine vehicles NHTSA evaluated did not 
meet this minimum score, but all of the approximately 100 vehicles 
rated in Euro NCAP's published data met this minimum score with the 
modified apportionment.
    As discussed previously, NHTSA proposes to implement this by 
initially awarding credit to vehicles that meet the Agency's 
performance requirements under NCAP. As the Agency is still considering 
the best approach to convey vehicle safety information on the Monroney 
label and developing a new rating system that will include several 
planned NCAP updates, NHTSA is not proposing changes to the Monroney 
label at this time. Therefore, NHTSA proposes to inform consumers of 
vehicles that receive crashworthiness pedestrian protection credit 
through its website, http://www.NHTSA.gov. This approach is very 
similar to the current crash avoidance testing program in NCAP. 
Currently, ADAS technologies are identified through the use of check 
marks on the Agency's website. NHTSA seeks comment on whether this is 
an appropriate way to identify vehicles that meet the Agency's minimum 
criteria for crashworthiness pedestrian protection, or if some other 
notation or identifying means is more appropriate.[18]
    Currently, NHTSA reports vehicle safety ratings on a per-model 
basis, with separate ratings for different drivetrains due to 
differences in rollover resistance. For the crashworthiness testing 
program in NCAP, vehicles are tested without optional safety equipment. 
For the crash avoidance testing program, vehicles that are equipped 
with an ADAS technology as standard equipment are noted as such, as are 
vehicles that have the same technology as optional equipment. NHTSA 
notes that for the proposed crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
program, there may be other factors to consider, such as trim lines or 
other vehicle options that may affect the performance of the vehicle's 
countermeasures. NHTSA anticipates that trim lines or options that 
change the ride height of the vehicle, the clearance under the hood, or 
the shape of the headlights may have significant effects on the outcome 
of the crashworthiness pedestrian protection tests. NHTSA seeks comment 
on what options or features might exist within the same vehicle model 
that would affect the vehicle's performance of crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection. NHTSA also seeks comment on whether the Agency 
should assign credit to vehicles based on the worst-performing 
configuration for a specific vehicle model, or if vehicle models with 
optional equipment that affect the crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection credit should be noted as such.[19]
4. NCAP Verification Testing
    NHTSA believes that in order to maintain the integrity of the NCAP 
program and public trust, the Agency must not rely solely upon 
manufacturer self-reported data but must also implement a verification 
testing process--similar to the crash avoidance testing program in 
NCAP. Therefore, NHTSA is proposing the following processes for the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection program.
    If a manufacturer believes that a vehicle model meets the minimum 
criteria outlined above and wishes to self-report that vehicle for 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection credit, the manufacturer must 
submit test data to NHTSA in a standardized format developed by NHTSA. 
This process is consistent with the process for the crash avoidance 
testing program that NCAP has evaluated for a number of years. As 
mentioned previously in this notice, the manufacturer would need to 
submit predicted scores for every head impact grid point and every 
upper and lower leg impact test location. NHTSA would review this 
information for accuracy and completeness and award credit if the 
submitted data meet the minimum criteria outlined previously.
    For each new model year, NHTSA selects and acquires vehicles for 
testing under NCAP. Consistent with the processes used in the crash 
avoidance testing program, NHTSA proposes to select and acquire new 
model year vehicles for verification testing of their crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection performance. As part of NCAP, NHTSA proposes to 
select only vehicles with

[[Page 34396]]

