76922 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1Hu, J., Lin, Y.-S., Boyle, K., Bonifas, A., Reed, 

M.P., Gupta, V., & Lin, C.H. (2023, November). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–NHTSA–2024–0057] 

RIN 2127–AK98 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Pedestrian Head 

Protection, Global Technical 

Regulation No. 9; Incorporation by 

Reference 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: NHTSA proposes a new 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) that would ensure passenger 

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) 

(10,000 pounds (lb)) or less are designed 

to mitigate the risk of serious to fatal 

injury in child and adult pedestrian 

crashes. The proposed standard would 

establish test procedures simulating a 

head-to-hood impact and performance 

requirements to minimize the risk of 

head injury. This NPRM is based on a 

Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on 

pedestrian protection, with focused 

enhancements to address safety 

problems and a regulatory framework 

unique to the United States. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 18, 2024. 

Proposed compliance date: The first 

September 1, two (2) years following the 

date of publication of any final rule in 

the Federal Register, with optional early 

compliance permitted. Final-stage 

manufacturers and alterers would be 

provided an additional year to comply. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 366–9332 

before coming. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, please mention the docket 

number of this document. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to 

www.regulations.gov, or the street 

address listed above. To be sure 

someone is there to help you, please call 

(202) 366–9322 before coming. Follow 

the online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues: Vincent Wu, Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 

(202) 366–1740, fax (202) 493–2990). 

For legal issues: Matthew Filpi, Office of 

the Chief Counsel (telephone: 202–366– 

3179). The mailing address for these 

officials is: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. This Proposed Standard 

B. Potential Impacts of the Rulemaking 

II. Safety Need 

III. Foundations of the Proposal 

IV. The Global Technical Regulation 

A. Introduction 

B. GTR 9 

C. Further Observations About the 

Differences Between This NPRM and the 

GTR 

V. Approach of the Proposed Standard 

A. Overview 

B. Relevance to the Involved Vehicles 

C. Advantages of Headform Component 

Tests 

D. Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 

E. Speed and Angle at Which the 

Headforms Would Impact the Hood 

VI. Defining the Relevant Areas Subject to the 

Standard 

A. Determining the Hood Top 

B. Hood Area 

C. Defining the Child Headform Test Area 

and the Adult Headform Test Area 

VII. Proposed Requirements and Assessing 

Compliance 

A. Amount of Hood Area That Must 

Conform to HIC 1000 

B. Manufacturer Designations of HIC1700 

Areas 

C. First Point of Contact 

D. Consideration Related to the Amount of 

Test Area That Must Meet the HIC100 

and HIC1700 Limits 

E. Considerations for Expansion of Test 

Area When It Is Less Than Two Thirds 

of the Numerical Value of the Hood Area 

VIII. GTR 9 Terminology and Amendment 3 

A. Comparison of Terminology 

B. Amendment 3 

IX. Headform Characteristics 

A. General 

B. Qualification Limits 

C. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

X. Other Issues 

A. Active Hoods 

XI. Effect on Other Standards 

XII. Proposed Lead Time 

XIII. Benefits and Costs 

XIV. Considered Alternatives 

XV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

XVI. Public Participation 

I. Executive Summary 

Improving pedestrian safety is a high 

priority of the Department of 

Transportation. Data show pedestrian 

fatalities increasing substantially in 

recent years. NHTSA issues this NPRM 

in an effort to address this safety 

problem. This NPRM proposes a new 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) that would ensure that 

passenger vehicles are designed to 

reduce the risk of serious to fatal child 

and adult head injury in pedestrian 

crashes. This rulemaking initiates the 

process of adopting a Global Technical 

Regulation (GTR) on pedestrian 

protection as an FMVSS, with focused 

enhancements to the GTR to address 

safety problems and a regulatory 

framework unique to the U.S. In 

addition, this NPRM furthers the goals 

and policies of DOT’s January 2022 

National Roadway Safety Strategy, 

which describes the five key objectives 

of the Department’s Safe System 

Approach: safer people, safer roads, 

safer vehicles, safer speeds, and postcrash care. 

New Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 228, Pedestrian head 

protection, would apply to passenger 

cars, light trucks (including pickups), 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

(MPVs) (MPVs include sport utility 

vehicles (SUVs), crossover vehicles and 

vans) and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg (10,000 lb) or less. The standard 

would require vehicles to meet a head 

injury criterion (HIC) when subjected to 

testing simulating a head-to-hood 

impact. The vehicles would have to 

reduce the risk of serious to fatal head 

injury to child and adult pedestrians in 

impacts at vehicle speeds up to 40 km/ 

h (25 mph), which encompass about 70 

percent of pedestrian injuries from 

vehicle impacts. Moreover, it is 

expected the standard would be 

beneficial even at higher speeds.1 This 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76923 

Pedestrian safety: assessment of crashworthiness 

test procedures (Report No. DOT HS 813 518). 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

2NHTSA has proposed a roadmap for the 

agency’s plans to upgrade NCAP in phases over the 

next several years. 87 FR 13452, March 9, 2022, 

extension of comment period, 87 FR 27200. 

3 88 FR 34366, May 26, 2023. The proposed 

NCAP pedestrian protection program would 

incorporate crashworthiness tests similar to those 

used by the European New Car Assessment 

Programme (Euro NCAP). Euro NCAP’s tests are 

closely aligned with those in GTR 9. 

4 88 FR 38632, Docket NHTSA–2023–0021. The 

NPRM applies to passenger vehicles with a GVWR 

of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. The action can also 

be found in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions, RIN 2127–AM37. 

5The 20 vehicle manufacturers represent more 

than 99 percent of the U.S. market. The 

commitment was to have AEB on virtually all (at 

least 95 percent) new passenger cars, light trucks, 

and MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 

no later than September 1, 2022, and a standard 

feature on virtually all light trucks and MPVs with 

a GVWR between 8,501 pounds and 10,000 pounds 

no later than Sept. 1, 2025. Most manufacturers met 

the 2022 mark, but some did not (https://

www.iihs.org/news/detail/three-more-automakersfulfill-pledge-to-make-autobrake-nearly-universal). 

Other agency data indicate about 87% of 

production has PAEB. https://

www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SaferVehicles. The 

voluntary commitment did not involve a pedestrian 

AEB component. NHTSA’s NPRM would require an 

AEB system that detects and reacts to both lead 

vehicles and pedestrians and would increase the 

lead-vehicle performance required of AEB over that 

described in the voluntary commitment. 

6 Yanagisawa, M., Swanson, E., Azeredo, P., & 

Najm, W.G. (2017, April). Estimation of potential 

safety benefits for pedestrian crash avoidance/ 

mitigation systems. (Report No. DOT HS 812 400). 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ 

nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812400_pcambenefits

report.pdf. 

NPRM advances NHTSA’s objective of 

adopting a motor vehicle 

crashworthiness safety standard to 

ensure that passenger vehicles are 

designed to mitigate the risk of serious 

to fatal child and adult pedestrian head 

injury. 

This NPRM is part of a multi-step 

approach to enhance vehicle 

performance against pedestrian injury. 

First, it initiates the process of adopting 

Global Technical Regulation No. 9 (GTR 

9), ‘‘Pedestrian safety,’’ into the Federal 

safety standards. NHTSA has 

collaborated with governments 

internationally to develop GTR 9, and 

numerous countries have adopted the 

GTR into their regulations. FMVSS No. 

228 would establish a pedestrian 

standard domestically, to ensure that all 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb.) or less manufactured in or 

imported into the United States— 

including a sub-group of light trucks 

(large pickups and large SUVs) more 

common in the U.S. than in other parts 

of the world—mitigate the risk of 

serious head injury to pedestrians. 

Second, the standard would provide a 

regulatory counterpart to NHTSA’s 

planned crashworthiness pedestrian 

protection testing program in the New 

Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in the 

near term.2 On May 26, 2023, NHTSA 

published an NCAP Request for 

Comment (NCAP RFC) proposing to 

adopt a crashworthiness pedestrian 

protection program into NHTSA’s 

NCAP.3 NCAP would build on proposed 

FMVSS No. 228 and incorporate 

enhanced crashworthiness tests into 

NCAP that go beyond the specifications 

of proposed FMVSS No. 228. NCAP 

remains a consumer information 

program that provides consumers with 

vehicle safety information for their 

purchasing decisions. Providing this 

information encourages manufacturers 

to voluntarily make changes to vehicles 

that reflect positively in the NCAP 

safety information and thereby improves 

safety through the marketplace. 

FMVSSs, on the other hand, are 

mandatory and mandate at least a 

minimum level of safety that all new 

vehicles must provide to every 

purchaser. NHTSA has observed that, in 

the case of both electronic stability 

control and rear visibility cameras, only 

approximately 70 percent of vehicles 

had these technologies during the time 

they were part of NCAP. Thus, while 

NCAP serves a vital safety purpose, 

NHTSA also recognizes its limitations 

in ensuring that every vehicle provides 

the performance necessary to provide 

the requisite level of safety to all 

purchasers. Because only an FMVSS can 

ensure that all vehicles are equipped 

with technologies and vehicle designs 

that meet the specified performance 

requirements, NCAP can supplement 

but not substitute for the FMVSS. The 

FMVSS remains NHTSA’s core way of 

ensuring that all motor vehicles provide 

the requisite level of safety performance, 

and provide it within a practicable 

timeframe. Although the NCAP program 

provides valuable safety-related 

information to consumers in a simple 

and easy-to-understand manner, the 

agency believes that the proposed rule 

is necessary to achieve the highest level 

of pedestrian safety feasible and at the 

fastest achievable timeframe based on 

the performance requirements and lead 

time specified in the proposed rule. 

Additional discussion on the NCAP RFC 

is provided later in this preamble. 

Third, this rulemaking proposing 

FMVSS No. 228 is intended to work 

hand-in-hand with the growth and 

expansion of automatic emergency 

braking (AEB) technologies. An AEB 

system uses various sensor technologies 

and sub-systems that work together to 

detect when the vehicle is in a crash 

imminent situation, to automatically 

apply the vehicle brakes if the driver 

has not done so, or to apply more 

braking force to supplement the driver’s 

braking. AEB systems were originally 

developed to detect a crash imminent 

situation with a lead vehicle, but AEB 

is in a state of rapid advancement and 

some of the systems on the market now 

also warn about, and respond to, an 

imminent collision with a pedestrian. 

Pedestrian AEB (PAEB) systems are 

designed to stop the vehicle 

automatically before striking a 

pedestrian or reduce the speed at which 

an impact occurs if the vehicle’s initial 

speed is too high to avoid impact. On 

May 9, 2024, NHTSA published a final 

rule requiring AEB and PAEB systems 

on light vehicles which adopts FMVSS 

No. 127.4 FMVSS No. 127 builds on a 

voluntary commitment, announced by 

NHTSA in March 2016, by 20 vehicle 

manufacturers to make lead-vehicle 

AEB a standard feature on light 

vehicles, though that commitment did 

not include PAEB.5 When new vehicles 

are equipped with PAEB, we anticipate 

that fewer pedestrians will be struck. 

For some impacts that cannot be 

avoided due to the closing speed of the 

vehicle (the relative speed between the 

vehicle and what it is approaching, in 

this case, the pedestrian), PAEB will 

lower the vehicle’s speed so more 

impacts will be at speeds of 40 km/h (25 

mph) or less, which is the velocity range 

FMVSS No. 228 is designed to replicate. 

FMVSS No. 228 would address those 

crashes and ensure the vehicles mitigate 

the risk of serious to fatal head injury in 

these impacts.6 PAEB will eliminate 

many pedestrian impacts and reduce the 

impact of those crashes that do occur. 

This NPRM, if adopted, would further 

reduce the risk of serious injury or death 

from head injuries if a pedestrian strikes 

the hood of a vehicle. NHTSA has 

accounted for the effect of FMVSS No. 

127 in estimating the economic impacts 

of this rulemaking. 

This NPRM proposes FMVSS No. 228 

and aligns with the goals of DOT’s 

January 2022 National Roadway Safety 

Strategy, which describes the five key 

objectives of the Department’s Safe 

System Approach: safer people, safer 

roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, and 

post-crash care. FMVSS No. 228 would 

mandate requirements for safer vehicles 

and leverage advanced crash avoidance 

technology like PAEB in conjunction 

with the crashworthiness 

countermeasures based on GTR 9 to 

realize far-reaching improvements to 

pedestrian safety. NHTSA also notes 

that although research into vulnerable 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76924 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

7Simms CK and Wood DO (2009), Pedestrian and 

cyclist impact—a biomechanical perspective, 

Springer Science and Business Media, Dordrecht 

Heidelberg London New York; see Chapter 10: The 

influence of vehicle design on pedestrian and 

cyclist injuries. 

8Public Law 117–58. 

9Section I.B.1, 49 CFR part 553, appendix C, 

‘‘Statement of Policy: Implementation of the United 

Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ 

ECE) 1998 Agreement of Global Technical 

Regulations—Agency Policy Goals and Public 

Participation.’’ 

10Mizuno K et al. (2001), Summary Of IHRA 

Pedestrian Safety WG Activities—Proposed Test 

Methods To Evaluate Pedestrian Protection 

Afforded By Passenger Cars. 

11See table II.1. 

12Rosen E, Sander U (2009) Pedestrian fatality 

risk as a function of car impact speed. Accident 

Analysis and Prevention, 2009;41:536–542. 

13Stammen JA et al (2002), A Demographic 

Analysis and Reconstruction of Selected Cases from 

the Pedestrian Crash Data Study, Paper No. 2002– 

01–0560, SAE International, Warrendale PA. 

14 Yutaka Okamoto, Tomiji Sugimoto, Koji 

Enomoto & Junichi Kikuchi (2003), Pedestrian Head 

Impact Conditions Depending on the Vehicle Front 

Shape and Its Construction—Full Model 

Simulation, Traffic Injury Prevention, 4:1, 74–82, 

DOI: 10.1080/15389580309856. 

15Bahman S. Roudsari, Charles N. Mock & Robert 

Kaufman (2005) An Evaluation of the Association 

Between Vehicle Type and the Source and Severity 

of Pedestrian Injuries, Traffic Injury Prevention, 6:2, 

185–192, DOI: 10.1080/15389580590931680. 

road users and vehicle safety measures 

has focused predominantly on 

improving the protection of pedestrians, 

several effectiveness studies have 

concluded that pedestrian safety 

measures like this NPRM’s head 

protection requirements would also be 

beneficial for cyclists.7

Issuance of this NPRM is also 

consistent with the goals of the 

November 15, 2021, Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).8 Section 

24211 of IIJA, ‘‘Global Harmonization,’’ 

states that the Secretary shall cooperate, 

to the maximum extent practicable, with 

foreign governments, nongovernmental 

stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle 

industry, and consumer groups with 

respect to global harmonization of 

vehicle regulations as a means for 

improving motor vehicle safety. This 

NPRM proposes to adopt an FMVSS for 

pedestrian head protection founded on 

Global Technical Regulation No. 9, 

‘‘Pedestrian Safety’’ (GTR 9). NHTSA 

collaborated with experts from around 

the world to develop GTR 9. 

Establishing an FMVSS based on a 

Global Technical Regulation aligns with 

the goals of IIJA Section 24211. 

Although GTR 9 was established in 

2008 when light trucks and vans (LTVs), 

which includes large light trucks, MPVs 

(including SUVs) and vans, were not as 

common as they are now in the U.S., 

LTVs did exist then, and the GTR test 

procedure included in proposed FMVSS 

No. 228 was developed to be relevant 

and applicable to these LTV vehicles. 

The test procedure proposed for use in 

FMVSS No. 228 is relevant for use with 

all light vehicles in the U.S. fleet 

because it is based on a Wrap Around 

Distance (WAD) measurement 

appropriate for use with passenger cars 

and LTVs. The defined ‘‘Hood Area’’ 

(subject to proposed FMVSS No. 228 

coverage) is based on WAD, so any 

differences in head impact locations for 

a given crash scenario between LTVs 

and passenger cars are accounted for in 

the WAD-based test. As described in 

sections V.-VII., in the proposed test, 

NHTSA would use impactor testing to 

simulate a head-to-hood or head-tofender top impact. It would specify the 

use of two different impactors: one 

representative of the head of a struck 6- 

year-old child (child headform) and 

another representative of the head of a 

struck 50th percentile adult male 

pedestrian (adult headform). The WAD 

measurement assures that the areas of 

the hood subject to impactor testing are 

the areas likely to be struck by a 

pedestrian’s head. NHTSA has 

performed the WAD-based test of GTR 

9 on a wide variety of vehicles, 

including LTVs of various shapes and 

sizes. These data have been used to 

generate the benefit-cost analysis for 

this NPRM, which NHTSA discusses in 

the Preliminary Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (PRIA) accompanying this 

NPRM. The PRIA, discussed in detail in 

sections below, calculates benefits and 

costs separately for passenger cars and 

LTVs. 

Because the WAD-based test 

procedure of the GTR is technically 

suitable for small and large vehicles, 

this NPRM’s regulatory text reflects the 

wording of GTR 9 to show the GTR’s 

provisions implemented in a Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard. 

Throughout this preamble, however, 

NHTSA requests comments on the pros 

and cons of various aspects of the 

NPRM’s regulatory text, particularly 

with respect to the areas of the vehicle 

that would be subject to headform 

testing strictly using the GTR procedure. 

Throughout this preamble, NHTSA 

focuses readers on ways NHTSA 

believes the proposed regulatory text 

could be enhanced in a final rule to 

achieve more safety benefits in the U.S. 

For example, we discuss an approach of 

potentially extending the test area to the 

grille area on all large vehicles where 

the head of a child or shorter adult 

pedestrian may be struck. With 

pedestrian injury and fatality rates 

climbing, and with lessons learned from 

NHTSA’s NCAP and other NCAP 

programs engaged in headform testing of 

vehicle front ends, NHTSA seeks to 

design FMVSS No. 228 to be as effective 

as possible to address pedestrian safety 

needs in the U.S. 

Accordingly, this NPRM discusses 

specific approaches that NHTSA is 

considering to possibly tailor the GTR 

text for a final rule. While the NPRM’s 

regulatory text reflects the GTR’s 

approaches and provides a framework 

for an FMVSS based on those 

provisions, NHTSA may determine to 

make changes in any final rule. 

Ultimately, NHTSA seeks to issue a 

final rule that would ‘‘fully meet the 

need in the U.S. for vehicle safety.’’ 9

A. This Proposed Standard 

In collisions between vehicles and 

pedestrians, the pedestrian is typically 

struck from the side while walking 

across the vehicle’s path. When a 

pedestrian is struck in this manner, the 

first point of contact typically occurs 

between the front-end of the vehicle and 

the lateral aspect of the pedestrian’s leg 

near the knee region. As the lower leg 

becomes fully engaged with the 

vehicle’s front-end, the leading edge of 

the hood strikes the lateral aspect of the 

pedestrian’s pelvis or upper leg. Then, 

as the lower leg is kicked forward and 

away from the front-end of the vehicle, 

the pedestrian’s upper body swings 

abruptly downward towards the hood 

until the head strikes the vehicle. 

Research indicates that the linear head 

impact velocity ranges between 60 and 

110 percent of the initial contact 

velocity.10

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 is designed 

to mitigate injuries to pedestrians hit 

from the side as described above. Most 

pedestrian injuries (79%) and fatalities 

(83%) are caused by the frontal 

structures of vehicles.11 Roughly twothirds of these occur when vehicle 

travel speeds are less than 40 km/h (25 

mph).12 13 Crash data show that 

pedestrian head injuries occur due to 

contacts to all areas of vehicle front 

ends, including the hood.14 15 The 

location the pedestrian’s head strikes is 

dependent on the pedestrian’s size, the 

front configuration of the vehicle, and 

the speed of impact. In a 40 km/h (25 

mph) impact, roughly 15% of pedestrian 

fatalities involve the pedestrian’s head 

contacting the Hood Top. This NPRM 

focuses on mitigating head injuries 

sustained from contacting the hood and 

adjacent areas around the hood on the 

vehicle front end. 

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would use 

impactor testing simulating a head-toVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 18, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76925 

16We note that the ‘‘hood’’ as defined in 

proposed FMVSS No. 228 would typically 

encompass portions of the fender top. 17 ‘‘Test vehicle’’ refers to the vehicle whose 

compliance with proposed FMVSS No. 228 is being 

assessed. 

18This preamble occasionally refers to these two 

test areas together as the ‘‘Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas.’’ 19 Injuries can be categorized according to the 

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). AIS ranks 

individual injuries on a scale of 1 to 6: 1=minor, 

2=moderate, 3=serious, 4=severe, 5=critical, and 

6=maximum (untreatable). In previous rulemakings 

(notably with respect to those involving FMVSS No. 

208 and FMVSS No. 214), NHTSA associated 

HIC1000 with an 11% risk of AIS 4+ brain injuries. 

hood or head-to-fender top impact.16 It 

would specify the use of two different 

impactors: one with a mass of 3.5 kg 

that is representative of the head of a 

struck 6-year-old child (child headform) 

and another with a mass of 4.5 kg 

representative of the head of a struck 

50th percentile adult male pedestrian 

(adult headform). The standard would 

define various areas of a test vehicle 17

hood (such as the Hood Top and Hood 

Area) subject to testing in an objective 

and repeatable manner. The Hood Area 

would be partially composed of the 

Child Headform Test Area and the 

Adult Headform Test Area. The area 

likely to be struck by a child 

pedestrian’s head (the Child Headform 

Test Area) would be tested with the 

child headform and the area likely to be 

struck by an adult’s head (the Adult 

Headform Test Area) would be tested 

with the adult headform.18 The 

headforms would hit areas of the 

vehicle hood at specific speeds and 

impact angles replicating a real-world 

vehicle traveling at 40 km/h (25 mph) 

and impacting the adult or child 

pedestrian. 

The following figure generally depicts 

the areas of a vehicle that would be 

subject to FMVSS No. 228 testing, 

particularly the Hood Top and Hood 

Area (which share a boundary in this 

example and are contained within the 

dashed lines), and the Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas (darkly shaded 

areas). The figure illustrates other terms 

and concepts used in the proposed 

standard. All of the terms used in the 

figure are fully explained in this 

preamble. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would 

specify performance requirements 

limiting the accelerations measured by 

the headforms. The HIC must be less 

than 1000 (HIC1000) over a certain 

portion of the Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas.19 The requisite 

portions would be derived as a 

percentage of the overall Hood Area. 

Generally speaking, the portion of the 

Child Headform Test Area that must 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.002</GPH>

Side Reference 

Line 

HIC Unlimited Margin of 

the Side Reference Line 

Leading Edge 

Reference Line 

/--...... ,,, ..... , ___ ,,, ...... __ _ 

HIC Unlimited Margin of 

the Rear Reference Line 

HIC Unlimited 

Child Headform 

Test Area 

HIC Unlimited Margin of the 

Leading Edge Reference Line 

Figure 1.1. Example Child and Adult Headform Test Area outline. 

For illustration purposes only. Not to scale. 
76926 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

20FMVSS No. 228 would have detailed 

procedures that define the areas on the hood, 

including a Wrap Around Distance (WAD) 

procedure that identifies various reference lines on 

the hood. As explained in a later section, in any 

particular vehicle vertical longitudinal plane, the 

Wrap Around Distance is the distance from a point 

on the ground directly below the vehicle’s most 

forward edge in that plane, to a designated point on 

the hood, as measured with a flexible measuring 

device, such as a flexible wire. WADs of various 

lengths correlate to where pedestrians of different 

heights would hit their head on the hood when 

struck from the side. We can create a WAD line 

using wires of different lengths, e.g., a wire of 1700 

+/¥ 1 mm can be used to draw a line at 1,700 mm 

from the ground reference plane (such a line is 

referred to as WAD1700). 

21HIC1700 is associated with a 36% risk of AIS 

4+ brain injuries. 

22Examples of elements of designs that are 

beneficial to pedestrian head protection are: 

introducing additional clearance between the inner 

and outer skins of the hood, using energy-absorbing 

materials to improve shock absorption, redesigning 

stiff structures under the hood, such as hinges and 

headlight frames, to crush, collapse, or shear off, 

and redesigning the side edges of the hood where 

it meets up with the fenders to use a more 

deformable support structure or moving the stiff 

hood-to-fender junction out of the head impact 

zone. ‘‘Active hoods’’ have also emerged that have 

a front-end sensor and lever arms to automatically 

lift (pop up) the hood upon detecting that a 

pedestrian has been struck. An actuator near the 

hinge pops the hood slightly to provide more space 

between the hood and rigid components in the 

engine bay. 

23Consistent with the GTR, the proposed 

regulatory text includes a provision that excludes 

from the standard MPVs, trucks, and buses where 

the distance, measured longitudinally on a 

horizontal plane, between the transverse centerline 

of the front axle and the seating reference point of 

the driver’s seat, is less than 1000 mm. However, 

we are considering applying FMVSS No. 228 to 

these vehicles and are requesting comment on this 

issue later in the preamble. 

24 In headform testing of mid-2000 model year 

vehicles, large SUVs and pickups performed about 

the same as minivans, smaller SUVs, and passenger 

cars. For more details, see Mallory et al., (2007), 

Pedestrian GTR testing of current vehicles, ESV 

Paper No. Paper No. 07–0313. Among the vehicles 

tested were two pickups—a 2003 Dodge Ram and 

a 2005 Chevy Silverado—and neither had a head 

impact that exceeded the HIC limit in this NPRM. 

25The PRIA may be obtained by downloading it 

or by contacting Docket Management at the address 

or telephone number provided at the beginning of 

this document. 

meet the HIC1000 requirement must be 

at least one-half of the numerical value 

(numerical value of the area is 

calculated from a projection onto a 

horizontal plane) of the Hood Area 

below what is called the ‘‘WAD1700 

line.’’ 20 Based on data showing the 

locations of child and adult head 

impacts, this NPRM proposes that 

WAD1700 would be the boundary 

between the Child Headform Test Area 

and the Adult Headform Test Area. 

Secondly, the portion of the Combined 

Child and Adult Headform Test Areas 

that must comply with the HIC1000 

limit must be at least two-thirds of the 

numerical value of the Hood Area. 

Because hard areas under the hood are 

challenging to mitigate, for 

practicability reasons the HIC limit for 

the remaining test areas is higher, but 

nonetheless limited to HIC1700.21

To meet the HIC limits, hoods would 

be required to have protective 

countermeasures that attenuate the 

energy of the impact during initial 

contact of the headform, and/or that 

provide sufficient clearance (open areas) 

to prevent the headform from bottoming 

out on objects beneath the hood. The 

countermeasures would have to ensure 

that the hood is not too stiff (such a 

hood would fail the HIC requirement) 

and not too soft (a too soft hood could 

also fail because the headform could 

penetrate down to the level of a hard, 

immovable structure beneath the hood). 

Among other objectives, an effective 

design balances hood stiffness with 

depth of penetration.22

B. Potential Impacts of the Rulemaking 

FMVSS No. 228 would apply to 

passenger cars and to MPVs, trucks, and 

buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 

lb) or less.23 Due to the widespread 

adoption and use of GTR 9 by other 

countries, most passenger vehicles sold 

in the U.S. that use international 

platforms already incorporate the head 

protection designs of the GTR. 

Regardless of current voluntary 

conformance, we propose to adopt GTR 

9 into an FMVSS to ensure future 

vehicles provide at least the pedestrian 

head protections voluntarily provided 

today. We also seek to address the many 

U.S. variants and other models built 

upon uniquely American platforms that 

may or may not be designed to the GTR 

requirements. This includes essentially 

the entire pickup truck and large SUV 

segments (about 22% of the U.S. 

passenger vehicle 2020 sales, according 

to data provided by Wards Automotive). 

Our testing indicates that it is possible 

for some pickup trucks to pass the 

headform HIC requirements,24 which 

implies domestic implementation is 

feasible. This proposal would ensure 

that uniquely American platforms, such 

as pickups, would provide the proposed 

level of pedestrian head protection. In 

this NPRM, NHTSA also considers 

modifying some aspects of GTR 9 to 

clarify the wording of the regulation, 

improve objectivity, and potentially 

increase safety benefits resulting from 

the GTR’s application to the U.S. fleet. 

NHTSA proposes a domestic FMVSS 

No. 228 to achieve those enhancements. 

This NPRM is economically 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

due to the benefits estimated to result 

from the proposed standard. NHTSA’s 

PRIA analyzes the potential impacts of 

proposed FMVSS No. 228. NHTSA has 

placed a copy of the PRIA in the docket 

for this NPRM.25

NHTSA estimates that the proposal 

would mitigate approximately 67.4 

fatalities annually, even after accounting 

for the effect of PAEB. (However, as 

explained in detail in sections below, 

the count of injuries will increase as 

averted fatalities are replaced by 

injuries.) For passenger cars, the cost 

per vehicle is estimated to be in the 

range of $2.86–$3.50 when discounted 

at 3% and 7%. Similarly, LTVs have a 

per vehicle cost of $3.29–$4.08. When 

discounted at 3% and 7%, the total 

annual cost ranges from $48.94 to 

$60.43 million. The overall discounted 

equivalent lives saved (ELS) range from 

approximately 44.46 to 54.87. Taking 

into account both discount rates, the 

cost per ELS is $1.10 million and net 

benefits range from approximately 

$480.79 to $593.33 million. Table I.1 

summarizes the cost and benefits for 

both discount rates. Additional details 

of the benefits and costs analysis can be 

found in section X.III of this preamble. 

TABLE I.1—SUMMARY OF COST AND BENEFITS

[Millions] 

Discount rate Cost Equivalent 

lives saved 

Cost per 

equivalent 

live saved 

Monetized 

benefits Net benefits 

3% ........................................................................................ $60.43 54.87 $1.10 $653.76 $593.33 

7% ........................................................................................ 48.94 44.46 1.10 529.74 480.79 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76927 

26Traffic Safety Facts 2020 ‘‘A Compilation of 

Motor Vehicle Crash Data.’’ U.S. Department of 

Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

27Traffic 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. 

28National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 

(2021, October), Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle 

Traffic Fatalities for the First Half (January-June) of 

2021. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 813 

199), Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. 

29NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS). 

30Swanson, 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. 

31Mallory, 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. 32MAIS stands for Maximum Abbreviated Injury 

Scale. 33Mallory, 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. 

34Snyder and Knoblauch (1971); Hunter WW et 

al. (1995), Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types; 

DaSilva MP et al., (2003), Analysis of Pedestrian 

Crashes, Report No. DOT HS 809 585, April 2003, 

Washington DC, NHTSA; Thomas L et al. (2014), 

North Carolina pedestrian crash types, 2008–2012, 

University of North Carolina Highway Safety 

Research Center, March 2014. 35Wards Automotive. 

II. Safety Need 

In 2020, 38,824 people died on U.S. 

roads. Of this number, 25,536 were 

passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, a 

decrease from 32,225 in 2000.26 This 

reduction is notable, particularly in 

light of the fact that the total number of 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the U.S. 

has increased over time. However, 

during that same timeframe, pedestrian 

fatalities increased by 33 percent, from 

4,739 in 2000 to 6,516 in 2020.27 28

The vast majority of pedestrian 

fatalities (98% or 6,132) are due to a 

single striking vehicle.29 A 2019 

NHTSA report analyzed the critical 

events or actions related to crashes (e.g., 

control loss, road departure), including 

the critical event of striking a 

pedestrian.30 The report found that an 

average of 3,731 fatal crashes and a total 

of 70,461 crashes each year included the 

critical event of a vehicle striking a 

pedestrian (years 2011–2015). This 

represents 53 fatal crashes per thousand 

crashes, the highest among any critical 

events tabulated. 

Most injuries resulting from collisions 

between vehicles and pedestrians are 

inflicted by the frontal structures of 

vehicles, the majority of which occur 

when vehicle travel speeds are lower 

than 40 km/h (25 mph) (see figure V.2). 

Pedestrians sustaining life-threatening 

injuries typically have head and thorax 

injuries caused by contact with the 

vehicle. 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.31 The head, legs, and 

thorax are the most common locations 

for serious injury, and the head, legs, 

and pelvis/hip are the most common 

locations for disabling injuries. A 

NHTSA study analyzing the potential 

effect of the head, upper leg and lower 

leg component test procedures 

estimated that among serious to fatal 

injury cases (MAIS 32 3+), 37.8 percent 

of the total expected potential effects of 

the test procedures was associated with 

the headform test, 24.6 percent was 

associated with the upper legform test 

and 37.6 percent was associated with 

the lower legform test. When the 

analysis was limited to more severe 

injuries (MAIS 4+ or fatal cases), the 

influence of the headform test was 

substantially higher, while the relative 

influence of the upper legform and 

lower legform tests was reduced.33

Studies have found a high prevalence 

of five crash types in collisions between 

vehicles and pedestrians.34 These crash 

types are: 

• Dart-out (first half)—where the 

pedestrian appears suddenly midblock, 

often from between parked cars, 

presents a limited exposure time to the 

driver and is struck less than halfway 

across the roadway. 

• Dart-out (second half)—similar to 

the Dart-out (first half) except the 

pedestrian is struck after crossing half or 

more of the roadway. 

• Intersection dash—where the 

pedestrian presents a short time 

exposure to the driver at an intersection 

either because the pedestrian runs 

across the intersection, is blocked from 

view, or crosses unexpectedly. 

• Multiple threat—where a vehicle 

stops for a crossing pedestrian and, in 

so doing, blocks the pedestrian from the 

view of the driver in a second car that 

is overtaking the first car (includes 

intersection and midblock situations). 

• Vehicle turn/merge—where the 

driver is concentrating on turning into 

or merging with traffic and does not see 

the pedestrian. 

New Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 228, Pedestrian head 

protection, (FMVSS No. 228) has 

proposed test procedures designed to 

replicate head-to-hood contact in the 

crash sequences described above. The 

procedures replicate a child or adult 

pedestrian crossing a street and being 

struck from the side by a vehicle 

travelling at a speed approaching 40 

km/h (25 mph). 

FMVSS No. 228 would affect vehicles 

involved in the majority of fatal 

pedestrian crashes: passenger cars, light 

trucks (pickups), and MPVs (vans, 

crossover vehicles and SUVs) (see table 

II.1). Sales are trending toward more 

non-passenger cars. Light trucks and 

MPVs as a percentage of light vehicle 

sales have steadily increased from 52% 

in 2011 to 77% in 2020.35

In a pedestrian crash, the vehicle 

striking the pedestrian is usually the 

only vehicle involved; the vast majority 

are single vehicle collisions in which 

the vehicle-to-pedestrian collision is the 

only harmful event. For fatalities, of 

front end striking vehicle types, there is 

about an even split between passenger 

cars (43 percent) and light trucks and 

MPVs (42 percent). Large trucks (GVWR 

greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)), which 

are not covered by this proposal, are 

responsible for 6 percent of fatal front 

end to pedestrian strikes. Buses 

(covered by this NPRM only if they have 

a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or 

less) are responsible for 0.5 percent of 

fatal strikes and the remaining fatal 

strikes (8 percent) are caused by 

unknown vehicle types. The 

percentages for non-fatal injuries show 

a different distribution, with passenger 

cars representing 58 percent of front end 

striking vehicles and light trucks 

representing 40 percent. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76928 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

36https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/pedestriansafety. 

37 87 FR 9916; February 22, 2022. 

38 46 FR 7015; January 22, 1981. 

39 69 FR 14496, April 10, 1991. 

40NHTSA held a public meeting on August 20, 

1991, to seek public input on the agency’s plans for 

a pedestrian protection regulation. Only the hood 

requirements were discussed at this meeting. In 

response to NHTSA’s pedestrian safety plan 

presented at the meeting, all motor vehicle 

manufacturers indicated at least some major 

redesign would be required to meet the headform 

requirements. Based on such comments, unknowns 

about the benefits projected, the high costs of major 

vehicle redesign, and several other factors (such as 

international harmonization, pedestrian behavior 

enforcement, better infrastructure, and other crash 

avoidance measures), the agency did not proceed 

with the head impact protection rulemaking. 

41 61 FR 58362, November 14, 1996. 42 ISO is a worldwide standards-setting 

organization to facilitate the international exchange 

of goods and services. 43 IHRA was an inter-governmental steering 

committee formed to facilitate multi-national 

collaboration in research in major problem areas of 

road safety, including pedestrian safety. The IHRA 

expert group on pedestrian safety developed test 

TABLE II.1—PEDESTRIAN INJURIES AND FATALITIES IN SINGLE VEHICLE FRONT END CRASHES BY VEHICLE TYPE, 2020 

Class of vehicle Injuries Fatalities 

Passenger car .................................................................................................. 23,158 (58%) 38,961 (98%) 1,972 (43%) 3,941 (85%) 

Light Truck and MPV ....................................................................................... 15,803 (40%) 1,969 (42%) 

Large Truck ...................................................................................................... 274 (6%) 

Bus ................................................................................................................... 21 (0.5%)

Unknown/other ................................................................................................. 959 (2%) 386 (8%)

Totals (front end) ............................................................................................. 39,921 (100%) 4,622 (100%) 

Totals (all impact locations) ............................................................................. 50,397 5,536 

Sources: NHTSA’s Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) and National Automotive Sampling System—General Estimates System (GES).

NHTSA’s Traffic Safety Facts Sheet. 

In 2020, of all motor-vehicle related 

fatalities and injuries (including drivers, 

passengers, pedestrians, etc.) 

pedestrians accounted for 16 percent of 

all fatalities and 4 percent of injuries in 

the under 16 age group; pedestrians 

accounted for 12 percent of all motor 

vehicle-related fatalities and 2 percent 

of injuries in the age group 16–34; and 

pedestrians accounted for 19 percent of 

fatalities and 3 percent of injuries in the 

age group 35–44. For the age groups of 

45–64 and 65 and older, the fatality 

figures were 21 percent and 18 percent, 

respectively. Injuries for these two 

groups were both 3 percent. 

TABLE II.2—PEDESTRIANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL TRAFFIC FATALITIES AND INJURIES IN 2020 BY AGE GROUP

Years old Percent of 

traffic fatalities 

Percent of 

traffic injuries 

15 and Under ....................................................................................................................................... 16 4 

16–34 ................................................................................................................................................... 12 2 

35–44 ................................................................................................................................................... 19 3 

45–64 ................................................................................................................................................... 21 3 

65 and Over ......................................................................................................................................... 18 3 

Sources: FARS and GES. 

This proposal addresses the injuries 

and fatalities resulting from head 

impacts to the front of the vehicle. The 

derivation of the target population is 

described in detail in the PRIA 

accompanying this proposal. A 

summary of the PRIA is contained in 

section XIII of this proposal. 

III. Foundations for the Proposal 

NHTSA protects pedestrians through 

rulemaking, consumer information 

provided by the agency’s New Car 

Assessment Program, safety research, 

and public education programs to 

improve safe driving and walking 

practices.36 With respect to rulemaking, 

a number of vehicle standards have 

been issued for pedestrian safety, such 

as FMVSS No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111), 

which has rear visibility requirements 

that manufacturers must meet through 

backup cameras, and which requires 

outside rearview mirrors and their 

mountings to be free of sharp points or 

edges that could injure pedestrians. 

FMVSS No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131) 

applies to school bus stop arms that 

control traffic around children boarding 

or unloading from school buses. NHTSA 

recently amended FMVSS No. 108 (49 

CFR 571.108) to permit the installation 

of adaptive driving beam requirements 

that help to improve roadway 

illumination so drivers can more easily 

detect pedestrians and motorcyclists.37

NHTSA additionally expects that 

FMVSS No. 127, recently published 

final rule requiring PAEB, would have 

substantial benefits in preventing 

collisions with pedestrians and 

reducing the speed of impacts. 

NHTSA’s Efforts on a Pedestrian Head 

Protection Standard 

Over many years, NHTSA has studied 

the feasibility of additional 

countermeasures to reduce the severity 

of pedestrian leg, upper body, and head 

injuries. In 1981, NHTSA issued an 

NPRM 38 to limit the amount of force 

that may be exerted by a striking 

vehicle’s bumper area on an adult 

pedestrian’s lower leg in a 32.2 km/h 

(20 mph) crash. The rulemaking was 

later terminated when the potential 

countermeasure (a softer bumper) did 

not prove practicable.39 A decade later, 

NHTSA had plans for an NPRM for head 

impact protection but discontinued 

regulatory work in that area at that 

time.40

NHTSA, however, continued its 

research into child and adult pedestrian 

protection. The agency collaborated 

closely with other countries to 

harmonize international procedures and 

requirements,41 and carried out key 

pedestrian research and data collection 

with international stakeholders such as 

the International Organization for 

Standards (ISO),42 the International 

Harmonization of Research Activities 

(IHRA),43 the European Commission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76929 

procedures to assess the vehicle-to-pedestrian 

collision. 

