Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 102 (Friday, May 26, 2023)

[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