test data submitted by the manufacturers and approved by NHTSA as 
meeting the minimum performance criteria for crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection.
    For the crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program, 
NHTSA is proposing to test a number of head impact points, upper leg 
impact test locations, and lower leg impact test locations on each 
vehicle that is selected for verification testing under NCAP.
    NHTSA proposes to use the manufacturer's supplied predicted head 
impact test data in conjunction with the data collected during the 
verification testing, similar to the process used by Euro NCAP. The 
resulting NCAP data would be compared to the manufacturer's predicted 
data to determine a correction factor to apply to the entire head 
impact test data set. If the sum of the NHTSA test scores is lower than 
the sum of the manufacturer predicted scores, then the manufacturer 
predicted scores are multiplied by a factor less than 1.0. If the sum 
of the NHTSA test scores is higher than the sum of the manufacturer 
predicted scores, then the manufacturer predicted scores are multiplied 
by a factor greater than 1.0. If the sums of the scores are the same, 
the correction factor is 1.0, and thus the manufacturer's predicted 
head scores would not be modified. An example of this scoring method is 
given later in this notice.
    NHTSA also proposes to conduct FlexPLI and upper leg impact testing 
across the entire width of the vehicle utilizing symmetry and 
adjacency. Symmetry and adjacency are concepts also utilized in Euro 
NCAP bumper and WAD775 testing with the FlexPLI and upper legform. In 
order to reduce test burden, it is assumed that a vehicle's front end 
is symmetrical, and thus the test result on a specific point on one 
side of the vehicle will also be applied to that same point on the 
other side of the vehicle. Likewise, an untested point would receive 
the same score as the lowest scored adjacent point. Typically, complete 
FlexPLI and upper legform scores can be determined with just four 
impacts for each test using symmetry and adjacency methods.
    After NHTSA completes verification testing, the resulting data from 
the legform impact tests would replace the manufacturer-supplied data 
for that model. The data from the upper leg, lower leg, and head impact 
tests (with correction factor applied) would be used to generate a new 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection score for that vehicle model. If 
that score still meets NHTSA's minimum requirement for NCAP 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection (60 percent), the model would 
maintain its credit. If the new score no longer meets the minimum, that 
vehicle would have its credit removed.
    NHTSA is proposing to test ten head impact points as part of the 
verification testing process, consistent with the Euro NCAP test 
procedure. As stated before, NHTSA does not propose to allow ``blue 
points'' in this proposed program, so all 10 test points would be 
chosen from the entire pool of head impact test locations. NHTSA 
believes that, for most vehicles, three or four upper leg impact points 
and three or four FlexPLI impact points would be necessary to generate 
a complete score for the bumper and WAD775. Thus, the Agency proposes 
to conduct either three or four tests with each device, as appropriate, 
for a given vehicle model.
    The Euro NCAP test procedures cited previously in this notice 
outline an acceptable HIC tolerance for the head impact tests. NHTSA 
proposes to utilize this established tolerance for the proposed head 
impact tests under NCAP (see Table 15 below). Self-reported data from a 
manufacturer would be submitted to NHTSA in a specific HIC ``color 
band''; each color band would have a 10 percent tolerance for 
verification testing. If NHTSA conducts a verification test on a 
selected head impact grid point and the resulting HIC value falls 
outside of the acceptable HIC range for the predicted color band, that 
point would be changed to the corresponding color band. After all 10 
verification tests for the head impact test are complete, the resulting 
score for those 10 locations would be compared to the manufacturer's 
predicted score for the 10 locations. A correction factor would be 
determined (Equation 5) and applied to the entire head test zone, 
excluding default red and default green locations--similar to the 
method used in Euro NCAP (Equation 6). A detailed example of the head 
impact verification test is provided in appendix B.

         Table 15--Acceptable HIC Range for Verification Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Acceptable HIC15
    Predicted color band           HIC15 range              range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green.......................  HIC15 <650..........  HIC15 <722.22
Yellow......................  650 <= HIC15 <1,000.  590.91 <= HIC15
                                                     <1,111.11
Orange......................  1,000 <= HIC15        909.09 <= HIC15
                               <1,350.               <1,500.00
Brown.......................  1,350 <= HIC15        1,227.27 <= HIC15
                               <1,700.               <1,888.89
Red.........................  1,700 <= HIC15......  1,545.45 <= HIC15
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.020
                                                    
                                                    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.021
                                                    

[[Page 34397]]

    Unlike the head impact tests, NHTSA would not use a correction 
factor for the upper leg impact and lower leg impact tests. Instead, 
NHTSA would conduct a complete set of tests with each test device and 
determine a resulting score for the bumper and WAD775 using the 
established rules of symmetry and adjacency. The NHTSA-derived scores 
for the WAD775 (upper leg) and bumper (lower leg) would be used in 
conjunction with the corrected hood (head) score (calculated according 
to Equation 6) to determine a new crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
score for the vehicle model. If the resulting score continues to be 60 
percent or greater, the vehicle would maintain its crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection credit status. Otherwise, that credit would be 
removed. NHTSA seeks comment on the proposal to conduct verification 
testing as part of the crashworthiness pedestrian protection program by 
adjusting the head score using a conversion factor determined from 
laboratory tests and replacing manufacturer supplied FlexPLI and upper 
leg scores with NHTSA scores from laboratory tests. [20]

V. Conclusion

    This RFC proposes to add a crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
testing program to NCAP. In doing so, it responds to comments received 
on pedestrian safety to previous NCAP RFCs and seeks comment on a 
program that would accept self-reported data from vehicle manufacturers 
and conduct verification testing on select new model year vehicles each 
year. Finally, when adopted, the changes proposed in this notice would 
fulfill the mandate set forth in the BIL to amend NCAP to provide the 
public with important safety information regarding the protection of 
vulnerable road users.