44The EEVC does not set standards or enforce 

regulations and is not a part of the European 

Commission (E.C.). The EEVC can only recommend 

safety standards to the E.C. and other legislative 

states, which may or may not develop them into 

regulations. The EEVC carries out auto safety 

research in a number of specialized areas called 

‘‘Working Groups.’’ Research within a Working 

Group, overseen by a steering committee of 

representatives from Europe’s national 

governments, is carried out by nominated technical 

experts who may also work for the automotive 

industry. Funding for EEVC research is typically 

provided as ‘‘in-kind’’ contributions from the 

groups represented by the steering committee 

members and technical experts. 

45The 1998 Agreement is administered by the UN 

Economic Commission for Europe’s World Forum 

for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations 

(WP.29). https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ 

trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob/ 

globale.pdf. The 1998 Agreement entered into force 

on August 25, 2000. 

46Non-governmental organizations may also 

participate in a consultative capacity in groups 

developing GTRs. Manufacturers may participate 

through non-governmental organizations 

representing industry. Individual manufacturers 

may also provide input to the process. 

47Article 7, 1998 Agreement. 

48 Id. 

49NHTSA’s policies in implementing the 1998 

Agreement are published in 49 CFR part 553, 

appendix C, ‘‘Statement of Policy: Implementation 

of the United Nations/Economic Commission for 

Europe (UNECE) 1998 Agreement on Global 

Technical Regulations—Agency Policy Goals and 

Public Participation.’’ NHTSA’s paramount policy 

goal under the 1998 Agreement is to 

‘‘[c]ontinuously improve safety and seek high levels 

of safety, particularly by developing and adopting 

new global technical regulations reflecting 

consideration of current and anticipated technology 

and safety problems.’’ Id. 

50 ‘‘Motor vehicle safety’’ is defined in the Safety 

Act as ‘‘the performance of a motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public 

against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring 

because of the design, construction, or performance 

of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of 

death or injury in an accident, and includes 

nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30102(a)(9). 

51The 1998 Agreement entered into force in 2000 

and is administered by the UN Economic 

Commission for Europe’s World Forum for the 

Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). 

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/ 

wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob/globale.pdf. 

52https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/ 

2004/wp29/TRANS-WP29-AC3-07e.pdf. 

53 GTR 9 has been amended several times, but the 

U.S. has not been a signatory to any of the 

amendments or corrigenda. Thus, in general, this 

NPRM focuses on the original GTR and not later 

amendments. The first amendment was related to 

the applicability of vehicles with short hood areas 

and increased the number of vehicles excluded 

from the requirements of GTR 9. We discuss this 

provision and exclusion in section V.B. of this 

NPRM. At the same time, a corrigendum was 

accepted that clarified that the HIC areas may be 

broken up into pieces and need not be continuous. 

This is a concept that NHTSA had assumed was 

part of the GTR; this NPRM explicitly incorporates 

this concept in the proposed regulatory text (see 

also section VII.B of this NPRM). Finally, the GTR 

was amended to replace the leg impactor with a 

more advanced tool. This amendment relates to 

provisions that are outside of the scope of this 

NPRM. https://unece.org/transport/standards/ 

transport/vehicle-regulations-wp29/globaltechnical-regulations-gtrs. 

54The U.S. is not a party to the 1958 Agreement. 

A contracting party to the 1958 Agreement can 

choose which regulation(s) it wants to adopt, but 

the regulations in the 1958 Agreement must be 

adopted ‘‘as is.’’ They do not contain different 

stringency levels. Also, the 1958 Agreement 

provides for reciprocal recognition of type 

approvals among Contracting Parties. This means 

that a vehicle type that has been type approved by 

one Contracting Party must be accepted by other 

1958 Agreement Contracting Parties. 

(E.C.), and the European Enhanced 

Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC).44

NHTSA was a key contributor to the 

development of Global Technical 

Regulation No. 9 (GTR 9) for pedestrian 

protection. This NPRM proposes to 

incorporate GTR 9 into a new FMVSS 

No. 228, to include pedestrian 

crashworthiness head protection 

requirements in the FMVSS for the first 

time. 

IV. The Global Technical Regulation 

A. Introduction 

On June 25, 1998, the U.S. became the 

first signatory to the ‘‘Agreement 

Concerning the Establishing of Global 

Technical Regulations for Wheeled 

Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which 

can be Fitted and/or be Used on 

Wheeled Vehicles,’’ commonly referred 

to as the 1998 Agreement.45 The 1998 

Agreement was negotiated under the 

auspices of the United Nations 

Economic Commission for Europe 

(UNECE) under the leadership of the 

U.S., the European Community (EC) and 

Japan. The 1998 Agreement provides for 

the establishment of global technical 

regulations (GTRs) regarding the safety, 

emissions, energy conservation and 

theft prevention of wheeled vehicles, 

equipment and parts. 

By establishing GTRs under the 1998 

Agreement, governmental organizations 

(Contracting Parties) seek to harmonize 

motor vehicle regulations at the regional 

and national levels.46 Under the 1998 

Agreement, Contracting Parties voting in 

favor of establishing a GTR are obligated 

to ‘‘submit the technical Regulation to 

the process’’ used in the country to 

adopt the requirement into the agency’s 

law or regulation.47 In the United States, 

that process usually commences with an 

NPRM, Advance NPRM (ANPRM), or 

Request for Comment. Under the terms 

of the 1998 Agreement, contracting 

parties are not obligated to adopt the 

GTR after initiating this process.48 The 

1998 Agreement recognizes that 

governments should have the authority 

to determine whether the GTR meets 

their safety needs. 

In deciding whether to adopt a GTR 

as an FMVSS, NHTSA follows the 

applicable procedural and substantive 

requirements for rulemaking, including 

the Administrative Procedure Act, the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. 301), 

Presidential executive orders, and DOT 

and NHTSA policies, procedures and 

regulations.49 Under § 30111(a) of the 

Safety Act, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards must be practicable, meet the 

need for motor vehicle safety, and be 

stated in objective terms.50 Section 

30111(b) states that, when prescribing 

such standards, NHTSA (by delegation 

at 49 CFR 1.95) must, among other 

things, consider all relevant, available 

motor vehicle safety information, 

consider whether a standard is 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 

for the types of motor vehicles or motor 

vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed, and consider the extent to 

which the standard will further the 

statutory purpose of reducing traffic 

crashes and associated deaths and 

injuries. 

B. GTR 9 

In developing GTR 9, NHTSA 

collaborated with experts from 

contracting parties to the 1998 

Agreement,51 particularly the European 

Union (technical sponsor of the GTR 52) 

and Japan. This NPRM begins the 

process of adopting the GTR as a 

NHTSA standard through rulemaking. 

A number of countries have 

implemented GTR 9.53 Even before GTR 

9 was established, Europe and Japan 

had similar pedestrian protection 

regulations in place. After GTR 9 was 

established, WP.29 adopted it as a full 

UNECE regulation for all nations under 

the 1958 Agreement (Regulation No. 

127—Pedestrian Safety Performance).54

In recent years, U.S. variants share 

similar global designs as vehicles 

currently sold in the E.U. that attain the 

levels of head protection described in 

GTR 9. However, as discussed later, 

interpretation of certain GTR 9 

provisions have varied when 

implemented into national regulations. 

GTR 9 has two sets of performance 

requirements: (a) for the hood top and 

fenders tested by a headform impact; 

and (b) for the vehicle front-end area 

(encompassing the bumper and grille) 

tested by a legform impact. Vehicle 

hoods conforming to the GTR’s 

specifications mitigate child and adult 

pedestrian head injury, and bumpers 

and grilles conforming to the GTR 

reduce the risk of adult leg injury. This 

NPRM proposes to implement the GTR’s 

provisions for the hood top and fenders. 

The May 6, 2023, NCAP RFC proposed 

to amend NHTSA’s NCAP program to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76930 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

55Test procedures very similar to GTR 9 have 

been incorporated into many countries’ consumer 

information programs. In addition to Euro NCAP, 

Japan’s J–NCAP program rates vehicles on 

pedestrian safety, using a headform test, as do the 

Korean KNCAP and Australasian ANCAP programs. 

56Section I.B.1, 49 CFR part 553, appendix C, 

‘‘Statement of Policy: Implementation of the United 

Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ 

ECE) 1998 Agreement of Global Technical 

Regulations—Agency Policy Goals and Public 

Participation,’’ supra. 

57 49 U.S.C. 30111(a) and (b). 

58 In advance of the publication of this NPRM, 

NHTSA received a July 7, 2022 letter from the 

Alliance for Automotive Innovation restating 

support of the interpretation of the GTR 9 that 

aligns with the proposed GTR amendment. On 

December 9, 2022, NHTSA met with the Alliance 

of Automotive Innovation at their request, to 

discuss the contents of their letter to NHTSA. The 

letter can be found in the docket, along with a list 

of other contacts since April 2022. The agency’s 

position and rationale are fully explained in this 

preamble, particularly in section VIII.B. 

59Soni A, Rober T, Beillas P (2013), Effects of 

Pedestrian Pre-Crash Reactions on Crash Outcomes 

during Multi-body Simulations, 2013 IRCOBI 

Conference, Paper No. IRC–13–92. 

include Euro NCAP-based provisions for 

the hood, bumper, and grille. Those 

head, bumper, and grille Euro NCAP 

provisions correspond closely to GTR 

9.55 NHTSA is considering comments to 

the NCAP RFC in deciding whether and 

how to proceed with GTR 9’s leg 

protection requirements in an FMVSS. 

This rulemaking initiates the process 

of adopting GTR 9 into the Federal 

safety standards. This NPRM proposes 

to implement the head protection 

requirements of GTR 9 as FMVSS No. 

228. The proposed standard modifies 

some of the GTR’s provisions to address 

the regulatory framework and needs 

unique to the United States. From years 

of researching pedestrian head 

protection using the procedures 

described in the GTR and applying the 

procedures to the front-end designs of 

today, NHTSA has seen instances where 

the GTR is silent or unclear about its 

application to some aspects of hood 

design. Because clarity is needed for the 

FMVSS, NHTSA has addressed these 

areas with detailed procedures and 

criteria in this NPRM that, by design, 

are consistent with the GTR and with 

NHTSA’s Safety Act provisions. NHTSA 

has incorporated these clarifications 

into proposed FMVSS No. 228 so that 

the standard’s procedures are objective 

and repeatable and meet the need for 

safety, in accordance with Safety Act 

requirements. As discussed throughout 

this document, this NPRM also focuses 

readers on other ways NHTSA is 

considering modifying the GTR test 

procedures for clarity or to push more 

safety benefits from the U.S. fleet. An 

example of the latter is NHTSA’s 

consideration of narrowing the border 

surrounding a test area so that more of 

the vehicle’s hood and fender area 

would have to meet the HIC 

requirements. 

C. Further Observations About the 

Differences Between This NPRM and the 

GTR 

In drafting FMVSS No. 228, NHTSA’s 

goal has been to produce a proposal that 

is true to the agency’s understanding of 

GTR 9 and to the technical best 

practices provided by the GTR, so as to 

‘‘fully meet the need in the U.S. for 

vehicle safety.’’ 56 We believe we have 

achieved this with this NPRM, but at 

times we have found challenges in 

relating the original GTR 9 language to 

the specificity necessary for the selfcertification framework of the Safety 

Act. The Safety Act requires the FMVSS 

to be practicable, meet the need for 

motor vehicle safety, and be stated in 

objective terms. Additionally, the Safety 

Act requires that NHTSA consider 

specific factors in prescribing an 

FMVSS.57 Given these requirements and 

considerations, in some instances we 

have found the need to define terms and 

describe test procedures in a more 

precise way than GTR 9, but in a way 

that would add to the objectivity and 

clarity of the safety standard. 

NHTSA has also shaped this proposal 

to provide the minimum level of safety 

required to address the needs we face in 

this country. NHTSA is aware that other 

countries have implemented the 

regulation in some ways that differ from 

our reading of the regulation in ways 

that reduce the safety minimum even 

further. For example, this NPRM adds 

clarification regarding how the agency 

will determine the amount of testable 

hood area that must meet a head injury 

criterion (HIC) of 1000 or less, compared 

to a HIC of 1700 or less. This is 

described more fully in section VI.A of 

this preamble. UNECE Reg. No. 127 has 

implemented the GTR 9 in a way that 

produces a smaller area that must 

comply with HIC1000 than that which 

results from the GTR as NHTSA 

understands it, or as NHTSA proposes 

in this NPRM to address the growing 

pedestrian safety needs in this country. 

In section VIII of this preamble, we 

provide a detailed discussion of a 

proposed amendment to GTR 9 that 

NHTSA has not supported because of its 

potential to reduce the area subject to 

headform testing. NHTSA discusses 

throughout this preamble the 

differences between this proposed 

FMVSS No. 228 and the current GTR 9, 

and the reasons for those differences.58

Finally, NHTSA seeks to design FMVSS 

No. 228 to address pedestrian safety 

needs particular to the U.S. The 

regulatory text in this NPRM reflects the 

wording of the GTR. At the end of 

various sections, however (see, e.g., 

section VI.C.1), the preamble describes 

and requests comment on specific ways 

NHTSA may change the regulatory text 

in this rulemaking to better address this 

country’s pedestrian safety needs. 

V. Approach of the Proposed Standard 

A. Overview 

FMVSS No. 228 would prohibit 

vehicles from exceeding a certain HIC 

level when subjected to testing 

simulating a head-to-hood impact. The 

standard is designed to provide head 

protection to a walking child and a 

walking adult when side-struck. This 

posture was chosen because it 

represents one of the most common 

interactions between vehicles and 

pedestrians. The side-struck posture is 

also regarded as ‘‘worst case.’’ 59 Hoods 

would have to safely absorb and manage 

the energy of the striking pedestrian’s 

head. 

The proposed standard defines each 

hood as having two distinct areas: one 

where a struck child pedestrian’s head 

would impact (Child Headform Test 

Area) and one where an adult 

pedestrian’s head would impact (Adult 

Headform Test Area), both in a 40 km/ 

h (25 mph) vehicle impact. The 

proposed performance requirements are 

based on HIC as computed from the 

acceleration of the headform upon 

impact. FMVSS No. 228 would limit 

HIC when tested with the headforms. 

The location of a pedestrian’s head 

impact on the hood is dependent on 

several variables, including the speed of 

the vehicle impact, the vehicle front-end 

shape, and the height of the pedestrian. 

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 is designed so 

that vehicle countermeasures to meet 

the HIC limits would benefit pedestrians 

of all sizes. In section VI of this 

preamble, we explain in detail the 

specific areas of the hood that would be 

regulated under the proposal, as well as 

considerations for expanding this area. 

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 includes 

detailed procedures that define 

reference lines on the vehicle from 

which NHTSA would calculate the area 

of the vehicle that must provide 

pedestrian head protection. Proposed 

FMVSS No. 228’s wrap around distance 

(WAD) procedure is a simple procedure 

used in several sections of GTR 9 to 

identify various reference lines on the 

hood. Reference lines that run laterally 

across the hood are drawn relative to a 

specified WAD. Those lines are referred 

to herein as WAD lines. NHTSA helped 

develop the WAD procedure for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76931 

60The naming convention is to follow ‘‘WAD’’ 

with the length of the wire used for the 

measurement, and to refer to WAD [wire length] to 

refer to the line drawn by using the wire and the 

WAD procedure. 

61Paragraph 71 of the ‘‘Safety Need’’ section of 

GTR 9. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/ 

main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECETRANS-180a9e.pdf. 

62This is dimension L114 in SAE J1100 ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Dimension.’’ A later amendment to GTR 

published in 2011, which was not signed by the 

U.S., extended this dimension to 1,100 mm. (ECE/ 

TRANS/180/Add.9/Amend.1/appendix 1). 

pedestrian protection test programs 

internationally. 

The WAD is the distance from a point 

on the ground directly below the 

bumper’s most forward edge, at a 

specific lateral location, to a designated 

point on the hood, as measured with a 

flexible measuring device, such as a 

non-stretch flexible wire. During 

measurement of the WAD, the device 

(the non-stretch flexible wire) is held 

taut, to measure distances while being 

held in a vertical longitudinal (x-z) 

vehicle plane. A WAD of a specified 

distance can identify a point on the 

vehicle’s hood. A WAD line can be 

drawn on a vehicle by connecting the 

end points of the wire as it traverses 

across the front of the vehicle. We can 

create a WAD line using wires of 

different lengths, e.g., a wire of 1000 ± 

1 mm can be used to draw a line at 

1,000 mm from the ground reference 

plane (such line is referred to as 

‘‘WAD1000’’ in this NPRM), 1700 ± 1 

mm (‘‘WAD1700’’) and 2100 ± 1 mm 

(‘‘WAD2100’’).60 See figure V.1, below, 

illustrating how WAD is measured. 

A WAD line can be objectively 

determined and is a good indicator of 

where head impacts are likely to occur 

on any particular hood.61 The WAD 

measurement accounts for both 

pedestrian height and vehicle front-end 

configuration. That is, in a 40 km/h 

crash, a given pedestrian’s head-to-hood 

contact point is approximated by the 

WAD that corresponds to the 

pedestrian’s standing height. 

Key Elements of the Proposal 

The proposed standard has certain 

key elements to replicate the real-world 

40 km/h (25 mph) impact in an 

objective and enforceable manner. The 

key elements are: 

• Relevance to the vehicles involved 

in pedestrian crashes at 40 km/h (25 

mph); 

• A methodology incorporating 

component testing of the hood using 

headforms representing child and adult 

pedestrians; 

• Performance requirements based on 

HIC as measured by the headforms; 

• A hood mark-off procedure to 

denote test areas; and 

• Flexibility in performance 

requirements to address practicality 

challenges. 

These key elements and others are 

discussed in detail below. 

B. Relevance to the Involved Vehicles 

FMVSS No. 228 would apply to 

passenger cars, and to MPVs, trucks, 

and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less, except for vehicles 

with short front ends (a very short front 

hood area). Proposed FMVSS No. 228 

would also apply to bidirectional 

vehicles, i.e., vehicles that can be 

operated in either direction. We discuss 

these issues below. 

Vehicles With Short Front Ends 

Reflecting the text of GTR 9, the 

NPRM’s proposed regulatory text (S3) 

excludes MPVs, trucks, and buses where 

the distance, measured longitudinally 

on a horizontal plane, between the 

transverse centerline of the front axle 

and the seating reference point (SgRP) of 

the driver’s seat, is less than 1,000 

mm.62 In the statement of technical 

rationale for GTR 9, the drafters argued 

that these vehicles have a very short 

hood and a front shape that is very close 

to vertical, so the pedestrian kinematics 

with these vehicles are believed to be 

very different than a collision with a 

vehicle with a longer hood. The drafters 

also concluded that there are difficulties 

in applying the tests to these vehicles, 

particularly regarding the determination 

of test zone reference lines. 

NHTSA drafted the regulatory text 

with this exclusion, but NHTSA 

requests comments on whether the 

subject vehicles should be included in 

FMVSS No. 228. Notwithstanding the 

drafters’ reasons for excluding the 

vehicles from GTR 9, NHTSA believes 

applying proposed FMVSS No. 228 to 

these vehicles may be appropriate given 

developments since the GTR. With the 

advent of new designs in electric 

vehicles, including designs of 

automated vehicles on the road today 

with very short front ends, front end 

designs appear to be evolving to less 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.003</GPH>

goo± 10 

Wrap Around 

Distance 

Figure V.1. Wrap Around Distance measurement. 

For illustration purposes only. 
76932 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

63NHTSA understands that the Cruise Origin and 

Zoox vehicles do not have a traditional driver’s 

seating position. 

64Some vehicles in this category would be the 

Chevrolet Express, Ford E-Series, Ford Transit, Ford 

Transit Connect, GMC Savana, Mercedes-Benz 

Metris, Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, Nissan NV, Nissan 

NV200, Ram ProMaster, Ram ProMaster City. 65https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2021-uscommercial-van-sales-figures-by-model/. 66https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2021-usvehicle-sales-figures-by-model/. 

67Stammen J, et al, ‘‘Pedestrian Head Safety 

Survey of U.S. Vehicles In Support of the Proposed 

Global Technical Regulation (GTR)’’ (2006). https:// 

unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2008/wp29/WP29-144- 

03e.pdf. 

conventional hood designs. The agency 

is aware of prototype ride-share 

automated vehicle platforms, such as 

the Cruise Origin and Zoox, and of 

electric vehicles (EVs) being marketed 

by Canoo, that have a very short front 

hood area or a flat front face.63 We are 

concerned that future automated and/or 

electric vehicles may become more 

prevalent in the fleet and that they 

could be excluded from the standard 

simply because of this GTR provision. 

In addition, we base our concerns 

about this exclusion on present day 

vehicles and their presence in the U.S. 

vehicle fleet. The agency took an 

available selection of vehicles and 

measured the horizontal distance from 

the front axle to the seat bight (the area 

close to and including the intersection 

of the surfaces of the vehicle seat 

cushion and the seat back), with the seat 

adjusted to the full forward and full 

rearward position. The vehicles and 

resulting dimensions are provided in 

table V.1, below. The position of the 

SgRP for these vehicles was not readily 

available, but the distance between the 

axle and the SgRP would likely lie 

somewhere between the range of 

distances measured to the seat bight. As 

stated above, the GTR 9 exclusion 

would be triggered if the distance from 

the front axle to the SgRP is less than 

1,000 mm. 

The agency found that at least one 

type of full-size cargo van (Ford Transit) 

could possibly qualify for the exclusion. 

Looking at both small and full-size cargo 

and passenger vans, it is clear that many 

of them share similar design attributes 

of a short hood and a relatively forward 

seating position with respect to the front 

wheels.64 This suggests to the agency 

that the most likely types of vehicles in 

the current fleet that would be excluded 

are small and large vans. For 2021, this 

van segment had a sales volume of 

approximately 400,000 vehicles, 

constituting about 2.7% of the 15 

million total 2021 sales.65 66 Thus, the 

2.7% value provides an upper bound on 

the number of vehicles likely to meet 

the exclusion criteria. It also seems clear 

to the agency that relatively minor 

changes in design could place a vehicle 

in the excluded category. We are 

concerned about the effects of the 

exclusion in reducing the benefits of 

this proposal. 

NHTSA has tested a vehicle with a 

short front end similar to vehicles in the 

excluded category and has successfully 

conducted headform testing. This 

testing demonstrated that the proposed 

WAD-based test procedure can be 

applied to short front end vehicles. 

NHTSA also believes it would be 

practicable for the vehicles to meet the 

proposed standard. NHTSA tested the 

2004 GMC Savana van to a slightly 

modified version of the GTR 9 test 

protocol, with a 32 km/h head impact 

speed. Three of four hood impacts had 

a HIC below 600. The fourth test, near 

the edge of the hood had a HIC of less 

than 1000.67 These results suggest that 

FMVSS No. 228 would be practicable 

for similar vehicles. 

TABLE V.1—SAMPLE OF VEHICLE’S HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT AXLE TO SEAT BIGHT

Year Make/model 

Approximate distance to seat 

bight 

(mm) 

Full forward Full rearward 

2015 ............................................................................. Ford Transit ................................................................. 930 1180 

2016 ............................................................................. Honda Fit ..................................................................... 1200 1480 

2003 ............................................................................. Honda Pilot LX ............................................................ 1250 1500 

2016 ............................................................................. Nissan Rogue .............................................................. 1270 1480 

2011 ............................................................................. Chevrolet Cruze .......................................................... 1300 1550 

2012 ............................................................................. Ford Focus .................................................................. 1320 1570 

2001 ............................................................................. Honda Civic ................................................................. 1330 1530 

2012 ............................................................................. Ford Fusion ................................................................. 1380 1760 

2006 ............................................................................. Infinity M35 .................................................................. 1400 1650 

2002 ............................................................................. Jeep Wrangler ............................................................. 1680 1880 

We request comments on the 

practicability concerns related to these 

vehicles, specific challenges such 

vehicles present related to the proposed 

test procedure, and what adjustments, if 

any, would be available to apply 

proposed FMVSS No. 228 to such 

vehicles. We also request comments on 

the safety need and outcomes of 

including all light vehicles under the 

proposed standard to maximize 

potential safety benefits to pedestrians 

and other vulnerable road users. 

Rear Engine Vehicles and Bidirectional 

Vehicles 

It is the agency’s intent to apply 

FMVSS No. 228 to rear engine vehicles, 

as long as they meet the other 

applicability requirements. This is 

because the location of the tested area 

is not dependent on where the engine is 

located, but rather is keyed to the front 

of the vehicle. We believe GTR 9 is 

intended to apply to such vehicles. 

A similar assumption cannot be made 

about whether GTR 9 is intended to 

cover bidirectional vehicles. Certainly, 

there is no explicit mention of these 

vehicles. Nonetheless, it is NHTSA’s 

intent to apply FMVSS No. 228 to 

bidirectional vehicles. NHTSA believes 

that such vehicles may become more 

common, particularly with the advent of 

more automated vehicle platforms, and 

that there is a safety need to apply 

proposed FMVSS No. 228 to the 

vehicles because they could strike 

pedestrians. Therefore, we have 

explicitly made the definitions and 

regulatory text of proposed FMVSS No. 

228 neutral concerning the direction of 

vehicle operation, i.e., the regulatory 

text is intended to work for bidirectional 

vehicles. First, we have explicitly 

included bidirectional vehicles in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76933 

68The terms of this definition are intended to 

distinguish these vehicles from conventional 

vehicle that can also operate in two directions. 

However, for conventional vehicles the rearward or 

backing direction is not intended for full speed 

operation, but rather low speed and typically in a 

single gear. 

69AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) ranks individual 

injuries by body region on a scale of 1 to 6: 

1=minor, 2=moderate, 3=serious, 4=severe, 

5=critical, and 6=maximum (untreatable). 

70 In an actual vehicle-pedestrian collision, head 

rotation that occurs before, during, or after the head 

impact with the hood could result in concussive 

brain injuries. However, the biofidelity of a 

headform—unattached to the body—could be 

compromised in its ability to generate angular 

velocity representative of an actual pedestrian head 

impact. The agency would like to understand more 

about the biofidelity of a headform when used to 

measure angular velocity. 

71The procedures for defining these areas are 

discussed below in this preamble. 

72The drafters of the GTR determined that 

because the location of necessary under-hood 

components cannot be fundamentally changed, it is 

unavoidable that they are located in the child 

headform test area. Thus, the GTR provides that the 

relaxation zone for the child headform test area may 

be half of the zone (as opposed to 1⁄3 of the zone, 

as in the adult test area). 

73Such reasons include the need to minimize any 

fluttering of the hood at high speeds and the ability 

to slam the hood shut without deforming the seams 

at the junction of the hood and fender. 

Applicability section of the proposed 

regulatory text. Next, we have defined 

‘‘bidirectional’’ vehicle to mean a 

vehicle that is intended to operate at 

similar speeds and with similar 

maneuverability in both directions of 

the vehicle longitudinal axis.68

Similarly, we have defined ‘‘front’’ to 

mean the leading portion of the vehicle 

during full speed operation. We seek 

comment on whether the terms 

accomplish the agency’s objective of 

including bidirectional vehicles in 

FMVSS No. 228. 

C. Advantages of Headform Component 

Tests 

The NPRM proposes using headform 

component tests rather than full vehicle 

dynamic tests in which a vehicle would 

strike a pedestrian dummy. The agency 

believes that headform component tests 

have advantages over full vehicle 

dynamic tests. The area of the vehicle 

hood that could contact a pedestrian’s 

head is large. A set of headform 

component tests enables NHTSA to 

target hood areas that the agency 

believes represent danger points, and 

test with a high degree of accuracy and 

repeatability. Like all crashes, every 

real-world pedestrian crash is unique in 

some way. When the range of statures 

and other crash variables are taken into 

account, the area of the vehicle that 

could contact the head is so large that 

currently the only feasible test method 

is one that is based on a sub-system test 

approach. Proposed FMVSS No. 228 

uses such an approach by focusing on 

the hood and by making use of a set of 

headform component tests that can 

target the hood area efficiently. The 

headform mass, impact angle, and 

impact speed can all be controlled in a 

way that will assure that the standard 

will provide safety in real world 

impacts and can be enforced. The 

characteristics of the headforms are 

discussed in detail later in this 

preamble. 

Pedestrian test dummies have been 

developed for crashworthiness research. 

In general, the repeatability of tests 

using a pedestrian dummy is relatively 

poor because small variations in initial 

positioning influence the head-to-hood 

contact as the dummy passes through its 

sequence of movements after being 

struck by the vehicle. Moreover, head 

impact locations are highly dependent 

on stature and gait, so use of a single 

pedestrian dummy for crashworthiness 

purposes would make it very difficult to 

assess hood areas that are likely to be 

struck by persons not represented by the 

dummy. 

D. Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 

Consistent with GTR 9, NHTSA has 

determined that HIC is an appropriate 

injury criterion for the proposed 

standard. The proposed standard would 

require HIC to be less than 1000 for 

most hood impacts. HIC is calculated 

using the expression below, where the 

resultant acceleration, ar, at the 

headform center of gravity and specified 

as a multiple of g (the acceleration of 

gravity), is integrated over 15 

millisecond ranges covering the entire 

impact. 

HIC, which is a function of the triaxial linear acceleration in the 

headform, is well established and used 

in numerous occupant protection 

FMVSS. A HIC value of 1000 represents 

an 11 percent risk of a brain injury of 

severity level AIS 4 or greater and a HIC 

value of 1700 represents a 36 percent 

risk.69 Many of NHTSA’s impact 

protection standards use HIC to measure 

the potential for head injury and limit 

HIC to a value of 1000; these include 

FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in 

interior impact, FMVSS No. 214, Side 

impact protection, and FMVSS No. 222, 

School bus passenger seating and crash 

protection. NHTSA considered other 

brain injury metrics, such as angular 

velocity, but determined that HIC is the 

best available criterion at this time.70

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would 

require vehicles to meet HIC limits 

when subjected to hood headform 

impactor testing. It defines the forward, 

rear and side areas of the hood, thus 

defining a primary area—the ‘‘Hood 

Top.’’ 71 From there, a typically smaller 

‘‘Hood Area’’ is defined using, among 

other things, the Wrap Around Distance 

lines described earlier. Of this Hood 

Area, the standard would define a Child 

Headform Test Area and an Adult 

Headform Test Area, excluding margins 

at the side and potentially at the front 

and rear, which would be tested with 

the child and adult headforms, 

respectively. The HIC must not exceed 

1000 (HIC1000) over a certain portion of 

the Child and Adult Headform Test 

Areas, as a percentage of the overall 

Hood Area. Specifically, the portion of 

the Child Headform Test Area that must 

meet the HIC1000 provision must be at 

least one-half of the numerical value of 

the Hood Area with a Wrap Around 

Distance of less than 1,700 mm 

(WAD1700).72 Secondly, the portion of 

the Combined Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas that must not 

exceed the HIC1000 provision must be 

at least two-thirds of the numerical 

value of the Hood Area. For 

practicability reasons to accommodate a 

manufacturing need to reinforce and 

stiffen the hood edges, the remaining 

test area is permitted to have HIC higher 

than 1000, but nonetheless limited to 

1700 for both headforms.73

HIC time window, 15 ms. Proposed 

FMVSS No. 228 would reference a 15 

millisecond (ms) time window when 

applying the HIC criterion. For any 15 

ms time window, HIC must be below 

the HIC criterion (e.g., HIC1000). A 15 

ms time window is used in proposed 

FMVSS No. 208 verses a longer window 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.004</GPH>
76934 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

74The cowl is the lower edge of the windshield 

opening. Active hoods move when a pedestrian 

impact is sensed, increasing the distance between 

the hood and the hard engine components below. 

A cowl air bag covers the cowl during a pedestrian 

impact. 

75The vehicle coordinate system used in this 

NPRM is consistent with SAE J1100 ‘‘Motor Vehicle 

Dimension.’’ The coordinate system is as follows: 

+x direction is the longitudinal vehicle axis 

(rearward direction of travel); +y direction is the 

lateral vehicle axis (pointing away from the right 

side of the vehicle); +z direction is pointing 

vertically upward. 

76Researchers have historically used the ratio of 

head impact speed to vehicle speed to characterize 

the head-to-hood interaction. A head impact speed 

of 35 km/h (22 mph) in a 40 km/h (25 mph) 

collision yields a ratio of 0.875. Depending on 

conditions, such as the shape of the vehicle frontend, the height of the leading edge of the hood, and 

the height of the pedestrian, the ratio for an adult 

may be as high as 1.4 or as low as 0.7. 

77Mizuno Y, Ishikawa H (2001), Summary of 

IHRA pedestrian safety WG activities—proposed 

test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection 

afforded by passenger cars, Paper No. 280, The 17th 

International Technical Conference on the 

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Amsterdam, The 

Netherlands, June 4–7, 2001. 

(e.g., using a 36 ms timeframe) because 

the FMVSS No. 228 impact is hard and 

of short duration. Longer duration 

impacts may have a greater HIC when 

using a 36 ms window (a longer 

duration impact can occur in air bag 

tests when the test dummy’s head 

maintains contact with the air bag 

through a crash event). For hard, short 

duration impacts such as the headform 

testing used in proposed FMVSS No. 

228, HIC derived from a 15 ms 

timeframe produces the same numerical 

value as HIC derived from a longer 

window (36 ms). Since the FMVSS No. 

228 impact is hard and of short 

duration, a 15 ms window is 

appropriate. 

Further, GTR 9 uses a 15 ms window 

instead of 36 ms to improve the 

objectivity of the test. The 15 ms 

window was viewed as a common-sense 

safeguard against signal corruption due 

to a secondary impact. With hood 

impacts, there is a risk that the 

headform may undergo a secondary 

impact in rapid succession (in less than 

36 ms), as the head could strike the 

hood target then bounce away and land 

on a structure such as the windshield, 

which is outside of the test area. To 

safeguard against the effects of a 

secondary impact, the 15 ms criterion 

was implemented as a convenient 

means to help assure that the HIC value 

reflects only that portion of the 

headform acceleration caused by a hood 

impact within the test area. The 

procedures developed by IHRA, ISO, 

and the EEVC all use a 15 ms window 

to calculate HIC. This criterion and 

threshold have been carried over to all 

subsequent international standards. 

Request for Comment on HIC 

• We generally agree with the 

approach and have proposed it in this 

NPRM. However, we would like to 

know more about the following issues. 

We have not seen a need to use a 15 ms 

window, as opposed to a 36 ms 

window, because head impacts to 

external car structures are very short, 

occurring within a few milliseconds of 

contact. In practice, 15 ms and 36 ms 

windows generally have produced the 

same value in pedestrian protection 

tests. Further, in our own testing, we 

have not observed an instance where the 

use of a 36 ms window would have led 

to signal corruption due to a secondary 

impact. We request comment on the 

need for a 15 ms timeframe related to 

testing issues. 

• We also seek comment on whether 

a 15 versus 36 ms window could affect 

HIC measurements when testing active 

hoods or cowl air bags,74 features that 

have appeared in recent years, 

particularly in non-U.S. vehicles. We 

request comments on whether HIC 

computed in a 36 ms timeframe would 

be more appropriate and protective 

against head injury for vehicles with 

active hoods or air bag technologies 

than HIC computed in a 15 ms window. 

Should FMVSS No. 228 adopt a HIC 36 

ms timeframe to account for these 

technologies? 

E. Speed and Angle at Which the 

Headforms Would Impact the Hood 

The headforms would impact the 

vehicle hood at specific speeds and 

impact angles replicating a real-world 

40 km/h (25 mph) impact. 

1. Headform Impact Speed 

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would 

require the launch direction to be 

entirely within the plane parallel to the 

vehicle x-z plane (vertical longitudinal 

plane) and the impact speed for both 

headforms would be 35 km/h (22 

mph).75 This speed is based on 

observations of postmortem human 

subjects (PMHS) and pedestrian 

surrogate testing, computer modeling, 

and reconstructions of real-world 

pedestrian collisions. The proposed 

velocity of 35 km/h (22 mph) replicates 

the actual head-to-hood impact speed of 

a pedestrian struck by a vehicle 

traveling at 40 km/h (25 mph).76

The proposed test speed encompasses 

the majority of pedestrian collisions. 

About 70 percent of injurious pedestrian 

collisions occur at vehicle speeds of 40 

km/h (25 mph) or less (see figure V.2, 

which averages data from 2011 to 

2020).77 In addition, the 35 km/h (22 

mph) test speed is a critical part of the 

real-world event replicated by the 

headform impact test. The dynamics of 

a pedestrian-vehicle interaction change 

at a target speed substantially greater 

than 40 km/h (25 mph). Above 40 km/ 

h (25 mph), an initial hood-to-torso 

interaction takes place where the 

pedestrian tends to slide along the hood, 

with the head overshooting the hood. 

The head-to-hood interaction that the 

proposed test procedure replicates 

would lose its real-world relevance if a 

substantially higher test speed were 

used. 

The proposed test speed addresses a 

safety need within the bounds of 

practicability. Although pedestrian 

fatalities, on average (50% cumulative 

value in figure V.2), occur at a collision 

speed of 70 km/h (44 mph), the 

practicability of designing a hood to 

conform to HIC1000, based on energy 

dissipation, appears to become less 

feasible at a headform impact speed of 

61 km/h (38 mph) (assuming the same 

ratio of head speed to vehicle speed 

used from the proposal, the 61 km/h 

would have about 3 times the energy). 

Moreover, the proposed rule would 

reduce the severity of many head 

injuries that occur at speeds covered by 

the test. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76935 

78Watanabe A et al (2011), Research of collision 

speed dependency of pedestrian head and chest 

injuries using human FE model (THUMS version 4), 

22nd International Technical Conference on the 

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Paper No. 11– 

0043, Washington DC, June 2011. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

Notwithstanding the proposed 

headform test speed of 35 km/h (22 

mph), NHTSA believes there would be 

benefits from the proposed standard for 

some crashes above a 40 km/h (25 mph) 

vehicle speed, as the countermeasures 

used to meet the proposed HIC 

thresholds could mitigate some of the 

harm resulting from head-to-hood 

strikes that can occur in the higher 

speed crashes. Also, vehicle designs that 

provide head protection in a 35 km/h 

(22 mph) headform impact may also 

have the effect of reducing the severity 

of injuries to body regions other than 

the head in collisions at vehicle speeds 

above 40 km/h (25 mph). For example, 

at vehicle to pedestrian collision speeds 

of 50 km/h (31 mph) and higher, bilateral rib fractures have been observed 

in thorax-to-hood contacts.78 We request 

comment on whether some of these 

types of injuries could be mitigated by 

hood designs meeting FMVSS No. 228. 

NHTSA anticipates PAEB would 

mitigate 238 fatalities and 2,672 injuries 

of the current target population for this 

NPRM and has based our benefits 

estimate for this NPRM on that 

assumption. Automatic emergency 

braking helps prevent crashes or reduce 

their severity by applying a vehicle’s 

brakes automatically. The systems use 

on-board sensors to detect an imminent 

crash, warn the driver, and apply the 

brakes if the driver does not take action 

quickly enough or increase the braking 

application in the case that the driver 

does not sufficiently brake to avoid 

contact. When new vehicles are 

equipped with PAEB that meets the 

requirements specified in FMVSS No. 

127, fewer pedestrians will be struck, 

which would have the effect of reducing 

the target population for this 

rulemaking. On the other hand, for 

many impacts that occur at speeds too 

high for PAEB to completely mitigate, 

PAEB will lower the vehicle’s speed so 

that impact speeds that would have 

been greater than 40 km/h (25 mph) 

could be reduced to close to or below 

40 km/h (25 mph). This would 

theoretically add to the target 

population of this rulemaking because 

these are pedestrian crashes that this 

proposed pedestrian head protection 

standard could potentially address. 

And, as proposed FMVSS No. 228 

would ensure the striking vehicles have 

protective features that protect against 

serious to fatal head injury in these 

impacts, those pedestrians that would 

be newly included in the target 

population of this NPRM due to PAEB 

could arguably be included among those 

saved from serious to fatal injury by this 

head protection rulemaking. However, 

we have not accounted for the extent to 

which the FMVSS No. 127 would add 

to the target population or to the 

population of persons benefiting from 

this head protection NPRM because of 

unknowns about how those benefits 

could be quantified. As a result, our 

analysis likely underestimates benefits. 

With this in mind, in the PRIA we 

estimate that PAEB would decrease the 

fatality target population addressed by 

FMVSS No. 228 by about 4 percent. 