VI. Economic Analysis

    The changes to NCAP proposed in this RFC would ultimately enable a 
rating system that improves consumer awareness of crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection systems and the improvements to safety that stem 
from those systems and encourage manufacturers to accelerate their 
adoption. The accelerated adoption of pedestrian protection systems 
would drive any economic and societal impacts that result from these 
changes and are thus the focus of this discussion of economic analysis. 
Hence, the Agency has considered the potential economic effects for 
pedestrian protection systems proposed for inclusion in NCAP and the 
potential benefit of eventually developing a new rating system that 
would include this information.
    Crashworthiness pedestrian protection systems are unique because 
the safety improvements are attributable to improved pedestrian 
protection, as opposed to improvements in occupant protection that the 
other crashworthiness components in NCAP provide. Unlike advanced 
driver assistance systems, their effectiveness is the reduction of 
pedestrian injury and prevention of pedestrian fatalities when a crash 
between a motor vehicle and pedestrian does occur. This effectiveness 
is typically measured by using a combination of real-world statistical 
data, laboratory testing, and Agency expertise.
    As discussed in detail in this notice, crashes between pedestrians 
and motor vehicles present significant safety issues and NHTSA is 
particularly concerned about the steady rise in pedestrian fatalities 
over the last several years. The data from countries that prioritize 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection systems, via both regulation and 
other consumer information programs, indicate that these systems are 
effective in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities. BASt in 
Germany found a correlation between Euro NCAP pedestrian protection 
scores and pedestrian injuries and fatalities. The Swedish Transport 
Administration also found that vehicles that score better in the Euro 
NCAP pedestrian crashworthiness tests tended to reduce injury in actual 
crashes. Although these studies have been limited to certain geographic 
areas, which may not represent the entire U.S. fleet, they do 
illustrate how these systems can provide safety benefits. Thus, 
although the Agency does not have sufficient data to determine the 
monetized safety impacts resulting from these systems in a way similar 
to that frequently done for mandated technologies--when compared to the 
future without the proposed update to NCAP, NHTSA expects that these 
changes would likely have substantial positive safety effects by 
promoting earlier and more widespread deployment of crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection systems.
    NCAP also helps address the issue of asymmetric information (i.e., 
when one party in a transaction is in possession of more information 
than the other), which can be considered a market failure. Regarding 
consumer information, the introduction of a potential new component to 
the NCAP rating system is anticipated to provide consumers additional 
vehicle safety information regarding the safety of vulnerable road 
users to help them make more informed purchasing decisions by 
presenting the relative safety benefits of systems designed to protect 
not only occupants inside the vehicle but also persons outside the 
vehicle. While NHTSA knows that consumers value information about the 
protection of vehicle occupants when making purchasing decisions, the 
Agency believes that as a society, most consumers are also interested 
in protecting people that share their roads. Hence, there is an 
unquantifiable value to consumers and to the society as a whole for the 
Agency to provide accurate and comparable vehicle safety information 
about protecting all lives. At this time, the Agency does not have 
sufficient data, such as unit cost and information on how soon the full 
adoption of pedestrian protections systems would be reached, to predict 
the net increase in cost to consumers with a high degree of certainty.

VII. Public Participation

    Interested parties are strongly encouraged to submit thorough and 
detailed comments relating to each of the relevant areas discussed in 
this notice. Please see Appendix C for a summarized list of specific 
questions that have been posed in this notice. Comments submitted will 
help the Agency make informed decisions as it strives to advance NCAP 
by encouraging continuous safety improvements for new vehicles and 
enhancing consumer information.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the docket, 
please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand 
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket 
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if 
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA 
asks that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character 
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the Agency to search and copy 
certain portions of your submissions.

[[Page 34398]]

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, submit these materials to NHTSA's Office of the Chief 
Counsel in accordance with 49 CFR part 512. All requests for 
confidential treatment must be submitted directly to the Office of the 
Chief Counsel. NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an 
acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to 
the agency under part 512. If you claim that any of the information or 
documents provided in your response constitutes confidential business 
information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected 
from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you may submit your request 
via email to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at 
[email protected], or the legal contact listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not send a hardcopy of a request for 
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters.

Will the Agency consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of 
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To 
the extent possible, the Agency will also consider comments received 
after that date. Please note that even after the comment closing date, 
we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it 
becomes available. Accordingly, we recommend that interested people 
periodically check the docket for new material. You may read the 
comments received at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours 
of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also 
see the comments on the internet, identified by the docket number at 
the heading of this notice, at www.regulations.gov.

VIII. Appendices

A. Additional Pedestrian Crash Data

                                          Table 16--Pedestrians Killed by Number of Striking Vehicles 2011-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Number of striking vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Year                                   1           2        3        4        5        7        8        20         Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.....................................................           4,365       77       15        0        0        0        0        0           4,457
2012.....................................................           4,709       94       12        2        1        0        0        0           4,818
2013.....................................................           4,658       99       18        2        1        0        0        1           4,779
2014.....................................................           4,776      119       12        2        1        0        0        0           4,910
2015.....................................................           5,373      112        5        1        2        0        1        0           5,494
2016.....................................................           5,942      121       14        2        0        1        0        0           6,080
2017.....................................................           5,938      124       11        2        0        0        0        0           6,075
2018.....................................................           6,230      120       17        6        1        0        0        0           6,374
2019.....................................................           6,132      125       14        1        0        0        0        0           6,272
2020.....................................................           6,329      158       19        9        1        0        0        0           6,516
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................          54,452    1,149      137       27        7        1        1        1          55,775
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).


                                          Table 17--Pedestrians Killed by Striking Vehicle Body Type 2011-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Vehicle body type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          Other/ unknown
                          Year                             Passenger car    Light truck     Large truck         Bus           vehicle          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011....................................................           1,591           1,599             247              62             350           3,849
2012....................................................           1,817           1,698             231              68             368           4,182
2013....................................................           1,686           1,721             260              64             420           4,151
2014....................................................           1,778           1,817             226              73             379           4,273
2015....................................................           2,061           1,941             246              60             470           4,778
2016....................................................           2,228           2,217             297              46             533           5,321
2017....................................................           2,215           2,240             282              34             504           5,275
2018....................................................           2,314           2,286             325              45             538           5,508
2019....................................................           2,182           2,343             353              52             528           5,458
2020....................................................           2,160           2,199             379              38             760           5,536
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          20,032          20,061           2,846             542           4,850          48,331
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals grouped..................................              40,093
                                                                       3,388              ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this table filters by first harmful event = pedestrian and number of motor vehicles in transport = 1. Source: NHTSA FARS.


                                                Table 18--Pedestrians Killed in Frontal Crashes 2011-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Body type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          Other/ unknown
                          Year                             Passenger car    Light truck     Large truck         Bus           vehicle          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011....................................................           1,463           1,421             168              42             190           3,284
2012....................................................           1,664           1,517             161              46             205           3,593

[[Page 34399]]

 
2013....................................................           1,559           1,533             182              45             229           3,548
2014....................................................           1,610           1,625             168              47             227           3,677
2015....................................................           1,860           1,728             169              42             228           4,027
2016....................................................           1,980           1,943             222              27             270           4,442
2017....................................................           1,997           1,997             207              25             267           4,493
2018....................................................           2,113           2,056             252              32             265           4,718
2019....................................................           1,976           2,093             255              34             280           4,638
2020....................................................           1,972           1,969             274              21             386           4,622
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          18,194          17,882           2,058             361           2,547          41,042
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals grouped..................................              36,076
                                                                       2,419              ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this table filters by first harmful event = pedestrian, number of motor vehicles in transport = 1, and impact point = front. Source: NHTSA FARS.


                                     Table 19--Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries With Known Travel Speed 2011-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fatalities 2011-2020                             Injuries 2011-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cumulative      Cumulative                      Cumulative      Cumulative
                          Speed                                Count           count        percentage         Count           count        percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................             315             315             1.5           5,179           5,179             2.7
1-25 mph................................................           2,467           2,782            13.2         128,365         133,544            68.7
26-30 mph...............................................           1,505           4,287            20.3          15,497         149,041            76.7
31-35 mph...............................................           2,748           7,035            33.4          17,641         166,682            85.8
36-40 mph...............................................           2,880           9,915            47.1           9,115         175,797            90.5
41-45 mph...............................................           3,684          13,599            64.5           8,583         184,380            94.9
46-50 mph...............................................           1,604          15,203            72.2           2,438         186,818            96.2
51-55 mph...............................................           2,134          17,337            82.3           3,338         190,156            97.9
56-60 mph...............................................           1,055          18,392            87.3           1,088         191,244            98.4
61-65 mph...............................................           1,171          19,563            92.8           1,376         192,620            99.1
66-70 mph...............................................             845          20,408            96.9             935         193,555            99.6
71-75 mph...............................................             254          20,662            98.1             435         193,990            99.8
76-80 mph...............................................             120          20,782            98.6             138         194,128            99.9
81-151 mph..............................................             285          21,067           100.0             134         194,262           100.0
More than 151 mph.......................................               3          21,070           100.0              23         194,285           100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NHTSA FARS and General Estimates System (GES).


                        Table 20--Rounded Total Pedestrians Injured in Front End Crashes
                                                  [GES & FARS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Body type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                 Passenger car    Light truck        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................................          29,000          16,000          45,000
2012............................................................          32,000          18,000          50,000
2013............................................................          24,000          18,000          42,000
2014............................................................          26,000          17,000          43,000
2015............................................................          31,000          17,000          48,000
2016............................................................          37,000          23,000          60,000
2017............................................................          30,000          19,000          49,000
2018............................................................          30,000          21,000          51,000
2019............................................................          31,000          20,000          51,000
2020............................................................          23,000          16,000          39,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         293,000         187,000         479,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Injury numbers are rounded because GES numbers are estimates. Source: NHTSA GES & FARS.