Comments are requested on this issue. 

• NHTSA requests comments on 

increasing the test velocity above 35 

km/h (22 mph) to capture a greater 

percentage of pedestrian impacts 

presented in the field data and achieve 

additional safety benefits. 

2. Headform Impact Angle 

Consistent with the GTR, NHTSA 

proposes that, at impact, the velocity 

vector of the child headform would 

form a 50-degree angle down from the 

horizontal (50° ± 2° at the time of 

impact). For the adult headform, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.005</GPH>

100 

Cl) 

bO 80 ro 

+' 

C: 

Cl) 

u 60 .... 

Cl) 

0.. 

Cl) 

> 

:;; 40 ro 

:::l 

E 

:::l 20 

u 

0 

0 

Cumulative Frequency of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 

(yearly average 2011-2020) 

10 

------

20 30 

,. - - ---

40 

.,,.I ;- . 

50 60 

Travel Speed (km/h) 

I 

- - -Fatalities -Injuries 

,--I 

I 

70 80 

- .. --., I 

90 100 

Figure V.2. Distributions of pedestrian injuries and fatalities by vehicle travel speed, 

Annual Average of 2011 - 2020. Sources: FARS and GES. 
76936 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

angle would be 65 degrees (65° ± 2° at 

the time of impact). (See figure V.3, 

showing the child headform impact and 

figure V.4, showing the adult headform 

impact). 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

The head impact angles were 

developed based on observations of 

PMHS and pedestrian dummy tests, 

computer modeling, and reconstructions 

of real-world pedestrian collisions. The 

impact angle in a real-world impact is 

greater for taller pedestrians than for 

shorter pedestrians, and this is reflected 

in the test procedure. The impact angle 

in real-world impacts also varies 

depending on the shape of the vehicle 

front-end, particularly the height of the 

leading edge of the hood. Passenger cars 

(with low leading edges) generally 

produce head-hood angles that are 

closer to 90 degrees than SUVs. 

The proposed 65-degree impact angle 

for the adult headform test is the same 

as the IHRA specification. The bulk of 

research data showed head impact 

angles in the range of 50 to 80 degrees; 

IHRA selected a nominal headform 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.006</GPH>

Child Headform 

Impact Velocity Vector 

Impact - --

Point 'A' 

Figure V.3. Impact angle and impact point of the child headform. 

(For illustration purposes only.) 

Impact - --

Point 'A' 

Adult Headform 

Impact Velocity Vector 

Figure V.4. Impact angle and impact point of the adult headform. 

(For illustration purposes only.) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76937 

79Because the typical hood is angled forward at 

about 15 degrees, it causes the 65 degree adult 

headform impact to create an 80 degree angle of 

incidence with the hood, i.e., a slightly angled (nonnormal) headform impact. 

80Stammen JA, Saul RA, Ko B (2001), Pedestrian 

head impact testing and PCDS reconstructions, 

Paper No. 326, 16th International Technical 

Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles 

(ESV) Proceedings, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 

June 4–7, 2001. 

81 Janssen and Nieboer, Sub-system tests for 

assessing pedestrian protection based on computer 

simulations, Proceedings of the IRCOBI Conference, 

Berlin, September 1991. 

82Assuming that a 15 degree hood angle is 

typical, a 90 degree head-hood angle would 

correspond to a 75 degree headform impact angle 

from the horizontal. 

83 Koetje B and Grabowski J. A Methodology for 

the Geometric Standardization of Vehicle Hoods to 

Compare Real-World Pedestrian Crash; Annuals of 

Advances in Automotive Medicine. 2008; 52: 193– 

198. 

84The Hood Top is identical to the ‘‘Bonnet Top’’ 

of GTR 9. 

85As we will describe below, in some instances 

the Hood Area may be equivalent to the Hood Top. 

86NHTSA would use the procedures in the 

standard to identify the HIC Unlimited areas and 

would not use manufacturer data to define them. 

We note that GTR 9 does not use the ‘‘HIC 

Unlimited’’ terminology, but makes the same 

reduction to the testable area. 

87As noted earlier, such reasons include the need 

to minimize any fluttering of the hood at high 

speeds and the ability to slam the hood shut 

without deforming the seams at the junction of the 

hood and fender. 

angle of 65 degrees.79 Component tests 

conducted by NHTSA 80 showed that 

HIC sensitivity to impact angle varied 

with hood stiffness and proximity to 

hard understructures. Where there were 

no hard understructures, HIC values 

exhibited very little sensitivity to 

impact angle. In general, HIC variation 

of less than 10 percent was shown 

between 50 and 80 degrees. 

The selection of a 50-degree impact 

angle for the child headform test was 

partly based on computational 

simulations using a 5th percentile adult 

female (which is about the same size as 

an average 12-year-old child) 81 and a 6- 

year-old child. The simulation results 

for the 5th percentile female gave 

similar average values to those found for 

the 50th percentile adult male. For the 

6-year-old, however, simulations 

showed that the head impact angle was 

more sensitive to car shape, particularly 

to the height of the hood leading edge. 

An average value of 45 degrees was 

found for the 6-year-old. The 50-degree 

impact angle is representative of the 

simulation results with a bias towards 

the 6-year-old child. 

Request for Comment on the Proposed 

Impact Angle 

• We believe that the headform 

impact test would be the most stringent 

when the impact is normal to the hood 

surface (a 90-degree angle of incidence 

to the surface).82 If the impact is normal 

(90 degrees) and there is no glance-off, 

all of the headform’s energy would have 

to be absorbed by the hood to stop its 

downward movement. However, a 90- 

degree angle of incidence to the surface 

may not be consistent with real world 

impacts at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 

mph) and would require the impactor 

launch angle to vary by test location. We 

request comment on whether the 

standard should increase the impact 

angles to increase stringency 

notwithstanding a possible reduction in 

the representativeness of real-world 

crashes. 

VI. Defining the Relevant Areas Subject 

to the Standard 

Overview: Proposed FMVSS No. 228 

would have detailed procedures that 

define reference lines on the vehicle 

from which NHTSA would calculate the 

area of the vehicle that must provide 

pedestrian head protection. The 

proposed procedures (including the 

WAD procedure) are needed to enable 

the agency to objectively define the 

areas on the vehicle that are subject to 

the standard, the total HIC1000 area that 

must be provided, and the locations of 

the Child and Adult Headform Test 

Areas. The procedures are necessary for 

NHTSA to assess a test vehicle’s 

compliance with the standard. NHTSA 

would use the procedures to define 

these relevant areas and would not use 

manufacturer input to define them. 

As relevant areas are defined in the 

following section of this NPRM, any 

necessary clarification to GTR 9 will be 

identified and described. Although the 

various hood reference lines should be 

essentially identical to those in GTR 9, 

the terminology used to describe the 

areas and reference lines are not 

identical. A more complete comparison 

of the terminology used in GTR versus 

this NPRM can be found in section VIII. 

The areas subject to the standard are 

the areas likely to be impacted by the 

head of a pedestrian and for which 

countermeasures are or could 

reasonably be available. The most severe 

head injuries can be due to contact 

anywhere on the hood surface.83

Consistent with GTR 9, the first step in 

establishing these areas would be to 

identify the ‘‘Hood Top.’’ 84 The Hood 

Top forms the basis upon which all 

other areas are determined. We discuss 

the method for determining the Hood 

Top in section VI.A below. The next 

step would be to establish the ‘‘Hood 

Area’’ using the procedures discussed in 

section VI.B below.85 The final step in 

the process would be to determine the 

test areas, i.e., the Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas. As part of this 

process, consistent with GTR 9’s 82.5 

mm margins, the standard would 

identify ‘‘HIC Unlimited Areas’’ 86 and 

exclude them from meeting HIC limits. 

While the agency is unaware of data that 

indicates there is a lower likelihood of 

pedestrian head contact in this area 

compared to other areas of the hood, the 

GTR and proposed standard provide for 

HIC Unlimited Areas as a practicability 

measure to accommodate a 

manufacturing need to reinforce and 

stiffen the hood edges.87 The HIC 

Unlimited Area bounds the Child and 

Adult Headform Test Areas at the hood 

edge. 

Portions of the Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas are either subject 

to HIC1000 or HIC1700 limits. The 

requisite HIC1000 area that is calculated 

based on the total Hood Area must be 

located within the Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas and are not part of 

the HIC Unlimited Area. Proposed 

FMVSS No. 228 would provide 

manufacturers considerable leeway in 

determining where to place the HIC1700 

area to afford them as much flexibility 

as reasonably possible in configuring 

the structures comprising their underhood designs. The vehicle manufacturer 

would inform NHTSA of the locations 

of the HIC1700 areas. NHTSA would 

use that information to confirm that 

sufficient HIC1000 area has been 

provided, delineate the HIC1700 areas, 

and confirm through headform test 

results that the appropriate HIC limits 

are met. 

A. Determining the Hood Top 

The Hood Top is enclosed by the 

intersection of the following borders 

(these borders are depicted in figure 

VI.1 below): 

• Front border: Leading Edge 

Reference Line. 

• Side border: Side Reference Lines. 

• Rear border: Rear Reference Line. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76938 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

88We will discuss later below how, for a subset 

of vehicles, the straight edge length affects the front 

hood border. 

1. Front Border of the Hood Top 

The front border of the Hood Top 

would consist of the vehicle’s ‘‘Leading 

Edge Reference Line’’ (LERL). The LERL 

is determined for most vehicles by 

running a 1,000 mm straight edge 

angled at 40° (down from the horizontal) 

along the front edge of the vehicle. The 

lower end of the straight edge is 

specified to be 600 mm off the ground. 

The specified height of 600 mm was 

chosen to avoid the bumper when 

marking off the hood leading edge. (See 

figure VI.2 below, illustrating the 

procedure.) The length and angle of the 

straight edge result in the upper end 

being placed at 1,243 mm from ground 

level. The use of a 40° angle provides an 

objective means to delineate the grille/ 

bumper from the hood. Moving along 

the width of the front-end and while 

holding the straight edge parallel to the 

vehicle x-z plane, the contact points 

between the straight edge and the 

vehicle define the line. The reference to 

a 1,000 mm long straight edge is in the 

GTR. Our understanding is the 1,000 

mm length of the straight edge was 

chosen for convenience, and may be a 

result of previous pedestrian test 

protocols.88


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.007</GPH>

,,--...... / ' , __ ..-.,,,,,, , __ ..-

Rear Reference Line 

Hood Top 

rleading Edge 

Reference Line 

...... __ ---- -----------

Figure VI.1. Example Schematic of Hood Top. 

For illustration purposes only. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76939 

2. Side Borders of the Hood Top 

The side borders of the Hood Top 

would be determined by identifying the 

Side Reference Lines (SRLs). An SRL 

would be drawn by running a straight 

edge angled at 45° along the side of the 

vehicle. Unlike in the procedure 

establishing the LERL, the straight edge 

is not held a fixed distance from the 

ground when determining the SRL. The 

45° angle provides an objective means to 

delineate the fender from the hood. 

Moving along the length of the vehicle, 

the contact points between the straight 

edge and the vehicle define the SRL. 

The side border has been defined this 

way in all previous test protocols 

preceding the GTR, including those of 

the EEVC, IHRA, ISO, and NHTSA’s 

earlier work on a pedestrian protection 

standard. It is also used in Euro NCAP. 

(See figure VI.3, provided for 

illustration purposes.) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.008</GPH> EP19SE24.009</GPH>

Straight edge 

1,000 ± 1 mm long 

E 

E 

Ln 

+I 

a 

a 

ID 

Straight edge 

700 ± 1 mm long 

45° ± 1 ° 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

,,, - Leading Edge 

1 1 Reference Line 

I ~--=~---

Figure VI.2. Leading Edge Reference Line. 

For illustration purposes only. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 - Side Reference 

I Line 

I 

Figure VI.3. Defining the Side Reference Line. 

For illustration purposes only. 
76940 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

89The cowl is the lower edge of the windshield 

opening. The wiper blades, linkages, and arms are 

removed during this process defining the RRL. 

3. Rear Border of the Hood Top 

The rear border of the Hood Top 

would be determined by identifying the 

Rear Reference Line (RRL). The RRL 

would be determined by inserting a 165 

mm sphere into the cowl 89 and against 

the windshield such that the sphere is 

in contact with the windshield and a 

point on the surface of the hood (usually 

its rear edge). The RRL is formed by 

moving the sphere along the width of 

the windshield while always keeping 

the sphere in contact with the 

windshield and the hood. The contact 

points between the sphere and the hood 

define the RRL. (See figure VI.4, 

provided for illustration purposes.) 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

4. Provisions for Front Corners 

The GTR is at times ambiguous 

regarding where to pinpoint the 

intersection of the Leading Edge 

Reference Line (LERL) and the Side 

Reference Line (SRL) defining the Hood 

Top. The front border of the Hood Top 

is defined by the LERL. On vehicles that 

were on the road fifteen or more years 

ago, the hood front border did not have 

a high degree of curvature, and the point 

of intersection with the side border was 

easy to discern. However, on newer 

models, the LERL is usually curved and 

often not smooth—such that it may be 

possible for the side border to intersect 

in more than one place (although we 

expect such occurrences to be rare). 

This is depicted in the figure below 

(figure VI.5). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.010</GPH>

165 ± 1 mm 

Sphere 

Rear 

Reference Line 

- -, 

Figure VI.4. Rear Reference Line. 

For illustration purposes only. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76941 

90 GTR 9 does not define a Corner Reference Point 

and makes no provision of multiple intersections 

between the LERL and SRL. 

91 GTR 9, section 3.6, p. 38. 

To identify the boundaries for the 

Hood Top, it is important for NHTSA to 

know where the LERL intersects the 

SRL. In European test protocols used 

today (e.g., Euro NCAP V7.0 and later 

versions, UNECE Reg. No. 127), a 

‘‘Corner Reference Point’’ for the Hood 

Top is defined to clarify this situation 

(shown graphically in figure VI.5). In 

those test protocols, the Corner 

Reference Point is the intersection of the 

LERL and the SRL. Additionally, Euro 

NCAP clarifies that if there are multiple 

intersections, the most outboard 

intersection comprises the Corner 

Reference Point.90 We have included a 

definition of ‘‘Corner Reference Point’’ 

in our proposal for the same purpose, 

which would make clear that the Corner 

Reference Point of the Hood Top is the 

most outboard intersection when the 

LERL and the SRL intersect at multiple 

points. 

As we discuss below, there are other 

areas defined on the vehicle hood that 

may also have multiple intersections at 

the front corners. To be clear in the 

proposed standard as to how the areas 

are determined, we are also similarly 

defining the ‘‘Corner Reference Point of 

the Child Headform Test Area’’ and the 

‘‘Corner Reference Point of the Hood 

Area.’’ 

Finally, as mentioned previously, 

there is a proposed provision for 

determining the LERL of a high front 

vehicle when the tip of the straight edge 

makes first contact with the vehicle as 

opposed to elsewhere on the straight 

edge (see figure VI.16 later in the 

document). In such an instance, 

consistent with GTR 9, the WAD1000 

line becomes the LERL. However, when 

this procedure is followed, it is likely 

that the WAD1000 line and SRL would 

not intersect due to their height 

difference, and thus, using procedures 

that would apply to vehicles of lower 

front ends, the Corner Reference Point 

of the Hood Top cannot be determined. 

To correct this deficiency, proposed 

FMVSS No. 228 would provide a 

procedure to connect the SRL to the 

WAD1000 line and thus establish the 

Corner Reference Point of the Hood Top. 

This procedure involves establishing the 

Corner Reference Point of the Hood Top 

as if the LERL were determined by 

contact with the straight edge. The SRL 

and the WAD1000 line are then 

connected by a line spanning the 

distance from the Corner Reference 

Point of the Hood Top and the 

WAD1000 line. 

5. Provisions for Rear Corners 

When the sphere and cowl procedure 

is conducted, often the RRL does not 

intersect the SRL, i.e., the edges of the 

lines do not meet at the corners. 

Because it is important to defining the 

test area that the hood borderline be 

continuous, proposed FMVSS No. 228 

provides an objective way to connect 

these two lines using a procedure in 

GTR 9.91 FMVSS No. 228 would specify 

that the RRL is extended using a semicircular template of radius 100 ± 1 mm, 

marked with four reference marks ‘‘A’’ 

through ‘‘D,’’ as shown in figure VI.6. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.011</GPH>

QJ 

u 

.c 

QJ 

> 

..... 

0 

+-' 

C: 

e 

LL 

"'C 

L.. 

ro 

~ ITop View 

Side Reference Line 

Multiple Intersections 

Corner Reference Point Uses 

Most Outboard Intersection 

Leading Edge Reference Line 

Toward Side of Vehicle 

Figure VI.5. Illustration of a Corner Reference Point of the Hood Area when multiple 

intersections of the Leading Edge Reference Line or WADl000 Line and Side Edge 

Reference Line occur. 
76942 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

The template would be placed on the 

vehicle with corners ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ 

coincident with the side reference line. 

With these two corners remaining 

coincident with the side reference line, 

the template would be slid gradually 

rearwards until the outer edge of the 

template makes first contact with the 

RRL. If the first point of contact between 

the template and RRL lies outside the 

arc identified by points ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D,’’ 

the RRL is extended and/or modified to 

follow the circumferential arc of the 

template to meet the SRL, as shown in 

figure VI.7 (provided for illustration 

purposes). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.012</GPH>

Corner 'A' 

Point 'C' 

----R 100± 1 mm 

Corner 'B' 

Point 'D' 

45.0° ± 0.5° 

Figure VI.6. Template used to revise a non-intersecting rear reference line. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76943 

92Pedestrian Protection—ACEA Interpretations to 

the Respective Legislation of the UNECE and the 

European Union, revised November 30, 2010, 

Brussels. This document provides supplemental 

definitions to several test procedures of GTR 9 that 

ACEA considered to be ambiguous. ACEA is the 

European Automobile Manufacturers Association, a 

group representing European-based automobile 

manufacturers. https://www.acea.auto/aceamembers/. 

If the outer edge of the template 

shown in figure VI.6 cannot contact the 

rear reference line while simultaneously 

contacting the side reference line at 

points ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B,’’ or the point at 

which the rear reference line and 

template make first contact lies within 

the arc identified by points ‘‘C’’ and 

‘‘D,’’ then the standard prescribes that 

larger templates must be used where the 

radii are increased progressively in 

increments of 20 mm, until all the 

criteria above are met. 

6. Clarifying the Borders 

Through years of researching 

pedestrian head protection using the 

procedures described in the GTR, 

NHTSA has seen instances where the 

GTR is silent or ambiguous about its 

application to some aspects of hood 

design. NHTSA has developed ways to 

address these challenges consistent with 

the GTR and NHTSA’s Safety Act 

requirements such that the FMVSS set 

forth objective and repeatable criteria. 

We propose to incorporate these lessons 

learned into FMVSS No. 228’s test 

procedures and criteria, some of which 

are highlighted below. 

a. Addressing Discontinuities and 

Abrupt Direction Changes When 

Scribing the Side Reference Lines 

In marking off the SRL using the 

straight edge, a contour on the hood or 

fender could create a continuous line 

with sudden changes in direction, or 

zigzagging in what was previously a 

relatively smooth line. NHTSA 

considers this marked-off side border a 

valid SRL and would not smooth out the 

line in a compliance test as may be 

customary in the European approval 

process.92

Yet, some vehicle contours may result 

in a discontinuous line (a line with a 

break in it). In other words, a ‘‘jump’’ 

could occur such that the border is no 

longer continuous because the points 

contacted by the straight edge alternated 

between portions of the vehicle surface 

separated by some distance. See figure 

VI.8 below, which depicts a 

hypothetical vehicle with a 

discontinuous SRL (discontinuity is not 

to scale). As shown in the figure, in this 

situation, NHTSA would ‘‘fill in’’ the 

gap and make the broken line whole 

again using a procedure that involves 

holding a non-stretch wire taut across 

the gap in the line. The break is filled 

by scribing a line created by the 

projection of the wire vertically 

downward on the vehicle surface. This 

procedure also results in a zigzagging 

final line, which is an acceptable 

outcome. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.013</GPH>

Modifed End of 

-\ 

Rear Reference Line \ 

Semi-circular ___ .,,.,,,,,. 

Template 

Side Reference 

Line 

\ 

\ 

--- ---

\ 

I 

I 

I 

Discarded End of 

Rear Reference Line 

Rear Reference 

Line 

I 

I 

I 

Figure VI.7. Marking of intersection between rear and side reference lines. 
76944 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

b. Multiple Contact Points 

NHTSA has also encountered 

situations using the straight edge where 

the vehicle may be contoured such that 

the straight edge contacts two points at 

once (see figure VI.9). Such a situation 

could occur when scribing any of the 

hood borders. To address this, where 

multiple or continuous contacts occur 

NHTSA would use the contact that 

provides the largest Hood Top (i.e., the 

most outboard contact point for the side 

boundary, forward-most for the front 

boundary, and rearward-most for the 

rear boundary). This convention is also 

specified in Euro NCAP and the NCAP 

RFC for side borders. (We note that, as 

discussed in the next section, the 

procedure for scribing the Leading Edge 

Reference Line (LERL) uses a different 

strategy as a first step to avoid multiple 

contact points when scribing the line. 

The convention described above would 

be used if multiple contact points occur 

even after using that initial step.) We 

note that GTR 9 specified the ‘‘highest 

points of contact’’ with the 700 mm 

straight edge when tracing the side 

reference line. In the example in figure 

VI.9, this would actually result in a 

more inboard point defining the SRL. 

However, in practice this is unlikely to 

result in any meaningful difference in 

the defined Hood Top. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.014</GPH>

End Points of 

Discontinuity 

Figure VI.8. Illustration of a Side Reference Line where a line break has been connected. 

The final result is a zigzag line. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76945 

93Paragraph 3.5. ‘‘Bonnet leading edge reference 

line.’’ 

94 If this happens, the whole leading edge markoff process is restarted using the 50° incline for the 

entire leading edge, even though the discrepancy 

may have occurred at only one spot. 

7. Special Provisions for the Leading 

Edge of the Hood 

As explained earlier, NHTSA uses a 

straight edge to define the LERL of the 

hood. Similar to the side border, this 

front border of the hood may have 

multiple points of contact when using 

the straight edge held at 40° from the 

horizontal. If continuous or multiple 

points of contact result, this NPRM 

(consistent with the GTR) specifies 

adjusting the angle of the straight edge 

from 40° to 50° from the horizontal to 

try to achieve a single point of 

contact.93 94 See figure VI.10 below, 

provided for illustration purposes. (This 

also has the effect of extending the LERL 

forward and thus increasing the 

headform test area, which NHTSA 

believes is desirable and consistent with 

safety.) We note that NHTSA is also 

proposing objective ways to determine 

whether there is ‘‘continuous contact’’ 

or ‘‘multiple contact points’’ for 

assessing if the straight edge angle must 

change. Such a provision is not 

specified in GTR 9. A continuous 

contact would be established when the 

vehicle surface is within 0.5 mm of the 

straight edge for at least 50 mm of the 

straight edge. Contacts would have to be 

separated by at least 50 mm on the 

straight edge to be considered multiple 

contacts. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.015</GPH>

Front View 

Most Outboard Point 

of Contact is Used 

Toward Side of Vehicle 

45.0° 

Figure VI.9. Illustration of multiple contact points on vehicle side 

and most outboard point of contact. 
76946 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

95For some vehicles, the Hood Area may be 

equivalent to the Hood Top. Also, we note that GTR 

9 does not define a Hood Area. In GTR 9, the 

equivalent area would be what GTR 9 refers to the 

‘‘combined child and adult headform test areas.’’ 

We have defined Hood Area for increased clarity. 

As is the case with the Side Reference 

Lines, a zigzagging final front border is 

an acceptable result. If there are gaps in 

the line, NHTSA would fill in the gaps 

using a non-stretch wire held taut across 

the gap in the line. The break is filled 

by scribing a line created by the 

projection of the wire vertically 

downward on the vehicle surface. Any 

protruding hood ornaments would be 

removed when drawing the LERL if they 

have the effect of pushing the border 

rearward (and reducing the test area). 

One additional special provision of 

the LERL relates to vehicles where the 

only contact of the straight edge is at its 

upper tip. Consistent with the GTR, as 

the straight edge is moved laterally 

across the front of the vehicle, if the 

upper tip is the only contact point, the 

WAD1000 line is the LERL at this 

location. Additional discussion on this 

topic is presented later in this 

document. 

B. Hood Area 

After identifying the Hood Top, the 

next step is to establish the ‘‘Hood 

Area.’’ 95 The Hood Area (see light grey 

area in figure VI.11) is enclosed by the 

intersection of the following borders: 

• Front border: the Leading Edge 

Reference Line (LERL) or the WAD1000 

line, whichever is most rearward at the 

point of measurement; 

• Side border: Side Reference Lines 

(SRL). 

• Rear border: Rear Reference Line 

(RRL), or the WAD2100 line, whichever 

is most forward at the point of 

measurement. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.016</GPH>

Side View 

Extends Leading Edge Reference Line Forward----

Contact 40 Degrees 

Contact 50 Degrees 

Toward Front of Vehicle 

Figure VI.to. Straight edge angle change when scribing Leading Edge Reference Line if 

multiple or continuous contact occurs. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76947 

96Paragraph 72 of the ‘‘Safety Need’’ section of 

GTR 9. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/ 

main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECETRANS-180a9e.pdf. 

97As a reminder, the RRL is determined by 

inserting a 165 mm sphere into the cowl and against 

the windshield such that the sphere is in contact 

with the windshield and a point on the surface of 

the hood (usually the cowl’s rear edge). 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

1. Front Border of the Hood Area 

Consistent with GTR 9, this NPRM 

proposes to use the most rearward of 

either the WAD1000 line or the LERL in 

determining the front border of what 

proposed FMVSS No. 228 would call 

the Hood Area. In the example shown 

in figure VI.11 the Hood Area (light 

grey) does not completely cover the 

Hood Top because the WAD1000 line is 

rearward of the LERL. The cross hatched 

area shows the difference between the 

Hood Top and Hood Area. WAD1000 is 

just under the average height of a 6-yearold child (a target demographic of the 

standard), which is 1,150 mm. The 

drafters of the GTR explained that a 

WAD of 1,000 mm was selected as the 

forward boundary because real-world 

crash data show that over 80 percent of 

child pedestrian head contacts are above 

a WAD of 1,000 mm.96 Figure VI.11, 

above, shows an example of the 

WAD1000 line defining the front edge of 

the Hood Area, rather than the LERL. As 

we discuss in section VI.C.1, the front 

border of the Hood Area could be the 

front border of the Child Headform Test 

Area on some vehicles. We also discuss 

how we are considering shifting the 

front border of the Child Headform Test 

Area to increase the area subject to the 

proposed standard. (Conforming 

changes would be reflected in the front 

border of the Hood Area if such a 

change were made.) 

2. Side Border of the Hood Area 

The side borders for the Hood Area 

are the SRLs, which are also the side 

borders for the Hood Top. The length of 

side borders may differ from the Hood 

Top on some vehicles since the Hood 

Area may have different rear and front 

borders than those of the Hood Top. 

3. Rear Border of the Hood Area 

Similar to the process for the front 

border, the first step in establishing the 

rear border of the Hood Area is to locate 

the WAD2100 line (WAD2100). This 

NPRM’s regulatory text proposes to use 

the most forward of either WAD2100 or 

the Rear Reference Line (RRL) 97 in 

determining the rear border of the Hood 

Area. Strictly speaking, this is different 

from GTR 9, which defines the rear 

boundary of the equivalent area (rear 

reference line for the adult headform) as 

always being WAD2100. We believe this 

is an error in GTR 9, because under this 

reading of the GTR, even if the RRL 

were forward of the WAD2100 and 

WAD2100 is in the windshield area 

(essentially off of the Hood Top), 

WAD2100 still would be used as the 

rear border of the area in question. This 

would affect the calculation of the 

amount of area that must conform to a 

HIC1000 level, potentially including 

part of the windshield or cowl. This 

outcome is not consistent with our 

understanding of GTR 9. 

This NPRM’s regulatory text describes 

using the most forward of either 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.017</GPH>

.,,,,,,..-- ..... ,,, ' , __ .,,,,.,,..,,,,,, ....... ___ ..,,,,. 

Figure VI.11. Example Hood Area outline. 

For illustration purposes only. 
76948 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

98As noted earlier, this preamble occasionally 

refers to these two test areas together as the ‘‘Child 

and Adult Headform Test Areas’’ or ‘‘the combined 

Child and Adult Headform Test Areas.’’ 

99 Ivarsson BJ, Crandall JR et al (2007), Pedestrian 

head impact- what determines the likelihood and 

wrap around distance? Paper No. 07–0373, 20th 

International Technical Conference on the 

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV) in 

Lyon, France, June 18–21, 2007. 

100The crash scenario represented by the test is 

a non-braking, 40 km/h impact. The suspension is 

set up for normal ride attitude, not braking. 

WAD2100 or the RRL in determining 

the rear border of the Hood Area. For 

most passenger cars, WAD2100 falls 

rearward of the cowl so the rear border 

would be the RRL. However, WAD2100 

could define the rear border on some 

larger vehicles. Figure VI.12, below, 

shows an example of the WAD2100 line 

defining the rear edge of the Hood Area, 

rather than the RRL. Again, the cross 

hatched area shows the difference 

between the Hood Top and Hood Area. 

As we discuss below, the rear border of 

the Hood Area may not necessarily be 

the rear border of the Adult Headform 

Test Area. In section VI.C.5, we discuss 

using WAD2500 rather than WAD2100 

as the rear reference line for the Adult 

Headform Test Area. (Conforming 

changes would be reflected in the rear 

border of the Hood Area if such a 

change were made.) 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

4. Corner Reference Point of the Hood 

Area 

As was the case with the Hood Top, 

we believe it is also necessary to define 

a Corner Reference Point for the Hood 

Area to avoid any ambiguity in 

pinpointing the intersection of the front 

and side borders of the Hood Area. 

Obviously, when the Hood Top and 

Hood Area share the same front border 

(LERL), the corner point is the same. 

However, when the front border of the 

Hood Area is the WAD1000 line, the 

corner points will be different, with the 

Corner Reference Point of the Hood 

Area being at the intersection of the 

WAD1000 line and the side border, and 

the Corner Reference Point of the Hood 

Top being at the intersection of the 

LERL and the side border. 

C. Defining the Child Headform Test 

Area and the Adult Headform Test Area 

Overview. Proposed FMVSS No. 228 

defines a Child Headform Test Area and 

an Adult Headform Test Area, which are 

contained within the Hood Area.98

Consistent with GTR 9, under this 

NPRM the test areas have been 

separated into child and adult regions 

because head strikes on the hood in 

real-world collisions are dependent 

primarily on the collision speed, the 

height of the pedestrian, and the shape 

of the vehicle front-end.99 WAD is used 

for demarcation of the Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas because it is an 

excellent indicator of where a 

pedestrian’s head will strike a hood 

under a given set of conditions.100


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.018</GPH>

Figure VI.12. Example Hood Area outline. 

For illustration purposes only. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76949 

101As explained previously, the standard would 

provide for HIC Unlimited Areas as a practicability 

measure to accommodate a manufacturing need to 

reinforce and stiffen the hood edges. 

102As explained later in this section, this is either 

the 82.5 mm offset line or the WAD1000 line, 

whichever is more rearward. 

103As explained later in this section, this is either 

the 82.5 mm offset line or the WAD2100 line, 

whichever is more forward. 

Headform HIC Unlimited Areas 

The Child and Adult Headform Test 

Areas are smaller than the Hood Area to 

account for specified regions that are 

not subject to HIC limits under the GTR, 

which we call ‘‘HIC Unlimited 

Area.’’ 101 The HIC Unlimited Area 

shares an outer boundary with the Hood 

Top. Its inner boundary is called the 

HIC Unlimited Margin. The HIC 

Unlimited Margin forms the outer 

boundary of the Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas. 

The Child Headform Test Area (See 

figure VI.13) is enclosed by the 

intersection of the following borders: 

• Front border: HIC Unlimited Margin 

of the Leading Edge Reference Line.102

• Side borders: HIC Unlimited 

Margins of the Side Reference Lines. 

• Rear border: WAD1700 line or the 

HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear 

Reference Line, whichever is most 

forward at the point of measurement. 

The Adult Headform Test Area (See 

figure VI.13) is enclosed by the 

intersection of the following borders: 

• Front border: WAD1700 line. 

• Side borders: HIC Unlimited 

Margins of the Side Reference Lines. 

• Rear border: HIC Unlimited Margin 

of the Rear Reference Line.103

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

The first step in determining the HIC 

Unlimited Margin would be to establish 

a reference line by measuring an 82.5 

mm (3.25 inches) distance from each 

point along the four borders of the Hood 

Top. For convenience, in this preamble 

we refer to this as ‘‘the 82.5 mm offset 

line.’’ (See figure VI.14.) For example, 

the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Side 

Reference Line is established by 

following the SRL along the contour of 

the body in the y-z plane using the 

equivalent of a taut, 82.5 mm (3.25 inch) 

graduated wire. The regulatory text 

describes using the wire to measure the 

82.5 mm (3.25 inches) distance over any 

surface bumps that may be present, such 

as ornamental trim. Since the wire is 

taut, it would span any depressions 

(such as a seam between the hood and 

fender) between the points on the SRL 

to the measured points. The wire must 

not deviate from the y-z plane when 

establishing the HIC Unlimited Margin 

of the Side Reference Line. Similarly, an 

82.5 mm offset line for the LERL and 

RRL would be drawn by measuring the 

prescribed distance from each point 

along the LERL and RRL along the 

contour of the body in the x-z plane 

using a taut, graduated wire. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.019</GPH>

Side Reference 

Line 

HIC Unlimited Margin of 

the Side Reference Line 

Leading Edge 

Reference Line 

.,,,,.-- ...... 

, ___ .,,, .,,, ' , __ _ 

HIC Unlimited Margin of 

the Rear Reference Line 

HIC Unlimited 

Child Headform 

Test Area 

HIC Unlimited Margin of the 

Leading Edge Reference Line 

Figure VI.13. Example Child and Adult Headform Test Area outline. 

For illustration purposes only. 
76950 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

104Note that the front border of the Child 

Headform Test Area is the most forward border of 

the combined test area. 

1. Front Border of Child Headform Test 

Area 

The front border of the Child 

Headform Test Area is the HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge 

Reference Line, which is the WAD1000 

line or the 82.5mm offset line, 

whichever is most rearward.104 Figure 

VI.15 shows an example where the front 

border of the Child Headform Test Area 

(right image) is formed by the 82.5 mm 

offset line and the front border of the 

Hood Area is the WAD1000 line (left 

image). As in figure VI.12, the left image 

shows the Hood Area overlaid on the 

Hood Top (cross hatch showing the 

difference), with the Hood Area being 

smaller because WAD1000 is rearward 

of the LERL. In the right image we see 

that the test area begins rearward of the 

Hood Area front border. The left image 

shows the borders of the Hood Area 

(light grey area) and the right image the 

border of the Child and Adult Headform 

Test Areas (dark grey). Note that in the 

right image any area that is not part of 

the Child and Adult Headform Test 

Areas is part of the HIC Unlimited area 

(this includes the light grey and the 

cross hatched areas). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.020</GPH>

------------ HIC Unlimited Area 

82.5 mm Offset 

WAD100 

, 

--

Figure VI.14. Example of Establishing 82.5 mm Offset line. In this example, the WADl000 

is forward of the 82.5 mm Offset line. Not to scale. 

For illustration purposes only. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76951 

105 2021 Wards Automotive. 

c. Considerations for the Child 

Headform Test Area Front Border 

The agency believes there are several 

provisions where it would be 

worthwhile for FMVSS No. 228 to differ 

from GTR 9 with respect to the front 

border of the testable area, particularly 

for vehicles that are larger or smaller 

than typical size. NHTSA requests 

comment on these approaches for 

possible inclusion in the final rule. 

First, with respect to large vehicles, 

this NPRM’s regulatory text for FMVSS 

No. 228 reflects the provisions of GTR 

9 regarding the procedures for testing 

vehicles with higher front ends, like 

larger light trucks, but the agency 

discusses in this section aspects that 

NHTSA believes may be more 

appropriate for the U.S. fleet. To begin, 

the GTR procedure is as follows: When 

establishing the front border of the 

relevant Hood Top, Hood Area, and 

ultimately the Child Headform Test 

Area, the first step is to use the 1,000 

mm straight edge to determine the 

LERL. As shown in figure VI.16, for 

passenger car designs, the straight edge 

is held high enough to engage the 

vehicle’s front end. However, the upper 

leading edge of the hood for some fullsized pickup trucks exceeds 1,243 mm, 

which is the highest point of the straight 

edge from the ground. For these 

vehicles, the upper tip of the straight 

edge would be the only point of contact 

with the vehicle. If this occurs, 

consistent with S3.5 in GTR 9, by 

definition, the WAD1000 line becomes 

the LERL. (This provision may also 

come into play for flat front EVs.) Thus, 

the front border of the Child Headform 

Test Area would be established by the 

82.5 mm offset line from the WAD1000 

line. In some vehicles this may be in the 

front grille area. 

Large pickups and large SUV 

comprise about 18 percent of new 

vehicle sales, and some vehicles are 

large enough that they will engage the 

tip of the straight edge in this way, such 

as the MY 2022 Ford F250.105 Given the 

prevalence of large vehicles in the U.S. 

fleet, we believe there are several points 

worthy of discussion related to this 

issue, and related to high or flat front 

vehicles in general. These are discussed 

below. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.021</GPH>

----..... , ___ ,,,,. ,,, ' ..... __ _ 

HIC Unlimited 

Margin of 

Leading Edge 

Reference Line 

WADlO00 

,,,,..-- ..... , ___ ,,,. ,,, ' ..... __ _ 

HIC Unlimited 

Area 

Test Area 

Figure VI.15. Left image shows an example of the Hood Area overlaid on the Hood Top. 

Right image shows the Test Area overlaid on the Hood Area. 

For illustration purposes only. Not to scale. 
76952 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

i. Extending the Straight Edge 

First, it would clearly be possible as 

a practical matter to extend the straight 

edge to whatever length necessary to 

contact the vehicle at the more typical 

front hood location. However, this may 

result in loss of a significant amount of 

testable area in the grille and associated 

safety benefits. Child and small adult 

pedestrian heads are more apt to strike 

the grille than the hood top on these 

vehicles, so extending the straight edge 

would reduce the real-world relevance 

of the test as regards those pedestrian 

impacts. Therefore, the agency is not 

inclined to make such an 

accommodation without a 

demonstration that subjecting the grille 

to testing is infeasible, meeting the 

standard is impracticable, or other such 

reason. In a section below, we request 

comment on the practicability of 

meeting proposed FMVSS No. 228 in 

the grille area. 

ii. NHTSA Seeks a More Consistent 

Approach 

The provision establishing the 

WAD1000 line as the LERL if the tip 

contacts the vehicle sets up a provision 

in the standard that would test vehicles 

with just slight hood height differences 

differently. In vehicles such as that 

shown in the bottom part of figure 

VI.16, the LERL would be WAD1000 

because the tip of the straight edge 

contacts the vehicle—and, as a result, 

because WAD1000 is in the grille, the 

grille would be tested. However, for a 

vehicle with a slightly lower hood 

height that just allows the straight edge 

to make contact with the hood along the 

straight edge length and not at its tip, 

the LERL would not drop to the 

WAD1000 line in the grille area—and so 

the grille area would not be tested. 

NHTSA believes a more consistent and 

reasonable approach could be one that 

determines the test area using data tied 

to where head impacts are likely to 

occur, as opposed to an approach that 

determines test area by the length of a 

straight edge. Thus, NHTSA requests 

comments on an approach that 

establishes the WAD1000 line as the 

front border of the test area for all 

vehicle testing. NHTSA believes this 

approach is merited as it determines the 

test area based on where head impacts 

would occur in the real world, rather 

than where a straight edge makes 

contact. The agency poses specific 

questions at the end of this section and 

requests comments on using this 

approach in the final rule. 

iii. Impact Angle Considerations 

We request comment on the specifics 

of testing a grille area. As described in 

the test procedure of the GTR, the child 

headform is launched at 50 degrees 

down from the horizontal and would 

impact a horizontal surface at 40 

degrees from a purely perpendicular 

impact. (The child headform impact 

angle is illustrated in figure V.3 of this 

preamble.) Assuming, for simplicity, a 

vertical front face of a vehicle, this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.022</GPH>

Straight edge 

1,000 ± 1 mm long 

E 

E 

LI') 

+1 

0 

0 

1..0 

E 

E 

LI') 

+1 

0 

0 

1..0 

/ - Leading Edge 

/ Reference Line 

I 

/// ~ 

Figure VI.16. Hood Marking of Passenger Car Compared to High Front Vehicle. 