                 Table 21--Probabilities for Fatal/Serious Injury and Euro NCAP Pedestrian Score
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Euro NCAP pedestrian score
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Reduction
                                                                   5 Points        22 Points        (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal Injury probability (percent)...........................            0.58             0.37               36

[[Page 34400]]

 
Serious Injury Probability (percent).........................            27.4             22.9               16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pastor, C. Correlation between pedestrian injury severity in real-life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian
  test results, In: Proceedings of the 23rd Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV).
  Seoul, 2013.


                                                 Table 22--FlexPLI Impact Data for U.S. Market Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Tibia bending moment     MCL elongation (IARV =   ACL elongation (IARV = 13 mm (GTR) 10
                                                                    (IARV = 340 Nm)               22 mm)                       mm (EuroNCAP))
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              % of IARV
                                                                Value (Nm)   % of IARV    Value (mm)   % of IARV    Value (mm)   % of IARV    (EuroNCAP)
                                                                                                                                   (GTR)          *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 Ford Fusion (Center)....................................          250           74           18           82          7.2           55           72
2013 Ford Fusion (Outboard 1)................................          177           52         14.6           66          6.7           52           67
2013 Ford Fusion (Outboard 2)................................          184           54         15.1           69          7.4           57           74
2011 Chevrolet Cruze (Modified)..............................          335           99         14.9           68          8.1           62           81
2006 Volkswagen Passat (Modified)............................          354          104         21.3           97         13.1          101          131
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: A comparison to Euro NCAP injury values was not done as part of the original study. It's included here for reference. Source: NHTSA Research.


                            Table 23--Part 581 Test Results for U.S. Market Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Longitudinal impact (2.5 mph)      Corner impact (1.5 mph)
                               ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Upper (B) +                     Upper (B) +                      Non-bumper
            Vehicle                lower (A)       Mid-plane       lower (A)       Mid-plane         damage?
                                  plane force      force (N)      plane force      force (N)
                                      (N)                             (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 Ford Fusion..............             704           17783            1043           24791  No.
2011 Chevrolet Cruze                      1861           24485            1527           24452  No.
 (Modified).
2006 Volkswagen Passat                    1576           30048             770           15675  No.
 (Modified).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NHTSA Research.


             Table 24--Potential Effects of Test Procedures Associated With Each Pedestrian Impactor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Fatal cases
                                                    MAIS 2+ (%)     MAIS 3+ (%)     MAIS 4+ (%)         (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Pedestrians Potentially Affected by Each Type of Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headform Test...................................            26.3            22.2            34.0            35.6
TRL Upper Legform Test..........................            12.5            14.4             1.7             5.2
FlexPLI Test....................................            31.0            22.0             0.4             1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Sum of Total Potential Effects for Component-Level Pedestrian Test Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of Total Potential Effects From 3 Tests.....            69.9            58.6            36.1            42.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Proportion of Total Effects by Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headform Test...................................            37.7            37.8            94.1            83.5
TRL Upper Legform Test..........................            17.9            24.6             4.8            12.2
FlexPLI Test....................................            44.4            37.6             1.0             4.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Mallory, A., Yarnell, B., Kender, A., & Stammen, J. (2019, May). Relative frequency of U.S. pedestrian
  injuries associated with risk measured in component-level pedestrian tests (Re-port No. DOT HS 812 658).
  Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

B. Vehicle Scoring and Verification Testing Example

    In the hypothetical example of a verification test presented below, 
the vehicle is assumed to have met NHTSA's minimum requirements for 
pedestrian protection credit and verification testing. In other words, 
the manufacturer reported to NHTSA that its vehicle met the minimum 
requirements (i.e., at least 60 percent or 21.600 out of 36.000 
points); the manufacturer provided predicted and/or actual test data in 
a standardized format; NHTSA reviewed this data for accuracy and 
completeness; and NHTSA selected this vehicle for verification testing.
    Figure 17 and Table 25 are examples of the format of head impact 
data a manufacturer would provide to NHTSA in order to receive credit 
for meeting

[[Page 34401]]

NHTSA's pedestrian protection criteria under NCAP. This figure shows 
the grid points along the various WAD lines eligible for testing based 
on vehicle geometry and the manufacturer's predicted color band for 
each location. Similar to the Euro NCAP test procedures, some points 
are considered ``default red'' and ``default green'' based on their 
location on the vehicle.\123\ The rest of the eligible grid points are 
filled in with predicted HIC ranges from the manufacturer. Table 25 
shows the tabulated data from Figure 17 and the manufacturer's 
predicted score (81.000 out of a possible 142.000) for the head. Figure 
17 also denotes with an ``X'' which grid points were chosen for 
verification testing by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Euro NCAP stipulates that test points located on the A-
pillars are default red, and test points located in the central 
portion of the windshield glazing away from edges or underlying 
components are default green.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.022