For illustration purposes only. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76953 

106Monitors means the results could be called out 

but are not part of the Euro NCAP scoring. See, 

Technical Bulletin 019—Headform to Bonnet 

Leading Edge. https://www.euroncap.com/en/forengineers/supporting-information/technicalbulletins/. This bulletin explains that the result of 

this test will be monitored against a HIC value of 

650. Where a ‘‘poor’’ test result has been achieved, 

Euro NCAP may choose to comment on this 

alongside the normal pedestrian protection score. 

The results of these tests will not be reflected in the 

pedestrian protection score or any other part of the 

overall assessment. 

107 GTR data indicate that 6-year-old child head 

impacts start at about WAD1000. 

108 Details of these tests can be found in: Suntay 

B and Stammen, JA (August 2018), Vehicle hood 

testing to estimate pedestrian headform 

reproducibility, GTR 9 test procedural issues, and 

U.S. fleet performance. Docket NHTSA–2008–0145– 

0014. 

means the impact would be 50 degrees 

from purely perpendicular. However, 

striking a grille in this manner would 

constitute a slightly less direct impact 

and presumably a less severe test. We 

believe that, in a real-world impact, the 

head of a child striking such a high front 

end vehicle would have a trajectory 

more in line with the velocity vector of 

the vehicle than the current launch 

angle of the child headform. The Euro 

NCAP procedure and NHTSA’s NCAP 

RFC allow for test points on the front 

surface of the vehicle. Euro NCAP and 

the NCAP RFC make an adjustment to 

the impact direction to 20 degrees when 

forward of the LERL so as to produce a 

more perpendicular impact. 

Additionally, if the LERL is between 

WAD930 and WAD1000, Euro NCAP 

monitors this location with a 20-degree 

impact test performed at the LERL.106

NHTSA plans to conduct research on 

headform testing in the grille area of 

some pickup trucks using the proposed 

FMVSS No. 228 protocol to assess its 

practicality, as well as the merits of a 

more direct (perpendicular) impact. As 

discussed in the next section, 

depending on the results, the final rule 

may adjust the impact angle of the 

headform when the test is conducted in 

the grille area. 

iv. Apportioning of Test Area to HIC 

Levels 

For these high front and flat front 

vehicles, the apportioning of the amount 

of the test areas that must have a 

HIC1000 or less merits discussion. As 

previously mentioned and discussed in 

more detail in section VII of this 

preamble, the portion of the Combined 

Child and Adult Headform Test Areas 

that must meet the HIC1000 provision 

must be at least the numerical value of 

two-thirds of the Hood Area placed 

inside of the Child and Adult Headform 

Test Areas. Because this two-thirds 

calculation is made on the basis of a 

two-dimensional projection on to a 

horizontal plane, if some of the Child 

Headform Test Area could be on a front 

surface of a vehicle that is more vertical 

than horizontal, this area would not be 

added to the Hood Area calculation 

simply due to the method of calculation 

using the two-dimensional projection 

onto a horizontal plane. The concern 

here is that this vertical test area, even 

if considered part of the headform test 

area, would not be considered in 

calculating the amount of required 

HIC1000 area. Stated another way, the 

vertical test area, or an equivalent 

amount, would not have to meet 

HIC1000; it could be assigned only 

HIC1700, which would result in the 

vehicle providing a lowered level of 

head protection. (Comments are 

requested on this issue in the next 

section.) 

v. Shifting the Test Border Forward 

This point relates to large vehicles in 

general where the upper portion of the 

straight edge, but not the tip, makes 

contact with the vehicle. For these 

vehicles, WAD1000 could be in the 

grille area,107 but under the GTR, the 

Child Headform Test Area begins well 

beyond WAD1000, because the test area 

would begin at the 82.5 mm offset line 

as it is more rearward than WAD1000. 

NHTSA is concerned that, for such 

vehicles, under the GTR provisions the 

agency would not be testing the areas of 

the hood that could be struck by 

children of the stature of a 6-year-old. 

As mentioned above, the NCAP RFC 

procedure allows for testing to 

WAD1000, even when WAD1000 is 

forward of the LERL. In 2014, NHTSA 

investigated how the different 

interpretations of the impact point 

targeting methods could change the 

actual testable area of a hood.108

Headform tests were performed along 

the forward-most border of the test zone 

and, depending on which targeting 

method was used, the actual point of 

first contact of the headform with the 

hood was either on the border or 

slightly in front of the border (see table 

VI.1). Although HIC was found to 

increase at first contact locations in 

front of the border, the increase did not 

appear to have affected conformance, 

i.e., impact points conforming to either 

HIC1000 or HIC 1700 remained below 

the required HIC limit. Based on these 

results, NHTSA believes a requirement 

that vehicles meet FMVSS No. 228 with 

a 30 mm shift of the forward-most 

border seems practicable. We request 

comments on this issue. We note that in 

section VII and XI of this preamble, we 

also discuss the issue of whether 

proposed FMVSS No. 228 should 

reduce or eliminate the areas in which, 

under the GTR, HIC is not assessed (the 

HIC Unlimited Area). Reducing or 

eliminating the HIC Unlimited Area 

would also shift the forward-most 

border forward. 

TABLE VI.1—HIC AT POINTS TESTED ON THE FORWARD-MOST BORDER AND AT A POINT SHIFTED SLIGHTLY AHEAD OF

THE BORDER

Vehicle 

HIC comparison 

HIC % 

increase At forwardmost border 

per GTR 9 

At point shifted 

about 30 mm 

forward of border 

2010 Buick Lacrosse ............................................................................................................... 1026 1041 1.5 

2010 Kia Forte ......................................................................................................................... 626 703 12.3 

2010 Acura MDX ..................................................................................................................... 1283 1326 3.4 

2010 Hyundai Tucson .............................................................................................................. 638 670 5.0 

2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee .................................................................................................... 651 874 34.3 

2011 Honda Odyssey .............................................................................................................. 1302 1379 5.9 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76954 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

109The Child Headform is launched at 50 degrees 

down from the horizontal and would impact a 

vertical surface at 50 degrees from a purely 

perpendicular impact. 

vi. Testing Forward of WAD1000 for 

Small Vehicles 

Regarding smaller vehicles, the 

NPRM’s regulatory text reflecting the 

GTR specifies that the forward border of 

the required test area would be the 82.5 

mm offset line or WAD1000, whichever 

is most rearward. Under this proposed 

provision, requirements for head 

protection would start at WAD1000 for 

most small vehicles as the WAD1000 

line is usually more rearward than the 

82.5 mm offset line. However, for many 

smaller vehicles WAD1000 is far up the 

hood, which means much of the hood 

(the forward portion) would not be 

subject to any headform testing. It does 

not appear there are practicability 

barriers to headform testing of the hood 

on small vehicles, because comparable 

areas of the hood on larger vehicles 

would be regulated under the proposed 

standard and thus subject to headform 

testing. Testing forward of WAD1000 

would potentially add to the protection 

of children with a standing height of 

less than 1,000 mm. As discussed 

below, to increase the safety benefits of 

the rule, we are considering an 

alternative provision that would test 

forward of WAD1000. NHTSA requests 

comment on this issue. 

Request for Comment on Modifying the 

Forward Border 

Based on the above discussion, 

NHTSA requests comments on the 

questions below to help the agency 

decide whether a final rule should 

identify the forward border differently. 

Please comment on the potential gain in 

safety benefits as well as any potential 

practicability, cost, or technical issues. 

• The NPRM’s regulatory text reflects 

the GTR 9 provision that accounts for 

the situation where the tip of the 1,000 

mm straight edge defines the LERL 

(rather than a point further down along 

the straight edge), such as when the tip 

of the straight edge could make first 

contact with the grille of a subject 

vehicle. In this situation, the WAD1000 

line becomes the LERL. This means that 

the testable area could potentially 

include the grille area of the vehicle 

(i.e., headform impacts could be 

conducted on the grille area of the 

vehicle). We request comment on 

adjustments to the launch angle 109 for 

such impacts, to potentially make them 

more perpendicular to the impacted 

surface to replicate a real-world impact 

more accurately. What impact point 

condition/location should trigger a 

change in impactor launch angle? 

Additionally, should the estimate of 

Hood Area be modified if some portion 

of the Hood Top is in the grille area, 

such as using a test area projection onto 

a vertical plane for the more vertical 

tests areas? 

• There may be large vehicles with a 

hood height slightly lower than those 

where the straight edge tip contacts the 

vehicle first, such that the provision to 

drop the LERL to WAD1000 is not 

triggered. Additionally, the NPRM’s 

regulatory text (reflecting the GTR) 

specifies that, for large vehicles in 

general, the Child Headform Test Area 

begins well rearward of WAD1000—i.e., 

well rearward of where a child’s head is 

likely to strike. However, NHTSA 

requests comments on changing the 

front border of the Child Headform Test 

Area to be either the Offset Line or 

WAD1000, whichever is forward-most, 

rather than rearmost. An outcome of this 

change would be that, in some cases, the 

test area would be forward of the Hood 

Top and conforming changes would 

need to be made to maintain the test 

area within the Hood Top. We note that 

the Euro NCAP and the NCAP RFC 

allow for testing at WAD1000, even if it 

is forward of the LERL. Euro NCAP 

monitors performance at the LERL as far 

forward as WAD930 if the LERL is 

forward of WAD1000, although this 

does not factor into the score. 

• For many smaller vehicles the 

forward line where testing is required is 

at WAD1000, far behind the LERL, 

which means much of the hood (the 

forward portion) would not be subject to 

headform testing. We note that 

subjecting these forward areas of the 

hood to the standard may benefit 

children smaller than the average 6- 

year-old. A potential way to subject the 

forward areas to testing could be the 

same as that suggested above for larger 

vehicles, i.e., selection of the test area 

boundary based on the forward-most of 

the WAD1000 or of the Offset Line, 

rather than the rearward-most. We ask 

for comment on this issue in the context 

of smaller vehicles. 

• As discussed above, another 

alternative on which we request 

comment involves how the GTR 

determines the HIC Unlimited Margin 

for the front and sides. (Impacts in the 

HIC Unlimited Margin are not subject to 

any HIC limit.) The NPRM’s regulatory 

text reflects the GTR’s specification that 

the margin would be determined using 

an 82.5 (3.25 inch) mm taut wire, but 

NHTSA finds merit in using a 50 mm 

(1.97 inch) taut wire instead to increase 

the testable area, and reduce the 

allowable area of the HIC Unlimited 

Margin. 

2. Transition Between Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas at WAD1700 

Consistent with the GTR, proposed 

FMVSS No. 228 would separate the 

Child Headform Test Area from the 

Adult Headform Test Area at WAD1700. 

For many smaller vehicles, it is possible 

that there would be no Adult Headform 

Test Area at all when the transition 

between the child and adult test areas 

is drawn at WAD1700. Consistent with 

the GTR, proposed FMVSS No. 228 

would require that, if there is only a 

Child Headform Test Area, the 

requirements that applied to the 

combined Child and Adult Headform 

Test Area are applied to the Child 

Headform Test Area alone. For example, 

at least two-thirds of the numerical 

value of the Hood Area, when placed 

within the boundary of the Child 

Headform Test Area (as opposed to the 

combined areas) must not exceed HIC of 

1000 using the child headform. For the 

remaining area the HIC shall not exceed 

1700. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76955 

110Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL. 

Mean body weight, height, waist circumference, 

and body mass index among adults: United States, 

1999–2000 through 2015–2016. National Health 

Statistics Reports; no 122. Hyattsville, MD: National 

Center for Health Statistics. 2018. 

111 Ivarsson J, et al. ‘‘Pedestrian Head Impact— 

What Determines the Likelihood and Wrap Around 

Distance?’’, 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles 

Conference (2007); paper no. 07–0373. 

112 Kiuchi T, et al. ‘‘Comparative Study of VRU 

Head Impact Locations,’’ Sixth Expert Symposium 

on Accident Research (ESAR). Hanover, Germany 

(2014). 

113Otte, D. ‘‘Wrap Around Distance WAD of 

Pedestrian and Bicyclists and Relevance as 

Influence Parameter for Head Injuries,’’ SAE 

Technical Paper 2015–01–1461, 2015. 

This NPRM uses WAD1700 to 

transition between the Adult and Child 

Headform Test Areas because GTR data 

indicate that 6- to 15-year-old child 

head impacts start at about WAD1000 

and end at WAD1700. A 5th percentile 

female has a standing height of an 

average 12-year-old child and would 

likely have a head impact within the 

Child Headform Test Area. Consistent 

with this, figure VI.17 below from the 

Pedestrian Crash Data Study (PCDS) 

shows that for all adults, impacts start 

at about WAD1400 and end at 

WAD2400. PCDS shows that about 70% 

of all adult pedestrian head impacts are 

between WAD1000 and WAD2100. 

Separating the genders, about half of 

adult female and one third of adult male 

head impacts are between WAD1000 

and W1700 (not depicted in figure 

VI.17). As shown in figure VI.17, the 

WAD1700 represents the 75th percentile 

for children under age 10 and the 25th 

percentile for all adults. Because stature 

distribution has remained stable over 

the past two decades 110 and because 

WAD has been shown to depend 

primarily on the pedestrian’s stature for 

a particular vehicle impact 

speed,111 112 113 this WAD distribution 

would still be representative today. 

Data show that child-adult 

overlapping of impacts occurs between 

1400 and 1700 mm. The drafters of the 

GTR considered whether to use a test 

method where the child and adult test 

areas overlap or whether a step change 

should be used, and where it should be 

drawn. The goal was to ensure that the 

transition area would provide protection 

against both child and adult head 

impacts. The drafters considered an 

approach to specify a test area 

(transition zone) in which both a child 

headform and an adult headform would 

be used to assess compliance, because 

both children and adults strike this area. 

Such a transition zone could, for 

example, be WAD 1400—WAD1700 or 

WAD1500—WAD1700. They also 

considered, and ultimately adopted, a 

sudden transition (step change) 

approach. However, the NCAP RFC and 

Euro NCAP test procedures have 

adopted a transition zone between 

WAD1500—WAD1700, where both 

impactors must be used if the RRL is 

between WAD1500 and WAD1700. 

The rationale supporting a step 

change approach is that a sudden step 

change in hood performance is not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.023</GPH>

~ 

;;,; 

u 

= V 

=:I 

er 

2:: 

.:... 

V 

-~ 1;l 

1 

=:I 

u 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

0 

....,Children IO and under 

....,. Adults 

500 1000 

WAD,mm 

1500 2000 2500 

Figure VI.17. Cumulative frequency of pedestrian head strike WAD measurements. 

Source: PCDS. 
76956 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

114Based on 2007–2010 NHANES from https://

tools.openlab.psu.edu/tools/explorer.php. 

115Fredriksson R (2011), Priorities and potential 

of pedestrian protection—accident data, 

experimental tests, and numerical simulations of 

car-to-car pedestrian impacts. Doctoral Thesis, 

Department of Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, 

Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. 

116 Kerrigan J, Arregui C, Crandall JC (2009), 

Pedestrian head impact dynamics: comparison of 

dummy and PMHS in small sedan and large SUV 

impacts, Paper No. 09–0127, 21st International 

Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 

Vehicles Conference (ESV)—International Congress 

Center Stuttgart, Germany, June 15–18, 2009. 

likely to be engineered into the design 

of a hood, and that a step change 

approach reduces the need to conduct 

unnecessary headform tests. In practice, 

a sudden step change produces a hood 

design with an area around the 

transition line that is safe for both child 

and adult pedestrians. Therefore, it was 

decided that a hood designed for 

overlapping child-adult safety is 

effectively achieved without the need to 

specify the use of two headforms. 

Further, a defined boundary at 1,700 

mm provides a clearer approach. The 

GTR adopted the step change approach 

with a transition at WAD1700, which 

biases protection towards children. That 

is, the use of WAD1700 makes more of 

the hood tuned to protect a child’s head 

than an adult head. Rather than having 

to design hoods for both head masses, 

the use of a non-overlapping transition 

at WAD1700 allows safety in the 

transition area to be optimized for the 

lighter headform. 

Request for Comment on the Transition 

Zone 

• NHTSA tentatively agrees with the 

above reasons and has drafted the 

regulatory text of proposed FMVSS No. 

228 to specify a non-overlapping 

transition from the Child Headform Test 

Area to the Adult Headform Test Area 

at WAD1700. However, we request 

comments on the merits of a transition 

zone. We would like to know more 

about the degree to which a step change 

approach addresses safety for both 

adults and children for vehicles that 

have sharp changes in structure, such as 

the joint between the rear of the hood 

and the cowl, which may occur along 

the transition line. This is indeed the 

case for many smaller vehicles which 

have no Adult Headform Test Area at all 

when the transition is drawn at 

WAD1700. While this helps with design 

feasibility for such vehicles 

(requirements apply for the lighter 

headform only), it may reduce the safety 

of such vehicles for shorter adult 

pedestrians because the hood may not 

provide sufficient penetration depth for 

the heavier adult headform. We 

therefore seek comment on other 

options for FMVSS No. 228. These 

options may include a revised 

procedure in which the adult/child 

border is drawn at a different WAD and 

use of a transition area that is tested 

with both headforms. 

3. Rear Border of Adult Headform Test 

Area 

Consistent with GTR 9, the rear 

border of the Adult Headform Test Area 

is the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear 

Reference Line, which is the WAD2100 

line or the 82.5mm offset line, 

whichever is more forward. WAD2100 

is based on the average height of a 50th 

percentile adult male, which is about 

1750 mm. This height is about the 97th 

percentile for adult females in the 

U.S.114

d. Considerations for the Adult 

Headform Test Area Rear Border; 

Request for Comment 

NHTSA is considering several 

changes to the GTR approach related to 

the rear border of the Adult Headform 

Test Area to increase the test area. These 

considerations offer the potential of 

providing increasing pedestrian 

protection to individuals taller than the 

average male, and to individuals 

involved in higher speed impacts. 

1. First, we are considering including 

headform testing of the windshield. 

This NPRM’s regulatory text does not 

include testing of the windshield, Apillars or top edge of the windshield, 

which is reflective of GTR 9’s text. The 

GTR excludes the A-pillars and top edge 

of the windshield from the test area 

because of practicability reasons, and 

NHTSA generally agrees with excluding 

those areas. It is difficult to reduce the 

stiffness of the windshield frame 

because it serves as a support structure 

and helps to ensure the integrity of the 

occupant compartment. Furthermore, in 

the lower windshield area the requisite 

deformation space to meet HIC is 

restricted by the dashboard and 

instrument panel. Some components 

must be positioned in the dashboard 

and instrument panel to provide 

occupant protection (e.g., air bags) and 

crash avoidance safety, e.g., defrosting 

requirements, forward-view sensors for 

automatic emergency braking, and 

rearview cameras. In addition, the 

structural components of the dashboard 

comprise important load paths in front 

and side crashes that contribute to 

occupant crash protection. 

The GTR drafters excluded the 

windshield for different reasons, finding 

that the windshield itself does not cause 

severe injuries and therefore the number 

of casualties averted would be very low. 

The center of the windshield—away 

from the edges—generally produces 

good safety scores, although impacts 

near the A-pillars universally produce 

poor results. This is consistent with 

real-world data which show that fatal 

injuries are more common when the 

head strikes the windshield frame rather 

than the center area.115

Nonetheless, NHTSA is concerned 

that head-to-windshield impacts are 

associated with a high incidence of 

pedestrian injuries. One reason is that a 

head-to-windshield impact may have a 

higher velocity than a head-to-hood 

impact.116

NHTSA has also observed that vehicle 

designs have changed in recent years in 

that windshields are more forward on 

the hood, where the cowl may begin at 

WAD1700. WAD1700 separates the 

Child Headform Test Area from the 

Adult Headform Test Area. Because the 

area rearward of the cowl is excluded 

from the headform test area, these 

vehicles have hoods that would only 

have a Child Headform Test Area and 

would be tested only with a child 

headform. NHTSA is concerned that 

these designs may be particularly 

detrimental to shorter adult pedestrians 

who are more apt to strike the hood near 

the cowl than in the case of designs of 

predecessor vehicles whose cowls began 

at a higher WAD measurement. 

Extending the test area into the 

windshield may serve to disincentivize 

such designs by eliminating the 

compliance advantage that may come 

with limiting the hood size to 

WAD1700. Further, the windshield 

itself on these vehicles tends to be more 

horizontal than vertical, and so a larger 

portion of the windshield lies directly 

above and near the dashboard panel 

where there is less penetration depth to 

protect the head. The extended 

windshield (i.e., a windshield placed 

immediately beyond WAD1700) may 

also be stiffer than the portion of the 

hood that would otherwise have 

covered the same area. Extending the 

test area into the windshield may serve 

to protect pedestrians who may strike 

this stiffer portion of the windshield. 

NHTSA has also observed the 

development of automated rideshare 

vehicles and other modern EVs with 

very flat fronts, with the base of the 

windshield or windshield-like areas at 

very small WAD locations compared to 

traditional vehicles. For such vehicles, 

exclusion of the windshield-like areas 

would essentially permit the vehicle to 

not provide any form of pedestrian head 

protection. 

Finally, as we noted above, some of 

these automated vehicles appear to have 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76957 

117ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2021/28. 

118Euro NCAP Vulnerable Road User Testing 

Protocol https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/70319/ 

euro-ncap-vru-testing-protocol-v901.pdf. 

119NHTSA recognizes that moving the WAD line 

rearward to account for head impacts rearward of 

WAD2100 could bear on other aspects of the test 

procedure, such as the velocity of the headform 

impact in the test, because actual pedestrian head 

impact velocities are generally higher at WADs 

greater than 2100 mm. This means that, if the WAD 

line were moved rearward of WAD2100, the agency 

would carefully consider whether adjustments 

would be appropriate to the test procedure to 

ensure the continued relevance of the procedure 

relative to a real-world impact at WADs greater than 

2100 mm. 

a windshield-like area, but it is not a 

windshield in the traditional sense 

since it is not transparent. For such 

vehicles, the RRL would not exist since 

it is determined by inserting a 165 mm 

sphere into the cowl and against the 

windshield such that the sphere is in 

contact with the windshield and a point 

on the surface of the hood (usually its 

rear edge). For such vehicles, the rear 

boundary of the Hood Area and Adult 

Headform Test Area would be defined 

by the WAD2100 line. Comments are 

requested on how the test area should 

be determined for vehicles with no 

traditional windshield and on the merits 

of determining the rear boundary of the 

Hood Area and Adult Headform Test 

Area by WAD2100 for such vehicles, as 

would be the case for the proposed 

regulatory text. 

As for practicability, NHTSA has 

performed eleven tests into the 

windshield as part of the testing 

documented in table VII.1, below. Of 

those eleven tests, nine had HIC below 

1000 and the other two tests were HIC 

below 1700, which support a finding 

that testing of at least some portion of 

the windshield may be reasonable and 

practicable. 

It is the agency’s understanding that 

UNECE Reg. No. 127 has a proposal to 

specifically add the windshield as a 

new test area.117 This area is bound, in 

the front, by a line 100 mm rearward of 

the blacked-out (non-transparent) 

portion of the windshield base and in 

the rear by WAD2500 or a line 130 mm 

forward of the rear edge of the 

windshield, whichever is more forward 

at a given lateral position. The side 

border is 100 mm inside of the blackedout area. Adding the windshield to 

UNECE Reg. No. 127 would indicate the 

provisions of GTR 9 are appropriate for 

the windshield. 

• Given the above, there appears to be 

merit to including the windshield in a 

test area for FMVSS No. 228. The 

regulatory text of this NPRM does not 

include the windshield, but NHTSA is 

considering language for a final rule that 

would include the windshield. The 

NCAP RFC and various international 

NCAP programs that assess pedestrian 

safety (Euro NCAP, Japan NCAP, Korea 

NCAP, and Australian NCAP) include a 

head-to-windshield impact test area. In 

addition, a UNECE Reg. No. 127 

proposal also includes the windshield 

for testing. 

2. The next subject for consideration 

is the limitation of testing beyond 

WAD2100. Consistent with GTR 9, this 

NPRM’s regulatory text states that the 

rear border of the Adult Headform Test 

Area is either WAD2100 or the HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference 

Line, whichever is more forward. 

However, the ECE proposal mentioned 

above changes WAD2100 to WAD2500. 

That is, the rear border of the Adult 

Headform Test Area (‘‘Adult Bonnet 

Top Headform Test Area’’ in the ECE 

proposal) would be changed from the 

forwardmost of WAD2100 or the 82.5 

mm offset line, to the forwardmost of 

WAD2500 or the 82.5 mm offset line. 

The change to WAD2500 would 

increase the test area. We are also aware 

of similar changes to the Euro NCAP 

requirements being implemented in 

2023, with the area between WAD2100 

and WAD2500 being referred to as the 

Cyclist Zone.118 WAD2500 might extend 

past the windshield to the roof, and, 

under Euro NCAP procedures, the Apillars are tested. Any impacts to the 

roof under Euro NCAP procedures 

involve a 45-degree angle rather than 65 

degrees. We are considering similarly 

changing WAD2100 to WAD2500 for 

FMVSS No. 228. 

The specification of WAD2100 

recognizes that the point of head 

contact—relative to the height of the 

pedestrian—moves further rearward as 

pedestrian stature increases. WAD2100 

corresponds to the typical head impact 

location of a pedestrian with a height of 

1,750 mm for a vehicle speed of 40 km/ 

h. A height of 1,750 mm is 

approximately the height of a 50th 

percentile male. For most passenger cars 

and minivans, WAD2100 lies rearward 

of the Rear Reference Line (RRL) (which 

is at the cowl) so WAD2100 would not 

be consequential as it would not be used 

to define the rear border of the hood 

area. However, for some larger vehicles 

in the U.S., the WAD2100 line can be 

forward of the RRL, which means that 

WAD2100 would be the rear border of 

the testable area of the hood even 

though there could be parts of the hood 

rearward of that WAD2100 line.119

• We seek comment on moving the 

rear boundary of the test area consistent 

with using WAD2500 as the reference, 

rather than WAD2100. Such a change 

has been proposed for UNECE Reg. No. 

127 and Euro NCAP. We also seek 

comment on the need for a modified 

impact angle for the roof, if moving to 

a WAD2100 boundary results in 

headform testing in the A-pillar or roof 

areas. 

3. Another issue that arises in 

defining the Adult Headform Test Area 

rear boundary is that the GTR uses the 

most forward of either WAD2100 or the 

82.5 mm offset line. Figure VI.18 shows 

an example where the WAD2100 is the 

rear boundary of the Adult Headform 

Test Area. For the final rule, NHTSA is 

considering enlarging the test area 

rearward by considering the most 

rearward of these borders. 

• Regardless of any change to the 

WAD reference, we request comment on 

using the most rearward of the WAD 

line or offset line to define the rear 

boundary of the Adult Headform Test 

Area, rather than using the line that is 

most forward. 

4. We are also considering reducing 

the HIC Unlimited Area by using a 50 

mm (1.97 inch) offset line rather than an 

82.5 mm (3.25 inch) offset line at the 

rear of the Hood Top. This HIC 

Unlimited Margin at the rear of the 

Hood Top was originally written into 

the GTR to prevent a test anomaly 

where the headform could hit the 

windshield and the hood 

simultaneously. However, NHTSA 

believes that the use of the 165 mm 

sphere to define the RRL works 

adequately to prevent situations where 

the headform could contact the 

windshield and hood simultaneously. 

We also note that the NCAP RFC and 

Euro NCAP do not consider impact 

points on the hood that are a distance 

less than 50 mm from the Side 

Reference Line (SRL) measured in the 

lateral direction; i.e., they use what 

amounts to a 50 mm offset line rather 

than an 82.5 mm offset. 

• Accordingly, while the regulatory 

text of this NPRM uses an 82.5 mm 

Offset Line, NHTSA is considering 

using a 50 mm Offset Line rather that an 

82.5 mm Offset Line to define the rear 

HIC Unlimited Margin. The reduced 

Offset Line would make more of the 

hood on larger vehicles subject to 

headform testing. NHTSA requests 

comments on the merits of the agency’s 

adopting a 50 mm Offset Line in the 

final rule. 

5. Finally, we are considering and 

request comments on the merits of 

including the entire Hood Top as the 

testable area. This would mean the 

elimination of the HIC Unlimited Area 

completely, of both the Child and Adult 

Headform Test Areas, and expansion of 

the front test border to the LERL and the 

rear border to the RRL. We discuss this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76958 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

120 If the numerical value of two thirds of the 

Hood Area exceeds the combined Child and Adult 

Headform Test Area, the entire combined Child and 

Adult Headform Test Area must be HIC1000 Area. 

in more detail in section XI, Considered 

Alternatives. 

4. Corner Reference Point of the Child 

Headform Test Area 

Finally, we believe it is also necessary 

to define a corner reference point for the 

test areas (specifically the Child 

Headform Test Area), just as it is for the 

Hood Area. The rationale is the same as 

for the Hood Area, i.e., we need to 

clearly define the extent of the test area. 

There may be multiple intersections 

between the front border of the Child 

Headform Test Area (HIC Unlimited 

Margin of the LERL) and the side border 

of the Child Headform Test Area (HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the SRL). The 

definition would make clear that we 

would be using the most outboard 

intersection when there are multiple 

intersections of the front and side 

borders. This term would be called the 

‘‘Corner Reference Point of the Child 

Headform Test Area.’’ 

VII. Proposed Requirements and 

Assessing Compliance 

A. Amount of Hood Area That Must 

Conform to HIC1000 

Consistent with GTR 9, the regulatory 

text of this NPRM prescribes the amount 

of the Child and Adult Headform Test 

Areas that must conform to a HIC1000 

limit (HIC1000 Area). The remainder of 

the Child and Adult Headform Test 

Areas must be able to conform to a 

HIC1700 limit (HIC1700 Area). 

The basis for the minimum HIC1000 

Area is the size of the Hood Area. After 

the Hood Area is determined, the 

performance requirements would be 

applied as follows: 

(1) The numerical value of two thirds 

of the Hood Area is calculated. At least 

this amount of area, when placed within 

the boundary of the Combined Child 

and Adult Headform Test Area, must 

not exceed HIC1000.120 As we 

explained in section VI.C, the Child 

Headform Test Area and the Adult 

Headform Test Area are defined in a 

manner that excludes ‘‘HIC Unlimited’’ 

margins in the Hood Area. Thus, the 

requisite HIC1000 areas described in 

this paragraph (1) and in paragraph (2) 

(below) must fit into the respective 

headform test areas contained inside of 

the HIC Unlimited margins. 

(2) The numerical value of one-half of 

the Hood Area under WAD1700 is 

calculated. At least this amount of area, 

when placed within the boundary of the 

Child Headform Test Area, must not 

exceed HIC1000. 

(3) For all other tests, HIC must not 

exceed HIC1700. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.024</GPH>

- WAD2100 Forward 

HIC Unlimited Margin 

Figure VI.18. Example showing WAD2100 forward of the 82.5mm Offset Line, forming 

the rear boundary of the Adult Headform Test Area. 

For illustration purposes only. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76959 

121As discussed in section VIII.B below, there are 

pending proposed GTR 9 amendments that would 

substantially reduce the amount of required 

HIC1000 area. 

122 In drafting this NPRM, NHTSA decided it 

would not matter substantively if manufacturers 

had to identify the HIC1000 or the HIC1700 

portions, but identifying the HIC1700 portions 

seems more straightforward since that area would 

be smaller than the HIC1000 areas. 

123When marking off the vehicle as described in 

this NPRM, only the HIC1700 areas are derived 

from information supplied by the manufacturer. All 

other borders will be drawn up on each individual 

vehicle in accordance with the standard’s 

regulatory text and NHTSA’s compliance test 

procedure (TP); they need not be determined based 

on manufacturer information. 

124 If no HIC1700 area is provided by the 

manufacturer, the child or adult test areas would be 

tested as HIC1000 area. 

125We recognize the potential that dents caused 

by headform impacts on one part of the hood may 

affect the performance of the hood in subsequent 

tests, depending on location of the impacts. 

NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance 

(OVSC) will issue a test procedure guidance 

document that would describe the agency’s protocol 

for conducting a compliance test. The test 

procedure would explain NHTSA’s protocol for 

changing out hoods between impactor tests. 

In sum, under the provisions 

described above: 

• One-half of the numerical value of 

the Hood Area that lies below 

WAD1700, when placed in the Child 

Headform Test Area, must meet 

HIC1000. 

• At least two-thirds of the numerical 

value of the entire Hood Area, when 

placed within the Combined Child and 

Adult Headform Test Area, must meet 

the HIC1000 requirement. 

• In the event the numerical value of 

two-thirds of the Hood Area exceeds the 

Combined Child and Adult Headform 

Test Area, the entire Combined Child 

and Adult Headform Test Area must 

meet HIC1000. There would be no 

HIC1700 area. 

• There may be cases where there is 

no Adult Headform Test Area; in such 

cases, by definition, the Child Headform 

Test Area represents the entire test area. 

In that case, the one-half requirement in 

the Child Headform Test Area does not 

apply. Instead, the HIC recorded shall 

not exceed 1000 over two-thirds of the 

Hood Area when placed within the 

Child Headform Test Area, since it 

represents the entirety of the test area. 

For the remaining Child Headform Test 

Area, the HIC shall not exceed 1700. All 

tests in the Child Headform Test Area 

would be with the child headform. 

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would 

provide manufacturers considerable 

flexibility in designing their hoods to 

provide the protective HIC1000 area. 

They have the flexibility to account for 

hard points under the hood that prevent 

the hood from meeting HIC1000. As 

explained below, upon request, under 

NHTSA’s enforcement authority, they 

must report their design choices to 

NHTSA, so that the agency will know 

the locations of the HIC1700 areas and 

can assess the compliance of the vehicle 

based on that information.121

B. Manufacturer Designations of 

HIC1700 Areas 

Upon request and under the authority 

provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166, 

manufacturers would be required to 

identify to NHTSA the HIC1700 

portions of the test areas.122 The 

HIC1700 areas need not be continuous 

and are not limited in number. They 

may consist of an unlimited number of 

portions as long as the requisite 

HIC1000 area is met by the vehicle. 

However, a manufacturer must attest to 

the information by the time it certifies 

the vehicle, and the declaration would 

be irrevocable. Thus, in a compliance 

test, manufacturers would not be 

permitted to change the attestation and 

claim that an impact that was 

previously designated as being in the 

HIC1000 area is now in a HIC1700 area 

after the impact results in an HIC value 

above HIC1000. 

FMVSS No. 228 would place some 

conditions on manufacturers’ 

designations of HIC1700 areas. When 

the HIC1700 area is contiguous with 

reference lines, HIC Unlimited margins 

or WAD lines set forth in FMVSS No. 

228, the lines determined according to 

the standard would supersede any 

conflicting coordinates provided by the 

manufacturer. In other words, the 

borders as set forth in the standard are 

definitive and NHTSA will use the 

procedures to determine the relevant 

areas on the hood without manufacturer 

input.123 Upon request, manufacturers 

must tell NHTSA where the HIC1700 

areas are by providing coordinates or 

decals. If these coordinates or decals 

conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 

No. 228, NHTSA would conduct 

compliance tests using the reference 

lines of the test area borders as 

determined by the standard, and not the 

manufacturer’s description of the 

location of test area borders. 

To enable more efficient compliance 

testing, this NPRM specifies ways in 

which the HIC1700 areas would be 

disclosed to NHTSA. This NPRM 

proposes to require manufacturers to 

identify HIC1700 areas by providing the 

(x,y) coordinates of their borders 

referenced from the intersection of 

WAD1000 and the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle.124 The number 

of coordinates and the spacing of the 

coordinates would be provided at the 

discretion of the manufacturer, but the 

points would have to be joined by 

straight lines in the x–y plane when 

marking off the test areas of an actual 

vehicle. In lieu of (x,y) coordinates, we 

propose that the manufacturer could 

provide decals or templates with 

registration marks (marks used for 

alignment) referenced from the 

intersection of WAD1000 and the 

vehicle longitudinal centerline. 

Request for Comment on Allocating 

HIC1700 Area 

• Under the GTR, when the Adult 

Headform Test Area is relatively small 

compared to the Hood Area, it is 

possible in some instances for a 

manufacturer to define all of the adult 

area as HIC1700 Area and still meet the 

requirement that the numerical value of 

two-thirds of the Hood Area be HIC1000 

Area. In such an instance there would 

be no HIC1000 requirement for the adult 

headform. This raises a concern to us 

because then, real-world adult 

pedestrian head strikes would likely 

only be in HIC1700 area (and not in the 

more protective HIC1000 area). We 

request comment on whether the final 

rule should require that HIC1700 areas 

be allocated such that at least some 

HIC1000 area must be provided in the 

Adult Headform Test Area. 

C. First Point of Contact 

Under the proposed FMVSS No. 228 

test procedures, with the agency 

knowing the manufacturer’s information 

identifying the HIC1700 areas, NHTSA 

would launch a headform at the hood. 

The standard would take a simple 

approach to determine the HIC 

requirement that applies to a particular 

impact. For any given headform launch, 

NHTSA would identify the first point of 

contact between the headform and the 

hood. NHTSA’s proposed method of 

targeting areas on the hood and 

assigning HIC values through the first 

point of contact is consistent with 

NHTSA’s interpretation of GTR 9, and 

we refer to it as the ‘‘3D Method.’’ If the 

impact is in a HIC1000 area, the 

headform must measure a HIC equal to 

or less than 1000 for the vehicle to pass 

the test. If the impact is in a HIC1700 

area, the headform must measure a HIC 

equal to or less than 1700. We will test 

as many points on the hood as we deem 

necessary to assure the vehicle complies 

with the standard.125 If a test finds that 

the HIC is greater than the limit 

prescribed by the standard, we will 

investigate the finding as a potential 

noncompliance in accordance with 

NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance protocol. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76960 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

126With Contracting Parties like Japan and the 

E.U., situations like this are worked out between the 

manufacturer and the type approval authority. In 

contrast, the Safety Act provides for a selfcertification framework—so NHTSA does not 

approve vehicles before sale—and requires the 

FMVSS to be objective. This means that the FMVSS 

must be capable of producing identical results 

when tests are conducted in identical conditions 

and compliance must be based on scientific 

measurements, not on opinions that could vary 

from individual to individual and be subjective. 

127Reference 1—NHTSA ‘‘VRTC Pedestrian 

Research Activities’’ GTR No. 9 Informal Working 

Group Document #WP29–144–03 (2006); Reference 

2—Mallory A, et al. ‘‘Pedestrian GTR Testing of 

Current Vehicles’’ ESV (2007); Reference 3—Suntay 

B, et al. ‘‘Vehicle Hood Testing to Evaluate 

Pedestrian Headform Reproducibility, GTR No. 9 

Test Procedural Issues, and U.S. Fleet 

Performance,’’ NHTSA Docket NHTSA–2008–0145– 

0014 (2018); Reference 4—Suntay B, et al. 

‘‘Pedestrian Protection: U.S. Vehicle Fleet 

Assessment,’’ DOT HS 812 723 (2019); Reference 

5—Suntay B, et al. ‘‘Assessment of Hood Designs 

for Pedestrian Head Protection: Active Hood 

Systems,’’ DOT HS 812 762 (2020); Reference 6— 

Suntay B, et al. ‘‘Vehicle Assessment using 

Integrated Crash Avoidance and Crashworthiness 

Pedestrian Safety Test Procedures.’’ DOT HS 813 

521. 

128As explained earlier in this preamble, the 

‘‘HIC Unlimited Margin’’ is the inner boundary of 

the HIC Unlimited Area. 

We recognize the possibility that the 

first contact of the headform could 

occur at multiple points on the hood 

simultaneously due to the curvature of 

the hood and the headform, and that 

these points could lie in different test 

areas. For example, one point could lie 

in the HIC1000 portion of the Child 

Headform Test Area and another could 

lie in the HIC1700 of the Adult 

Headform Test Area. To address this 

problem, we propose to use a simple 

and common-sense approach to cover 

instances where the first contact occurs 

in more than one area: when such a 

situation arises, the more stringent 

requirement applies.126 For example, if 

first contact occurs in a child HIC1000 

area and a child HIC1700 area 

simultaneously, the HIC1000 

requirement applies for that particular 

launch location. If the first contact 

occurs in both the Child Headform Test 

Area and the Adult Headform Test Area 

(e.g., multiple simultaneous contact 

points), requirements for both 

headforms would need to be met. That 

is, NHTSA could perform more than one 

test of the same point with the different 

headforms. 

Proposed FMVSS No. 228 would not 

specify how many tests NHTSA would 

conduct on a particular hood or where 

precisely the headforms would be aimed 

(such as minimum spacing between the 

test points on the hood). NHTSA agrees 

with the drafters of the GTR that the 

specification of such points is not 

necessary because, for Contracting 

Parties such as the United States that 

use a self-certification regulatory 

framework, specifying the number of 

tests required for testing or the spacing 

of test points is unnecessary. Under 

NHTSA’s statutory framework and 

proposed FMVSS No. 228, it would be 

incumbent on vehicle manufacturers to 

ensure that their vehicles comply with 

all the impact zone requirements 

defined within the standard when tested 

by NHTSA. Accordingly, proposed 

FMVSS No. 228 does not specify these 

provisions. 

D. Consideration Related to the Amount 

of Test Area That Must Meet the 

HIC1000 and HIC1700 Limits 

In section VII.A, we explained the 

requirement for the amount of test area 

within the Child and Adult Headform 

Test Areas that must be capable of 

achieving HIC not greater than 1000. 

The basis for this amount of area is twothirds of the Hood Area, and the Hood 

Area by definition is always larger than 

the test area. Thus, more than two-thirds 

of the test area must be HIC1000 Area, 

and the remainder (less than two-thirds) 

must be HIC1700 Area. More than a 

decade and a half of agency testing with 

the pedestrian headform to the 

specifications of the GTR show that this 

level of performance is practicable. 

NHTSA’s pedestrian headform testing 

provides the data needed to understand 

the distribution of HIC outcomes on 

U.S. vehicle hood areas. Test data have 

been collected in numerous research 

studies 127 that have included 2001– 

2021 model year vehicles. These data, 

which also include 6 data points for 

1994 Honda Civic and 8 data points for 

1999 Dodge Dakota, provide the basis 

for the estimates in the PRIA. Over the 

years, this testing has kept NHTSA wellinformed about the evolving status of 

pedestrian protection for the U.S. 

vehicle fleet. A total of 344 headform 

impact tests were analyzed to 

understand the feasibility of meeting 

both HIC1000 and HIC1700 performance 

requirements in both central (within the 

Child and Adult Headform Test Areas) 

and peripheral (near/outside the HIC 

Unlimited Margin 128) areas of vehicle 

front ends. Out of the 272 tests, only 28 

(10.3%) of the impacts, regardless of 

impact location, failed to meet HIC1700 

(table VII.1). For tests within the Child 

and Adult Headform Test Areas, 75 of 

87 impacts (86.2%) met the HIC1000 

limit and another 10 impacts (11.5%) 

were between HIC1000 and HIC1700. 

Only 2 impacts (2.3%) within the Child 

and Adult Headform Test Area 

exceeded HIC1700. For tests near/ 

outside the HIC Unlimited Margin, 79 of 

185 impacts (42.7%) met HIC 1000. 

Further, when only model year 2010 or 

later vehicles are considered, there were 

only 8 instances out of 155 tests (5.2%) 

that were above HIC1700, including 

impacts in the HIC Unlimited Area. 

Again, restricting this to tests in the 

proposed test area, 34 of 40 impacts 

(85%) were below HIC1000, 5 of 40 

(12.5%) were between HIC1000 and 

HIC1700 and 1 of 40 (2.5%) was above 

HIC1700. 

This analysis is considered a 

conservative approximation of 

practicability (it underestimates the 

degree to which vehicles could meet the 

proposed limits) for four reasons. 

First, 109 of these 272 tests were 

conducted at the NCAP RFC and Euro 

NCAP test velocity of 40 km/h, which 

is higher than the 35 km/h speed 

proposed here. The HIC outcomes in 

those tests would be expected to be 

lower if the proposed 35 km/h impact 

speed were employed at those same 

impact locations. On the other hand, the 

33 tests included in the Ref. 1 study 

were conducted at 32 km/h since, at the 

time that research was performed, the 

draft GTR procedure specified that 

lower impact speed. Those same tests 

would be expected to have slightly 

higher HIC at a speed of 35 km/hr. All 

of those test outcomes were included in 

the analysis; however, it should be 

noted that there were over three times 

as many tests at 40 km/hr as there were 

at 32 km/h in the sample. Second, as 

noted earlier, vehicle designs have 

gotten more protective over the years as 

evidenced by the lower HIC outcomes in 

more recent vehicles. 

Third, we note that certain tests have 

not been included in our analysis of 

practicability, but note them here for 

completeness. Eleven NHTSA tests into 

the windshield were not included since 

the windshield is not covered by the 

GTR. However, of those eleven tests, 

nine had HIC below 1000 and the other 

two tests had HIC below 1700, which 

supports a finding that the HIC 1000 

and 1700 limits are reasonable and 

practicable. Finally, six tests on fully 

deployed pop-up hood systems from 

two vehicles (see Ref. 5) were not 

included in this analysis, since those 

tests included European-market-only 

hood actuator components installed on 

a U.S. vehicle and it is unclear how 

such vehicles would have been 

configured if FMVSS No. 228 were in 

place. Nonetheless, all six of those tests 

had HIC below 1000. Taken together, 

inclusion of these additional data would 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76961 

129The only vehicle tested by NHTSA where this 

occurred was on the 2004 GM Savana. For this 

vehicle the numerical value of the two thirds of the Hood Area was essentially the same as the Test 

Area. 

indicate 17 tests with HIC below 1700 

and 15 of 17 with HIC below 1000. 

TABLE VII.1—DISTRIBUTION OF HIC OUTCOMES IN NHTSA TESTING

[MY 2001–2021 vehicles] 

Source of data (vehicle model years) 

Child/adult test area Near/outside HIC unlimited margin 

# Tests HIC <1000 HIC <1700 # Tests HIC <1000 HIC <1700 

Ref. 1 (2001–2004) .................................................................. 11 11 11 22 12 19 

Ref. 2 (1999–2006) .................................................................. 36 30 35 48 9 32 

Ref. 3 (2010–2011) .................................................................. ................ .................... .................... 46 26 46 

Ref. 4 (2015–2017) .................................................................. 31 26 31 51 21 46 

Ref. 5 (2014) ............................................................................ 1 0 0 2 0 0 

Ref. 6 (2016–2021) .................................................................. 8 8 8 16 11 16 

Total .................................................................................. 87 75 85 185 79 159 

Pct within HIC req. ................................................................... ................ 86.2% 97.7% ................ 42.7% 85.9% 

* Note that impact locations with respect to the HIC Unlimited Margin needed to be estimated in some cases where the margin was unknown. 

Also note that tests in this analysis included impact speeds from 32–40 km/h. Therefore, these numbers should only be considered approximate 

with respect to the proposed 35 km/h test speed and HIC Unlimited Margin locations on future vehicle front ends. 

NHTSA understands that these data 

represent discrete points on the hood 

surface tested in the program and do not 

describe the performance of any 

particular vehicle hood in its totality. 

Nonetheless, taken together, the analysis 

of existing NHTSA-performed 

pedestrian head impact testing indicates 

that the proposed compliance limits and 

requirements for proposed FMVSS No. 

228 are practicable for U.S. vehicles. 

E. Considerations for Expansion of Test 

Area When It Is Less Than Two Thirds 

of the Numerical Value of the Hood 

Area 

Although very rare, based on the 

vehicles tested by NHTSA, it appears 

possible for the numerical value of two 

thirds of the Hood Area to exceed the 

Combined Child and Adult Headform 

Test Area.129 While this can only occur 

when the test area is very small, NHTSA 

would like to make clear that, in this 

situation, the proposal requires that the 

entire Combined Child and Adult 

Headform Test Area be HIC1000 Area. 

Stated differently, for such a vehicle, if 

there is no ‘‘remaining area,’’ there 

would be no HIC1700 Area. We believe 

this view of the proposed standard is 

consistent with GTR 9, but GTR 9 does 

not appear to set forth any explicit 

contingencies for this occurrence. 

NHTSA takes the view that the entire 

Combined Child and Adult Headform 

Test Area must meet HIC1000 out of a 

concern that permitting a HIC1700 area 

for such a vehicle would result in less 

than two thirds of the Hood Area being 

tested to the HIC1000 threshold. This 

means that such a vehicle would 

provide less protection to pedestrians 

than all other vehicles (with larger 

hoods). Moreover, to address and 

improve upon this situation, NHTSA is 

considering expanding the test area to 

encompass at least two thirds of the 

Hood Area on these vehicles when the 

test area, as currently defined, is smaller 

than two thirds of the Hood Area. The 

entirety of the test area would remain 

HIC1000 Area to remain consistent with 

the provision that the numerical value 

of two thirds of the Hood Area be 

HIC1000 Area. NHTSA requests 

comment on whether the test area 

increase should simply be a 

proportional expansion of the entire test 

area. 

VIII. GTR 9 Terminology and 

Amendment 3 

In drafting the regulatory text of this 

NPRM, one of NHTSA’s goals has been 

to produce a proposal that has a high 

degree of fidelity to GTR 9. However, we 

have found the need to define some 

terms in a slightly different way than 

the GTR to produce an objective 

standard that meets the requirements of 

the Safety Act and the needs of the selfcertification environment in the United 

States. In this section, we highlight 

some of the differences in terminology 

between GTR 9 and FMVSS No. 228, 

after which we provide details related 

to, and request comments on, an 

‘‘Amendment 3’’ proposal that has since 

2021 reemerged as the source of 

potential revisions to GTR 9. 

A. Comparison of Terminology 

As we explained in section VI of this 

preamble, the major components that 

constitute the hood are the Hood Top, 

Hood Area, Child Headform Test Area, 

Adult Headform Test Area and HIC 

Unlimited Area. In some cases, GTR 9 

uses identical or very similar 

terminology; however, the terminology 

sometimes does not have the same 

meaning. In other cases, the terminology 

is different or the terms do not exist. 

Table VIII.3 references the terms defined 

in FMVSS No. 228 (first column) and 

the related terms in GTR 9 (second 

column). The focus here is on the terms 

used to define the hood surface and 

tested area. 

The term Hood Top and its related 

borders, shown in rows 1–4 of table 

VIII.3, has equivalents in GTR 9, i.e., 

Bonnet Top, Side Reference Line, etc. 

The term Hood Area in FMVSS No. 228 

is represented in GTR 9 by the 

combined child headform test area and 

adult headform test area. We note that 

the GTR 9 child headform test area and 

adult headform test area are larger than 

the similarly named areas in FMVSS 

No. 228, because GTR 9 does not 

subtract the HIC Unlimited Area from 

the GTR child and adult headform test 

areas. Just as the Hood Area forms the 

basis of the amount of area needing to 

have a HIC of 1000 or less in this NPRM, 

GTR 9 states at S5.2.3 that ‘‘two thirds 

of the combined child and adult 

headform test areas’’ must meet this 

requirement. Hood Area and the 

analogous GTR terms are shown in rows 

5–8 of table VIII.3. 

The area described in the ‘‘Child 

Headform Test Area’’ term in FMVSS 

No. 228 is not described by a specific 

term in GTR 9. However, an equivalent 

set of borders for defining the area is 

provided in S7.3.2 of GTR No. 9 (see 

table VIII.1). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76962 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.1 

S7.3.2 of GTR 9 

Selected impact points on the bonnet for the child headform impactor shall be, at the time of first contact: 

(a) a minimum of 82.5 mm inside the defined side reference lines, and; 

(b) forward of the WAD1700 line, or, 

a minimum of 82.5 mm forwards of the bonnet rear reference line, 

—whichever is most forward at the point of measurement, and; 

(c) be rearward of the WAD1000 line, or, 

a minimum of 82.5 mm rearwards of the bonnet leading edge reference line, 

—whichever is most rearward at the point of measurement. 

Rows 9–12 in table VIII.3 show the 

corresponding regulatory text sections 

related to Child Headform Test Area. 

Similarly, ‘‘Adult Headform Test 

Area’’ in FMVSS No. 228 does not have 

an equivalent term in GTR 9. However, 

an equivalent set of borders for 

restricting the testing is provided in 

S7.4.2 (see table VIII.2) 

TABLE VIII.2 

S7.4.2 of GTR 9 

Selected impact points on the bonnet for the adult headform impactor shall be, at the time of first contact: 

(a) a minimum of 82.5 mm inside the defined side reference lines, and; 

(b) forward of the WAD2100 line, or, 

a minimum of 82.5 mm forward of the bonnet rear reference line, 

whichever is most forward at the point of measurement, and; 

(c) rearward of the WAD1700 line. 

Rows 13–16 in table VIII.3 show the 

corresponding regulatory text sections 

related to Adult Headform Test Area. 

Although there are terminology 

differences between FMVSS No. 228 

and GTR 9, the regulatory text of this 

NPRM is essentially aligned with GTR 

9. To the extent there are differences, 

the differences would enable the 

proposed standard to meet Safety Act 

requirements. As discussed throughout 

this preamble, however, the NPRM’s 

regulatory text reflects the wording of 

the GTR to benchmark the GTR’s 

concepts and methods implemented as 

an FMVSS. NHTSA has requested 

comments on the pros and cons of 

various aspects of the NPRM’s 

regulatory text, particularly with respect 

to the areas of the vehicle that would be 

subject to headform testing under the 

GTR’s wording, and has focused readers 

on ways NHTSA believes the regulatory 

text could possibly be enhanced to 

achieve more safety benefits in the U.S. 

TABLE VIII.3—COMPARISON OF TERMS USED TO HOOD SURFACE AND TEST AREA IN FMVSS NO. 228 AND GTR 9 

Row No. FMVSS No. 228 GTR 9 

1 .............. Leading Edge Reference Line (S6.3.2) ...................................................... Bonnet leading edge reference line (S3.5). 

2 .............. Side Reference Line (S6.3.3) ...................................................................... Side reference line (S3.24). 

3 .............. Rear Reference Line (S6.3.4) ..................................................................... Bonnet rear reference line (S3.6). 

4 .............. Hood Top (S6.5.1) ....................................................................................... Bonnet Top (S3.7). 

5 .............. Hood Area (S6.5.2) ..................................................................................... Combined child and adult headform test areas (S3.12 

and S3.1). 

6 .............. Hood Area front border (S6.5.2(a)) ............................................................. Front reference line of the child headform test area 

(S3.15). 

7 .............. Hood Area side border (S6.5.2(b)) ............................................................. Side reference line of the child and adult headform test 

areas (S3.12 and S3.1). 

8 .............. Hood Area rear border (S6.5.2(c)) .............................................................. Rear reference line for adult headform (S3.23). 

9 .............. Child Headform Test Area (S6.5.3) ............................................................ No equivalent term defined, but essentially dictated by 

S7.3.2. 

10 ............ Child Headform Test Area front border (S6.5.3(a)) = HIC Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge Reference Line (S6.4.2).No equivalent term defined, but essentially dictated by 

S7.3.2(c). 

11 ............ Child Headform Test Area side border (S6.5.3(b)) = HIC Unlimited Margin of the Side Edge Reference Line (S6.4.3).No equivalent term defined, but essentially dictated by 

S7.3.2(a). 

12 ............ Child Headform Test Area rear border (S6.5.3(c)) ..................................... No equivalent term defined, but essentially dictated by 

S7.3.2(b). 

13 ............ Adult Headform Test Area (S6.5.4) ............................................................ No equivalent term defined, but essentially dictated by 

S7.4.2. 

14 ............ Adult Headform Test Area front border (S6.5.4(a)) .................................... No equivalent term defined, but essentially dictated by 

S7.4.2(c). 

15 ............ Adult Headform Test Area side border (S6.5.4(b)) = HIC Unlimited Margin of the Side Edge Reference Line (S6.4.3).No equivalent term defined, but essentially dictated by 

S7.4.2(a). 

16 ............ Adult Headform Test Area rear border (S6.5.4(c)) = HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference Line (S6.4.1).No equivalent term defined, but essentially dictated by 

S7.4.2(b). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76963 

130OICA was actively involved in the working 

group meetings developing GTR 9. OICA’s website 

states that its members represent the global auto 

industry. It is known as the ‘‘Organisation 

Internationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles 

(OICA).’’ www.oica.net. 131Proposal of Amendments to GTR 9 (Pedestrian 

safety), WP.29 Informal document GRSP–49–09, 

49th GRSP Meeting, 16–20 May 2011. https://

unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29grsp/GRSP49-09e.pdf. 

132ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/148, https://

unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29/ECE-TRANSWP29-2011-148e.pdf. 

133ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, https://

unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2014/wp29grsp/ECETRANS-WP29-GRSP-2014-05e.pdf. 

134TWSG–01–04—ECE–TRANS–WP29–2021– 

053e, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/ 

ECE-TRANS-WP29-2021-053e.pdf. 

135 In advance of the publication of this NPRM, 

NHTSA received a letter from the Alliance for 

Automotive Innovation (Innovators) restating 

support of the interpretation of the GTR 9 that 

aligns with the proposed GTR amendment. (The 

letter can be found in the docket for this NPRM.) 

Additionally, in December 2022, NHTSA and the 

Innovators met at the latter’s request to discuss the 

same topic. An ex parte memo documenting this 

meeting can also be found in the docket. 

B. Amendment 3 

As early as 2011, in discussions at 

WP.29, the International Organization of 

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) 130

suggested an amendment to the GTR 

that would have changed the existing 

GTR protocol as well as the method of 

determining the allotment of HIC1000 

and HIC1700 Area (discussed above in 

section VII of this preamble).131 This 

suggested proposal was then officially 

taken up by the Netherlands in 

November 2011.132 The proposal was 

revised and listed at the 55th GRSP 

meeting (May 2014) as Amendment to 

Phase 1.133 Action on this document 

was deferred for many years, until a 

2021 version (Amendment 3) submitted 

by the Economic Commission for 

Europe was brought back up for 

discussion for a possible introduction 

into GTR 9.134 NHTSA had concerns 

about the suggested amendment and did 

not support it in either the 2011 or 2021 

form and the suggestion, to date, has not 

been adopted. Below we discuss the two 

main aspects of the proposal. The first 

significantly reduces the amount of test 

area that must conform to a test value 

with a HIC1000 limit. The second 

changes the way test target points are 

determined, which has the potential to 

shrink the amount of test area at the HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the Side Reference 

Line. We discuss these changes here and 

seek comment because domestic auto 

manufacturers have recently contacted 

NHTSA to express support for 

Amendment 3.135

1. Change to the Amount of Area That 

Must Comply With HIC1000 

One of the main changes proposed by 

Amendment 3 relates to how the child 

headform test area and adult headform 

test area are defined in GTR 9. 

Currently, the GTR 9 combined adult 

headform test area and child headform 

test area are equivalent to the FMVSS 

No. 228 Hood Area. Essentially, the new 

Amendment 3 definitions of adult 

headform test area and child headform 

test area would bring the areas 

described in the definitions into 

alignment with how the Child Headform 

Test Area and Adult Headform Test 

Area are defined in proposed FMVSS 

No. 228, as explained in section VI.C of 

this preamble, i.e., these areas are 

defined as being within the 82.5 mm 

offset lines. However, GTR 9 at S5.2.3 

maintains the requirement that twothirds of the combined adult headform 

test area and child headform test area 

is required to have a HIC of 1000 or less. 

This test area is renamed the bonnet top 

test area. Thus, as a result of the 

Amendment 3 definitional changes, the 

amount of HIC1000 area would now be 

based on a smaller amount of area. 

NHTSA has not supported this change 

because it would reduce the stringency 

of the GTR 9 by decreasing the amount 

of HIC1000 area and increasing the 

amount of HIC1700 area. 

The agency analyzed a regulatory 

approach incorporating the aspect of 

Amendment 3 related to a reduction of 

the HIC1000 area. The PRIA discusses 

this approach as Alternative 1. This 

analysis includes a cost teardown study 

and assumes the costs associated with 

meeting the requirements are similar for 

a regulatory alternative incorporating 

Amendment 3 and the proposed rule. 

The details of this analysis can be found 

in the PRIA for this NPRM. The 

equivalent life saved (ELS) estimate and 

cost per ELS of Amendment 3 compared 

to the proposed rule are shown in table 

VIII.4 below. The monetized benefits 

and net benefits of Amendment 3 

compared to the proposed rule are 

shown in table VIII.5. In comparison to 

the proposed rule, the equivalent lives 

saved under a regulatory alternative 

incorporating Amendment 3 are 

approximately 59% of that under the 

proposed rule. Under the assumption 

that the costs are the same for both the 

regulatory alternative and proposed 

rule, the cost per ELS under 

Amendment 3 is nearly double that of 

the proposed rule. Lastly, net benefits 

under Amendment 3 are approximately 

55% of the benefits of the proposed 

rule. 

TABLE VIII.4—COMPARISON OF COST PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED (ELS) 

[Millions] 

Regulatory approach 

Cost Equivalent lives saved Cost per equivalent life saved 

3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 

GTR 9 Amendment 3 (PRIA Alternative #1) ........... $60.43 48.94 32.28 26.20 $1.87 $1.87 

Proposed Rule ......................................................... 60.43 48.94 54.87 44.46 1.1.0 1.10 

TABLE VIII.5—COMPARISON OF MONETIZED AND NET BENEFITS FOR PROPOSED RULE AND AMENDMENT 3 

[Millions] 

Regulatory option 

Monetized benefits Net benefits 

3% 7% 3% 7% 

GTR 9 Amendment 3 (PRIA Alternative #1) ................................................................... $384.51 $312.09 $324.08 $263.15 

Proposed Rule ................................................................................................................. 653.76 529.74 593.33 480.79 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

I I I I 
76964 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2. Change From 3D Method to 2D 

Targeting Method 

The second significant change 

proposed by Amendment 3 is related to 

the targeting method to determine the 

point on the test surface that is assigned 

the HIC value from the impact test. As 

we stated previously, NHTSA’s 

proposed method of targeting areas on 

the hood and assigning HIC values 

through the first point of contact is 

consistent with GTR 9, and we refer to 

it as the ‘‘3D Method.’’ NHTSA believes 

GTR 9 is sufficiently objective using the 

3D Method and that Amendment 3 

would not improve the objectivity of the 

regulation. 

We refer to the Amendment 3 

suggested method as the ‘‘2D Measuring 

Point Method’’ or, for simplicity, the 

‘‘2D Method’’ in the discussion below. 

Under the 2D Method, the contact point 

between the mid-sagittal plane of the 

headform and the hood, referred to as 

the ‘‘measure point’’ in the GTR 

amendment, serves to define whether 

HIC1000 or HIC1700 applies to the 

particular impact. The ‘‘2D measure 

point’’ is established prior to a launch 

and the HIC limit is assigned to that 

point. Proponents of the amendment 

argued that the 2D Method improved 

objectivity over the 3D Method because, 

with the 3D Method, the first point of 

contact may be related to multiple 

lateral headform launch positions. 

To illustrate, figure VIII.1 is a top 

down and rearward-looking view of a 

hood with a sharp bend in the lateral 

plane. Because of this sharp transition 

in the hood profile, it is possible for the 

headform impactor to contact the same 

or nearly the same point (first point of 

contact, which in this case is the sharp 

transition point) for different launch 

positions of the headform. However, 

both the 2D and 3D Methods will have 

the same range of headform launch 

positions that would result in the first 

point of contact at the sharp transition. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.025</GPH>

Top Down View 

Impact Point and 

3D Method Point 

Assignment 

Hood (cross-section) 

Front View 

Hood and Fender 

Supporting structure 

Fender 

;?,,-- 2D Method 

Measurement Point 

Assignments 

Fender (cross-section) 

Figure VIII.1. Range of test positions that impact the same point on a sharp transition. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76965 

136Manufacturers must certify compliance with 

any first point of contact to the require HIC limit 

for that location, irrespective of the launch 

position(s) of the of the headform. 

As explained above, in the 2D 

Method, the 2D measure point on the 

hood is established prior to a launch 

and the pre-test position of the 

headform is determined by aligning the 

mid-sagittal plane of the headform to 

that point. Although proponents of the 

2D Method argued that this method of 

pre-determining the test point on the 

hood and assigning the test results to 

that point improves objectivity of the 

test, NHTSA disagrees. For the hood 

profile shown in figure VIII.1, the test 

results for a range of 2D measure points 

will be associated with the headform 

impacting the same hood location (the 

sharp transition). NHTSA believes this 

situation creates ambiguity rather than 

improves objectivity because in some 

instances, the HIC assignment for a 

point might not be related to the point 

being impacted. As illustrated in figure 

VIII.1, the HIC values were assigned to 

points on the slope, from an impact 

location further up the slope. In 

contrast, the 3D Method is more 

representative of real-world impacts as 

it assigns each test result to its 

corresponding location of impact (first 

contact point) (see figure VIII.2). 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

Additionally, in the 3D Method both 

the lateral pre-test position of the 

headform as well as the first point of 

contact are known, which enables 

NHTSA to fully define each test in a 

compliance proceeding.136 This makes 

each test objective and highly 

repeatable. Thus, we see no reason to 

favor the 2D Method over the 3D 

Method based on claims of improved 

objectivity. 

NHTSA is also concerned about the 

safety implications of the 2D Method. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.026</GPH>

Top Down View 

Front View 

Hood (cross,.section) 

Supporting structure 

Fender 

3D Method - First 

Point of Contact 

Assigned to Impact 

Points 

Fender (cross;.section) 

Figure VIII.2. -3D Method Assigns HIC Value to Actual Contact Location. 
76966 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

137 Details of these tests can be found in: Suntay 

B and Stammen, JA (2014), Vehicle hood testing to 

estimate pedestrian headform reproducibility, GTR 

No. 9 test procedural issues, and U.S. fleet 

performance 138 Koetje B and Grabowski J. A Methodology for 

the Geometric Standardization of Vehicle Hoods to 

Compare Real-World Pedestrian Crash; Annuals of 

Advances in Automotive Medicine. 2008; 52: 193– 

198. 

139An analysis of the potential costs and benefits 

of pedestrian head-to-hood impact protection, 

NHTSA Office of Regulatory Analysis, NHTSA 

Docket 91–43, Notice 1, document No. 3, January 

1990. A copy of this document is in the docket for 

this NPRM. 

The 2D Method can result in a smaller 

test area, particularly on hoods that 

have a downward slope at the sides of 

the vehicle (See figure VIII.5). In this 

figure, the more outboard headform 

indicates valid positions that would be 

tested by the 3D Method. Conversely, 

the valid positions tested by the 2D 

Method are shown by the more inboard 

position, where the mid-sagittal plane of 

the headform aligns with the HIC 

Unlimited Margin. As can be seen, the 

methods used result in different test 

area, with the 2D Method decreasing the 

size of the area tested. In our own 

testing of six vehicles of model year 

2011 or later, we observed that the 2D 

Method moved the impact point further 

inboard for five of the six vehicles we 

tested (and by as much as 46 mm for 

one vehicle). As expected, because hood 

edges are reinforced, HIC scores were 

lower when the headform was further 

inboard. Those data are consistent with 

NHTSA testing that has shown that 

these perimeter locations may produce 

higher HIC levels compared to the rest 

of the hood.137

Previous real-world studies have 

shown that many pedestrian head 

impacts take place along the hoodfender junction. One study found the 

most severe head injuries concentrated 

towards the outer third of the hood.138

As far back as our 1990 era standards 

development effort, we observed an 

incidence rate of about 20% along the 

sides.139 NHTSA is not aware of 

research indicating that this rate has 

gotten or will get lower. Thus, NHTSA 

believes the reduction in safety using 

the 2D Method could be significant and 

has decided not to include the method 

in this NPRM. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76967 

140Mizuno, Y, Summary of IHRA Pedestrian 

Safety WG Activities (2005)—Proposed Test 

Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian Protection Afforded 

by Passenger Cars. ESV 05–0138. 

141Schneider, L.W., Robbins, D.H., Pflu ̈ g, M.A., 

and Snyder, R.G. (1983). Anthropometry of Motor 

Vehicle Occupants: Development of 

anthropometrically based design specifications for 

an advanced adult anthropomorphic dummy 

family, Volume 1. Final report DOT–HS–806–715. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

142Based on 2007–2010 NHANES from http://

tools.openlab.psu.edu/tools/explorer.php. Head 

mass is assumed to be proportional to the volume 

of a sphere with a circumference equal to the 

measured head circumference. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

IX. Headform Characteristics 

A. General 

The proposed headform impactors are 

hemispherical and completely 

featureless. The mass of the child 

headform is 3.5 kg and that of the adult 

headform is 4.5 kg. During the 

development of the GTR, researchers 

attempted to determine the appropriate 

‘‘effective mass’’ of the headforms to 

account for the influence of the neck/ 

torso mass on the force the head would 

impart to the hood. The researchers 

determined that, averaged over a variety 

of vehicle shapes, the ‘‘effective mass’’ 

was comparable to the head mass 

itself.140 Thus the masses selected 

represent both the ‘‘effective masses’’ 

and actual masses of an average 6-yearold child and a 50th percentile adult 

male. The mass for a 5th percentile 

female head is 3.7 kg.141 Using 

anthropometric data of adult female 

head circumference, we can estimate the 

female head mass percentile for both the 

child and adult headform.142 The 3.5 kg 

mass of the child headform represents a 

1st percentile female head mass and the 

4.5 kg mass of the adult headform 

represents a 64th percentile female head 

mass. Thus, these headform masses 

represent a range of pedestrian sizes 

from small children, 64 percent of all 

female adults, and up to the average 

adult male. The effective mass is the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.027</GPH>

Most Outboard 20 

Method Impactor 

Location 

Hood 

Top Down View 

Front View 

First Contact 

for 20 Method 

~ 

HIC Unlimited Area 

Margin Boundary 

Fender 

1,-- Most Outboard 30 

I 

/

1 Method Impactor 

Location 

~ First Contact 

for 30 method 

Hood Side 

Edge 

Fender 

Figure VIII.5. 3D Method allows for a more outboard test position than the 2D Method. 
76968 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

143 Irwin A and Mertz HJ (1997), Biomechanical 

basis for the CRABI and Hybrid III child dummies, 

41st Stapp Car Crash Conference, 1997. 

144Humanetics Corp., Farmington Hills MI, 

formally FTSS, and Cellbond, Huntingdon, United 

Kingdom. 

145 ‘‘Qualification limits’’ set parameters to ensure 

test devices are functioning properly. Test devices 

(e.g., headforms) are subjected to a prescribed test 

protocol and are deemed acceptable if they provide 

measurements within the qualification limit. If the 

qualification limits are not met, the agency will 

adjust the device (headform) until the qualification 

limits are met or discard the device (headform), 

deeming it insufficiently reliable for use in a 

compliance test. A ‘‘narrowing’’ of the qualification 

limit means that less variation in the performance 

of the test devices at issue would be acceptable to 

NHTSA compared to a qualification limit that had 

a wider tolerance as to acceptable performance. 

estimated head mass that is applied to 

the hood by a struck pedestrian and 

includes an allowance for the body force 

acting through the neck during the head 

impact. Effective head mass has been 

estimated via laboratory tests with 

pedestrian dummies and postmortem 

human subjects (PMHS), and through 

mathematical modelling of pedestrian 

collisions. 

The diameter of the proposed 

headforms is 165 mm for both the child 

and adult headforms. The average crosssectional axis of a 6-year-old child head 

in the transverse plane at its forehead is 

about 165 mm (circumference is 523 

mm according to Irwin, 1997).143 For an 

adult, the head is more elliptical at the 

forehead cross-section and 165 mm falls 

between the breadth (154 mm) and 

depth (197 mm) of a 50th percentile 

male. 

Each headform would have three 

parts: an aluminum hemisphere, a 

synthetic covering, and an end plate. 

The main hemisphere of each headform 

is hollowed out to eliminate internal 

corners and mitigate low-frequency 

resonance. The lighter hemisphere has a 

deeper cavity to achieve the same 165 

mm diameter as the heavier, adult 

headform. Both the proposed child and 

adult headforms have vinyl coverings 

and the headforms and coverings 

together are designed to achieve a 

specific system response. 

The proposed headform end plates are 

bolted onto the hemisphere and hold 

the synthetic coverings in place. This 

NPRM specifies the material and 

dimensions of the end plates. A triaxial 

arrangement of accelerometers is 

mounted on the inner surface of each 

end plate such that they are located at 

the centroid of the headforms. 

Each combination of hemisphere, 

synthetic covering, and end plate 

(including accelerometers and their 

mount blocks) would assure that the 

center of gravity of the complete 

headform is coincident with the 

geometric center of the spheroid (i.e., 

the centroid) while attaining a moment 

of inertia that is representative of a 6- 

year-old child (for the child headform) 

and a 50th percentile adult male (for the 

adult headform). 

A complete set of drawings for each 

headform is provided as part of the 

regulatory text of proposed FMVSS No. 

228 in figures 13–27. The drawings are, 

to NHTSA’s knowledge, consistent with 

the current production of two known 

manufacturers of headforms that the 

agency has used in testing and 

evaluation described in section IX.C .144

In some cases, dimensions have been 

purposefully made ‘‘reference’’ 

dimensions to facilitate flexibility in 

producing headforms such as those 

evaluated headforms. GTR 9 does not 

provide this level of specificity and only 

provides headform schematics such as 

are included in figures 11 and 12 in the 

proposed regulatory text. Contrary to 

that approach, the agency believes there 

is benefit to providing more detailed 

drawing dimensions, as we have done 

in figures 13–27. These detailed 

drawings should allow any entity 

wishing to produce a headform that can 

be used in FMVSS No. 228 to simply 

meet the provided dimensions. 

However, consistent with GTR 9, the 

notes provided on the headform 

drawings specify that headform 

dimensions may be modified as long as 

a set of specifications of the drawings is 

met. These specifications pertain to the 

impactor mass, diameter, skin material 

and thickness, center of gravity, moment 

of inertia, accelerometer mounting, 

accelerometer damping, qualification 

limits and natural frequency. The 

agency requests comment on the 

approach taken with the headform 

drawings. Should the agency take an 

even more prescriptive approach than 

has been proposed or should it take a 

less prescriptive approach similar to 

GTR 9? 

B. Qualification Limits 

This NPRM proposes a set of pre-test 

qualification limits to ensure the 

headforms are functioning properly.145

The qualification tests are also intended 

to assure that the impact responses of 

the headforms are uniform. NHTSA’s 

regulation for anthropomorphic test 

devices (49 CFR part 572) specifies 

qualification tests and limits for all 

anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) 

used in the FMVSSs. 

The proposed qualification tests are 

headform drop tests. The proposed 

qualification requirements are based on 

the peak resultant acceleration 

measured within the headform in the 

qualification test. The test apparatus is 

shown in figure 12 of proposed FMVSS 

No. 228, infra. 

The proposed apparatus and 

procedure have been adapted from those 

used to qualify the headforms of ATDs 

specified in 49 CFR part 572. The 

proposed test for the child headform 

was adapted from the test used for the 

Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy (part 

572, subpart N), while the proposed test 

for the adult headform was adapted 

from the test for the Hybrid III 50th 

percentile adult male (part 572, subpart 

E). In the proposed tests, the headform 

is suspended at a height of 376 mm and 

a drop angle of 50 degrees and 65 

degrees, with respect to the vertical, for 

the child and adult headforms, 

respectively. 

For each pedestrian headform, there 

would be qualification tests consisting 

of three head drops with the headform 

rotated 120° around its symmetrical axis 

after each drop. We propose that the 

resultant acceleration of the child 

headform must fall between 245–300 g’s 

for drops at each rotation. For the adult 

headform, the proposed limits are 225– 

275 g’s. The limits are the same as those 

currently in part 572 for headform 

qualification of the Hybrid III 6-year-old 

child and Hybrid III 50th percentile 

adult male test dummies. These G-limits 

represent ±10 percent of the midpoint of 

data obtained from headform drops in 

tests conducted for the Hybrid III 6-yearold and 50th percentile adult male 

dummies. In addition, we propose 

requirements for off-axis sensitivity and 

a unimodal response, as well as a 

protocol to clean the headform prior to 

qualification testing to improve 

repeatability. These factors are in 

addition to GTR 9 specifications and are 

based on NHTSA’s years of testing and 

qualifying headforms. They would be 

consistent with other part 572 headform 

requirements. 

C. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

The headforms have been shown to 

produce repeatable and reproducible 

results. Repeatability is defined as the 

similarity of responses from a single 

headform when subjected to multiple 

repeats of a given test condition. 

Reproducibility is defined as the 

similarity of test responses from 

multiple headforms when subjected to 

multiple repeats of a given test 

condition. NHTSA assessed the 

repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) 

of the headforms in qualification drop 

tests and actual hood tests. 

1. Headform Drop Tests 

In headform drop tests, we assessed 

the R&R of child and adult headforms 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76969 

146Suntay B and Stammen, JA (August 2018), 

Vehicle hood testing to estimate pedestrian 

headform reproducibility, GTR 9 test procedural issues, and U.S. fleet performance. Docket NHTSA– 

2008–0145–0014. 

manufactured by two different 

manufacturers, Cellbond and FTSS.146

As part of this assessment, we also 

varied the type of accelerometer 

installed within the headform. We ran 

two sets of qualification tests with the 

Cellbond headforms: one with damped 

accelerometers and one with undamped 

accelerometers. One set of tests was run 

with the FTSS headforms, fitted with 

undamped accelerometers. All 

acceleration responses were filtered at 

Channel Filter Class (CFC) 1000. The 

responses are summarized in table IX.1, 

including averages, standard deviations, 

and percent coefficients of variation 

(%CV). The %CV is computed by 

dividing the standard deviation by the 

average (and multiplying the result by 

100 percent). The results are similar for 

both headform manufacturers and for 

both accelerometer types. Typically, 

NHTSA strives for a %CV of less than 

5 percent, so the low %CV observed in 

our tests indicates a high degree of 

repeatability and reproducibility by our 

measure and is well within an 

acceptable interval. 

TABLE IX.1—QUALIFICATION DROP TESTS: PEAK RESULTANT ACCELERATION (AND HIC SCORES) OF HEADFORMS

Headform 

(compliance interval, g) Statistical measure 

Peak acceleration, g 

(HIC score in parentheses) 

Cellbond 

(damped) 

Cellbond 

(undamped) 

FTSS 

(undamped) Combined 

Child (245–300) ................................ Average ............................................ 257 (871) 258 (851) 262 (904) 259 (876) 

StdDev .............................................. 4.36 (3.00) 1.00 (19.35) 9.07 (46.32) 5.62 (34.21) 

%CV ................................................. 1.7% (0.3%) 0.4% (2.3%) 3.5% (5.1%) 2.2% (3.9%) 

Adult (225–275) ................................ Average ............................................ 238 (779) 237 (758) 235 (766) 237 (768) 

StdDev .............................................. 5.57 (16.82) 3.06 (17.58) 1.15 (11.36) 3.57 (16.26) 

%CV ................................................. 2.3% (2.2%) 1.3% (2.3%) 0.5% (1.5%) 1.5% (2.1%) 

The headforms were dropped from a 

height of 376 mm, which is the height 

specified in GTR 9 and the height used 

in other part 572 headform qualification 

tests. However, we are considering 

raising the drop height. Typically, in 

NHTSA’s practice an ATD qualification 

procedure exercises the ATD near the 

pass/fail reference measure. In this case, 

the HIC scores obtained from the 376 

mm drop are slightly below the HIC1000 

limit proposed for the pedestrian 

headform requirement, and well below 

the HIC1700 requirement. (Average HIC 

produced by the 376 mm drop are 876 

for the child headform, and 768 for the 

adult headform). Therefore, we request 

comments on raising the drop height to 

a height that would produce HIC scores 

somewhere between 1000 and 1700. 

We also request comments on 

changing the qualification bounds of 

245–300 g’s for the child headform and 

225–275 g’s for the adult headform. For 

other ATDs used in FMVSSs, we 

generally set qualification bounds by 

examining data from multiple test labs, 

several ATDs, and ATDs built by 

different manufacturers. In other words, 

the qualification bounds are derived 

from the qualification data, not set a 

priori, with a goal to set them at no 

greater than 10 percent of the mean. 

We understand that the qualification 

bounds of GTR 9 were set a priori, by 

using the qualification limits of part 572 

as a basis for the bounds. While this 

would be acceptable given that the part 

572 bounds have worked satisfactorily 

historically, our results suggest that 

those pre-existing headform 

qualification limits could be narrowed 

for both of the pedestrian headforms. 