                    Table 25--Example of Scoring of Manufacturer's Predicted Head Impact Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Predicted
     Manufacturer prediction         HIC min.        HIC max.       Point value    Number points       score
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default green...................             n/a             n/a           1.000              18          18.000
Green...........................  ..............            <650           1.000              13          13.000
Yellow..........................             650          <1,000           0.750              51          38.250
Orange..........................           1,000          <1,350           0.500              19           9.500
Brown...........................           1,350          <1,700           0.250               9           2.250
Red.............................           1,700  ..............           0.000              22           0.000
Default Red.....................             n/a             n/a           0.000              10           0.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of all points excluding default points to be used for correction factor.....             114          63.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted headform score........................................................             142          81.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 26 includes both the manufacturer's predicted scores for each 
grid point undergoing testing as well as the actual verification test 
result in the form of the HIC and resulting scoring band. In this 
example, 7 of the 10 test points resulted in the same scoring band as 
the prediction, 2 test points resulted in a lower scoring band than the 
prediction, and 1 test point resulted in a higher scoring band than the 
prediction. One test location of particular interest in this example is 
test location (4,-3). The resulting HIC at this test location was 
1,046.87, outside

[[Page 34402]]

the boundaries for the predicted yellow color band, but still within 
the acceptable HIC range for verification testing as described in Table 
15. The manufacturer predicted that the 10 test points under 
consideration would contribute a score of 5.250--as shown in Table 26. 
However, verification testing determined that these 10 test points 
scored 4.500 instead of 5.250. Thus, based on Equation 5, to determine 
a correction factor value (also shown below Table 26), the difference 
between the manufacturer's predicted values and those tested resulted 
in a correction factor of 0.857 (three significant digits).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.023

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    Table 27 calculates the resulting Final Pedestrian Headform Score 
for this hypothetical vehicle. The correction factor determined above 
is applied to all grid points that are not default green grid points. 
Thus, instead of those points contributing a predicted score of 63.000 
points, they only contribute a score of 53.991 points. The 18 default 
green points still contribute a score of 18.000 (shown in Table 25 and 
Table 27), giving the vehicle a score of 71.991, or, when reduced for 
the \3/8\, \3/8\, \2/8\ scoring allocation, a score of 6.844 out of 
13.500 points.

                       Table 27--Example of Headform Score With Correction Factor Applied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
114.....................................  Predicted (excluding                  63.000 x 0.857 = 53.991
                                           Default Green).
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
10......................................  Default Red                                                      0.000
18......................................  Default Green                                                   18.000
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
142.....................................  Total Grid Points.........  Vehicle Score.............          71.991
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Pedestrian Headform Score (As shown in Table 9 or \3/8\ allocation of 36 points)........          13.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Pedestrian Headform Score...........71.991/142 * 13.500 = 6.844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the upper legform score, Table 29 below shows the upper legform 
verification testing results of the hypothetical vehicle. Due to 
vehicle geometry, a total of 13 points were eligible for testing, and 
it was decided that testing would be at test location U 0. Additional 
tests were conducted at locations U +2, U -4, and U -6. Utilizing 
symmetry and adjacency, all 13 test locations received scores.
    Test locations were scored according to Table 11, and the scores 
are illustrated below as Table 28 for reference. Test location U 0 
received a score of 0.000 because all the bending moments and the sum 
of forces exceeded the maximum injury limits. Test location U +2 also 
received a score of 0.000. Although some of the bending moments (upper 
and lower) were below the maximum injury limit, the upper legform test 
utilizes the worst performing injury metric for the test location's 
score. Both the center bending moment and the sum of forces exceeded 
the maximum injury limit, thus this test location received a score of 
0.000. Had test location U +2 been scored based on

[[Page 34403]]

the upper bending moment, it would have received a score of 0.475; and 
similarly, had it been scored based on the lower bending moment, it 
would have received as core of 0.356. Injury values above the minimum 
injury but below the maximum injury are scored on a sliding scale 
between 0.000 and 1.000 points for the upper legform. On the other 
hand, test locations U -4 and U -6 each received scores of 1.000 
because all injury criteria were below the minimum injury limit.