The part 572 headform qualification 

limits were developed for the Hybrid III 

head, but the hemispherical headforms 

specified in this NPRM are much more 

geometrically uniform. For the 

pedestrian headforms, the acceptance 

bounds of ±25 g’s (for the adult 

headform) and ±27.5 g’s (for the child 

headform) are both derived using the 10 

percent approach. In part 572, NHTSA 

has generally sought to set qualification 

limits for a test device within ±10% of 

a nominal target, usually the mean 

response from all relevant data available 

about a test device gathered from agency 

research, commenters’ submissions and 

other means. The ±10% margin is 

considered wide enough to account for 

normal variations in response and 

laboratory differences, and narrow 

enough to ensure consistent and 

repeatable measurements in 

standardized testing. However, both sets 

of bounds represent well over three 

standard deviations from the mean 

based on the test data shown in table 

IX.1. From a probabilistic standpoint, 

three standard deviations constitute an 

unusually wide bound. 

Since the publication of the headform 

evaluation report, NHTSA Vehicle 

Research and Test Center (VRTC) has 

continued to conduct many more 

headform qualification tests to support 

vehicle impact testing. This updated 

dataset provides a significantly greater 

number of samples from a much larger 

number of headforms. These data can be 

used to better determine whether the 

current GTR 9 qualification bounds are 

appropriate and sufficient, rather than 

using only the data from table IX.1. 

Table IX.2 summarizes this updated 

dataset. 

TABLE IX.2—UPDATED NHTSA DATA FROM HEADFORM QUALIFICATION TESTS

[Peak resultant acceleration] 

Headform orientation 

Child headform (12 headforms 

subjected to 60 total tests) 

Adult headform (12 headforms 

subjected to 60 total tests) 

Average Standard 

deviation %CV Average Standard deviation %CV 

0 deg ....................................................... 275 16.7 6.1 252 12.1 4.8 

120 deg ................................................... 272 14.7 5.4 251 13.0 5.2 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76970 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

147Table IX.1 contains headform data from two 

manufacturers, while table IX.2 contains headform 

data from three manufacturers. 

TABLE IX.2—UPDATED NHTSA DATA FROM HEADFORM QUALIFICATION TESTS—Continued 

[Peak resultant acceleration] 

Headform orientation 

Child headform (12 headforms 

subjected to 60 total tests) 

Adult headform (12 headforms 

subjected to 60 total tests) 

Average Standard 

deviation %CV Average Standard deviation %CV 

240 deg ................................................... 274 16.6 6.1 250 13.0 5.2 

All ............................................................. 273 15.8 5.8 252 12.1 4.8 

The average responses are almost 

exactly in the middle of the GTR 

specification for a large number of 

headforms and tests, and the current 

GTR 9 tolerance of ±10% closely 

approximates two standard deviations 

for both headforms (slightly less for the 

child headform and slightly more for the 

adult headform). Based on this 

information, the FMVSS No. 228 

proposal retains the GTR specification 

rather than providing an alternative 

specification unique to NHTSA. 

While the data shown in table IX.2 

constitute a substantial set of 120 data 

points from 24 different headforms, our 

tests were conducted at a single 

laboratory (NHTSA’s Vehicle Research 

and Test Center) with headforms from 

three headform manufacturers.147 Our 

data may not reflect normal variations 

that accrue when a large set of 

headforms are tested across various 

laboratories. There may be unknown 

variability associated with different 

labs, operators, headforms, and other 

typical variances such as temperature 

and humidity, that may not be present 

in our dataset. 

Thus, although we have used the 

conservatively wide bounds from part 

572 in the proposed regulatory text for 

this NPRM, we seek qualification data 

from commenters. We will examine all 

qualification data provided and 

anticipate that, when new qualification 

data are combined with our current set 

of data, the bounds could be tightened, 

such as to one standard deviation or 

less. For a final rule, our intent is to set 

bound widths as narrowly as is 

reasonable to control variability to the 

extent possible. 

We note that a comparison of 

qualification results for Cellbond vs. 

FTSS headforms used in our research 

programs did show some differences. In 

qualification tests, Cellbond and FTSS 

headforms were essentially equivalent 

in terms of the peak acceleration they 

measured, but HIC scores differed 

between the FTSS and Cellbond child 

headform by about 5%. Also, a phase 

difference in the signal response 

appears evident, with the Cellbond 

units producing peaks in acceleration 

that occur about 0.5 ms earlier in both 

the adult and child headforms. 

However, as discussed below, the FTSS 

and Cellbond headforms are essentially 

equivalent when considering the HIC 

scores produced by hood impacts. 

2. Headform Performance in Hood 

Testing 

We also assessed the performance of 

the headforms in tests on actual hoods. 

The Cellbond and FTSS headforms were 

evaluated on three vehicle models: the 

2010 Kia Forte, the 2010 Buick 

LaCrosse, and the 2010 Acura MDX. We 

also used different types of 

accelerometers to assess the effect of 

damped versus undamped models. 

(Although these vehicle models are now 

more than a decade old, the results and 

conclusions are still valid as they relate 

to how the headforms performed 

relative to an actual hood. The 

assessment was done in the 2012–2014 

timeframe on new hoods. The vehicles 

were selected to provide a cross-section 

of vehicle manufacturers, vehicle 

classes and hood contours.) 

We selected three test points in areas 

on the hood where HIC was expected to 

exceed HIC1000 and approach HIC1700. 

In other words, we exercised the 

headforms near the proposed HIC 

performance thresholds. The three 

points were: an inboard point along the 

WAD1000 border (near the front edge of 

the hood); a point just inside the HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the Side Reference 

Line (near the fender); and an inboard 

point near the Rear Reference Line (near 

the rear edge of the hood). 

We conducted tests at all three points 

with one headform brand/accelerometer 

combination before switching to 

another. Each time a headform switch 

was made, a new hood was installed. 

For each vehicle, the impact points were 

tested in the same order. The order of 

headform use was: (1) FTSS (undamped 

accelerometers); (2) Cellbond (damped 

accelerometers); and, (3) FTSS (damped 

accelerometers). The hoods of the Forte 

and the LaCrosse were sufficiently short 

that only child headforms were used. 

Child and adult headforms were used 

on the Acura MDX. 

Qualification tests were performed on 

each headform before and after the test 

series to ascertain the accuracy of their 

measurements. The headforms met all of 

the qualification response requirements, 

both before and after the tests. 

We note that when comparing tests at 

the same test point on different samples 

of the same hood, the data also 

represent differences that may exist due 

to production variability of the hood 

itself. Without extensive testing of many 

copies of a particular hood, it was not 

possible for NHTSA to separate this 

production variability from that of the 

headform and test procedure. HIC 

results are presented table IX.3 for the 

three vehicles tested. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76971 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

2010 Buick Lacrosse. For the Buick 

LaCrosse, the HIC variability was less 

than 10 percent at all three points. 

Notably, tests at two of the points 

produced HIC scores near the HIC1000 

and HIC1700 thresholds, and the third 

produced an average HIC score near 

650. This demonstrates a high level of 

repeatability when test results are near 

the pass-fail compliance thresholds. It 

also demonstrates that the various 

headform and accelerometer 

combinations performed in a 

functionally equivalent manner. 

2010 Kia Forte. For the Kia Forte, one 

test point, near the fender, produced 

HIC scores near a compliance threshold. 

HIC scores were just below the HIC1700 

threshold, and the variability was very 

low—less than 4 percent. 

At the two other points (near the 

WAD1000 border and the rear HIC 

Unlimited Margin), variability was over 

10 percent. However, at both points the 

HIC scores were well below HIC1000. In 

addition, we note that for lower HIC 

values, a similar absolute difference in 

HIC value represents a higher 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.028</GPH>

Table IX.3. HIC scores for headform-to-hood impacts on three vehicles. 

1st Contact Point 

Test Test location Vehicle Distance from Order HIC15 Headform Mfg Accel. Type (Comment) WAD,mm CL,mm 

1 1026 Child FTSS Undamped 

2 1053 Child Cellbond Damped 

1000 220 3 1025 Child FTS5 Damped WADl0OO border 

Average_ 

StdDev 

%CV 

1 

2 

2010 Buick Lacrosse 1289 769 3 Side no-test border 

650 

1690 -369 636 Rear no-test border 

Averag!l 

StdDev 25.8 

%CV 

1 

2 524 

3 506 1000 220 Average WAD1000 border 

StdDev 

%CV 

1 

2 

2010 Kia Forte 1130 -740 3 Side no-test border 

2 486 

1586 -370 3 Rear no-test border 

Average _____ 

StdDev 57.4 

%CV 

1 

2 1324 BLE no-test border (spot • 3 969 1120 183 Average 

weld separation lowers 

StdDev 

HIC on last test) 

%CV 

1 

2 

2010 Acura MDX 1755 -740 3 Side no-test border. 

%CV 

1 

2 603 WAD1700 border (fender 

1700 174 3 505 deformation before last 

-- t\_Vl!~l,ll!. 537.0 test lowers HIC) StdDev 57.2 

%CV 
76972 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

148We do not believe the 2010 Acura MDX was 

designed in accordance with GTR 9 requirements. 

The 2010 Acura MDX was produced in Canada, and 

to our knowledge, was not sold in Europe. 

149This conclusion is based only on tests on the 

Kia and Buick since variability was observed in the 

way the hood of the Acura MDX deformed. 

150 In general, damped accelerometers are used 

when shock pulses of extremely short durations 

occur in a test environment that would otherwise 

induce resonance in the sensor. 

151The windshield is no longer included within 

the test area prescribed by the GTR. 

152 Informal document no. GR/PS/96, Problem of 

undamped accelerometer in headform impact test. 

7th meeting of the pedestrian safety informal 

working group, Paris, France, September 28, 2004. 

153 Informal document no. GR/PS/133, Miniature 

Damped Accelerometer Series, 8th meeting of the 

pedestrian safety informal working group, Brussels, 

July 11, 2005. 

154Also, pedestrian headforms, with their 

synthetic coverings, when used on the hood do not 

engage in metal-to-metal contact, nor do the 

hollowed aluminum hemispheres incur internal 

mechanical fractures. 

155This NPRM proposes to amend 49 CFR 571.5 

to add SAE J211 (2022) to the list of material 

incorporated by reference in the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards. 

156 In our examination of hood impact tests, we 

considered tests run only on the Buick and Kia 

because we observed variability in the way the 

hood of the Acura MDX deformed. 

percentage of the HIC level. In other 

words, the CV% is artificially high 

because the denominator (average HIC) 

is low—not so much that the variability 

in repeated impacts is excessive. 

2010 Acura MDX. At each of the three 

test points, HIC variability was 10 

percent or higher. However, we believe 

that factors may have increased the 

variability. During the tests at the 

WAD1700 border (and near to the hood 

hinge), we observed fender deformation 

that took place during the course of 

testing. (Use of the heavier adult 

headform may have caused the 

deformation.) The damage occurred 

within the body structure, not on the 

hood itself, and was not repaired or 

replaced between tests. The deformation 

could have lowered the HIC of a 

subsequent test and contributed to the 

variability in HIC scores. 

Also, in the test with the FTSSdamped headform run near the HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge 

Reference Line, there was a spot weld 

separation within the hood structure 

where an inner layer of sheet metal was 

mated to the bottom side of the outer 

layer. The test had a HIC of 969. No 

separation was observed in the other 

two tests, which had more comparable 

HIC scores (1283 and 1324).148

3. Reproducibility in Hood Testing 

The results of the hood testing 

program also demonstrated good 

reproducibility of the headforms’ 

measurement of HIC.149 The results in 

table IX.3 show that FTSS and Cellbond 

headforms are essentially equivalent 

when considering the HIC scores 

produced by hood impacts in which test 

conditions were otherwise identical. 

We analyzed HIC scores produced by 

child headforms fitted with Endevco 

model 7264G damped accelerometers. 

For the six pairs of tests considered, the 

variability was no greater than 7 percent 

in any of the paired tests. Also, there 

was no apparent trend in which one 

headform produced higher HIC scores 

than the other. For four of the test 

points, the lowest HIC score was 

produced by the FTSS unit. In the other 

two, the Cellbond scores were lowest. 

We did observe that the FTSS child unit 

had relatively high variability for HIC 

(Standard Deviation = 46), but not peak 

acceleration. Adult headforms had 

much lower variability for all 

conditions. 

4. Instrumentation 

Proposal for Damped Accelerometers 

This NPRM proposes a specification 

for damped accelerometers in the 

headforms. Although the GTR does not 

refer specifically to damped 150

accelerometers, the preamble to the GTR 

recommends damped accelerometers 

based on findings from a 2002 research 

program using 2001 headform data 

collected for the Japan New Car 

Assessment Program (J–NCAP). In 

headform tests with undamped 

accelerometers, abnormal signals that 

produced high HIC values were 

observed in windshield impacts 151 and 

occasionally in hood impacts. The cause 

of the abnormality was attributed to 

vibrations that arose when the impulse 

of the impact was near the resonant 

frequency of the accelerometer.152 153

NHTSA’s testing has been with 

undamped accelerometers. The testing 

and findings are described in section 

IX.C.5.c, below. We did not observe any 

signal irregularities of the sort observed 

in the J–NCAP study. We did observe a 

difference in peak measurements 

depending on the type of accelerometer 

(they were generally lower with damped 

units). In vehicle tests, these sharp 

pulses occur when hard metal-to-metal 

contacts or mechanical fractures take 

place. If an accelerometer is attached 

directly to a vehicle structure (such as 

the frame rail), the sharp pulse can often 

saturate the measurement system. 

However, ATDs such as crash test 

dummies are designed to avoid internal 

mechanical fractures or metal-to-metal 

contact that could produce sharp pulses. 

Therefore, undamped accelerometers 

are typically specified for ATDs used in 

FMVSSs.154

Nonetheless, although we saw no 

resonance issues in our tests with ATD 

heads fitted with the undamped units, 

we propose damped accelerometers for 

the pedestrian headforms. We envision 

using the same headforms in NCAP 

where the test protocol includes 

potential testing of the windshield, 

cowl, and A-pillar. When testing such 

areas, the uncovered rear portion of the 

headform may come into contact with a 

vehicle structure such that an 

undamped accelerometer may produce a 

spurious signal and invalidate a test, 

similar to what was observed in J–NCAP 

testing. We request comment on the 

proposed use of damped accelerometers 

and whether it would be more 

appropriate to use an undamped 

accelerometer in proposed FMVSS No. 

228, as is used in part 572 ATD heads. 

This NPRM also proposes to specify 

the performance of the accelerometers 

in accordance with SAE J211/1_202208 

(2022), ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Test 

Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation,’’ in 

lieu of what GTR 9 references, which is 

ISO 6487 (2002), ‘‘Measurement 

Techniques in Impact Tests.’’ SAE J211 

and ISO 6487 are essentially equivalent. 

SAE J211 is the most current of the two, 

and FMVSSs have historically 

referenced SAE J211, not the ISO 

standard. For those reasons, we propose 

to reference the current version of SAE 

J211 in proposed FMVSS No. 228.155

5. Technical Assessment 

a. Hood Impact Tests 

In our test program assessing the 

performance of the Cellbond and FTSS 

headforms on the 2010 Kia Forte, the 

2010 Buick LaCrosse, and the 2010 

Acura MDX (results above), we also 

used different types of accelerometers to 

assess the effect of damped versus 

undamped models. We examined our 

headform test signals for any indication 

of resonant vibrations and examined 

any differences in responses depending 

on whether damped or undamped 

accelerometers were used.156

At each of the six test points (three on 

the Buick, three on the Kia), one test 

was run with undamped units (in an 

FTSS headform) and two were run with 

damped units (one each for the FTSS 

and Cellbond headforms). The highest 

HIC score was recorded with the 

undamped (FTSS) unit for five of the six 

test points, with a percent difference 

ranging from 3 percent to 19 percent 

higher. For the other test point, all three 

HIC scores were nearly the same (less 

than 3 percent difference). 

We also checked the test signals 

(figure IX.1) in all tests with undamped 

accelerometers and did not observe any 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76973 

157 GTR 9 does not directly address active hoods 

except to note that active hoods and other active 

safety devices ‘‘must not create a higher risk of 

injuries for the pedestrians,’’ (United Nations (18 

November 2004). Global technical regulation No. 9: 

Pedestrian Safety [Addendum to GTR] Geneva, 

Switzerland. Page 28, section A.8.b.122, and that 

‘‘[a]ll devices designed to protect vulnerable road 

users when impacted by the vehicle shall be 

correctly activated before and/or be active during 

the relevant test. It shall be the responsibility of the 

manufacturer to show that any devices will act as 

intended in a pedestrian impact.’’ Id., page 50, 

section B.6.2.2. 

158This provision is similar to that in FMVSS No. 

226, ‘‘Ejection mitigation,’’ regarding the sensor 

system and pertinent inputs to the algorithm used 

to determine when a side curtain will deploy in a 

real world rollover. 

spurious signals to indicate that 

resonance frequencies had been 

reached. The undamped Endevco units 

that we used (model 7264C) had a 

resonant frequency rated at >26,000 Hz, 

which is extremely high relative to the 

impulses typical of headform-to-hood 

impacts. We note that the natural 

frequency of the headform itself is much 

lower, specified as >5,000 Hz in the 

GTR. Thus, the root cause of resonance 

observed by J–NCAP might have been 

ringing of the headform at a relatively 

low frequency, rather than excitation of 

the accelerometer at its rated (higher) 

frequency. 

b. Qualification Tests 

We examined our qualification head 

drop signals for differences in responses 

depending on whether damped or 

undamped accelerometers were used. 

(This comparison was carried out for the 

Cellbond units only). We did not 

observe any consistent difference 

between accelerometer types. The 

magnitude in the peak acceleration was 

about the same for both. Also, we did 

not observe any perceptible phase shift. 

X. Other Issues 

A. Active Hoods 

An active hood uses actuators and 

lever arms to automatically lift the hood 

when a sensor detects that a pedestrian 

has been struck by the front-end of the 

vehicle. The system acts to pre-position 

the hood before the secondary (head) 

impact takes place with an oncoming 

pedestrian. In doing so, space is created 

between the hood and rigid components 

in the engine bay, thus reducing the risk 

of injury to the pedestrian. Compared to 

non-deploying hoods, active hoods offer 

the potential to greatly increase the free 

penetration space underneath the hood. 

They may be especially advantageous 

because they create extra space in the 

cowl area where pedestrian head strikes 

to the hood are most apt to take place. 

NHTSA testing indicates that, 

historically, the rear of the hood near 

the cowl has included stiff structures, 

giving HIC values close to or above 

1700, especially in areas near the hinges 

at the rear corners of the hood and 

around the wiper mounts. For vehicles 

with non-deploying hoods, the cowl 

usually lies rearward of the HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference 

Line. A HIC1700 relaxation area is 

typically allocated to the Adult 

Headform Test Area adjacent to the 

margin. 

FMVSS No. 228 would include 

provisions in the compliance test 

procedure that provides for deployment 

of active hoods.157 Consistent with GTR 

9, this NPRM’s regulatory text specifies 

that NHTSA will deploy an active hood 

in accordance with manufacturer 

instructions prior to launching the 

headform, including the irrevocable 

selection of the minimum and 

maximum period of time between 

device deployment and the impact of 

the headform to assure full deployment 

at impact. The proposed regulatory text 

does not set the conditions under which 

the active hood must activate, the 

timing of their activation and 

deployment, or provide performance 

criteria testing that the sensor works as 

intended. However, we have included a 

provision in the standard that would 

require manufacturers to, upon request 

and under the authority provided in 49 

U.S.C. 30166 (NHTSA’s enforcement 

authority), provide information to 

NHTSA explaining the basic operational 

characteristics of their active hood 

sensor system.158

Under FMVSS No. 228, the point of 

first contact between the headform and 

the hood would be determined while 

the hood is fully deployed. However, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.029</GPH>

250 

-Adult Cellbond • Damped 

-

C) 

- _,, •• .,.,, Adult Cellbond • Undamped 

C 200 0 

fd '-j 150 

-C 

fl 100 :5 

(/) 

(I) 

a::: 

m 50· 

:c 

0 

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 

Time (sec) 

Figure IX.1. Resultant acceleration results from Cellbond adult headform 

qualification tests with damped (red) and undamped (blue) accelerometers. 
76974 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

159Ames E., Martin P. ‘‘Pop-up Hood Pedestrian 

Protection,’’ 24th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 

paper 15–0111 (2015). 

160Suntay B, Stammen J. ‘‘Assessment of Hood 

Designs for Pedestrian Head Protection: Active 

Hood Systems,’’ DOT HS 812 762 (2020). 

161Suntay B, et al. ‘‘Vehicle Assessment using 

Integrated Crash Avoidance and Crashworthiness 

Pedestrian Safety Test Procedures’’ DOT HS 813 

521. 

162A HIC1350 limit is used in Euro NCAP in tests 

of this condition. We request comments on the 

merits of the HIC1350 threshold. 

163NHTSA has requested comment in this NPRM 

on extending the testable area to the windshield. 

The NCAP RFC and Euro NCAP procedures test the 

windshield and the wiper and washing system area. 

consistent with the GTR, the standard’s 

test procedure would specify that the 

borders and test areas are marked off 

when the hood is in its normal, 

undeployed position as with a 

conventional hood. This is for practical 

reasons. Obviously, the agency is not 

able to mark off the hood when the hood 

is in a dynamic, moving state. We 

understand that the hood could be fixed 

in some deployed position. However, 

the current mark off method may not 

lend itself to the deployed surface and 

the transitions between the deployed 

hood and the fixed hood/fender areas 

without appropriated modification. 

Finally, the agency has not yet 

researched the implications of marking 

off a hood fixed in a deployed position. 

NHTSA believes there are very few 

recent vehicles in the U.S. vehicle fleet 

with active hood designs. Therefore, 

data on their performance are limited. 

According to a 2014 survey of European 

sales data, only about 8% of new light 

vehicles sold in Europe had active 

hoods. North American variants of those 

models make up about 7% of light 

vehicle sales in the U.S.159

In general, vehicles with active hoods 

performed better than vehicles without 

active hoods in Euro NCAP tests. To 

date, NHTSA’s research program has 

tested four vehicles equipped with 

active hood systems. Two of these 

vehicles (2014 Cadillac ATS, 2017 Audi 

A4) were U.S. variants retrofitted with 

European active hood components.160

The reduction in HIC observed with the 

hood fully deployed was much greater 

for the Cadillac than for the Audi. 

However, NHTSA believes this 

difference reflected the vehicles’ 

baseline performance when the hood is 

undeployed. More recently, NHTSA 

identified two U.S. market vehicles 

(2018 Buick Regal, 2021 Volkswagen 

Arteon) that have active hood systems. 

The HIC reduction observed in testing 

those vehicles with the hood fully 

deployed versus not deployed varied 

widely by vehicle and impact 

location.161 At impact points already 

with low HIC without hood 

deployment, HIC reduction was 

minimal when an active hood was 

employed, while at stiffer impact points, 

hood deployment did improve 

performance substantially in many 

instances. 

Based on these test results, the safety 

benefit relative to the cost of 

implementing an active hood system 

may not be significant for some 

vehicles. However, there is still reason 

to believe that these types of systems 

may become more common in the U.S. 

market because it may be a viable design 

solution for some vehicles to meet the 

proposed pedestrian protection 

requirements. Therefore, NHTSA is 

considering developing a set of 

compliance test requirements to assure 

the proper deployment and function of 

active hoods. For example, we would 

like to consider the appropriateness of 

requirements for the lift mechanisms to 

assure that they do not collapse 

inappropriately under the full body 

weight of a pedestrian. We seek 

comment and data on the real-world 

performance and proper function of 

active hood systems observed in the 

E.U. and elsewhere. We request 

information to shed light on the 

reliability of the systems, including 

information on the rate of false-positive 

deployments. We are interested in 

learning more about the consequences 

to pedestrians if a collision occurs 

below the hood activation threshold. 

Would a pedestrian be placed in undue 

risk if the undeployed hood is overly 

stiff? Should there be HIC limits in 

headform impact tests on an 

undeployed hood to ensure HIC values 

are not too high (e.g., HIC values must 

be less than 1350) 162 when a test is 

conducted at a designated deployment 

threshold speed? 

XI. Effect on Other Standards 

NHTSA has examined the potential 

effect of this NPRM on other Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards and 

programs. As discussed below, the 

agency has determined that FMVSS No. 

228 would not affect the ability of a 

vehicle to meet all other FMVSS 

applying to the vehicle. We request 

comment on our conclusions. Vehicles 

in the U.S. already have hoods that meet 

GTR 9, which indicates the 

compatibility of the GTR (and proposed 

FMVSS No. 228) with applicable 

FMVSSs. Further, GTR 9 has been 

implemented by Contracting Parties 

worldwide that have standards that are 

similar to many of those discussed 

below, which also show how pedestrian 

protective hoods meeting FMVSS No. 

228 could be integrated into vehicle 

designs. 

Safety Standards 

FMVSS No. 104, Windshield wiping 

and washing systems, specifies 

requirements for windshield wiping and 

washing systems. FMVSS No. 228 

would not affect the performance of the 

windshield wiping and washing 

systems, as the ‘‘hood area’’ subject to 

FMVSS No. 228 would preclude the 

area in which the systems are 

located.163 If manufacturers would like 

to opt for designs where windshield 

wiper arms are hidden or made softer or 

deformable to better protect pedestrians, 

FMVSS No. 228 would not preclude 

such designs. 

FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective 

devices and associated equipment,’’ 

would not be affected by this proposed 

standard as the relevant equipment 

covered by Standard No. 108 would 

generally be outside of the hood area. 

Yet, if pop-up style headlights are in the 

hood area and are subject to headform 

testing, FMVSS No. 228 would require 

the vehicle to meet the tests when the 

lights are both deployed and in their 

stowed position. This is to optimize 

pedestrian protection in the real world, 

as an impact could occur when the 

movable lights are deployed and when 

they are stowed. 

FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash 

protection,’’ is intended to reduce the 

number of deaths of vehicle occupants, 

and the severity of injuries, by 

specifying vehicle crashworthiness 

requirements in terms of forces and 

accelerations measured on 

anthropomorphic dummies in frontal 

crashes, and by specifying equipment 

requirements for active and passive 

restraint systems. FMVSS No. 228 

would not interfere with a 

manufacturer’s ability to meet FMVSS 

No. 208, because the vehicle structures 

related to occupant protection in general 

and frontal crashes in particular, should 

be substantially unaffected by any 

redesign needed for pedestrian head 

protection. 

FMVSS No. 113, ‘‘Hood latch 

system,’’ requires that a front opening 

hood must be provided with a second 

latch position on the hood latch system. 

FMVSS No. 228 would not interfere 

with a vehicle’s compliance with 

FMVSS No. 113 because vehicles are 

already manufactured to meet FMVSS 

No. 113 and the requirements of GTR 9 

(and by implication, the proposed 

requirements of FMVSS No. 228). 

FMVSS No. 401, ‘‘Interior trunk 

release,’’ requires a trunk release 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76975 

164The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 

Savings Act, 49 U.S.C. 325, provided for 

promulgation of bumper standards to reduce the 

economic loss resulting from damage to passenger 

motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle crashes. 

mechanism to enable a person trapped 

inside the trunk compartment of a 

passenger car to escape from the 

compartment. If the trunk is located in 

the front of the vehicle, the trunk lid 

would be subject to FMVSS No. 228. 

The agency believes that there is no 

conflict between providing a trunk 

(which is the hood, when located in 

front) release and FMVSS No. 228. The 

release mechanism would be similar to 

existing hood releases, except it would 

have a control inside the trunk. 

FMVSS No. 219, ‘‘Windshield zone 

intrusion,’’ provides that a vehicle’s 

hood must not enter a defined zone in 

front of the vehicle’s windshield during 

a frontal barrier crash test at 48 km/h 

(30 mph). The purpose of the standard 

is to reduce injuries and fatalities that 

result from occupant contact with 

vehicle components, such as the hood, 

that are displaced into the occupant 

compartment through the windshield or 

into the zone immediately forward of 

the windshield aperture during a frontal 

crash. NHTSA concludes that FMVSS 

No. 228 would not interfere with a 

vehicle’s compliance with FMVSS No. 

219, as vehicles are already 

manufactured that meet FMVSS No. 219 

and the specifications of proposed 

FMVSS No. 228. 

FMVSS No. 127 Pedestrian Automatic 

Emergency Braking (PAEB) 

NHTSA plans for proposed FMVSS 

No. 228 to work with FMVSS No. 127 

which includes a requirement for 

pedestrian automatic emergency braking 

(PAEB). PAEB safety systems are 

designed to stop the vehicle 

automatically before striking a 

pedestrian up to a certain speed or 

reduce the speed at which an impact 

occurs if the vehicle’s initial speed is 

too high to avoid impact. More 

specifically, the target population for 

proposed FMVSS No. 228 was adjusted 

downward by anticipating the potential 

benefits of FMVSS No. 127. We also 

note that it is possible that there may be 

additional fatalities and non-fatal 

injuries that would fall into the target 

population potentially addressed by 

FMVSS No. 127 in cases that PAEB 

results in crash mitigation rather than 

avoidance. That is, for many impacts 

that cannot be avoided due to the 

closing speed of the vehicle, PAEB will 

lower the vehicle’s speed so that more 

impacts will be at speeds of 40 km/h (25 

mph) or less, which are pedestrian 

impacts that this proposed FMVSS No. 

228 pedestrian head protection standard 

addresses. For these impacts FMVSS 

No. 228 would ensure the striking 

vehicles have features that protect 

against serious to fatal head injury in 

these impacts. Due to data limitations, 

however, we are unable to estimate the 

number of additional fatalities and nonfatal injuries that may be potentially 

addressed by proposed FMVSS No. 228 

following the adoption of FMVSS No. 

127. 

49 CFR Part 581, ‘‘Bumper Standard’’ 

49 CFR part 581, issued under the 

Cost Savings Act,164 applies to 

passenger cars. It specifies a set of 

vehicle bumper tests designed to reduce 

physical damage to the front and rear 

ends of a passenger motor vehicle from 

low speed (2.5 mph) collisions. NHTSA 

does not believe there is an 

incompatibility between the bumper 

standard and this NPRM. The proposed 

rule would not have a direct effect on 

the bumper area of vehicles. 

Fuel Economy Standards 

As explained below in the Benefits 

and Costs section of this notice, the 

costs associated with this proposal are 

assumed to be based on increased 

weight and its effect on fuel economy. 

See table XIII.2 for a breakdown of the 

estimated costs. 

New Car Assessment Program 

FMVSS No. 228, if adopted, would 

lay the regulatory foundation for 

NHTSA’s adopting a crashworthiness 

pedestrian protection component into 

NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP), as laid out in the May 26, 2023 

NCAP RFC, supra. NCAP would build 

on proposed FMVSS No. 228 and 

incorporate enhanced crashworthiness 

tests into the consumer information 

program. The NCAP RFC proposes 

adding the majority of Euro NCAP’s 

injury assessment scheme for head and 

leg test devices and the method in 

which scores for each impact point are 

calculated. These Euro NCAP tests 

correspond closely to those in GTR 9. 

There are important differences, 

however, between FMVSS No. 228 and 

the NCAP RFC. While both mark off the 

Hood Top in a similar way and the 

impactors used for testing are the same, 

the final test areas differ, as do the 

outcomes of the tests (FMVSS No. 228 

would have pass/fail criteria while 

NCAP would determine specific scores 

at each test point). The NCAP RFC test 

area is larger than the FMVSS No. 228 

test area due to the HIC Unlimited Area 

on the sides of the Hood using a 50 mm 

offset (NCAP RFC) rather than the 82.5 

mm Offset Line (FMVSS No. 228). In 

section VI.C of this preamble, we 

requested comment on modifying the 

final rule offset to 50 mm. 

Additionally, on the front boundary of 

the test area, the NCAP RFC does not 

utilize an 82.5 mm Offset Line and does 

not limit the testing to areas rearward of 

the LERL, if WAD1000 is forward of that 

line. Thus, test points may be on the 

bumper or grille area. For the FMVSS 

No. 228 procedure, there are no test 

points forward of the LERL, regardless 

of the WAD1000 location. Again, in 

section VI.C of this preamble we have 

requested comment on testing to 

WAD1000 regardless of its location and 

the most forward of WAD1000 or the 

82.5 mm Offset line. Similarly, for the 

NCAP RFC there is no Offset Line of any 

size on the rear boundary. Additionally, 

the windshield is a valid impact 

location. In section VI.C of this 

preamble, we requested comment on 

extending the testing to WAD2100 and 

onto the windshield. 

The NCAP RFC also differs from 

FMVSS No. 228 on how impact points 

are targeted. As explained, in section 

VII.C of this preamble, we explain how 

FMVSS No. 228 uses a first point of 

contact/3D method to target any point 

within the Child and Adult Headform 

Test Area that can be touched by the 

impactor. Thus, there are an infinite 

number of test locations. However, such 

a testing system does not lend itself to 

a scoring scheme. The NCAP RFC limits 

the number of valid test points by 

marking off a 100 mm by 100 mm grid 

within the test border. These grid points 

are targeted via the ‘‘Aiming Point,’’ 

which is the intersection of the line of 

flight of the headform centerline with 

the hood surface. Due to the angle of the 

impact direction, the impact point on 

the hood will always be slightly forward 

of the Aiming Point. Nonetheless, the 

HIC score for the impact is assigned to 

the grid point that was aimed at (HIC15 

< 650 = Green, 650 ≤ HIC15 < 1000 = 

Yellow, 1000 ≤ HIC15 < 1350 = Orange, 

1350 ≤ HIC15 < 1700 = Brown, HIC15 

≥ 1700 = Red). This method has the 

benefit of being able to assign a HIC 

score to every grid point regardless of 

the contour of the hood, which is 

essential for a rating scheme. However, 

such a method is not necessary for 

FMVSS No. 228, which incorporates a 

pass/fail requirement for any point that 

can be contacted within the test area. In 

addition, the grid method is limited in 

its ability to test a specific location on 

the hood that may be particularly 

injurious to a pedestrian, which, again, 

is important for a minimum 

performance requirement. 

For the NCAP RFC, the impactor used 

(Child versus Adult Headform) depends 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76976 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

165Multistage manufacturers and alterers would 

be allowed an additional year of lead time, in 

accordance with 49 CFR 571.8(b). 

166This NPRM uses different terminology than 

the GTR, but the specifications for determining test 

borders and performance levels is consistent with 

GTR 9. 

167The PRIA is available in the docket for this 

NPRM and may be obtained by downloading it or 

by contacting Docket Management at the address or 

telephone number provided in the ADDRESSES

section of this document. 

on the WAD of the grid point. For grid 

points between WAD1000 and 

WAD1500, the Child Headform 

Impactor is used. For grid points 

between WAD1700 and WAD2100, the 

Adult Headform is used. The above is 

consistent with the FMVSS No. 228 

procedure. However, unlike FMVSS No. 

228, the NCAP RFC procedure has a 

provision where both the Child and 

Adult Headforms are used at grid 

locations between WAD1500 and 

WAD1700 if the RRL is within these 

WAD ranges. We noted this difference 

in section VI.C of this preamble, and 

request comment on modifying the final 

rule test procedure accordingly. As we 

stated earlier, we do not think that 

actual hoods will have an abrupt 

transition engineered into their design, 

and the FMVSS No. 228 procedure 

reduces the need to conduct 

unnecessary headform tests. Further, as 

the limited nature of the NCAP RFC grid 

points is more restrictive of testing than 

the proposed FMVSS No. 228 

procedure, the grid approach lends itself 

more readily to the testing with both 

impactors in the transition zone. 

Finally, the impact speed for the 

NCAP RFC is 40 km/h as opposed to 35 

km/h in FMVSS No. 228. NHTSA sees 

no inherent conflict in this difference. 

We continue to believe the 35 km/h 

impact is well supported by field data 

as providing a regulatory minimum 

performance standard for pedestrian 

head impact. Using a higher impact 

speed in the NCAP RFC may mean that 

not all vehicles receive credit for NCAP 

pedestrian protection, thus giving 

consumers additional information with 

which to make their vehicle purchasing 

decision and incentivizing designs that 

go beyond the minimum provided to 

meet the FMVSS. 

As the above discussion shows, there 

are important differences between the 

NCAP RFC and FMVSS No. 228. The 

fact that there will be a pedestrian 

crashworthiness component of NCAP 

does not mean there should not be a 

standard related to the same safety risk. 

For example, the introduction of the 

frontal and side crashworthiness 

portions of NCAP did not lead the 

agency to abandon standards in these 

areas. NCAP remains a consumer 

information program that provides 

important information for vehicle 

purchasing decisions, which encourages 

manufacturers to voluntarily make 

changes to vehicles to attain positive 

NCAP test results and thereby improve 

safety. FMVSSs, on the other hand, are 

mandatory and specify a minimum level 

of safety that all vehicles sold must 

provide. The two programs are 

complementary and beneficial to safety. 

XII. Proposed Lead Time 

We propose that FMVSS No. 228 

would become effective the first 

September 1, two years after the date of 

publication of a final rule. For example, 

if a final rule were published in October 

of 2025, the effective date would be 

September 1, 2028. Most passenger cars, 

minivans, cross-over vehicles, and other 

vehicles under 3500 kg (7716 lb) GVWR 

sold in the U.S. share similar global 

designs as models currently sold in the 

E.U. Manufacturers probably would 

need considerably less time than two 

years to meet the requirements specified 

in the proposed rule due to their 

familiarity with similar requirements 

already established in the EU. However, 

we propose to allow manufacturers two 

years of lead time to assure that vehicles 

unique to the U.S. market—such as large 

SUVs and pickup trucks—are in full 

compliance with the standard.165 In 

addition, two years may be needed even 

for the vehicles that have European 

variants. 

This NPRM initiates the process of 

implementing GTR 9 into the 

FMVSS.166 Throughout this NPRM, 

however, particularly in sections VI.C 

and XI, we have discussed our views on 

possibly adjusting the GTR’s test 

protocols and some performance 

requirements to maximize safety 

benefits, address safety problems in the 

U.S., and develop a standard meeting 

Safety Act criteria. Comments are 

requested on whether, and the extent to 

which, such adjustments to implement 

or expand the requirements of the 

proposal would affect the lead time 

needed for manufacturers to implement 

the changes to their current vehicle 

designs that meet GTR 9. 

From our observations of vehicle 

designs following the GTR in 2008, it 

seems that vehicle front-ends, including 

hoods, have evolved in design to meet 

European pedestrian protection 

requirements. The very latest vehicle 

models—those that have been designed 

with the GTR in mind from the platform 

level up—have contoured hoods, 

fenders, and headlamps that dovetail 

closely with the borders and margins of 

the GTR. An example of this is seen in 

one of the vehicles we tested: the 2011 

Hyundai Tucson. The Tucson has 

curved headlamps that blend into the 

fenders, and they are positioned just 

outside the Child Headform Test Area 

and right up to the HIC Unlimited 

Margin. Without the margin, about half 

of the headlamp would lie within the 

test area. 

The GTR specifies that the rear border 

of the Child Headform Test Area is 

either the WAD1700 line or a line 82.5 

mm forward of the Rear Reference Line, 

whichever is most forward. For the 

Tucson and the 2011 Buick Lacrosse, 

the two lines coincide (except for a very 

small area near the hinges). Thus, there 

is no Adult Headform Test Area for 

either of these vehicles. The design is 

such that the hood is exactly the size 

necessary to avoid having an Adult 

Headform Test Area. We believe this is 

unlikely to be a random occurrence. It 

appears that, for many years, vehicle 

manufacturers have considered the GTR 

provisions when designing their 

vehicles. 

Notwithstanding how the current GTR 

border specifications seem to affect 

hood designs, the agency’s test data, 

summarized in section VII.D, indicate 

that meeting the requirements discussed 

in this preamble are practicable and that 

testing beyond the GTR borders into the 

HIC Unlimited Area is also feasible. We 

request comments on the lead time 

needed to achieve these outcomes. 