                                         Table 28--Upper Legform Scoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Max. point
                            Component                               Min. injury     Max. injury        value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bending Moment (Nm).............................................             285             350            1.00
Sum of forces (N)...............................................           5,000           6,000  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using symmetry, test location U -2 receives a score of 0.000 
because that is what test location U +2 received. Test locations U +4 
and U +6 receive scores of 1.000 because of tests conducted at U -4 and 
U -6. Using adjacency, test locations U +1, U -1, U +3, and U -3 all 
receive scores of 0.000 because they are adjacent to a test location 
that received a score of 0.000. Likewise, test locations U +5 and U -5 
each receive a score of 1.000, being adjacent to two locations each 
scoring 1.000. In some cases, a manufacturer may provide data 
explaining why their vehicle should not be subject to symmetry or 
adjacency.
    Table 30 shows the scoring for the hypothetical upper legform test. 
Overall, the vehicle received a score of 6.000 out of a possible 13.000 
for the upper legform test. When scored against the \2/8\ points 
allocation (out of 36 points), the upper legform can receive a maximum 
score of 9.000 points. This testing results in a final upper legform 
score of 4.154 out of 9.000 points.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 34404]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.024


[[Page 34405]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.025

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 34406]]

    Finally, Table 32 below shows the lower legform FlexPLI 
verification testing results of the hypothetical vehicle. Like the 
upper legform WAD775 tests, this vehicle's geometry requires 13 
locations to be tested for the bumper testing. In this test series, 
testing began at location L +1 and additional tests were carried out at 
locations L -3 and L -5.
    Test locations were scored according to Table 12 as illustrated 
below in Table 31 for reference. Testing conducted at location L +1 
yielded a score of 0.932 (0.500 + 0.432). The tibia bending moments 
were all below the minimum injury limit, awarding full points for that 
component. The MCL elongation fell in between the minimum injury limit 
and maximum injury limit, awarding partial points. For FlexPLI injury 
values above the minimum injury threshold and below the maximum injury 
threshold, points are awarded between 0.000 and 0.500 on a linear 
sliding scale. Neither the ACL nor PCL exceeded the limit. Thus, this 
test location received a score of 0.932. Tests conducted at locations 
L-3 and L -5 yielded full points as none of the values exceeded the 
minimum injury limits, nor were the ACL nor PCL limits exceeded.

                                            Table 31--FlexPLI Scoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Max. point
                            Component                               Min. injury     Max. injury        value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibia bending (Nm)..............................................             282             340            0.50
MCL elongation (mm).............................................              19              22            0.50
ACL/PCL elongation (mm).........................................  ..............              10            0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the same symmetry concepts discussed above, test locations L-
1, L +3, and L +5 inherited the scores from the opposite side. Using 
adjacency, test locations U 0, U +2, and U-2 each inherited a score of 
0.932 because that was the lowest score of the two adjacent test 
locations. Test locations L +4, L-4, L +6 and L-6 each inherited a 
perfect score of 1.000 because both adjacent test locations had scores 
of 1.000.
    The resulting lower legform score for this vehicle is shown below 
in Table 33 and was 12.660 out of a maximum 13.000, or 13.147 out of a 
maximum 13.500 when using the \3/8\, \3/8\, \2/8\ scoring allocation.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 34407]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.026


[[Page 34408]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.027

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 34409]]

    In Table 34 below, the scores from the 3 component tests are summed 
together and compared to the maximum available score. In this scenario, 
the hypothetical vehicle had reduced component level scores in each of 
the three categories, but still maintained a total score above 21.6 (60 
percent). Therefore, this vehicle would continue to receive pedestrian 
protection credit on http://www.NHTSA.gov.

                            Table 34--Example of Overall Pedestrian Protection Score
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Actual score    Maximum score    Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headform Test...................................................           6.844          13.500            50.7
Upper Legform Test..............................................           4.154           9.000            46.2
Lower Legform Test..............................................          13.147          13.500            97.4
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          24.145          36.000            67.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Received Pedestrian Protection Credit?..................................................            Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Questions Asked Throughout This Notice