XIII. Benefits and Costs 

NHTSA has prepared a Preliminary 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) that 

assesses the benefits, costs and other 

impacts of this NPRM.167 Table XIII.1 

provides a summary of the estimated 

annual incremental benefits in terms of 

injuries and fatalities mitigated by the 

proposed standard. The proposal is 

estimated to mitigate 67.4 fatalities. We 

note that overall injuries, and all injury 

levels except MAIS 3, are estimated to 

increase (represented by negative 

numbers in this table) because fatalities 

averted become higher level injuries and 

higher level injures averted become 

lower-level injuries. Although the net 

total of non-fatal injuries from MAIS 1 

to MAIS 5 increase under the proposed 

rule due to change in those fatalities and 

non-fatal injuries, overall there is a 

benefit at each MAIS level. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76977 

TABLE XIII.1—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL INCREMENTAL BENEFITS

Injury severity 

Benefits by vehicle type 

Total benefits 

Passenger cars LTVs 

MAIS 1 ....................................................................................................................... ¥23.3 ¥47.2 ¥70.5 

MAIS 2 ....................................................................................................................... ¥3.7 1.2 ¥2.5 

MAIS 3 ....................................................................................................................... 7.0 16.8 23.9 

MAIS 4 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.7 ¥0.3 ¥1.1 

MAIS 5 ....................................................................................................................... ¥2.5 ¥2.6 ¥5.1 

Fatalities ..................................................................................................................... 27.8 39.7 67.4 

Note: Values may not sum due to rounding. Negative values represent an increase in the number of injuries at that specific severity. 

Table XIII.2 provides the estimated 

annual cost of the proposal, broken 

down by passenger car and LTV. Many 

manufacturers of vehicles that would be 

subject to the proposed rule also 

manufacture vehicles in the European 

Union (EU) market. Potentially, some of 

these vehicles under production could 

be designed to a regulatory body’s 

application of GTR 9 that may differ 

from a NHTSA rule implementing GTR 

9 in the United States (see previous 

discussion of Amendment 3 in section 

VIII.B). Therefore, for such vehicles, 

there could be a potential one-time cost 

associated with redesigning vehicle 

hoods to comply with the requirements 

adopted by NHTSA. The PRIA made use 

of a teardown study conducted by the 

agency to compare the same or similar 

models of vehicles with and without the 

countermeasures that would be used to 

meet the proposed rule. The assemblies 

had no perceived differences in design 

or assembly, but did indicate a slight 

difference in weight. Therefore, the 

potential one-time cost associated with 

redesigning vehicle hoods to meet the 

requirements specified in the proposed 

rule are expected to be negligible, 

especially when considered on a pervehicle basis, across design cycles, and 

given the lead time specified in the 

proposed rule. This analysis estimates 

the impact that the incremental weight 

associated with meeting the 

requirements specified in the proposed 

rule may have on fuel economy for 

passenger cars and LTVs, respectively. 

As the costs associated with fuel 

economy are incurred over the course of 

a vehicle’s lifespan, these costs are 

discounted. When discounted at 3% 

and 7%, the incremental cost associated 

with the impact to fuel economy is 

estimated to be in the range of $2.86– 

$3.50 for passenger cars. Similarly, 

LTVs have a per vehicle cost of $3.29– 

$4.08. The overall combined fleet cost 

range is estimated to be from $48.9 

million to $60.4 million. 

TABLE XIII.2—TOTAL ANNUAL COST

Category 

Number of 

vehicles 

impacted 

Per vehicle cost Total fuel economy cost 

Discounted 

at 3% 

Discounted 

at 7% 

Discounted 

at 3% 

Discounted 

at 7% 

Passenger Car ..................................................................... 6,257,000 $3.50 $2.86 $21,923,153 $17,887,026

LTV ....................................................................................... 9,445,000 4.08 3.29 38,507,293 31,055,176 

Total Annual Cost ......................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 60,430,447 48,942,202 

Note: Values may not sum due to rounding. 

Table XIII.3 provides a summary of 

the cost and benefits. To make a 

comparison across alternatives, the 

primary outcome of the regulatory 

action must be quantified on a single 

numerical index. Therefore, safety 

benefits, measured in fatalities and nonfatal injuries mitigated, are translated to 

Equivalent Lives Saved (ELS) and 

monetized benefits. This table provides 

the cost, ELS, cost per ELS, monetized 

benefits (assuming benefits of $11.9 

million per ELS) and net benefits at the 

3% and 7% discount rates. The overall 

ELS ranges from 44.46 to 54.87. The cost 

per ELS is $1.10 million. The overall 

monetized benefits range is $529.74 

million–$653.76 million. After 

subtracting the cost at each discount 

rate, the overall net benefits range is 

$480.79 million–$593.3 million. 

TABLE XIII.3—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

[Millions] 

Discount rate Cost Equivalent 

lives saved 

Cost per 

equivalent live 

saved 

Monetized 

benefits Net benefits 

3% ........................................................................................ $60.43 54.87 $1.10 $653.76 $593.33 

7% ........................................................................................ 48.94 44.46 1.10 529.74 480.79 

XIV. Considered Alternatives 

In several parts of this preamble, 

NHTSA explained how the agency is 

considering alternatives to the GTRbased test procedure reflected in this 

NPRM’s regulatory text. The agency 

requested comments on the alternatives 

that NHTSA would consider when 

developing the final rule. 

• In section VI.C, several options for 

expanding the testable area were 

presented along with associated 

rationale. This also included 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76978 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

consideration of including the 

windshield as an additional testing area. 

• In section VIII.B, GTR 9 

Amendment 3 is discussed. Amendment 

3 would, among other things, reduce the 

amount of HIC1000 test area compared 

to proposed FMVSS No. 228. In that 

section of the preamble, we provide the 

costs and benefits of a regulatory 

approach under Amendment 3. The 

details of this assessment can be found 

in the PRIA for this NPRM as 

Alternative 1. 

• We now discuss a potential 

modification to the test procedure that 

would require the entire Hood Top to be 

tested. Under this version of the test 

procedure, the HIC Unlimited Area 

would no longer exist. Any point within 

the boundary of the Hood Top, as 

described in section VI.A, would be a 

valid impact point. The agency sees this 

as consistent with the notion that the 

HIC Unlimited areas were added due to 

practicability concerns, not based on the 

concept that a pedestrian’s head would 

not strike these parts of the Hood Top. 

Therefore, a procedure including these 

areas would provide an outcome more 

aligned with optimizing the safety 

benefits of this rulemaking. The PRIA 

discusses this approach as Alternative 3. 

We believe reduction of the area of 

the hood that can be tested by 

subtracting areas at the perimeter of the 

Hood Top was based on the premise 

that it was simply not practicable to 

design hoods with perimeters that could 

meet HIC1000 or HIC1700 limits. The 

agency test data summarized in section 

VII.D, however, indicates that it is 

feasible for U.S. vehicles to achieve the 

HIC requirements in the ‘‘HIC Unlimited 

Area.’’ Further, in order to achieve a 

significant safety benefit to pedestrians, 

the areas designated as the HIC 

Unlimited Area using the procedure in 

GTR 9 could, instead, be required to 

meet either a HIC 1000 or 1700 limit, 

depending on the manufacturer’s 

assignment of those respective areas on 

the vehicle. 

Under a procedure where the entire 

Hood Top is tested, the HIC1000 Area 

could be required to cover at least twothirds of the Hood Top and the HIC1700 

Area could be required to cover the 

remainder. Additionally, it is our 

expectation, due to previous agency 

testing, that the 3D Method of impact 

point targeting would remain 

appropriate even at the edges of the 

Hood Top. 

Under a test scheme that includes the 

entire Hood Top as the testable area, an 

issue discussed earlier in this preamble 

would remain for large vehicles whose 

LERL is rearward of WAD1000. For such 

vehicles, if the test area were limited 

only to the Hood Top, areas on the front 

of the vehicle that could be contacted by 

a child’s head would not be regulated. 

We note that this is also the case with 

the current proposed standard, as 

mentioned above in section VI.C.1.a. 

Comments are requested on the merits 

of including a procedure for testing the 

grille area on such vehicles, assuming 

FMVSS No. 228 were to include the 

entire Hood Top as the testable area. 

Table XIV.1 shows a comparison of 

the estimated benefits in terms of ELS 

and monetized benefits for an FMVSS 

No. 228 that reflects the wording of GTR 

9 (presented in the NPRM’s regulatory 

text) and a requirement that would test 

the entire Hood Top. Additional details 

on the benefits and cost of the proposal 

are presented in section XIII. Under a 

requirement to test the entire Hood Top, 

both ELS and monetized benefits would 

be approximately 159% of that under 

the proposed rule (i.e., the NPRM’s 

regulatory text). 

NHTSA performed a break-even 

analysis for this alternative. This breakeven analysis considers the cost at 

which this regulatory alternative would 

be net cost-effective and net beneficial. 

NHTSA estimated that break-even is at 

$50.48–$62.28 per vehicle cost, 

discounted at 7% and 3%. NHTSA 

requests information on the potential 

costs of this alternative. 

Although this alternative is estimated 

to be substantially more beneficial than 

the rule presented in the NPRM’s 

regulatory text, in addition to a lack of 

information about cost, the agency 

believes there are unknowns related to 

the practicability of testing the entire 

Hood Top. The agency requests 

comment on the alternative of requiring 

testing of the entire Hood Top. 

TABLE XIV.1—EQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED AND MONETIZED BENEFITS

[Millions] 

Regulatory option 

Cost Equivalent lives 

saved 

Cost per equivalent 

life saved 

Monetized benefits Net benefits 

3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 

#1: Requirements are the same as the E.U. interpretation of GTR 9 regarding test area (GTR 9 Amendment 3) ...................................................................... $60.43 $48.94 32.28 26.20 $1.87 $1.87 $384.51 $312.09 $324.08 $263.15 

#2: Proposed Rule (as presented in the NPRM’s regulatory text) .................................................................. 60.43 48.94 54.87 44.46 1.10 1.10 653.76 529.74 593.33 480.79 

#3: Requirements apply to the entire Hood Top (No 

HIC Unlimited Area) .................................................. .............. .............. 87.13 70.61 .............. .............. 1,038.3 841.51 .............. ..............

XV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 

13563, E.O. 14094, and DOT 

Rulemaking Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 14094, and the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory procedures. This rulemaking 

is ‘‘significant’’ under E.O. 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ and 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. This NPRM 

proposes to implement the provisions of 

GTR 9 into NHTSA’s regulations as a 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, 

with possible adjustments to address 

safety issues and a regulatory framework 

that are unique to the U.S. The costs, 

benefits, and other economic impacts of 

this NPRM have been discussed in 

sections above and are analyzed in 

detail in the PRIA. 

Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4) 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rule can be found in 

the Abstract section of the Department’s 

Unified Agenda entry for this 

rulemaking at https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=

202304&RIN=2127-AK98. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

or final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76979 

168See NAICS codes 336110 (Automobile and 

Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing), 336120 

(Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing), and 336211 

(Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing) https://

www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/files/2023-06/ 

Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20

March%2017%2C%202023%20%282%29.pdf. 

169See NAICS code 336211 (Motor Vehicle Body 

Manufacturing) https://www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/ 

files/2023-06/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_

Effective%20March%2017%2C%2020

23%20%282%29.pdf. 

170Classified in NAICS under Subsector 336— 

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing for 

Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle 

Manufacturing (336110) and Heavy Duty Truck 

Manufacturing (336120). Available at: https://

www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards. 

171Provided to illustrate the current population of 

small vehicle manufacturers. 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions), unless the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Agencies must also provide a statement 

of the factual basis for this certification. 

(5 U.S.C. 605(b)) 

I certify that this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Although NHTSA is not 

required to issue an initial RFA, NHTSA 

sets forth the initial RFA below to 

provide the factual basis for the 

certification, and as a means of seeking 

comment on the certification and the 

economic impact of the proposed rule. 

An initial RFA must contain (5 U.S.C. 

603): 

1. A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

2. A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for a 

proposed or final rule; 

3. A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed or 

final rule will apply; 

4. A description of the projected 

reporting, record keeping and other 

compliance requirements of a proposed 

or final rule including an estimate of the 

classes of small entities which will be 

subject to the requirement and the type 

of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; 

5. An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed or final rule; 

6. A description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed or final rule 

which accomplish the stated objectives 

of applicable status and which 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the rule on small entities. 

An RFA is not required if the head of 

the agency certifies that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The head of NHTSA has made 

such a certification. The factual basis for 

the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set 

forth below. Although NHTSA is not 

required to issue an initial RFA, we 

discuss below many of the issues that an 

initial RFA would address. 

1. A Description of the Reasons Why 

Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered 

NHTSA is considering this action to 

improve the safety of pedestrians. In 

particular, this action aims to address 

the injury severity in regard to head 

injuries incurred to pedestrians as the 

result of being struck by a light vehicle. 

By setting the HIC requirement, this 

action ensures that passenger vehicles 

are designed to mitigate the risk of 

serious to fatal child and adult head 

injury in pedestrian crashes. NHTSA is 

also initiating this rulemaking as part of 

the agency’s obligations under the 1998 

Agreement. See section IV of this 

preamble. 

2. A Succinct Statement of the 

Objectives of, and Legal Basis for the 

Rulemaking 

NHTSA is proposing these changes 

under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 322, 

30111, 30115, 30117, and 30666, as well 

as a delegation of authority at 49 CFR 

1.95. The agency is authorized to issue 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

that meet the need for motor vehicle 

safety. 

3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, 

an Estimate of the Number of Small 

Entities to Which the Final Rule Will 

Apply 

The proposed rule would affect motor 

vehicle manufacturers and second-stage 

or final stage manufacturers. We 

conducted an analysis to identify if 

there are any such firms that exist that 

are small businesses. Business entities 

are defined as small businesses using 

the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code. 

One of the criteria for determining size, 

as stated in 13 CFR 121.201, is the 

number of employees in the firm. For 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing or assembling 

automobiles, light- and heavy-duty 

trucks, buses, motor homes, and new 

tires the firm must have fewer than 

1,500 employees to be classified as a 

small business, and motor vehicle body 

manufacturing which must have fewer 

than 1,000 employees.168 For alterers 

and final-stage manufacturers, the firm 

must have fewer than 500 employees to 

be classified as a small business.169

Currently, there are at least 12 small 

light vehicle manufacturers in the 

United States. 170 Table XV.1 provides 

information about the 12 small volume 

domestic manufacturers in MY 2020. 

All are small manufacturers, having 

fewer than 1,500 employees. 

TABLE XV.1—SMALL VOLUME VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS

[MY 2020] 171

Manufacturer Type of vehicles 

Number of 

employees 

(appx.) 

MSRP for vehicles 

(appx.) 

Anteros Coachworks ............................... Specialty Sports Cars .............................. 2 $110,000. 

Callaway Cars ......................................... Specialty Sports Cars .............................. 50 ∼$17,000 above base (GM) vehicle 

price. 

Carroll Shelby International ..................... Specialty Sports Cars .............................. 170 $86,085–$180,995+. 

Equus Automotive ................................... Specialty Sports Cars .............................. 25 $250,000+. 

Falcon Motorsports .................................. Specialty Sports Cars .............................. 2 $300,000–$400,000. 

Faraday Future ........................................ Electric ..................................................... 350 $225,000. 

Fisker Inc ................................................. Electric ..................................................... <200 $37,499+. 

Karma Automotive ................................... Electric ..................................................... 750 $135,000. 

Panoz ....................................................... Specialty Sports Cars .............................. <50 $159,900+. 

Rossion Automotive ................................. Specialty Sports Cars .............................. 70 $80,000. 

Saleen Automotive .................................. Specialty Sports Cars .............................. 170 $48,000–$100,000+. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76980 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

172At least seven of the 12 small entities 

identified also sold vehicles in the EU. For those 

who may not sell vehicles in the EU, the average 

vehicle sales prices was approximately $587,000 

and would likely require a special order for 

purchase. 

TABLE XV.1—SMALL VOLUME VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS—Continued 

[MY 2020] 171

Manufacturer Type of vehicles 

Number of 

employees 

(appx.) 

MSRP for vehicles 

(appx.) 

SSC North America ................................. Specialty Sports Cars .............................. 9 $2,000,000. 

4. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of 

the Classes of Small Entities Which Will 

Be Subject to the Requirement and the 

Type of Professional Skills Necessary 

for Preparation of the Report or Record 

The proposed rule does not create any 

new reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements, nor does it affect any 

existing reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Manufacturers would have to selfcertify the compliance of their vehicles 

with the new FMVSS No. 228. 

Manufacturers currently self-certify the 

compliance of their vehicles to a host of 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards, 

many of which are much more complex 

than the standard proposed by this 

NPRM. The burden and cost of 

certifying to proposed FMVSS No. 228 

is relatively small. The performance test 

is done with an impactor without crash 

testing the vehicles, and multiple 

impacts can be performed on a single 

hood to assess conformance. The 

vehicle manufacturer is not required by 

the FMVSS to test every point on the 

hood; instead, it only must ensure that 

the hood will meet FMVSS No. 228 

when tested by NHTSA in an agency 

compliance test. Thus, the small 

manufacturer, knowing its vehicle, can 

identify the part of the hood least likely 

to meet the standard and can focus its 

testing there. If that part of the hood can 

be made to meet the standard, the small 

manufacturer can determine through 

engineering analyses and other means 

that other parts of the hood can meet the 

standard as well. This is to say, a small 

entity is not directed by the standard to 

test in any way. Small entities can easily 

base their certification on simple 

headform testing, straightforward 

engineering analyses, modeling, a 

combination of these, or other such 

means to certify to the proposed 

standard. 

Although a small entity is not 

required by NHTSA to test to self-certify 

compliance with proposed FMVSS No. 

228, if they wish to perform the physical 

tests described in the proposed 

standard, they could readily contract 

with an outside testing laboratory to 

conduct the headform impact tests in 

the proposal. (NHTSA itself has 

contracted with labs for such testing in 

the past.) The number of tests to be 

performed on a particular hood to 

certify compliance would be at the 

discretion of the manufacturer. Because 

of the manufacturer’s in-depth 

knowledge of its vehicle design, the 

symmetry of hood design and 

predictability of results, and the depth 

of engineering judgment and knowledge 

in this area, however, NHTSA believes 

it is reasonable that the number of 

necessary test points could be reduced 

to the locations with the least 

compliance margin. To illustrate, 

NHTSA in the past has assessed hood 

performance based on a test series of 10 

impacts, at a total cost of approximately 

$8,000 for the 10 impacts. Because these 

impacts may involve more than a single 

hood, we would include an additional 

cost for hood parts, which results in an 

overall estimated testing cost of $10,000 

for certification testing. This overall cost 

can then be amortized over the entire 

number of vehicles produced matching 

the test design. Thus, the amortized cost 

would not constitute a significant 

percentage of the relative cost of the 

vehicle. Comments are requested on 

these estimates. 

As with large manufacturers, small 

manufacturers would self-certify 

compliance to FMVSS No. 228 by the 

same certification label now required for 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards. The label is placed on 

the vehicle, usually in the door jamb on 

light vehicles. Adding FMVSS No. 228 

certification to the label is expected to 

result in minimal impact on small 

entities. 

NHTSA does not believe the small 

manufacturers listed in table XV.1 of 

this analysis are developing hood 

systems and/or related hardware for 

installation on the vehicles they 

manufacture. In today’s motor vehicle 

market, small vehicle manufacturers, 

who are less able than large 

manufacturers to take advantage of 

economies of scale to lower production 

costs, typically produce specialized, 

expensive vehicles and could obtain the 

hoods from a supplier (a large entity). 

Regardless of whether small 

manufacturers turn to a supplier, the 

vehicle manufacturer would be able to 

certify its vehicles to FMVSS No. 228 

through the use of energy-absorbing 

structures and strategic layout of hard 

engine components vis-a-vis the hood 

surface; designing and manufacturing a 

compliant hood is relatively 

uncomplicated. 

Furthermore, there are a significant 

number of final-stage manufacturers and 

alterers (several hundred) that could be 

impacted by the proposed rule. These 

manufacturers buy incomplete vehicles 

from the first-stage vehicle 

manufacturers or complete vehicles that 

they alter before first sale, respectively. 

Many of these vehicles are van 

conversions, but there are a variety of 

vehicles affected. These final-stage 

manufacturers would likely meet the 

standard by passing on the costs of 

compliance by the first-stage vehicle 

manufacturer to the consumer. Alterers 

would likely refrain from modifying the 

hood, which allows them to pass on the 

compliance costs by the original 

manufacturer of the vehicle to the 

consumer. Thus, while there are a 

substantial number of final stage 

manufacturers and alterers potentially 

impacted by the proposed rule, we do 

not believe the proposed rule will have 

a significant economic impact on the 

entities. Either a pass-through 

certification process will apply to these 

manufacturers, or they will do the work 

themselves to certify the vehicle. 

NHTSA does not believe that the 

potential costs of any necessary hood 

design would have significant impacts 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. In considering potential costs 

associated with redesigning hoods, we 

first note that this potential one-time 

cost would be spread out on a pervehicle basis, with costs shared across 

model years of a given generation. 

Furthermore, as the majority of the 

small entities identified also sell 

vehicles in the EU,172 much of the 

burden and associated cost of 

redesigning hoods would already be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76981 

173This approach accords with 49 CFR 571.8(b). 

incurred to meet the standards already 

in place in the EU. 

NHTSA considers in this paragraph 

how such costs may impact these small 

entities. It is assumed that any 

incremental costs incurred to meet the 

requirements specified in the proposed 

rule would be passed on to consumers 

and, therefore, potentially impact 

demand. The vehicles produced by 

manufacturers listed in the table can 

roughly be grouped into three classes: 

(1) luxury/ultra-luxury vehicles; (2) 

alternative electric vehicles; and (3) 

modified vehicles from other 

manufacturers. Luxury/ultra-luxury 

vehicles are considered to be Veblen 

goods. Veblen goods are those in which 

demand increases as price increases. 

Therefore, any potential incremental 

costs would not have negative impacts 

on the demand for these particular 

vehicles. Additionally, as all three 

categories of the vehicles manufactured 

by these small entities are specialty 

vehicles, demand for these vehicles 

would be inelastic due to a lack of 

substitutes. That is, it is expected that 

consumers who seek out these specific 

vehicles would not be impacted by 

potential price changes as a result of 

manufacturers passing costs on to 

consumers. 

5. An Identification, to the Extent 

Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 

Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With The Proposed Rule 

We know of no Federal rules which 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

proposed rule. 

6. Each RFA Shall Also Contain a 

Description of Any Significant 

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

Which Accomplish the Stated 

Objectives of Applicable Statutes and 

Which Minimize any Significant 

Economic Impact of the Proposal on 

Small Entities 

In addition to the requirements 

included in this NPRM, NHTSA 

considered a less stringent regulatory 

alternative in which the requirements 

specified in the proposed rule would 

match the E.U. interpretation of GTR 9 

and a more stringent alternative in 

which the requirements specified in the 

proposed rule would be applicable to 

the entire Hood Top, i.e., the Test Area 

would encompass the entire Hood Top. 

When comparing the less stringent 

regulatory alternative to the proposed 

rule, NHTSA determined that the costs 

would be very similar, and due to data 

limitations, assumed the costs to be the 

same. The proposed rule, however, 

provides more benefits relative to the 

less stringent regulatory alternative. 

While the more stringent regulatory 

alternative would offer greater overall 

benefits, we were unable to estimate the 

cost for the more stringent regulatory 

alternative due to data limitations. 

Overall, the less stringent regulatory 

alternative and proposed rule are only 

associated with fuel economy costs 

incurred over the life span of the 

vehicles impacted. Due to uncertainty 

about the feasibility and costs associated 

with the more stringent regulatory 

alternative, NHTSA was not able to 

assess the potential impacts of that 

regulatory alternative on small entities. 

While costs could increase with the 

more stringent regulatory alternative, it 

is not NHTSA’s preferred alternative. If 

the agency decides the alternative 

should be further pursued, the agency 

will consider the impacts to small 

entities when determining whether to 

finalize the more stringent regulatory 

alternative. 

We have identified no meaningful 

alternatives that both: (1) do not rely on 

the establishment of a HIC requirement; 

and (2) are expected to achieve 

improvements in pedestrian safety 

consistent with those expected under 

the proposed rule. However, in 

recognition of manufacturing 

differences between large manufacturers 

and these specific types of small 

manufacturers, NHTSA is proposing to 

provide final-stage manufacturers and 

alterers an additional year of lead time 

for manufacturer certifications of 

compliance.173 NHTSA anticipates that 

hood components and designs meeting 

FMVSS No. 228 may be developed by 

vehicle designers and suppliers and 

integrated into the fleets of larger 

vehicle manufacturers first, before these 

small manufacturers. This NPRM 

recognizes this and proposes to provide 

final-stage manufacturers and alterers 

more lead time. As designers and 

suppliers may prioritize meeting the 

demands of larger manufacturers, this 

additional lead time will allow small 

manufacturers to work with designers 

and suppliers without any stoppage in 

production Although, as discussed 

above, we do not project the proposed 

rule to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, the additional lead time would 

provide flexibility to further minimize 

any impacts. The NPRM does not 

provide additional lead time for other 

small manufacturers such as listed in 

table XV.1 who manufacture complete 

vehicles because the latter have the 

engineering resources to certify 

compliance in the same time frame as 

large manufacturers. Such small 

manufacturers perform or control much 

of the design and development of the 

vehicles they produce unlike typical 

final-stage manufacturers and alterers. 

With their engineering resources and 

control over the manufacturing 

processes, those small manufacturers 

have the ability to consider the 

proposed FMVSS No. 228 requirements 

and modify the hood as needed, like 

other manufacturers. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this proposed 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking will not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The proposed rule will not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. 

The express preemption provision 

described above is subject to a savings 

clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with 

a motor vehicle safety standard 

prescribed under this chapter does not 

exempt a person from liability at 

common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 

Pursuant to this provision, State 

common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76982 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

174Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2023 

(usinflationcalculator.com) 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision are 

generally preserved. 

However, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility, in some 

instances, of implied preemption of 

such State common law tort causes of 

action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even 

if not expressly preempted. This second 

way that NHTSA rules can preempt is 

dependent upon there being an actual 

conflict between an FMVSS and the 

higher standard that would effectively 

be imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers if someone obtained a 

State common law tort judgment against 

the manufacturer, notwithstanding the 

manufacturer’s compliance with the 

NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA 

standards established by an FMVSS are 

minimum standards, a State common 

law tort cause of action that seeks to 

impose a higher standard on motor 

vehicle manufacturers will generally not 

be preempted. However, if and when 

such a conflict does exist—for example, 

when the standard at issue is both a 

minimum and a maximum standard— 

the State common law tort cause of 

action is impliedly preempted. See 

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 

529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this rulemaking could or 

should preempt State common law 

causes of action. The agency’s ability to 

announce its conclusion regarding the 

preemptive effect of one of its rules 

reduces the likelihood that preemption 

will be an issue in any subsequent tort 

litigation. To this end, the agency has 

examined the nature (e.g., the language 

and structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this proposed rule and 

finds that it, like many NHTSA rules, 

would prescribe only a minimum safety 

standard. As such, NHTSA does not 

intend this rulemaking to preempt state 

tort law that would effectively impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers than that established by 

the rule. Establishment of a higher 

standard by means of State tort law will 

not conflict with the minimum standard 

adopted here. Without any conflict, 

there could not be any implied 

preemption of a State common law tort 

cause of action. 

Civil Justice Reform 

Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 

4729, February 7, 1996) requires that, 

when promulgating a new regulation, 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies any 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

any effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms, either explicitly or by 

reference to other regulations or statutes 

that explicitly define those items; and 

(6) addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship of regulations under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

proposed rule is discussed above. 

NHTSA notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

Under the PRA of 1995, a person is 

not required to respond to a collection 

of information by a Federal agency 

unless the collection displays a valid 

OMB control number. The agency has 

analyzed the proposed standard and 

determined that there are no reporting 

requirements that require an OMB 

control number. The proposed 

regulatory text would require that 

information must be made available 

under the agency enforcement authority 

provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to 

evaluate and use existing voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., 

the statutory provisions regarding 

NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or 

otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. Technical standards 

are defined by the NTTAA as 

‘‘performance-based or design-specific 

technical specification and related 

management systems practices.’’ They 

pertain to ‘‘products and processes, 

such as size, strength, or technical 

performance of a product, process or 

material.’’ Examples of organizations 

generally regarded as voluntary 

consensus standards bodies include the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available 

and potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards, we are required by 

the Act to provide Congress, through 

OMB, an explanation of the reasons for 

not using such standards. 

This proposal to adopt GTR 9 is 

consistent with the goals of the NTTAA. 

This NPRM proposes to adopt a global 

consensus standard. The GTR was 

developed by a global regulatory body 

and is designed to increase global 

harmonization of differing vehicle 

standards. The GTR leverages the 

expertise of governments in developing 

a vehicle standard to reduce the risk of 

pedestrian head injury in impacts. 

NHTSA’s consideration of GTR 9 

accords with the principles of NTTAA 

as NHTSA’s consideration of an 

established, proven regulation has 

reduced the need for NHTSA to expend 

significant agency resources on the same 

safety need addressed by GTR 9. This 

NPRM explains the reasons the FMVSS 

under consideration differs in some 

respects from GTR 9, and why NHTSA 

is considering additional changes to 

GTR 9 for the final rule. NHTSA will 

consider the comments to the NPRM 

and other information in drafting a final 

rule. If differences remain between the 

final rule and the GTR, the agency will 

explain in the final rule NHTSA’s 

reasons for deciding such differences 

are warranted, consistent with the 

NTTAA. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million (adjusted for inflation with base 

year of 1995) in any one year. Adjusting 

this amount by the implicit gross 

domestic product price deflator for the 

year 2021 results in $178 million (2021 

index value of 270.97/1995 index value 

of 152.40 = 1.78 174). This proposed rule 

would not result in a cost of $178 

million or more in any one year to either 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, 

this proposed rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 of the 

UMRA. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76983 

Incorporation by Reference 

Under regulations issued by the Office 

of the Federal Register (1 CFR 51.5(a)), 

an agency must summarize in the 

preamble of a proposed or final rule the 

material it incorporates by reference and 

discuss the ways the material is 

reasonably available to interested 

parties or how the agency worked to 

make materials available to interested 

parties. 

NHTSA proposes to incorporate by 

reference SAE Recommended Practice 

J211–1, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact 

Test—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation,’’ revised August 2022 

(SAE J211/1). Previous versions of this 

SAE standard are incorporated in 49 

CFR 571.5(l)(2) through (5). The SAE 

J211/1 standard provides guidelines and 

recommendations for techniques of 

measurements used in impact tests to 

achieve uniformity in instrumentation 

practice and in reporting results. Signals 

from impact tests have to be filtered 

following the standard’s guidelines to 

eliminate noise from sensor signals. 

Following J211/1 guidelines provides a 

basis for meaningful comparisons of test 

results from different sources. The SAE 

material is available for review at 

NHTSA and is available from SAE 

International. 

Severability 

The issue of severability of FMVSSs is 

addressed in 49 CFR 571.9. It provides 

that if any FMVSS or its application to 

any person or circumstance is held 

invalid, the remainder of the part and 

the application of that standard to other 

persons or circumstances is unaffected. 

NHTSA seeks comment on the issue of 

severability. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The DOT assigns a regulation 

identifier number (RIN) to each 

regulatory action listed in the Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 

Regulatory Information Service Center 

publishes the Unified Agenda in April 

and October of each year. You may use 

the RIN contained in the heading at the 

beginning of this document to find this 

action in the Unified Agenda. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us with your 

views. 

XVI. Public Participation 

How long do I have to submit 

comments? 

Please see DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

• Your comments must be submitted 

in writing. 

• To ensure that your comments are 

correctly filed in the Docket, please 

include the Docket Number shown at 

the beginning of this document in your 

comments. 

• Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 

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. 

• If you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) File, 

NHTSA asks that the documents be 

submitted using the Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) process, thus 

allowing NHTSA to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions. 

Comments may be submitted to the 

docket electronically by logging onto the 

Docket Management System website at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Please note that pursuant to the 

Data Quality Act, in order for 

substantive data to be relied upon and 

used by the agency, it must meet the 

information quality standards set forth 

in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act 

guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage 

you to consult the guidelines in 

preparing your comments. OMB’s 

guidelines may be accessed at https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2002- 

02-22/pdf/R2-59.pdf. DOT’s guidelines 

may be accessed at https://

www.transportation.gov/dotinformation-dissemination-qualityguidelines. 

Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, please 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified in the DATES section 

above. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (49 CFR part 

512). To facilitate social distancing 

during COVID–19, NHTSA is 

temporarily accepting confidential 

business information electronically. 

Please see https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

coronavirus/submission-confidentialbusiness-information for details. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76984 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Will the Agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. If 

Docket Management receives a comment 

too late for us to consider in developing 

the final rule, we will consider that 

comment as an informal suggestion for 

future rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management 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. To read 

the comments on the internet, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

Please note that, even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

Potential Equity or Climate Change 

Impacts 

The DOT recognizes that climate 

variability and change pose potential 

threats to U.S. transportation systems. In 

addition, ensuring equity and 

accessibility for every member of the 

traveling public is one of the 

Department’s highest priorities. NHTSA 

requests comment on any potential 

climate change or equity impact of this 

proposed rule. 

Privacy Act 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its decision-making 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.transportation.gov/privacy and 

https://www.transportation.gov/ 

individuals/privacy/privacy-act-systemrecords-notices. To facilitate comment 

tracking and response, the agency 

encourages commenters to provide their 

name, or the name of their organization; 

however, submission of names is 

completely optional. Whether or not 

commenters identify themselves, all 

timely comments will be fully 

considered. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

571 as set forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Section 571.5 paragraph (l) is 

amended by redesignating paragraphs 

(6) through (51) as paragraphs (7) 

through (52) and adding new paragraph 

(6) to read as follows: 

§ 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * * * 

(6) SAE Recommended Practice J211– 

1 AUG2022, ‘‘Instrumentation for 

Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation,’’ revised August 2022, 

into § 571.228. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 571.228 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.228 Standard No. 228; Pedestrian 

head protection. 

S1. Scope. This standard establishes 

performance requirements for vehicle 

hoods to protect pedestrians against 

head injury. 

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this 

standard is to reduce the risk of injury 

to pedestrians in the event of a collision. 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg or less, except for multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses 

where the distance, measured 

longitudinally on a horizontal plane, 

between the transverse centerline of the 

front axle and the seating reference 

point of the driver’s seat is less than 

1000 mm. This standard also applies to 

any bidirectional vehicles within the 

subset of vehicles described in this 

paragraph. 

S4. Definitions. (All references below 

are to this Standard No. 228, 49 CFR 

571.228, unless otherwise specified.) 

Adult Headform Test Area means the 

area specified in S6.5.4. 

Bidirectional vehicle means a vehicle 

that is intended to operate at similar 

speeds and with similar 

maneuverability in both directions of 

the vehicle longitudinal axis. 

Child Headform Test Area means the 

area of the vehicle hood specified in 

S6.5.3. 

Combined Child and Adult Headform 

Test Area means the areas of the Child 

Headform Test Area and Adult 

Headform Test Area together. If the 

Adult Headform Test Area does not 

exist, the Child Headform Test Area 

represents the Combined Child and 

Adult Headform Test Area. 

Corner reference point of the Child 

Headform Test Area means the 

intersection of the Child Headform Test 

Area (6.5.3) front border (HIC Unlimited 

Margin of the Leading Edge Reference 

Line (S6.4.2) and the side border (HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the Side Reference 

Line (S6.4.3). Where multiple 

intersections occur, the most outboard 

intersection is the corner reference point 

of the Child Headform Test Area and 

constitutes the endpoint of the Child 

Headform Test Area front border and 

side border. 

Corner reference point of the Hood 

Area means the intersection of the Hood 

Area (6.5.2) front border (Leading Edge 

Reference Line (S6.3.2) or the WAD1000 

line (S6.3.1)) and the side border (Side 

Reference Line (S6.3.3)). Where 

multiple intersections occur, the most 

outboard intersection defines the corner 

reference point of the Hood Area and 

constitutes the endpoint of the Hood 

Area front border and the side border. 

Corner reference point of the Hood 

Top means the intersection of the Hood 

Top (6.5.1) front border (Leading Edge 

Reference Line (S6.3.2)) and the side 

border (Side Reference Line (S6.3.3)). 

Where multiple intersections occur, the 

most outboard intersection defines the 

corner reference point of the Hood Top 

and constitutes the endpoint of the 

Hood Top front border and the side 

border. 

Front means the leading portion of the 

vehicle during typical operation, except 

for non-bidirectional vehicles that are 

operating in a reverse gear intended for 

vehicles maneuvering in small areas. 

Ground reference plane means a 

horizontal plane that passes through the 

lowest points of contact for all tires of 

the vehicle. 

Headform means a device specified in 

S8 and is the moving mass that strikes 

the vehicle. 

Head Injury Criterion (HIC) means an 

injury severity score that is computed 

from accelerometer time histories using 

the following formula: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76985 

Where: 

a is the resultant acceleration measured in 

units of gravity ‘‘g’’ (1 g = 9.81 m/s2); 

t1 and t2 are the two time instants during the 

impact expressed in seconds, defining an 

interval between the beginning and the 

end of the recording period for which the 

value of HIC is a maximum (t2¥t1 ≤ 15 

ms) 

HIC Unlimited Area means the area 

that shares an outer boundary with the 

Hood Top and whose inner boundary is 

the HIC Unlimited Margin. (See figure 

7.) 

HIC Unlimited Margin means the 

inner boundary of the HIC Unlimited 

Area. It is the same as the outer 

boundary of the Combined Child and 

Adult Headform Test Areas. (See figure 

7.) 

HIC1000 Area means the area within 

the Child Headform Test Area and 

Adult Headform Test Area with a 

minimum area as specified in S5.2 and 

where the HIC value must not exceed 

1,000, as specified in S5.1(a). 

HIC1700 Area means the area with 

borders as specified in S5.5 and where 

the HIC value must not exceed 1,700, as 

specified in S5.1(b). 

Hood Area means the area enclosed 

by the borders specified in S6.5.2 that 

provides the basis for the amount of area 

in the Child Headform Test Area and 

the Adult Headform Test Area, which 

must be HIC1000 Area, as specified by 

S5.2. 

Hood Top means the area enclosed by 

the borders specified in S6.5.1 and 

consisting of the HIC Unlimited Area, 

Child Headform Test Area and Adult 

Headform Test Area. 

Impact point(s) means the point(s) on 

the vehicle where the initial contact 

with the headform occurs (point A in 

figure 1, provided for illustration 

purposes). It is permissible to have 

multiple simultaneous points of initial 

contact resulting from a headform 

launch. HIC value requirements for 

multiple simultaneous points of initial 

contact are specified in S5.3. 

Non-contactable surfaces means areas 

within the Hood Top that cannot be 

contacted by the headform due to the 

geometry of the hood, such as a 

depression in the hood that the 

headform bridges across. 

Wrap Around Distance (WAD) means 

a distance measured from the ground 

reference plane to a point on the 

vehicle, by the use of a non-stretch 

flexible tape or graduated wire, with one 

end held perpendicular to the ground 

reference plane while the tape or wire 

is maintained in the vehicle vertical 

longitudinal plane and wrapped around 

the vehicle front end. As specified in 

S6.3.1, this procedure results in 

identified WAD lines by using wires of 

different lengths, e.g., a wire of 1,000 ± 

1 mm is used to identify a line at 1,000 

mm from the ground reference plane. 

The naming conventions are to follow 

‘‘WAD’’ with the length of the wire used 

for the measurement, and to refer to 

WAD [wire length] to refer to the line 

drawn by using the wire and the WAD 

procedure. 

S5 Performance and other 

requirements. 

S5.1 Headform impact 

requirements. 

(a) When tested in accordance with 

the procedures of S6 under the 

conditions of S7, subject to the limits of 

S5.2, when any part of a vehicle within 

the Child Headform Test Area or Adult 

Headform Test Area is impacted by the 

headform described in S8, HIC shall not 

exceed 1,000 (HIC1000). 

(b) The HIC in the remaining Child or 

Adult Headform Test Areas shall not 

exceed 1,700 (HIC1700), provided that 

the manufacturer has identified 

HIC1700 Area specified by S5.5(a). 

S5.2 Minimum Amount of Child and 

Adult Headform Test Area that must 

conform to HIC1000. 

(a) HIC1000 Area in the Combined 

Child and Adult Headform Test Areas. 

Calculate the numerical value of two 

thirds of the Hood Area (see S4 for the 

definition of Hood Area and S6.5.2 for 

its determination). At least this amount 

of area, if it can be placed within the 

boundary of the combined Child 

Headform Test Area (S6.5.3) and the 

Adult Headform Test Area (S6.5.4), 

must be HIC1000 Area. If the numerical 

value of two thirds of the Hood Area 

exceeds the Combined Child and Adult 

Headform Test Area, the entire 

Combined Child and Adult Headform 

Test Area must be HIC1000 Area. 

(b) HIC1000 Area in Child Headform 

Test Area. Calculate the numerical 

value of one half of the Hood Area with 

less than WAD1700. At least this 

amount of area, when placed within the 

boundary of the Child Headform Test 

Area, must be HIC1000 Area. 

S5.3 Multiple simultaneous impact 

points. 

(a) If multiple simultaneous points of 

initial contact between the headform 

and the vehicle occur in more than one 

area and the areas have differing HIC 

requirements, the more stringent 

requirement applies. For example, if the 

initial impact occurs simultaneously 

within a HIC1700 Area and a HIC1000 

Area, the HIC1000 requirement applies. 

If first contact occurs simultaneously in 

both an Adult Headform Test Area and 

a Child Headform Test Area, tests with 

both headforms must be performed at 

that location. 

S5.5 Border of the HIC1700 Areas in 

the Hood Area. Under the authority 

provided in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, 

30166, vehicle manufacturers must 

make available to NHTSA the following 

information upon request. 

(a) Manufacturers must identify 

HIC1700 Areas as described below, 

subject to S5.5(b). The HIC1700 Areas 

will be irrevocably selected prior to, or 

at the time of, certification of the 

vehicle. If no HIC1700 Area is provided 

by the manufacturer, NHTSA will test 

the Combined Child and Adult 

Headform Test Area as HIC1000 Area. 

(1) Manufacturers must select 

HIC1700 Areas based on the (x,y) 

coordinates of their borders referenced 

from the intersection of WAD1000 and 

the longitudinal centerline of the 

vehicle. The number of coordinates and 

the spacing of the coordinates are 

provided at the discretion of the 

manufacturer, but the points must be 

joined by straight lines in the x-y plane 

when marking off the test areas of an 

actual vehicle. 

(2) In lieu of (x,y) coordinates, the 

manufacturer may base the HIC1700 

Area on registration marks referenced 

from the intersection of WAD1000 and 

the vehicle longitudinal centerline and 

may use decals or templates for this 

purpose. 

(b)(1) When a HIC1700 Area is 

contiguous with the HIC Unlimited 

Margin as specified in S6.4, the lines 

identified by NHTSA in accordance 

with this standard will supersede any 

conflicting coordinates provided by the 

manufacturer, and will act as border 

lines in defining the HIC1700 Area. 

(2) Each HIC1700 Area border line 

must be contiguous. However, the total 

HIC1700 Area may consist of an 

unlimited number of contiguous areas, 

provided that the vehicle meets the 

requirement for HIC1000 Area specified 

in S5.2. 

S5.6 Active hoods. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.030</GPH>

HIC= 
76986 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(a) Under the authority provided in 49 

U.S.C. 30166, upon NHTSA’s request, 

vehicle manufacturers must make 

available to NHTSA information 

explaining the basic operational 

characteristics of their active hood 

system. 

(b) Vehicles with active hoods shall 

meet the requirements of this standard 

when the hood is fully deployed. The 

devices to be deployed, and the 

minimum and maximum period of time 

between device deployment and impact 

of the headform to assure full 

deployment at time of impact, must be 

irrevocably selected by the 

manufacturer prior to, or at the time of, 

certification of the vehicle, and 

provided to NHTSA upon request, 

under the authority provided in 49 

U.S.C. 30166. 

(c) All reference lines, HIC Unlimited 

Margins, and WAD lines specified in 

S6.3 must be determined on the vehicle 

with the hood in its undeployed state. 

HIC1700 areas will be identified on the 

vehicle with the hood in its undeployed 

state. 

(d) The impact point of the headform 

is determined with the hood in an 

undeployed position. 

S5.7 Other movable components. 

(a) Other than active devices specified 

in S5.6, any vehicle component (such as 

pop-up headlamps) that could change 

shape or position, and that have more 

than one fixed shape or position, must 

be stowed or retracted when 

determining the reference lines, 

margins, and WAD lines specified in 

S6.3. 

(b) The impact point of the headform 

is determined when the active devices 

are in their stowed or retracted position. 

S6 Test Procedures. 

S6.1 Demonstrate compliance with 

S5.1 of this standard in accordance with 

the test procedures specified in this 

standard, under the conditions of S7, 

using the headforms described in S8. 

These procedures are used to identify 

the Leading Edge Reference Line, Side 

Reference Lines, Rear Reference Line, 

and the WAD lines (S6.3). These lines 

are used to identify Hood Area and 

subsequently the minimum requisite 

HIC1000 Area that must be provided. 

The lines are also used to identify HIC 

Unlimited Margins (S6.4) and to 

identify the Child Headform Test Area 

(S6.5.3) and the Adult Headform Test 

Area (S6.5.4). NHTSA may request 

information from the manufacturer in 

order to identify the HIC1700 areas 

(S5.5). The headform is launched at the 

hood (S6.6). The child headform must 

impact within the Child Headform Test 

Area and the adult headform must 

impact within the Adult Headform Test 

Area. When a headform strikes a 

HIC1000 Area, the HIC measured by the 

headform must not exceed 1000. When 

it strikes a HIC 1700 area, HIC must not 

exceed 1700. 

S6.2 [Reserved] 

S6.3 Determining reference lines on 

the vehicle. Subject to S6.3.5, the 

reference lines are determined on the 

vehicle as follows. 

S6.3.1 WAD lines. Determine WAD 

lines by connecting the end points of a 

non-stretch flexible wire as it is 

traversed across the front of the vehicle. 

During this process, the wire must 

remain in a vertical longitudinal vehicle 

plane and held taut. One end of the wire 

must be held at the ground reference 

level, vertically ± 1 degree, below the 

front end of the vehicle, and the other 

end held in contact with the hood or 

fender (see figure 2, provided for 

illustration purposes). Determine WAD 

lines using wires of 1000 ± 1 mm (the 

line is referred to as WAD1000), 1700 ± 

1 mm (WAD1700) and of 2100 ± 1 mm 

(WAD2100). 

S6.3.2 Leading Edge Reference Line. 

(a) Default procedure. Determine the 

Leading Edge Reference Line by 

connecting the points of contact 

between a straight edge 1000 ± 1 mm 

long and the front surface of the vehicle 

as the straight edge is traversed laterally 

across and is in contact with the front 

end of the vehicle (see figure 3, 

provided for illustration purposes). 

During this process, the straight edge 

must be held in a vertical longitudinal 

vehicle plane, inclined rearwards by 40 

± 1 degree from the horizontal, and with 

the lower end 600 ± 5 mm above the 

ground reference plane. If the straight 

edge makes a continuous contact or 

makes multiple contacts on the vehicle 

when the straight edge is at a single 

lateral location, rerun the procedure 

with the straight edge inclined 

rearwards at an angle of 50 ± 1 degree 

from the horizontal. For the purpose of 

determining whether the straight edge 

should be held at 50 ± 1 degree from the 

horizontal, contacts with a straight edge 

will be considered continuous if the 

total length of contact along the straight 

edge is greater than 50 mm and the 

deviation of the contact surface from the 

straight edge is less than 0.5 mm. 

Additionally, contact points must be 

separated by at least 50 mm in order to 

be considered multiple points of 

contact. If this procedure results in 

multiple or continuous points of contact 

even after inclining the straight edge 

rearwards at an angle of 50 ± 1 degree 

from the horizontal, determine the 

Leading Edge Reference Line using the 

most forward contact. 

(b) Low front vehicles. If the vehicle 

exterior geometry is such that the 

bottom end of the straight edge makes 

first contact with the vehicle, that 

contact point is used to determine the 

Leading Edge Reference Line at that 

lateral position. See figure 4, provided 

for illustration purposes. 

(c) High front vehicles. If the vehicle 

exterior geometry is such that the top 

end of the straight edge makes first 

contact with the vehicle, then the 

WAD1000 line will be used as the 

Leading Edge Reference Line at that 

lateral position. If the WAD1000 line 

does not intersect the Side Reference 

Line determined in S6.3.3 such that the 

corner reference point of the Hood Top 

does not exist, connect the two lines 

using the following procedure. 

(1) Find the corner reference point of 

the Hood Top, as if the Leading Edge 

Reference Line were determined by the 

top end of the straight edge, rather than 

WAD1000. If this point does not exist, 

find the corner reference point of the 

Hood Top, as if the Leading Edge 

Reference Line were determined by the 

straight edge held at any height. 

(2) Span the distance between the 

corner reference point of the Hood Top 

and the WAD1000 line with a nonstretch flexible wire held taut in the 

vertical longitudinal plane. 

(3) Fill the discontinuity by 

establishing a line created by the 

projection of the wire horizontally 

rearward onto the vehicle surface. 

S6.3.3 Side Reference Lines. These 

lines are determined on the vehicle by 

connecting the points of contact 

between a straight edge 700 ± 1 mm long 

and the vehicle, as the straight edge is 

traversed fore or aft, in contact with the 

sides of the vehicle (see figure 5, 

provided for illustration purposes). 

During this process, the straight edge 

must be held in a vertical transverse 

vehicle plane, inclined inwards by 45 ± 

1 degrees from the horizontal. If this 

procedure results in multiple or 

continuous points of contact on the 

vehicle when the straight edge is at a 

single fore-aft location, determine the 

Side Reference Line by using the most 

outboard contact. 

S6.3.4 Rear Reference Line. 

(a) Default procedure. This line is 

determined on the vehicle by 

connecting the most rearward points on 

the hood that contact a 165 ± 1 mm 

diameter hemisphere as it is traversed 

laterally across the vehicle while 

maintaining contact with the 

windshield (see figure 6, provided for 

illustration purposes). The wiper blades, 

linkages, and arms are removed during 

this process. If this procedure results in 

multiple or continuous points of contact 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76987 

on the vehicle when the hemisphere is 

at a single lateral location, determine 

the Rear Reference Line by using the 

most rearward contact. This section is 

subject to S6.3.4(b). 

(b) Revision of a Rear Reference Line 

when not intersecting with a Side 

Reference Line. 

(1) Where the rear reference line and 

the side reference line do not intersect, 

the rear reference line must be extended 

and/or modified using a semi-circular 

template of radius 100 ± 1 mm. The 

template must be made of a thin flexible 

sheet material that easily bends to a 

single curvature in any direction. The 

template must resist double or complex 

curvature where this could result in 

wrinkling. The template is marked with 

four points ‘‘A’’ through ‘‘D,’’ as shown 

in figure 8 (provided for illustration 

purpose), while the template is on a flat 

surface. 

(2) The template must be placed on 

the vehicle with Corners ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ 

coincident with the Side Reference 

Line. Ensuring these two corners remain 

coincident with the Side Reference 

Line, the template must be slid 

progressively rearwards until the outer 

edge of the template makes first contact 

with the Rear Reference Line. 

Throughout the process, the template 

must be curved to follow, as closely as 

possible, the outer contour of the 

vehicle’s hood and fender without 

wrinkling or folding of the template. If 

the first point of contact between the 

template and Rear Reference Line lies 

outside the arc identified by points ‘‘C’’ 

and ‘‘D,’’ the Rear Reference Line is 

extended and/or modified to follow the 

circumferential arc of the template to 

meet the Side Reference Line, as shown 

in figure 9 (provided for illustration 

purposes). 

(3) Larger template. If the outer edge 

of the template of S6.34(b)(1) cannot 

make contact with the Rear Reference 

Line while simultaneously the Side 

Reference Line contacts points ‘‘A’’ and 

‘‘B,’’ or the point at which the Rear 

Reference Line and template make first 

contact lies within the arc identified by 

points ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D,’’ then additional 

templates will be used where the radii 

are increased progressively in 

increments of 20 mm, until all the 

criteria of S6.3.4(b)(2) are met. 

S6.3.5 Adjustments to the 

procedures determining the reference 

lines. 

(a) Line discontinuity. If the Leading 

Edge Reference Line, Side Reference 

Line(s) or Rear Reference Line are 

discontinuous (i.e., the procedure has 

resulted in a gap in a line), the 

discontinuity will be spanned by the 

following method. Connect the two 

points separated by the discontinuity 

with a non-stretch flexible wire held 

taut. Fill the discontinuity by 

establishing a line created by the 

projection of the wire vertically 

downward onto the hood surface. 

(b) Hood ornaments. If the vehicle is 

fitted with a badge, emblem, hood 

ornament, or other structure which 

would bend back or retract under an 

applied load of maximum 100 ± 5 N, 

apply this load while the reference lines 

are defined on the hood. The load must 

be released prior to testing with a 

headform. 

S6.4 HIC Unlimited Margins. 

S6.4.1 HIC Unlimited Margin of the 

Rear Reference Line. The HIC Unlimited 

Margin of the Rear Reference Line is the 

line that is forwardmost of the following 

two lines. 

(a) The line on the vehicle determined 

by connecting the points of contact 

between a non-stretch flexible wire 

measuring 82.5 ± 0.5 mm long as it is 

traversed along the Rear Reference Line. 

During this process, the wire remains in 

a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane and 

held taut. One end of the wire is held 

in contact with the Rear Reference Line 

and the other end is held in contact 

with the vehicle at points forward of the 

Rear Reference Line. 

(b) The WAD2100 Line. 

S6.4.2 HIC Unlimited Margin of the 

Leading Edge Reference Line. The HIC 

Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge 

Reference Line is the line that is 

rearmost of the following two lines. 

(a) The line on the vehicle determined 

by connecting the points of contact 

between a non-stretch flexible wire 

measuring 82.5 ± 0.5 mm long as it is 

traversed along the Leading Edge 

Reference Line. During this process, the 

wire remains in a vertical longitudinal 

vehicle plane and held taut. One end of 

the wire is held in contact with the 

Leading Edge Reference Line and the 

other end is held in contact with the 

vehicle and points rearward of the 

Leading Edge Reference Line. 

(b) The WAD1000 Line. 

S6.4.3 HIC Unlimited Margin of the 

Side Reference Lines. This HIC 

Unlimited Margin is the line determined 

by connecting the points of contact 

between a non-stretch flexible wire 

measuring 82.5 ± 0.5 mm long as it is 

traversed along the Side Reference Line. 

During this process, the wire remains in 

a vertical lateral plane and held taut. 

One end of the wire is held in contact 

with the Side Reference Line and the 

other end held is in contact with the 

vehicle and points inward of the Side 

Reference Line. 

S6.5 Hood Top, Hood Area, Child 

Headform Test Area and Adult 

Headform Test Area border lines and 

computation method. The border lines 

for the Hood Top, Hood Area, the Child 

Headform Test Area, and the Adult 

Headform Test Area are identified as 

described in this section. Computation 

of these areas is made on the basis of a 

two-dimensional projection of these 

areas on to a horizontal vehicle plane. 

These areas include those comprised of 

any ‘‘non-contactable surfaces’’ (as 

defined in S4) in their computation. 

S6.5.1 Hood Top. This area is 

enclosed by the intersection of the 

following borders: 

(a) Front border: Leading Edge 

Reference Line; 

(b) Side border: Side Reference Lines. 

(c) Rear border: Rear Reference Line. 

S6.5.2 Hood Area. This area is 

enclosed by the intersection of the 

following borders: 

(a) Front border: the Leading Edge 

Reference Line or the WAD1000 line, 

whichever is most rearward at the point 

of measurement; 

(b) Side border: Side Reference Lines. 

(c) Rear border: Rear Reference Line, 

or the WAD2100 line, whichever is most 

forward at the point of measurement. 

S6.5.3 Child Headform Test Area. 

This area is enclosed by the intersection 

of the following borders: 

(a) Front border: HIC Unlimited 

Margin of the Leading Edge Reference 

Line. 

(b) Side borders: HIC Unlimited 

Margins of the Side Reference Lines. 

(c) Rear border: WAD1700 line or the 

HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear 

Reference Line, whichever is most 

forward at the point of measurement. 

S6.5.4 Adult Headform Test Area. 

This area is enclosed by the intersection 

of the following borders: 

(a) Front border: WAD1700 line. 

(b) Side borders: HIC Unlimited 

Margins of the Side Reference Lines. 

(c) Rear border: HIC Unlimited 

Margin of the Rear Reference Line. 

S6.6 Headform launch procedures. 

(a) Propulsion of the headform. The 

headform must be in free flight at the 

moment of impact. The headform 

velocity at the time of impact must be 

9.7 ± 0.2 meters per second (m/s) for 

both the child and adult headforms. 

(b) Child headform test procedure. 

(1) At least one impact point against 

which the child headform contacts must 

be in the Child Headform Test Area. 

(2) The velocity vector of the 

headform center of mass at impact is in 

a longitudinal vertical vehicle plane at 

an angle of 50 ± 2° to the horizontal 

directed downward and rearward. 

(c) Adult headform test procedure. 

(1) At least one impact point against 

which the adult headform contacts must 

be in the Adult Headform Test Area. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
76988 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(2) The velocity vector of the 

headform center of mass at impact is in 

a longitudinal vertical vehicle plane at 

an angle of 65 ± 2° to the horizontal 

directed downward and rearward. 

S7 General test conditions. 

S7.1 Humidity and temperature. At 

the time of testing, the ambient air at the 

test site must have a relative humidity 

of 40 percent ± 30 percent and a 

temperature of 20 ± 4 °C. 

S7.2 Test site. The test site is on a 

ground reference plane consisting of a 

flat, smooth and hard surface with a 

grade not exceeding 1 percent. 

S7.3. Vehicle preparation. 

(a) Normal ride attitude. The vehicle 

is positioned on the ground reference 

plane, loaded to its unloaded vehicle 

weight, and tires inflated to the 

pressures listed on the vehicle’s FMVSS 

No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110) placard. The 

front wheels are aligned to be parallel to 

the vehicle vertical longitudinal plane, 

the suspension set to the normal 

running condition as specified by the 

manufacturer for a speed of 40 km/hr, 

and the parking brake applied. 

(b) Additional mass. Place a 75 ± 5 kg 

mass at each most outboard front row 

seat. The fore-aft position of a loaded 

seat must be set at the mid-track 

position. If there is no notch at the midtrack position, the seat is set at the 

notch closest to and rearward of midtrack, with respect to the direction the 

seat is facing. Set the seat back angle to 

a position between the most upright 

position intended for occupancy to 10 

degrees rearward of that position, with 

respect to the direction the seat is 

facing. 

(c) Movable front-end vehicle 

components. 

(1) Active hoods and devices. Active 

hoods, external air bags, and other 

devices designed to protect pedestrians 

are deployed prior to launching the 

headform. 

(2) Other movable components. Other 

than active devices specified in S6.3, 

any vehicle component (such as pop-up 

headlamps) that could change shape or 

position, and that have more than one 

fixed shape or position, are adjusted to 

any fixed shape or position prior to 

launching the headform. 

S8. Headform specifications 

(a) Dynamic performance 

requirements. 

(1) Qualification. The headforms must 

meet the dynamic qualification 

requirements specified in S8.4. 

(2) First natural frequency. The first 

natural frequency of the headforms must 

be over 5000 Hz. 

S8.1 Construction. 

(a) The child and adult headforms are 

made of aluminum, are of homogenous 

construction and are hemispherical in 

shape. The headforms are schematically 

represented in figures 11 and 12 and 

detailed mechanical drawings are 

provided in figures 13–26. The overall 

diameter of the headforms are 165 ± 1 

mm. 

(b) Mass properties of child headform 

(figure 13). The mass of the child 

headform is 3.5 ± 0.07 kg. The moment 

of inertia about an axis through the 

center of gravity and perpendicular to 

the direction of impact is within the 

range of 0.008 to 0.012 kgm2. The center 

of gravity of the headform including 

instrumentation is located in the 

geometric center of the sphere with a 

tolerance of ±2 mm. 

(c) Mass properties of adult headform 

(figure 20). The mass of the adult 

headform is 4.5 ± 0.1 kg. The moment 

of inertia about an axis through the 

center of gravity and perpendicular to 

the direction of impact is within the 

range of 0.010 to 0.013 kgm2. The center 

of gravity of the headform including 

instrumentation is located in the 

geometric center of the sphere with a 

tolerance of ± 5 mm. 

(d) Cover (figures 15 and 22). The 

headforms are covered with a 14 ± 0.5 

mm thick synthetic skin, which must 

cover at least half of the hemisphere. 

(e) Back plate (figures 17 and 24). The 

headforms each have a rear flat face 

perpendicular to the direction of travel 

and the axis of one of the 

accelerometers. The flat face provides 

access to the accelerometers and serves 

as an attachment point for the 

propulsion system. 

S8.2 Instrumentation mount. A 

recess within the headforms allows for 

mounting three uniaxial accelerometers. 

For each accelerometer, the seismic 

mass is located within ± 5 mm of the 

headform’s centroid as measured along 

its measurement axis, and within ± 0.5 

mm as measured perpendicular to its 

measurement axis. 

S8.3 Instrumentation. 

(a) Three uniaxial accelerometers are 

installed within the headforms. One of 

the accelerometers has its sensitive axis 

perpendicular to mounting face A (see 

figures 11 and 12) and its seismic mass 

is positioned within a cylindrical 

tolerance field of 1 mm radius and 20 

mm length. The centerline of the 

tolerance field runs perpendicular to the 

mounting face and its mid-point 

coincides with the spherioidal center of 

the headform. 

(b) The remaining accelerometers 

have their sensitive axes perpendicular 

to each other and parallel to mounting 

face A and their seismic masses are 

positioned within a spherical tolerance 

field of 10 mm radius. The center of the 

tolerance field coincides with the 

spheroidal center of the headform. 

(c) The accelerometers have the 

dimensions, response characteristics, 

and sensitive mass locations specified 

in drawing SA572–S5 (figure 27). The 

instrumentation response value Channel 

Frequency Class (CFC), as defined in 

SAE J211 (2022), ‘‘Instrumentation for 

Impact Test,’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 571.5), is CFC 1000. 

S8.4 Qualification requirements 

(a) Peak acceleration. For each of the 

three drop tests prescribed in S8, the 

peak resultant acceleration in the 

headform must be: 

(1) for the child headform, not less 

than 245 g and not more than 300 g; 

(2) for the adult headform, not less 

than 225 g and not more than 275 g. 

(b) Unimodal response. For each of 

the three drop tests, the acceleration 

must be unimodal to the extent that 

oscillations occurring after the main 

acceleration pulse are less than ten 

percent (zero to peak) of the main pulse. 

(c) Off-axis sensitivity. The lateral 

acceleration must not exceed 15 g (zero 

to peak). 

S8.5 Qualification procedure 

(a) Temperature and humidity. The 

headforms must have a temperature of 

20 ± 2 °C. The temperature tolerances 

apply at a relative humidity of 40 ± 30 

percent after a soak period of at least 

four hours prior to their application in 

a test. 

(b) Drop test. (1) Drop rig. The 

headform is suspended from a drop rig 

as shown in figure 12 (provided for 

illustration purposes) and released by a 

means to ensure that it does not rotate 

during the fall. The headform is set up 

to strike a rigidly supported flat 

horizontal steel plate, over 50 mm thick 

and over 300 x 300 mm square with a 

surface finish of between 0.2 and 2.0 

micrometers. The plate is ±0.5 degrees 

from horizontal. The headform skin 

outer surface and the surface of the steel 

plate are cleaned with 1,1,1 

trichloroethane or equivalent and 

allowed to dry. 

(2) Drop angle. The headform must be 

oriented as shown in figure 10 

(provided for illustration purposes) with 

the rear face of the headform at the 

following angles from the vertical: 

(i) 50 ± 2 degrees for the child 

headform; 

(ii) 65 ± 2 degrees for the adult 

headform. 

(3) Drop height. The headform is 

dropped from a height of 376 ± 1 mm. 

(i) Initial drop. The drop is performed 

with the headform oriented such that 

the plane formed by the travel direction 

vector and the symmetric axis of the 

headform is perpendicular within ± 2 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76989 

degrees to the sensitive axis of one of 

the accelerometers. 

(ii) Repeat drops. The drop test is 

performed two additional times, with 

the headform rotated 120° around its 

symmetrical axis after each test with a 

two-hour wait period between tests. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

[Figures to FMVSS No. 228, 49 CFR 

571.228] 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.031</GPH>

Impact - --.. 

Point 'A' 

goo+ 10 

Child Headform 

Impact Velocity Vector 

Figure 1. Impact point. 

For illustration purposes only. 

Wrap Around 

Distance 

Figure 2. Wrap Around Distance measurement. 

For illustration purposes only. 
76990 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.032</GPH>

Straight edge 

1,000 ± 1 mm long 

E 

E 

i.n 

+1 

0 

0 

\!) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

,,,. - Leading Edge 

/ 1 Reference Line 

Figure 3. Leading edge reference line 

For illustration purposes only. 

Straight edge 

1,000 ± 1 mm long 

E 

E 

u, 

-H 

8 

IJ) 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

I 

I' 

/ 

/ 

,,,. - leading Edge 

/ / Reference Line 

/ 

Figure 4. Leading Edge Reference Line for Low Front Vehicles. 

For illustration purposes only. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76991 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.033</GPH>

Straight edge 

700 ± 1 mm long 

45° ± 1 ° 

I 

I 

I 

I 

;- - Side Reference 

/ Line 

Figure 5. Side reference line. 

For illustration purposes only. 

165 ± 1 mm --, 

Sphere 

Rear 

Reference Line 

Figure 6. Rear reference line. 

For illustration purposes only. 
76992 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.034</GPH>

_,,.-- .... ,, ' , __ _,,..,,,. .... __ _ 

eading 

~ Edg 

Reference L" 

~~· 

HIC Unlimited Margin of 

the Side Reference Line 

C 

_,,.-- .... , ___ ,,,,. ,, ' .... __ _ 

_,,.-- .... , ___ .,,,. ,, ' .... __ _ 

Adult Headform 

Test Area 

HIC Unlimited Area 

Test Area 

HIC Unlimited Margin of the 

Leading Edge Reference Line 

Figure 7. Example marking ofreference lines for Hood Top (A), Hood Area (B),Test Areas, 

HIC Unlimited Areas (C), Child and Adult Headform Test Areas (C). For illustration purposes 

only 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76993 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.035</GPH>

Corner 'A' 

Point 'C' 

----R 100 ± 1 mm 

Corner 'B' 

Point 'D' 

45.0° ± 0.5° 

Figure 8. Template used to revise a non-intersecting rear reference line. 

Modifed End of 

-, Rear Reference Line , 

Semi-circular 

Template 

Side Reference 

Line 

\ 

\ 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

Discarded End of 

Rear Reference Line 

I 

I 

Rear Reverence , 

Line 

Figure 9. Marking of intersection between rear and side reference lines. 

For illustration purposes only. 
76994 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.036</GPH>

I 

Strings - - ~, 

' ' 

Drop Height 

Rigid Steel Plate - ~,,,, 300mm. 

, - - Release Mechanism 

I 

50° ± 2° 

• \ 

\ Child Headform 

Release Angle 

Figure 10. Test set-up for dynamic headform qualification test. 

For illustration purposes only. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76995 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.037</GPH>

Sphere 165 mm ------~ 

Figure 11 - Child Headform Assembly Schematic 

End Plate 

Skin 

Sphere 

-------- Sphere 165 mm 

Figure 12 -Adult Headform Assembly Schematic 

EP19SE24.038</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Aac.iuii! tA!i .l!E MODiFIED As fiECEsSARv;As LONG As THE FOil.OWiNG $PEC1A(:A.TIONS' 

MADE OF .i.i.liMit-iuM, wmi ii. s'/Nilirni:: si<iN 

4 tO.SMM THICK SYNTHETIC SKIN, WHICH SHALL COVER AT l£A5T HALF OF THE 

CTOR;.INCLUDING INSTRUMENTATION, SHALL BE LOCAT-ED 1K 'II-IE CENTER OF THE 

M 

AXIS THROUGH 'II-IE CENTER OF GRAVITY AND PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIREClTON 

F 0.008 -0.012 KG-M2 

W FOR MOUNTING OF THREE UNIAXIAL ACCELEROMETERS ORONE TRIAXIAL 

 SEISMIC MASS OF THE ACCELEROMETER SHOULD BE. Wl'IHIN ± 10 MM FROM THE 

UREMENTAXIS, ANDWltHlN.± 1.MM FROM 'II-IE CENTER OF 'IHE SPHERE FOR'll-1£ 

MEASUREMENT AXIS. 

AOCELEROMETER CAN BE USED AHoNG ASi DAMPING tom:ICIENT MATCHES (0-7), 

 REMAINS Wl'll-liN SPECIFiCATJON, AND THEACC£1.EROMETEtl{S) CAN SE MOUNTED 

RESPONse SPEOFICAtlONSINTHE APPLICABLE O\iNAMiCO.UAllFICA'TION TEST 

HE CHILD HEAOFORM SHALL.BE OVER SOOOHz 

!ONE REV DESCRIPTION D.ATE BY 

A ~OED NOTE 10, ADPED SIPE AND .FA.ONT VIEW 11/30/2016 JHC 

-

-~ 

0 

.0 

1 

,;/J ,;/J 

< 

s 

--g 

(I) 

:::c: 

"O 

:E 

u 

I 

C"') 

-

[ 

EP19SE24.039</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

A 

• .., •. 

 DEEP: 

.J 

A 

fj.7 

SECTION A.A 

1. l 

:rrlM 

flss .. b 

'\H. 

I , j i 1:i7'.0 ' ' l l 

2 5000348 ltEUCOIL., Ml!IJCJ;25x8 

Oll-0210 IHW>d.s'nNG 

91211nless 

rn?:M PARTNIJMBBt, 

1"01LAA~_tS.-ARt; * 

Ahmlnum-6061 

t,yl.lEIUAL 

NAT!ONAL. JIIGHW,W TRAFFIC 

SAFETY AD'!IINIS'rRATION 

I 

;~ 1'~=-=··c...:::•-:,.c_-r-_--4-------~-------...t 

:JC::t:0.1 •• 

_:JD(>;t;o.m· .,. I-V.t0/3ffl 

·'~ :1,1/Jje_~~--~l.ht;if~it"e -~.#~ 

D 

N 

bO .s 

C I-< 

0 

e 

,.B 

'O 

(1.) 

:::c: 

'O 

-

..... ..i::: 

u 

I 

s:::r- B 

-

bO 

..... 

μ,; 
76998 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.040</GPH>

I ~ 

0 

:,;: . . 

"'"" ;ll>'_> .,, \;:. \:l ;,.~ 0 • rn ;g ,<Z -t .. "' ;ti ,>>?"' 

;;: _;c ,:s "' 

:r "" 2.~ r 

~ ,., 

(/) -= ..,,. :r "'I;,,- .,. 

g :·~ 

"' ::!~ 

i.~ 

:!! 

'"' 

> 

0 > 

r 

L 

)> 

,J.L _.. __ _Jj_,,.1:..... _ -"·- ___ - _,1::...1L.. ___ . ..l. l, 

I I 

r + t 

I 

\ 

g: 

t-o'---------·~---------

0 

Figure 15 - Child Headform Drawing 3 

EP19SE24.041</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

A 

i (39,1) 

2 

_J SECTIONA•A 

A 

ONTVIEW 

REAR VIEW 

X 0,8 XS LG, 

1,5 XS 

_!'_ART NUMBER I CeSCRIPTIQN 

PARTS UST 

s.s. 

s, s. 

MA'TERJAL 

~=1}1itJ:llW!til'4 V&tic~~CH NATIONI\L J:il~HWAV~ ___ ., . . 

.... I """"' .,. II,$! Ce>n'ER SAl'ETY AOMlN!STAATION 

~!I>~ ...ts 

!l ,,. ,,..,_ "'"' BACK Pl.ATE ASSEMBLY 

r,Q·~~Ml ,.._ 

B 

s::t" 

01) 

i::: 

-~ 

Q '"" 

a 

c.S 

'-g 

(I) 

:::c: 

"C) 

-

:E 

u 

I 

\0 

-

(I) 

01) 

..... 

μ.. 

A 
77000 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.042</GPH>

i 

r 

! ., 

"]~ ~ ;; 1~~ ~ li~S 

!): 

,.L+,--++Mffi-l~=/.-"--Bf;r+iffi+-1+-+~ 

~ 

r 

Figure 17 - Child Headform Drawing 5 

EP19SE24.043</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

4.S 

5.5 THRU 

.4X90° 

48.0 B.C. 

¢48.0 6.0lf 

:r 

J. 

:r 

J. 

¢25.0THRU 

IJ!IUSlli<lfflM$1'.RIB 

-l#ll~Olll"'111li 

ltUIN:IJSI#,, 

Oll;IIOl:11- 1⁄4 

IA!HICI.E RESEARCH 

..,dTESTCeITTel! 

IV'l'f\W/11.S I PA'ff: 

• 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFflC 

SAFE1Y AOMINlS'TRAilON 

MO< PLATE INSERT DISC I ----~·-- 1-~- I '"-'"'" I CHILD PEDESTRIAN HEADFORM :5l ;'." @E3 IA31""-- CHI~0120 

~ff: 1 OF 1 

B 

I.O 

-~ 

0 

s 

c.9 

"O "O 

-

:E 

u 

I 

00 

-

.!:P 

μ,; 

IA 
77002 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.044</GPH>

Figure 19 - Child Headform Drawing 7 

EP19SE24.045</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

N IE MODJPIID AS NBUJMY1AS U)NG M TH! R:UOWING !P!t1F1<1.11CINS 

ALUMl'NUM. WITHASYfffllfflCSION

... THDSYNTHETIC SKIN, WtllCHSHAilCCN'BlAT l.EASTIW.1 CIFTHE 

NCUJDING tNSTRIJMENTATlON,.SltAU..BEIDCATmtN THE C9fflR OF nm 

ROIJ(iHTIECENlet OF GMvnY NtD P£RPENDIOJLART0ntEOfflECTION OF 

0l3 KG-M2 

OONTING OF ffll&UNIAXIAI.ACCELSIOMFl'ERSORONETAIMAL 

CWI.S50FTH&:ACCE1£MJMEl'ERStlCIUlD IE\YITHIN-+{-10MMFROMTNE 

T AXIS, AHDWffltNt: 1 MM FRDMTH£CBffSI OF TIE SPHERE FOIi THE 

HTA>IS. 

METERCAN IE USED l&LONG AS: DAMPING Cfflf!QE"NT MATOIB CO,?), 

WfflllNSPECIF1CATIOft.ANDTI-EAa:ElEROMEl'ER(SIC.ANB£MOON'lm 

SP&CIACATIOtfSINTHENJPLD&ED'flM.MCQJAIJRCA110NTEST 

T HEADFORM Nl'ACJOR SHAU..e£0V£R ,o)(llz 

l 

IOE\'.ISCW IETtlllY 

ZllNI! IIIEVI DE!ICRll'llllN I 0,,11! 

: l--::0.0:::.'!:r:r-1 m'll)l6 

10 I 2 15000382 !SCREW, SHCS M2x0.4 x 12 

9 I 6 15000375 !SCREW, SHCS Ml.4X0.3 x 4 

8 I 3 ISA572•S5 !DAMPED UNJAXIAL ACCELEROMETER 

7 I 1 ~U-0550 ACCEL MOUNT BLOCK 

6 6 foo0203 ;;;;;FHCS M3X0.5 X 10 

5 I 8 15000374V ISCREW, SHCS M8x1,25 x 40 

4 1 -0120 BACK Pl.ATE INSERT DISC 

BY 

JHC 

'ii: 

B 

3 1 -0100 BACK Pl.ATE ASSEMBLY A 

2 1 -0300 HEADFORM FLESH 

1 1 -0200 SKULL CASTING ASSEMllL Y 

MM! OlY I PAIU NUMBER I DESCIUPTION 

• NATIONAL IGGIIWAYTRAFFIC SAFETY AOMJN!SfRAllON 

ADU-OOOOIA 

_Qf 

-

gf 

-~ 

0 

.Q 

1 

00 00 

< 

§ 

'-g 

:::c: 

j 

I 

0 

N 

! 

EP19SE24.046</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

1 

a 

A 

J 

.. .J 

A 

t 

ii$ \. .'i.2$ ~ii1~.CQ1l TAP i< ii Oi:EP. 

f>l,A.CES J)N 114;() B.C; 

2 

l 

ITEM PAR:l'NlJ.1BeR 

Tbi.EtiANC ES Nil:: -·s-

_t 

le 

f~j.o I 

,SECTION'A~ 

:1A 

• • :iuw,;i j ,:gJ • ••~' F"'--'=---r---f--S-K_U_L_L""'C"'A_S_'T-IN_G_, _A_S_S-EM"'"B_L_Y_. ---+ 

~OH , ADULT •pj:iJ!:SfRIA'N lltAO!"ORM 

=. •·· ~~.1~.a ;~i~ ;..wi_,i ·-~~•~ = 

N 

on 

-~ 

t,j 

Cl '"" 

e 

..s 

'-g 

a) 

:::c: 

..... 

:g 

< 

I 

-

N 

a) 

!5 

on 

..... 

μ.. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 77005 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.047</GPH>

I 

0 

n 

W.·· 

""'--~~~--~:.~• ~~---'-'--1 

-,~: 

-;.,;.,·-. 

··O,..· 

·?-~ ,_. ________ ·:;•.c.• -----------1 

·.o -

n 

Figure 22 - Adult Headform Drawing 3 

i-,::a'. ·-m: 

O:,: "'dl.·: 

... 
77006 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.048</GPH>

r.----------~----------------------------, 

! 

1 ' 

i 

Figure 23 - Adult Headform Drawing 4 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 77007 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19SE24.049</GPH>

;;; ~ .. ~!"" 

l; i'l: 

e: ii!:~ 

~·· I 

ill 

~ ~ 

I I 

I I 

I ! 

/Ji 

it 

Figure 24 - Adult Headform Drawing 5 

EP19SE24.050</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

S 

4THRU 

X9QO 

8.0 B.C. 

B 

2.oT 

¢25,0THRU 

A ,--,.-IISS-Olli-...,-,.,---..,,-...------..... -.-------------1 -~=- \'1!1-11cu;R;;SEAACH NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

111d Tesr C!!NreR SAFETY AOMINJSTRATION 

Mlll BAO< PlAlE INSERT DISC 

.,._ STRIAN HEADFORM 

@E3 IA3I ADU-0120 

'== 1 OF 1 

\0 

01) 

i::: 

-~ 

Q 

s 

c.8 

--g 

(I) 

:::c: 

..... 

:g 

< 

I 

lr) 

N 

(I) 

01) 

..... 

μ.. 

EP19SE24.051</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

RU 

2.0 

15.0 7I, 

3 • 6H 'fl. l~a:?'>W 1 

At-r--..,,,< A1 10.61 4:SO 

I ,//,·~u--

2.16 

2.6 8.6 

5.1 

4x0.3 • 6H 'f"3,5 

5.02 

14.0 

l 

.4x0.3 • 6H i3.5 

2.0 ,z.o 

FOR Ml.5 

OWB.P[N 

15.0 B 

...------,-----~-.=-----------1•A ~:'I-=: l/ellet.ERESEMCH • NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 1 -=-

and Tiler Cl!NTim SAFE1Y ADMINJSTAATlON 

1⁄4 /IW/I.CNM.S I llA're TRIAXIAl. ACCB.. MOUNT BLOO< I 

,.,,3".W~ 'ii,;- I ..,,,,._ ADULT PEOES'mIAN HEADFORM 

@€3 IA3I,_.,.....,.. ADU~0550 

'== 1 OF 1 

r---

-~ 

0 

s 

'-g 

(I) 

:::c: 

j 

\0 

N 

i 
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. 

Sophie Shulman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20653 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 


EP19SE24.052</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

RU 

CENlEROF 

SEJSMlC MASS 

7,6:U 10,0 

4.9 

[0,19] 

1.0 

I _i I [0.04) 

11. ... J,U I I I I [0.30:1: .01) [0.39] 

I ' l F~-

:UOOOg 

W1lH AND 

EFINED BY SAE .)211 

0.7 

:!:2%MAX. :!:2MAX. 

10VdcMAX. 

:U%TYP. C11·15°to65"C 

-15"1D6S"C 

1.2 g (WITHOllrCABLE) 

S6'U!D 

4.5 

[0.18] 

[0.18'. 

C&mROF 

SEISMIC MASS 

!.IIU!S!Si ·-SIIQfD 

Hlllll5llle-•-... \.1!Hlcu!ReseMcH - aJurCilfflR 

llll.Te 

7J21V>Ol6 

2.6 

[0.10] 

• 

NATIONAL HIGHWAYTRAFFIC 

SAFE1V ADMtNJSTRATION 

~?!~ 

SA572-S5 

, .. 1 OF 1 

B 

I-; 

(I) 

d) 

s 

0 

I-; 

(I) 

-

(I) 

(.) (.) 

< 

ca 

..... ..... 

i::: 

:::i 

r-..: 

N 

on 

..... 

μ.; 

A