    [1] NHTSA seeks comment on the topic of female leg safety. Are 
there data showing that vehicle front end designs that perform well in 
the FlexPLI and upper legform impact tests would not afford protection 
to female pedestrians? Are there any legforms representing female or 
small stature pedestrians? Are there female specific data and 
associated 5th percentile female specific injury criteria for use with 
a 5th percentile female legform impactor?
    [2] NHTSA seeks comment on what an acceptable humidity tolerance 
should be for the qualification tests of the upper legform impactor and 
the associated vehicle test with the upper legform.
    [3] NHTSA is requesting comment on the FlexPLI qualification 
procedures--specifically which procedures (dynamic and quasi-static) 
should be used for qualification, and how often they should be 
conducted?
    [4] An Agency study of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ pedestrian 
injuries in the U.S. showed that the apportionment of points in NCAP 
for crashworthiness pedestrian protection should be \3/8\th for head 
impact test results (37.5 percent), \3/8\th for lower leg impact test 
results (37.5 percent), and \2/8\th for upper leg impact test (25 
percent). NHTSA seeks comment on whether injury severity or frequency 
would be this the most appropriate basis for point allocation 
apportionment.
    [5] As concluded in the Agency's FlexPLI research report, NHTSA 
believes the FlexPLI legform is biofidelic and seeks comment from the 
public on whether biofidelity concerns with the FlexPLI still remain at 
this time.
    [6] NHTSA is seeking comment on what procedure it should use for 
marking the test zone on bumpers. In other words, should the procedure 
harmonize with the Euro NCAP 60-degree angle method or should it follow 
the GTR 9 and UNECE R127 corner gauge method?
    [7] GM suggested that if a vehicle has an exposed bumper, the 
bumper test zone should use the 60-degree angle method instead of 
testing the full bumper width to eliminate testing at the extreme edge 
of what may be a curved bumper. NHTSA requests comment on this concern 
as well, as it is similar to the previous question for bumper test 
zones.
    [8] Given the pedestrian death and injury crisis on U.S. roadways 
NHTSA is seeking comment on test speeds. Should test speeds for either 
of the head or leg tests be increased in an attempt to provide better 
protection to pedestrians in vehicle to pedestrian crashes? Should the 
area of assessment be increased beyond the WAD 2100 mm currently 
proposed to account for pedestrian heads overshooting the hood and 
impacting the windshield or the roof of the vehicle?
    [9] NHTSA requests comment on the seven Euro NCAP documents 
proposed in section IV. F. (Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol 
Version 8.5, Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User 
Protection Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment Version 10.0.3, Euro 
NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection V2.1, Euro NCAP Film and Photo 
Protocol Chapter 8--Pedestrian Subsystem Tests V1.3, Euro NCAP 
Technical Bulletin TB 008 Windscreen Replacement for Pedestrian Testing 
Version 1.0, Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 019 Headform to Bonnet 
Leading Edge Tests Version 1.0, and Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 024 
Pedestrian Human Model Certification V2.0)--do any elements of these 
documents need modification for the U.S. NCAP?
    [10] NHTSA requests comment on TB 024 and its relevance to the U.S. 
NCAP. Should the models and methods in TB 024 or some other method be 
used to calculate head impact times to evaluate vehicles with active 
hoods?
    [11] NHTSA seeks comment on what level of detail should be required 
for self-reported data. Should manufacturers be allowed to submit 
predicted head and leg response data, or only actual physical test 
results? Should reporting consist of just the results for each test 
location, or should full data traces or a comprehensive test report 
including photographs and videos be required?
    [12] NHTSA requests comment on whether vehicles with an LBRL 
greater than 500 mm should be eligible to receive crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection credit because they will automatically receive a 
zero score for the FlexPLI bumper tests.
    [13] NHTSA requests comment on the proposal to reposition the upper 
legform 50 mm from the WAD775 target when artificial 
interference is present or to conduct multiple impacts within 50 mm from the WAD775 target and use the worst-case result when 
artificial interference is present.
    [14] NHTSA tentatively plans to use the corner gauge and bumper 
beam width procedure for corner definition for this NCAP proposal and 
requests comment on this change.
    [15] NHTSA seeks comments on whether there is benefit in requiring 
both the Pendulum and Inverse Impact dynamic qualification tests in 
addition to the quasi-static tests. Also, what should the qualification 
test schedule be for the FlexPLI be?
    [16] NHTSA seeks comment on what the required detection area should 
be for vehicles with active hoods. Additionally, which device should be 
used for assuring the system activates properly, the Flex-PLI or the 
PDI2?
    [17] NHTSA proposes utilizing a modified \3/8\, \3/8\, \2/8\ 
scoring apportionment for the head impacts, Flex PLI impacts, and upper 
leg impacts

[[Page 34410]]

respectively for NCAP and requests comment on this proposal.
    [18] NHTSA seeks comment on whether [a checkmark on NHTSA.gov] is 
an appropriate way to identify vehicles that meet the Agency's minimum 
criteria for crashworthiness pedestrian protection, or if some other 
notation or identifying means is more appropriate.
    [19] NHTSA seeks comment on what options or features might exist 
within the same vehicle model that would affect the vehicle's 
performance of crashworthiness pedestrian protection. NHTSA also seeks 
comment on whether the Agency should assign credit to vehicles based on 
the worst-performing configuration for a specific vehicle model, or if 
vehicle models with optional equipment that affect the crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection credit should be noted as such.
    [20] NHTSA seeks comment on the proposal to conduct verification 
testing as part of the crashworthiness pedestrian protection program by 
adjusting the head score using a conversion factor determined from 
laboratory tests and replacing manufacturer supplied FlexPLI and upper 
leg scores with NHTSA scores from laboratory tests.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.5.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-11201 Filed 5-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P